LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, May 25, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

ACCESS Program Funding

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr.Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Darlene Daniels, Arlene Mentuck, George Munroe and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to the ACCESS program.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Martin Ross, Kim Summers, Ken Boyd and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to ACCESS program.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jim Edkins, Crystal Gibbs, Jodi Horsburgh and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to ACCESS program.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Della Beattie, Beth Rogers, Archie Carmichael and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to the ACCESS program.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Mickey Spence, M. Vieira, A. Zibroski and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to the ACCESS program.

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Committee of Supply

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): The Committee of Supply 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 La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Committee on Public

Utilities and Natural Resources

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its First Report.

Your Committee met on Tuesday, May 24, 1994, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1993.

At that meeting, your Committee agreed by unanimous consent to also consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1992. Your Committee had previously met on Thursday, June 17, 1993, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the aforementioned 1992 Annual Report.

Mr. Don McCarthy, Chairperson, and Mr. Walter Bardua, President and General Manager, provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report and business of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

Your Committee has considered the Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1992, and has adopted the same as presented.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

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 Elton Collegiate fifty Grade 9 students under the direction of Mrs. Sharon Jantz. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer).

Also, from the West Park School and the Portage Collegiate, we have eighteen Grade 12 students under the direction of Mr. Ray Johnson. These schools are located in the constituency of the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).

From the Parc La Salle School, we have sixty‑two Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Aimé Cyr. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Environmental Legislation

Enforcement

* (1335)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Annually the Premier produces very glitzy reports dealing with sustainable development strategies for the province of Manitoba. These reports of course have a number of statements of intent in the documents. The latest one talked about, in terms of environment policy: It is necessary to have strong standards and regulations and enforcement in terms of the environment.

What the government does not release of course is the report cards dealing with the enforcement of the standards. A report commissioned by the government produced by Arthur Andersen and Company on dealing with the laboratories in the province of Manitoba for the EITC, which of course is chaired by the Premier states: Manitoba has typically not been aggressive in the enforcement of various environment legislation as a result‑‑

Point of Order

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would not want the member opposite to continue to put false information on the record. I do not chair the EITC. It is chaired by Russ Hood, a professional engineer from the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister did not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, to carry on with his question.

Mr. Doer: He chairs one of the round tables and the other one reports to him, as Premier, but I do apologize for the inaccurate assumption that the Premier chaired it.

Manitoba has typically not been aggressive in the enforcement of various environmental legislation. As a result, environmental testing volumes are lower than other provinces. Some provinces such as Saskatchewan require that various labs and industries utilize provincial testing laboratories and pay for that service. This has caused these operations to have relatively high volumes in profitability.

I would like to know why this government has not had rigorous environmental enforcement dealing with our labs, consistent with the Premier's own words in the document he produces for the public annually.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report in front of me, but if I can believe the Leader of the Opposition's comments, it does not refer to active enforcement. It says that Manitoba does not require a great deal of testing.

The act under which we operate, The Environment Act, was passed by the New Democratic government. If they do not require a great deal of testing, then that is a problem that we will have to contend with in terms of the deficiencies of the act.

Provincial Laboratories

User Fees

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier has had this document for over a year now, and it says, and I quote: Manitoba has not been aggressive in the enforcement of various environmental legislation.

It does not say the legislation is weak. It says that his stewardship of that legislation through environmental enforcement is weak, very clearly in the document.

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the government had put together an operating agency to deal with Cadham Lab and the Ward Lab in the province of Manitoba. They are now, in this report, calling for a change from the nonprofit areas of public health for testing such as water, for those services now to be made on a profit basis and moved onto the costs of the municipalities and private citizens.

I would like to ask the government: Will they be implementing the user‑pay system for municipalities and private citizens, and what will be the impact on public health?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member opposite that when the New Democrats were in office they were evaluated, on the basis of a national environmental organization who evaluated all of the provinces of Canada, as being 10th out of 10 provinces in terms of their environmental record.

So we have no lessons to learn from New Democrats in Manitoba on protection of the environment. They were the worst in Canada.

That same organization has improved their rating of Manitoba under this administration to middle of the range of the provinces of Canada, a substantial improvement, I might say.

With respect to his question about the recommendations that are being put forward regarding the operations of the various laboratories in Manitoba, we will take those recommendations into consideration, and we will be reviewing them in due course.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the government had a document for over a year. The government has placed in their last budget, in their Estimates, a special operating agency to deal with the issue of the Cadham Lab and the Ward Lab. It calls clearly in this report for user fees to municipalities and private citizens.

We believe, in terms of water quality and water testing, which is now considered a public health issue, a nonprofit public health issue, going over to a user‑pay system, that this has implications for public health.

I would like to ask the Premier: What are the basic policies of the government when they are moving from the existing system to a special operating agency? Are they going to put the user‑pay system into effect, and what is the impact on public health and public health policies in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as is regularly the case, the member has it wrong again.

We are not moving to a special operating agency in the provincial government. It is not in the Estimates. In the Estimates are the fees that are paid by the departments to the labs for the testing that they require. The Environment department pays fees to the labs. The Health department pays fees to the labs for their requirements, and so on.

We are not moving to a special operating agency. He can go back to the drawing board and start all over again.

Universities

Student Service Fees

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when this government is finally gone it will be remembered for its amazing powers of self‑deception.

When the member for Morris (Mr. Manness) was Minister of Finance, he was able to say with a straight face that taxes had not increased in Manitoba, when every Manitoban knew the impact of the property tax, the expansion of the sales tax and the increase in government fees.

Now that he is Minister of Education, the minister is up to the same powers of self‑deception. He claims that he has put a 5‑percent cap on university fees, and yet universities are being allowed, by a letter received at the universities this morning, to raise their fees by creating student service fees. It is the same kind of self‑deception again, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier, today, to confirm that his supposed cap on student fees, in fact at the University of Manitoba, is going to mean an increase not of 5 percent, but of something closer to 7.5 percent.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy that drips from the mouth of the member for Wolseley when she speaks is unbelievable, when the government of the New Democrats that preceded our government in six years raised the income from income taxes in this province by 140 percent, raised the income from corporations by over 50 percent during that same period of time, imposed an increase in sales tax from 5 percent to 7 percent, brought in a 2 percent tax on net income, brought in a payroll tax and increased it 50 percent a few years later to bring in over $300 million, all of those massive, massive increases that had never been seen before or since, and she wants to talk about tax increases.

She ought to be embarrassed when she talks about tax increases, given the record of the New Democrats when they were in office. That would have to be the greatest condemnation of New Democratic policy anybody has ever seen.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, could the minister now answer the question? Is the fee increase at the University of Manitoba going to be the 5 percent that he promised, or is it going to be the 7.5 percent that, in fact, is going to happen as a result of the changes which he is permitting?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we as a government are attempting to do everything possible to keep the costs of operation down for the universities so that, in fact, we can keep, as well, the costs of tuition down to the students.

In the course of that, we obviously need the co‑operation and the assistance of those who run the institutions on a decentralized authority basis, and that includes, obviously, those who operate the schools of Manitoba through public school boards, those who operate the universities of Manitoba through their management system.

We can only go so far, because she would be the first one to stand up and accuse us of interfering‑‑the honourable member for Wolseley, to whom I have referred‑‑as she would be the first to accuse us of interfering with the universities and intervening in their right to manage their own affairs.

We have done everything we can to show the way, that we would like them to keep their costs of operation down, and we would like them to keep their tuition fee increases down. We can only go so far as long as we want to retain that authority within the hands of the universities themselves to govern themselves.

* (1345)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I still did not hear any answer. Is it the 5 percent they promised? Is it the 7.5 percent that it is going to be?

I want to ask the Premier, again, and I have emphasized this over and over in this House. Will he use some common sense and take that money from Midland Walwyn, the blue chip investors, from Pepsi Cola, from Chicken Delight, from Murray Chev Olds Cadillac sales, take those education dollars and put them into the universities and the colleges where they can benefit everyone?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, Workforce 2000 has been able to train over 80,000 people in this province. They have done so in ways, I might say‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty in hearing the comments of the honourable First Minister, and unfortunately, I think it is my earpiece, so the honourable First Minister.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I know the members opposite do not want to listen to answers. They only want to indulge themselves in their own questions, but the fact is, Workforce 2000 has trained over 80,000 people in this province, and they have done so in ways that have been followed by other provinces.

The Province of Ontario, through its Jobs Ontario Fund, has given money for training in the workplace by Toyota, by Chrysler, by major corporations throughout‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself respond. They obviously do not want to hear the answer.

Independent Schools

Funding Formula‑‑Special Needs

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) recently confirmed in the Estimates of the Department of Education that, in fact, for the first time, independent schools will be given the special needs Level I grants that are not based on any proof of actual students needing those special needs designations but, rather, are the same as all public schools, based on a straight 5 percent assumption, that 5 percent of the students would need it.

Mr. Speaker, this is curious, because a lot of independent schools, specifically through their process of selecting students, do not accept special needs children.

Why is the government going to give the same special needs grants based on that same formula to independent schools that by their very enlistment and enrollment process weed those students out?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Leader of the Liberal Party is now enunciating a policy directly contrary to that which was espoused by his party in this Legislature, that they are opposed to fairer funding‑‑

Point of Order

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Manitoba not only has not approved of Level I funding on a percentage basis to independent schools, but we have not done‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we certainly now have on record their opposition to this funding going to independent schools, and we will communicate that to the independent schools of Manitoba. I will take the remainder of that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Education.

Independent Schools

Funding Formula‑‑Special Needs

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, never, never has this party or indeed I think any reasonable, thinking person supported giving money for special needs without any proof of the special needs. That is the bottom line.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier: Given that they are giving this carte blanche to these funds when there is no proven need, are they now going to require and mandate that all independent schools receiving this money accept any and all children whether or not they have those special needs?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, firstly, there is no significant change with respect to special needs funding. As in the public school system, unless there are specific individuals in Levels II and III, there are no funds that flow.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Level I, there has been a long‑standing disagreement between negotiators for the independent school system and the government as to the every‑dollar principle that was entered into by way of agreement several years ago. By agreement, that now has changed, recognizing that there are a growing number of Level I incidence students within the independent school system.

* (1350)

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Education, Level I funding is going without any proof of actual need for that special needs Level I funding.

My question for the Minister of Education: Why is that money going to every independent school when there is no proof of actual need and, secondly, there are independent schools that specifically bar children with special needs? Why is that money going carte blanche with absolutely no proof of need and the fact that these independent schools do not even accept them?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, that is not the case. There is a growing number of students with Level I needs who are being accepted within the independent school system, and just like there is a divisor put into place across the public school system, 180 divided into the total number of students within the school division times a factor of $43,500 per student, that is the Level I support that is in place in the public school system.

The same level of support is now put into place with the independent school system.

Independent Schools

Funding Formula

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting that the Liberals are now flip‑flopping on their 80 percent promise that the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) made in 1990 during the election. Do they not understand that this is just this government's way of delivering on their 80 percent promise that they led in this province?

I want to ask the Minister of Education, in light of the fact that he admitted last night that many schools in Manitoba in the public school systems are now operating at less that 1991 levels of funding from the Province of Manitoba, how he can justify 20 percent increases in funding to the private schools, including funding for special needs, which is not documented, when these schools are now operating at 1990 levels, and the minister admitted it last night.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, this is all part of the public record, and indeed the members opposite have posed that same question to me shortly after the release of the Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out on several occasions, the increase of support to the Federation of Independent Schools is maintained at a factor level of 63 percent of operating support on a per capita basis as compared to the public school system. The total global increase in that level of funding, dollar over dollar, is roughly an amount of $22 million to $24 million, whereas the total provincial commitment to the public school system is in the realm of $760 million.

The members, I know, are trying to make an awful lot with respect to trying to compare $24 million with $760 million. The fact is, there has been an agreement. It supports the principle that this government has entered into, a principle that has been also mirrored by the Liberal Party, constitutionally created as a result of an agreement entered into by this government and the Federation of Independent Schools.

Mr. Speaker, there is an eight‑year formula in place that will drive funding towards 80 percent of the operating costs of a per capita student within the public school system.

* (1355)

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, clearly, I would think the Liberal position is still 80 percent, even though they would like it to leave the impression that it is not.

I want to ask the minister whether he will now admit that if he were to roll back the elite, exclusionary private schools like St. John's‑Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall to 1990 levels, the same level that the public schools are having to function at at this time, that he would save $8 million to give to such divisions as Transcona, Selkirk, Agassiz and Evergreen, who are suffering under this government's policies.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that, because indeed if the Catholic school system were to win their way in court the government would have to provide 100 percent funding, and today we would have to provide an extra $12 million that ultimately may have to come out of the public school system. There is a saving today with respect to the agreement that has been struck.

Let the member be so honest as to suggest when the NDP were in government they too were providing increasing levels of support to the independent school system.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, we were providing a third of the dollars‑‑less than one‑third of the dollars that are being spent now.

I want to ask the Minister of Education whether he will now consider, supposedly with the blessing of the Liberals as well in this House, to roll back to 50 percent of the funding for public schools on a per student basis and take that money and provide it with fair funding for those school divisions who have been cut unfairly by this minister, divisions like Selkirk and‑‑

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

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member for Dauphin just rumbles on and on.

What I find difficult to accept, particularly in the line of questioning coming from the member for Dauphin, is that he sat as part of a Treasury bench when indeed levels of support to the very same schools that we are talking about increased significantly over a period of time. The member can try and wash his hands of that fact, but the reality is, that is fact.

The government was well aware that there was a greater negative impact with respect to a number of results, not the least of which of course is the reassessment impact on some certain school divisions throughout the province of Manitoba.

That is why we went some distance to try and relieve the pressure with respect to the school divisions mentioned by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), because we did see where they had gone the extra mile, particularly the year previous, in dealing with the reduced workweek, Mr. Speaker, and they had obviously a minimal amount of surplus. We have tried to accommodate the shortfall in those two cases.

Social Safety Net Program Reform

Communication Strategy

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has begun a process of reviewing social programs which their own opinion polls show that Canadians overwhelmingly support. This exercise is supposedly about modernizing and restructuring Canada's social programs, but now we have a 14‑page communication strategy, the intent of which is to sell these cutbacks to Canadians, including spending $575,000 for newspaper ads, $200,000 for TV ads and $75,000 for a loose, hip interactive Much Music program.

Can the Minister of Family Services tell the House what the impact on Manitoba will be of a $1.5‑billion cutback in social programs spending next year, cuts that this federal government plans to spend to engage the Canadian Bankers' Association to sell to Canadians?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because it does raise some questions in my mind about the number of dollars that are going to be spent on a communication strategy, but we have not to date seen an action plan from the federal government.

I would like to just give you a little bit of background on the process that has been followed to date. Back in mid‑February, the federal Minister of Human Resources, Lloyd Axworthy, called together all of the provinces to discuss the announcement that he had made about major national social safety net reform. At that meeting, I think I can recall him clearly stating that there had been a fair amount of consultation, but there was indeed no federal vision when they took over as the federal government.

What he was going to do through a process was pull together around him an advisory body that would set out a national vision for social safety net reform and put in place an action plan. He did reiterate at that time that it had to be a federal vision and a federal action plan, and once that action plan was developed, he would call the provinces together again to share that action plan with him and get feedback.

That was to happen at the end of March and to date it has not happened.

* (1400)

Impact on Manitoba

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to ask the minister if she can tell the House what the impact will be on the province of Manitoba when the federal government cuts $2.4 billion next year, which we have already been given advance warning of, from social programs under the guise of social program review, since this could put thousands of people on provincial social assistance in Manitoba.

What is the financial implication for this province?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we have any more information than the New Democratic Party has in the communique that they seem to have obtained by some means. We do not know what the federal government is planning, because to date, although we were promised that there would be an action plan by the end of March, we have not seen any action plan on what social safety net reform would be.

Some of the concerns that were raised with the federal government back in February were the issues around, is this going to be true reform, Mr. Speaker, because we all realize and recognize that things have to change. We have to look at changes in the way we deliver our social programs right throughout the country, but we do not know exactly what impact that will have.

Indeed, is it just going to be an offload or is it going to be true reform?

Mr. Martindale: The minister raises very serious and legitimate questions, and I would like to ask her if she has communicated to the federal minister responsible, Mr. Axworthy, and asked when her government can expect the copy of the white paper so that her government can take a position on these cutbacks, which could have a very negative impact on the province of Manitoba.

This minister wants to budget, this minister wants to add matching money to new federal initiatives. At the same time, she needs to know what is coming down the pipe from Ottawa, because it will have an effect on Manitoba.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, when we met in the middle of February with provinces and the federal government, there was to be a follow‑up meeting at the end of March. In the interim, a co‑ordinating committee, a federal‑provincial committee of deputies, was to be doing some work.

That meeting was cancelled at the end of March. There was a further meeting set up of deputies, scheduled for next week, at the end of May, and the federal government has cancelled that meeting, too.

I guess we are not quite sure at this point where the plan is at, when we are going to see anything, and when we will have anything to respond to.

Health Care Facilities

Reduced Workweek

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the implementation of Bill 22 and the major cuts to facilities have been very poorly administered by this government. In the most recent letter from the department to the facilities, the department states, quote: We will give special consideration to those facilities in which patient care is jeopardized.

Just what does the government mean by using the words "patient care," will be in jeopardy, and did the government not consider this before they put these cuts in place?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says something about cuts being put in place, while he reads from a letter that talks about how we might seek some kind of participation from the facilities. You cannot have both at the same time. In fact, if he reads that letter, I am sure he will see a reference to our bottom line being patient care on two, perhaps three occasions throughout the body of that letter.

The honourable member cannot have it both ways. I think what he really wants to see us do is to impose massive cuts like New Democratic government here in the past in Manitoba has done and like New Democratic governments in other provinces are doing now.

That is not our approach in Manitoba. Patient care comes first. We will not follow the advice of the honourable member for Kildonan and cut deeply into the fabric of our health system.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong. He asked the facilities to submit their plan by May 16, and they will give special consideration to see then if these patients are put in jeopardy. Those are the minister's own words.

My supplementary: Can the minister advise this House whether or not the possibility that Deer Lodge hospital will have to cut rehab services and cut outpatient services constitutes putting potential patient care in jeopardy or not?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, Deer Lodge is one of many facilities in Manitoba that have responded to our letter, and they have, if I am correct, I believe Deer Lodge has said they can use Bill 22 to some extent but not to the full extent to achieve the savings and that perhaps there are other ways they can do that without jeopardizing patient care. Those are the kinds of constructive sorts of responses we were hoping to receive.

In fact, we have received many responses, not all of them yet, but many, many responses which indicate a willingness either to use this vehicle or this vehicle combined with other mechanisms or some other mechanisms altogether, which is what we asked from the facilities. We asked for their proposals, because we respect their autonomy, we respect the work of their boards, and we want them to be able to operate in the way that they feel is best for their communities' own needs.

We have had an encouraging response from many, many facilities in Manitoba.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister confirms the cuts will be put in place, and then special consideration may be given by the department to these cuts, because that is what the letter says.

My final supplementary to the minister is: Will these same criteria of special consideration, if patient care is placed in jeopardy, be placed in effect for the $100 million in cuts that the government has asked the urban hospitals in Winnipeg to institute over the next three years?

Mr. McCrae: The honourable member and his colleagues are getting pretty desperate when they deliberately misunderstand answers given in this House.

I in no way confirm that cuts will take place. I have asked facilities for their proposals. Facilities are making their proposals available to us. We are reviewing those proposals, and at the end of that review, we will let the facilities know whether their proposals will be accepted or not accepted.

Government Departments

Reduced Workweek

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we have seen the potential for some flexibility in the application of Bill 22 with personal care homes and hospitals.

I would ask a question to the Premier. Is he willing to allow that same flexibility with the application of Bill 22 as it affects government services so that in fact essential government services will remain open and provide service to the public?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we will certainly be encouraging the managers who are responsible for delivery of services in the various government departments to apply the requirements of Bill 22 in the interests of ensuring that services that are in particular demand and requirement are able to be provided.

Having said that, I do not think we are suggesting that there are no requirements. Certainly the effect of Bill 22 needs to be achieved in terms of the savings that are required, but there is some flexibility in the hands of managers to allow for provision of services where there is an obvious requirement for those services.

Essential Service

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, with a supplementary question to the Premier: Is he willing to allow exemptions of essential services in the government services such as home care, child and family services, court backlogs and maintenance enforcement, where there are already extended waiting lists for service and there is a great need? Is he willing to allow an exemption of these essential services?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that home care operated last year within the requirements of Bill 22 without a problem vis‑à‑vis services. I am not sure the specifics that she is referring to. It is a blanket general question. If she could give me some specific examples, perhaps we could deal with it.

Home Care Program

Essential Service

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary to the Premier: Perhaps if the Premier could read the Estimates in the Department of Health, we would give him a specific example where hospitals in rural Manitoba are not able to discharge patients, because in fact home care services are not available on Fridays and, in some cases, on Mondays.

Will the minister now, in light of that information, reconsider some of the essential services such as home care and provide an exemption to Bill 22 in that area to provide better public service and save dollars in the long run?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with respect to home care, the same rules apply on the Bill 22 days as apply on statutory holidays. However, where our program has not been able to be as responsive as perceived necessary in certain circumstances, i.e., at Seven Oaks Hospital, the Seven Oaks Hospital has taken the initiative to attempt to provide an earlier discharge program through the services of the We Care Home Health Services company, which the patients have found extremely positive and the NDP has found extremely negative for their own particular reasons.

I do not think Bill 22 is the cause of the problems at Seven Oaks, and those are issues that we are attempting to address.

We need the support of the New Democrats as we attempt to address these important issues of patient care, Mr. Speaker, and we are disappointed when for philosophical reasons they put the patients second.

* (1410)

Education System

Physical Education

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, day after day we hear of incidents of youth violence, criminal activity, gangs, unemployment, youth depression, suicide.

Young people in Manitoba need some hope and they need some alternatives. This is provided by school programs in sports, arts and cultural programs. They are a cost‑effective investment in young people in Manitoba.

I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Is the minister and his government considering the policy of eliminating physical education specialists and other specialists in the schools as core courses in Manitoba? What research or other rationale does the minister have for the basis of this kind of policy change?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, this issue and many others have been discussed in the Estimates review in the program area of the Department of Education.

When the government makes known its blueprint for educational reform, that issue and many others will be discussed at that time.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I have a survey of over 1,200 Manitoba students from 18 schools regarding the benefits of athletics for high school students in keeping young people in school and developing life skills.

I would ask if the minister has seen this survey done by the Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association and if he will use this as the basis of his decisions in changing extracurricular and core‑curricular specialist programs in Manitoba.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen it, but I can accept and endorse all of the recommendations that would flow therefrom. I fully understand the incredible benefit of physical exercise within the whole sphere of learning. I am a supporter of it.

I was actively involved as a student myself in physical activities. My children have been. I am a full understander and, I believe, a supporter of physical education within our training institutions.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, if the minister feels so strongly about this, can the minister explain then why he is telling the physical education specialists that he thinks that there needs to be more generalists in education and they are looking at eliminating specialists in education?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the basis on which the member asked the question. If she wants to peddle hearsay, she is welcome to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I too have an opportunity. I was in attendance at the meeting. I know exactly what I said. If the member wants to contradict the statements that were made or embellish some of the comments that have been made public, I say she does a tremendous disservice to the meeting that took place.

Breast Implant Lawsuit

Delay Request

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a letter from the Women's Health Clinic to an American judge filing a formal objection to the proposed settlement of the breast implant lawsuit as it affects foreign claimants and requesting an extension of the deadline for those foreign claimants, many of whom are Canadians and Manitobans.

On May 31, an information meeting will be held in Winnipeg to provide background information, a history of the various lawsuits, and an overview of the options available to Manitoba women.

I would like to ask the Premier if he will do two things, Mr. Speaker, if he will also write a letter to the American judge asking for a delay, an extension of the time for filing an application, asking for more information, and also, will he urge the federal Liberal government to join with him in lobbying the American judge and the American judicial system into delaying the June 17 deadline so that Canadian and Manitoba women have more of an opportunity and a better understanding of the implications for them in the health care system in the province of Manitoba of the judicial ruling in the United States on the breast implant issue?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have the information with which to make that commitment. So I will have to take time to review it and respond back to the member.

Breast Implant Lawsuit

Delay Request

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, will the Premier, upon review and remembering that the deadline is fast approaching, please undertake a commitment to the women of Manitoba and Canada to lobby the federal government and the United States judge on the issue of breast implant judicial compensation, so that Canadian women are not held to the 3 percent of the $4‑billion lawsuit money available to them?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would take under advisement the suggestion of the honourable member about our getting involved in writing a letter directly to the judge.

We have in progress now preparation of a letter to the federal Minister of Health and Welfare to ask the federal Liberal government to show some leadership in this area on behalf of all Canadian women.

Our initial response is that 3 percent of this settlement for all women outside the U.S.A. is totally inadequate from what we can tell on a preliminary review.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us this afternoon our very good friend Mr. Larry Desjardins, the former MLA for St. Boniface.

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Portage la Prairie have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Missing Children's Day

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, today is Missing Children's Day. You will notice a number of the honourable members have green ribbons on their lapels signifying their awareness of the problem around this issue.

Today is a day to think about those children and young people who are missing. In this Year of the Family I think it is very important to draw attention to this important issue.

Some young people decide to run away and find themselves on the streets trying to make ends meet, and in almost every case they find that their desire for freedom from their home life has turned into a form of bondage to the street life.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to send out the message today to young people that there are people who care and are willing to listen to their concerns. We have a number of help lines in our province. They are listed on the inside cover of the telephone directory, and there is also a national kids helpline called Kids Help Phone at 1‑800‑668‑6868.

I know there are also children who are missing because of abduction either by parents or by strangers, and I ask all Manitobans to ensure that when they walk by the poster of a child who is missing to take a moment and really look at that picture of that child. If it helps return one child to its family, that moment will be well spent. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

* (1420)

Child Find Week

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): We too are wearing ribbons today to mark Child Find Week. This organization provides public awareness regarding missing children and information about prevention. They help find missing children. They offer information and support to families.

I believe that protecting our children is the responsibility for everyone in our society, and particularly of parents, and we can all do our part by knowing where our children are at all times and knowing who they are with. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I too on behalf of our caucus would like to applaud the work of Child Find. As a police officer for a number of years I have been a part of many investigations looking for lost children. I see the devastation that it causes parents, family and even the entire community when a child is lost and how the community has come together, enemies and friends have come together to help out. I applaud the work of Child Find and I wear this ribbon to honour the work that they do. Thank you.

Committee Changes

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); and the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable government House leader under Orders of the Day, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the gallery to my left, where we have with us this afternoon His Worship the Mayor Rick Borotsik of the City of Brandon. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Mr. 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 to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Family Services.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 5.(a)(1) on page 43 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I promised last night I would provide an historical perspective of support to private and independent schools, I table that information now.

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Yes, my colleague the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) indicated that the minister had promised to provide, to table some documents on Workforce 2000 prior to the sitting today, at least that is what she just informed me was the case.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the training division as yet, at 2:30, did not have that information prepared. We will table it as soon as it is here.

Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for tabling the information on increases to private schools. Can the minister tell us what the figures referenced here, 63.50 percent for '93‑94 for high incidence, 63.50‑‑what does that refer to? Then '94‑95, the Level I, 154‑‑is this thousands of dollars, or what are we referring to?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask you to bring the mike forward? Hansard is having some problems picking up, and that does not usually happen.

Mr. Plohman: Well, yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I wanted to know was if the minister could explain the figures under high incidence, Level I and General Support Grant that seemed to begin in '93‑94, '94‑95. What do those numbers represent?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was a different definition with respect to the support of special needs in '93‑94 as compared to '94‑95. All we have tried to do is, for once and for all, take away the reference to high incidence and make it synonymous with what exists in the public school system under Level I, Level II, Level III. Whereas in '93‑94 there was a level of support within the high incidence, the old reference, that has been shifted and increased totally into Level I funding to make it comparable to the level of support in the public school system.

Mr. Plohman: So the 154 in '94‑95 under Level I stands for?

Mr. Manness: Well, it subsumes the $63 that was provided in high incidence the year before, and what it represents is the per capita student equivalent of support, $154.

Mr. Plohman: So what the minister is really saying, then, is that in '94‑95, schools like St. John's‑Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall were given an increase in funding of $154 per student plus $68, or plus $68 less $63.50?

Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the $63 rolled into the $154, but what he is saying is right, $154 plus $68 minus $63.

Mr. Plohman: And this is based, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on a formula that assumes the ratio of Level I special needs students is about the same in St. John's‑Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall as it would be in the general student body throughout the province.

Mr. Manness: I cannot speak to St. John's‑Ravenscourt‑‑like the member seems he has this fixation with Balmoral Hall and St. John's.

I will address it in terms of the 53 schools that are all part of the independent school system, [interjection] 53, representing 10,000 students. I do not know what percent of the students that he wants to talk about attend St. John's‑Ravenscourt and/or Balmoral Hall.

* (1440)

I will address the 10,500 students who are part of the independent school system and indicate to him there is obviously a growing number of students who are requiring Level I support. Whether it represents the same population, per capita population, as exists within the public school system, probably the answer is no. Let members remember in the first instance, the support that was provided for special needs students, not only took into account those who had learning disabilities and those who had other disadvantages, but also those who are disadvantaged from the perspective of being achievers far beyond average and who were not sufficiently challenged.

So I do not know how we quantify exactly comparable areas, but certainly Level I in this case includes slow learners which exist in many aspects of the independent school system, plus, in some cases, gifted learners, too.

Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister does not want to talk about particular schools. I used those because they are certainly nondenominational schools, nonreligious‑based schools. The minister has increased the funding to them by 5.1 percent on a per student basis, even higher when you consider increased enrollments. I thought the minister might be concerned about that, and he does not want to talk about that. Let the record show that is the case.

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let the record show, for those who probably do not have access to the historical data that I presented, but let the record show for all those who read these Estimates seriously, that the NDP who like to sense that they would not provide any support for independent schools including the two schools that the member wants to focus on time after time, that during the NDP years of governance, these were the increases on a per student basis to those attending the independent school‑‑[interjection] 1983, 9.7 percent to the students of St. John's and Balmoral Hall; 17.6 percent increase to the same students in 1984; 10.3 percent increase in 1985; 19.6 percent in 1986 to those same students at St. John's‑Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 38.2 percent in 1988. [interjection] No, no, that was the last year. That was the last year of the Pawley government to those very same students that the member focuses on. Then, the seven budgets that we have brought down, our increases were 19.7, 14.6 and then for the next five budgets, drop into the single‑digit area of 6.6, 9.2, 6.1, 2.7 and 5.1 percent, the same base, taking into account the global funding divided by the number of students.

We come nowhere close to the double‑digit increases of 38 percent and 17 and 20 percent provided by the NDP Pawley government in the '80s. So the members, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, speak with great inconsistency. As a matter of fact, some would say they are kind of hypocritical with respect to this whole issue.

Mr. Plohman: The minister alleges that he would like to put factual information on the record, but he neglects to mention, first of all, that the base was much smaller. We were talking about in the neighbourhood of $500 per student versus 2,358, now almost five times as much money per student.

He also neglects to mention that inflation was running around 10 percent in the early '80s, something else that he does not want to put in perspective with regard to the double‑digit‑‑as he calls it‑‑increases during that period of time. I think the other couple of points, the fact in 1988 the government was defeated on its budget and went to an election. This government came in and submitted a new budget and at that time, it was in a position to decide on all of these kinds of things and chose to increase the funding by 38.2 percent.

Point of Order

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on a point of order, I will not stand for the member for Dauphin putting lies on the record. I brought down‑‑

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I apologize for imputing that the member has brought lies down, but on the same point of order, this government has brought down seven budgets. Even the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) can count to seven. On this sheet, if he counts back seven‑‑one, two, three, four, five, six, seven‑‑he will see that the first year was 19.7, the first budget that we brought down.

I say to the member, the 38.2 represents an increase provided by the NDP after a letter was signed by Roland Penner, the bench mate of the member for Dauphin. That is part of the record. That has to be part of the record.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Plohman: I think the minister did not explain his table well when he presented this. He should have indicated that this was not given effect in 1988 by budgetary decisions but in fact was the result of '87 decisions, because in fact the government was elected in '88. At that time this government was elected in 1988 and brought down their first budget in '89. Is that correct?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we were elected in '88. We brought in the '88 budget which covered '88 and '89‑‑year end '89. As I said previously and the first time, the last NDP budget, not the defeated one but the last one that was passed in the House, provided an increase to the independent school system of 38.2 percent.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what the minister is saying is that these are given effect by the previous year's budget. The '87 budget gave effect to the '88 figures that he has on this sheet.

Mr. Manness: Correct.

Mr. Plohman: I am happy the minister has clarified that. It is important information that we know and understand the levels of funding that we are talking about here in terms of the total dollars. [interjection]

Well, I indicated in the House that what I wanted the minister to do was to roll back the funding to 50 percent of the public school system. That is what I was suggesting. I did not say they should not give them any money. It is a matter of priorities. When the minister is saying he is short of money and he cannot provide it to the Mystery Lake School Division and to the Lord Selkirk School Division and Transcona and Evergreen and so on, all of those divisions which have seen substantial cuts, then I think it is significant.

I think we should also get from the minister, when he provides this table, the percent of funding in relationship to the public schools, because that is significant. When we were in office in the late 1980s, we were talking around 30 percent of the funding that public school students were being given in the private schools. Now we are up at 63.5 percent.

So the minister is the one as the Minister of Finance, and his previous colleagues, that increased the percentage of funding to private schools from some 30 percent to 63.5 percent and increased the dollars from the neighbourhood. The minister can provide that information as well on the global forum from some $8 million to $10 million to some $24 million now. Those are the important figures that we have to consider when we are working with a shortage of funds.

The other point is, and I think it is worth putting on the record as well, during these years that the private schools were getting large increases during the NDP years on a percentage basis‑‑not on a dollar basis, on a percentage basis‑‑the public schools were getting comparatively large increases as well. This is quite different than what we are seeing now, because the public school was at a larger base at that time. Naturally, a percentage on the larger base made many more dollars, and in this case, the minister has increased the amount by some $16 million over this period of time. So I think the minister has to put all of these things in perspective and still acknowledge that he is going to 80 percent with the support of the Liberals, and it is the NDP that wants to limit the funding to private and especially elite, exclusionary schools to ensure that there is money for the public school system.

It is a matter of priorities. The minister has to remember that he is the one that is saying the NDP wants all kinds of money thrown at everything. We are the ones saying no, cut Workforce 2000; put that money into ACCESS, put that money into universities, put that money into the public school system, cut St. John's, cut Balmoral Hall and put that money into the public school system. It is a matter of priorities.

* (1450)

I think these members opposite have to recognize priorities. Surely by now they should recognize priorities. That is all we are saying, and that is the point we have been making. I want to just re‑emphasize that at this point, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and move on to other points. If the minister wants to respond, that is fine.

Mr. Manness: I really have developed an appreciation for the way the member for Dauphin can butcher arithmetic. We have a situation where the member talks about the high base. I mean, comparisons do not mean much unless they are done on the basis of per pupil comparisons. The member can say, well, we were providing increases to the public school system. Well, a 6 percent increase on a per capita supported base of, let us say, $4,000 per student represents $240; 10 percent increase on a $600 base or $800 per capita student base or $1,000 per capita student base within the independent school system represents $100.

So, with a much lesser increase in the public school system, obviously the benefit is much greater. That is pure arithmetic. The member destroys his own argument then. He uses the right tools, but he butchers his own argument. But we should point out, in '93‑94, that the total support on average for a student within the public school system, both provincially supported and indeed locally supported by way of special levy, was $5,830. That was the total cost of educating, on average, across all the school divisions: $5,830.

The province by way of Estimates contributed roughly $3,600 of that, but then there was another $200‑million worth by way of our provincial levy. So I say we would have covered roughly 70 percent, but the total cost was $530 taxpayer supported to a student‑‑taxpayer meaning taxpayer plus ratepayer‑‑in the public school system. The support provided through the provincial government only by way of tax dollars to the student within the independent school system in 1993‑94 was $2,244. That is the number second from the bottom shown on the list: 38.5 percent as a share of what is being provided for in the public school system.

Now the member I know wants this to be a major plank of the NDP re‑election strategy. It is fertile ground. I understand that. It is fertile ground, because I know it is convenient when you do not have solutions of your own. It has been practised by politicians since the beginning of time. When you do not have answers of your own, what you try and do is you make somebody, some group, some individual, the enemy. It is so convenient, of course, to make the Federation of Independent Schools the enemy generally, but more specifically to make St. John's‑Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall the real enemy.

Were it a perfect world and if government had ways of manipulating and without a policy basis and foundation to make decisions, maybe we would do things differently, too, but 53 schools approached the government, not when we were in office but when the member for Dauphin was in Thompson. Pardon me. I do not know why, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am really, really tied into Thompson today. But when the member for Dauphin sat with Roland Penner and, indeed, when they made decisions within the Executive Council of this province, they made an agreement and the result of that agreement, the manifestation in that agreement with the independent schools, not with the Catholic schools, not with the so‑called nonelite schools, but with the Federation of Independent Schools including the elite schools they mentioned.

This member sat at a Treasury bench when that decision was made, and the result of that decision‑‑

An Honourable Member: What was it?

Mr. Manness: ‑‑a 38.2 percent increase in their last year of government. Did the members opposite separate under the umbrella of the independent schools, the Catholic schools from the nonreligious schools? Did they do that? Oh, no. They dealt in the same way we had to deal with the Federation of Independent Schools. What the Catholics said was this, basically. We will give away our call for 100 percent funding, which we constitutionally will win. We will ask for 80 percent, but we will do it in the sense that the global community of all independent schools being outside of the public school system.

That was a commitment they made to come in and seek support for all. The member opposite and his government supported that approach. But, today, when our levels of support have increased under an agreement working towards a goal, yes, it is certainly much less than the experience of the NDP ahead of us, the members, of course, wanted to make it to be their election plank in this whole area of education.

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that has to be put onto the record for those who want to read Hansard and want the truth associated with these numbers.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the minister is loose with the facts. He is not interested in talking about the additional $15 million that this government has put in place, more than double, almost triple of what the NDP government was putting in place for private schools at that particular time.

Talk about not having answers‑‑when a government does not have answers. We have gone six years of fumbling around. The minister still does not have a blueprint or direction for education reform in this province, and he is talking about these opposition parties, and particularly the New Democrats, not having the answers. Well, he should look in the mirror and look at his colleagues and look at the fact that there has been no direction. He has been operating a rudderless ship for the last six years.

I think this is something when the minister wants to bring in those kinds of arguments. [interjection] He says now I am off topic. Well, that is exactly what he was when he said we do not have the answer, so therefore we look for a scapegoat. In this case, it happens to be Balmoral Hall and St. John's‑Ravenscourt. Well, I am afraid it is this minister. This is the minister who is the target, not St. John's‑Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall.

It is this minister's policies that we are referring to and the huge increases and the agreement that goes to 80 percent on the basis that somebody says we are going to win the court case. You have to remember, we have a Francophone School Division right now and some of that will have a bearing on what is the obligation. [interjection] Well, some of it is bearing on it.

An Honourable Member: What did he say about the same argument in 1983?

Mr. Plohman: That is right. In 1983, on the French language question, he said go to the Supreme Court. Sterling Lyon did. They made a big issue. It was shameful how they tried to stir the pot on that issue in the mid‑1980s in a crude political attempt to gain office. So let those members not talk about making these kinds of decisions. In fact, now they take it to the Supreme Court. Why did they not do it with this issue then? They threw in the towel.

An Honourable Member: We did.

Mr. Plohman: You did not do it with private schools. You took the Francophone issue to the Supreme Court, but you did not take the issue of the religious schools, the funding and the historical statement or the obligation that was being made, assertion that was being made by the Catholic schools that in fact, they could win this and get 100 percent. So the minister likes to put it in the light, well, we compromise. We do not know if they compromised, because it never got there. That is enough about that.

I want to get on to a couple of other questions before passing this along to some of my colleagues and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), as well, for the Liberals. Certainly, there are a lot of issues that have to be raised.

I wanted to ask the minister though, last night he said he made special exception for Transcona and Agassiz as a result of the reductions and the impact that these reductions had on those divisions. What form did that take?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, firstly, I do now have some material that I promised the member for Wolseley last night. I have Workforce 2000 '94‑95 training schedules by employers. This is a list of training contracts since April 1 '94.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in response to the‑‑

Point of Order

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have not seen the list that the minister has given me, but I would remind him that he also promised to table information on Caron's Collectibles and Murray Chev Olds Cadillac Sales at the beginning of this session.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order.

* * *

* (1500)

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will attempt, through the day, to try and provide‑‑that material is not ready as yet, but as it becomes ready, I will table.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the form in which the support was offered was an advance on next year's funding.

Mr. Plohman: How can the minister do that? What is he saying, that he is going to make it up next year?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe it is academic in the case of one school division. I do not think they want to accept the offer. What we have said is that obviously Bill 16 will not be in place next year. School divisions will not be capped. Given that Bill 16 will not be in place, they will not be capped, and they will have an opportunity to go to their ratepayers to try and provide the shortfall, but until then, we would be prepared to provide an advance if they so choose to receive it.

Mr. Plohman: I do not know whether that is any solution at all, and you cannot really blame them for turning it down. What the minister is saying is that he is not prepared to provide additional funding to deal with the unique situation, and he is not prepared to commit to providing funding if he were in the position to be able to do that next year. If he is in that position, he is not committing to give them the additional funding at that time to make it up.

So, what is he saying, then, that they would have to find it from within or raise it locally? Is that the implied option for the school divisions in this case?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, every division, every entity of public service and even in private firms, when there is a shortfall of money, you have to make certain decisions. What we have said is the impact is pretty severe. These divisions probably would want to make expenditure‑side decisions over a course of two years rather than be forced to make one, and unto that end, we were prepared to advance some of the proceeds that they would expect under the formula next year, and that they then would have to go to the ratepayer accordingly, by way of tax increase, just to provide the shortfall that would occur next year as a result of having had advances made to them this year.

Mr. Plohman: It is interesting the minister has finally put on the record that the impacts in some divisions were, in his words, "pretty severe." We have been saying all along that they have been intolerable in many divisions because of the combined effect of two cuts in a row, some perhaps even more than that, but certainly many division, two years in a row, being reduced back to perhaps pre‑1990 levels.

I wonder if the minister could provide any information on those school divisions that had reductions in provincial funding in two successive years. Maybe, to make it simpler, in two successive years, 8 percent or over combined, so that we could see how many divisions have been hit hard, in other words, something like the minister said, "pretty severe" over the last two years.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know whether I can do that promptly, but I would indicate that the member deliberately tries to leave the impression that these two divisions also had decreases the last few years. I do not know if anybody has told him or not, but Transcona particularly, No. 12, benefited by the introduction of the schools finance program in '92‑93 with a 6.8 percent increase in provincial support. Of course, the member does not talk about that, so obviously Transcona‑Springfield School Division No. 12 is not one of those who have accumulated reductions using the member's terms of 8 percent.

Mr. Plohman: Just for clarification, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am talking about '93‑94 and '94‑95, not '92‑93. If we go back to '92‑93, then the decreases in '93‑94 and '94‑95 would more than offset the increase in '92‑93, and we are then obviously back in 1991 levels. That is the point I am making here. And some much further back because some did not get a big increase in '92‑93.

Mr. Manness: For the most part, the ones that did not receive an increase in '92‑93 were again the winners, supposedly, under the reassessment. That is the general rule.

I can provide it globally. The member wants to know what has happened over the years. Again, we have brought seven budgets down. In '88‑89, our percent increase was 7.6 followed by 7.1, 7.4, 3.3, 5.5. These are all increases; 1.6 increase and this year a reduction of 4.6 the way it prints. I am sorry, it is not the way it prints, but it is the way leading up to the print.

So the general cumulative average increase was 4.4 percent over seven budgets. Yet Winnipeg's 12‑month average of consumer price index increases over those same seven years on a per year basis was 3.8 percent. That is the cumulative. Those are the global averages.

I know the member would like those breakouts by school divisions over the years, and he would like then to be able to point at those divisions that may have experienced over the last two years, a reduction in absolute funding of some‑‑using his terms‑‑8 percent. Again, I point out to the member, I would only provide that if I also showed where the student enrollment was decreasing because in almost all the cases that is the direct cost.

Mr. Plohman: I do not mind if the minister includes student enrollment and compares apples with apples in terms of a per student cost and then the global base on the same number of students for that division. It is not relevant to talk globally about the cuts or increases in funding over those years because our major point‑‑and the minister just gave global figures as if that is what I was asking about‑‑what I want to see is the figures division by division and particularly, to make it easier for the minister, those divisions that have been severely hard hit over the last two years.

Let us have a look at what divisions we are talking about here. We know that a number of them are urban divisions, but there are also some rural and some urban divisions as well that were impacted in that way.

I would like to see what school divisions specifically, because that is the only way we can debate this. Our contention is that the funding has been unfair, and it has hit certain school divisions in an unfair way. It has not been equitable. So to talk globally just is not talking the same language at all.

The minister may feel it is to his benefit to talk globally, but we want to talk about those specific divisions, because, in fact, it is our contention that some special provision should have been made, that it is intolerable that some of those school divisions should have had the kind of impact two years in a row. Evergreen and Lord Selkirk are a couple of examples.

I think it is important the minister provide us that information so we are not talking in hypothetical terms. It is important for me to have it, and it is important for the minister to have it.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, part of the difficulty that we have in providing that information is, as the member knows full well, the level of support provided to school divisions is made up of two sources: that which comes out of the provincial Treasury‑‑that is what we are voting on here‑‑and then another $200 million at this point in time, which comes from the Public Schools Finance Board, which is equivalent to the provincial levy, in other words the ESL. Nowhere is it provided for, a global contribution of those two factors.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I stand corrected. What we are going to try and do is we are going to try and take the global of those two sources that has been provided to every school division and we are going to give the historical record over the last several years of increase to school divisions or whatever flowed.

* (1510)

Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that.

I think in his reference to the two sources he led into what I wanted to discuss briefly with the minister in addition. That is the true contribution of the province to public schools in the province, in terms of the amount of dollars and percentage that comes from the province‑‑not just general revenue but those funds that come from property taxes through the Public Schools Finance Board.

The MTS uses a figure of some 60 percent, 63 percent. I do not know what exactly it is now that the province is contributing to public education in the province. They say this is dropping. At one time they said it was around 80 percent. They do these graphs up on a regular basis. I have talked with MTS and I said: I do not think that accurately reflects the provincial contributions.

Perhaps it is just a changing of accounting, but I want to get the minister's view on that: Whether he believes that is an accurate reflection of what the province is contributing to public schools and whether he thinks that perhaps there would be an advantage to have those funds that come from property taxes with just another form of taxation levied by the province should not be part of general revenues and then disseminated on an equitable basis as opposed to out of a separate source, a separate pool and why, as the Minister of Finance, he has never considered doing that.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a good point.

I would point out again what we have been voting on, for the record‑‑because I do not think the member will do it, so I think I should do it‑‑that in the first budget we brought down, the '88‑89 budget, we contributed by way of vote what we are voting on, hopefully sometime today or some other time, we contributed as a province $474 million out of the Treasury. That represented at that time roughly 54 percent of all the public school expenditures.

Now members‑‑and indeed particularly the society, but others‑‑have said that this is a funding issue, that we have not provided enough funding. Seven budgets later that amount has grown from $473 million to $576 million and reaching its high last year of $603 million.

Mr. Plohman: So three for '93‑94?

Mr. Manness: Correct. This year decreasing by a fair amount.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, today that still represents that increased funding. As the Premier has said many times, 17.2 percent of all funding was allocated to Education when we took government. To date it is 18.2. Still, and this is the main point, 54 percent of all public school funding comes out of the Treasury‑‑not this year, I mean before this year, 54 percent. That means the other 46 percent comes from ratepayers, taxes on property.

Here is basically where the shift has been. Not that the ratepayers are paying a larger percent, because what has happened, they still are paying 46 percent. They paid 46 percent in '82‑83, and they are paying 46 percent in terms of '92‑93. But there has been a shift between the local levy and the provincial levy. Whereas 10 years ago, out of the 46 percent, 27 percent was levied by the province, 19 percent by the local division, today that is virtually changed so that 27 percent is levied locally and 19 percent is levied by the provincial government.

So the impact on ratepayers, their share, their burden of the total education budget has not changed. Indeed, the contribution put forward by the provincial government out of the special levy, pardon me, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, has not changed. It just depends how you want to divide the ratepayer as between whether he or she directs their dollars to the local municipality, which directs it to the school board, or whether it is collected by the local municipality, which sends it to the government of Manitoba, to the Public Schools Finance Board, which redirects it back to the school boards.

Mr. Plohman: I think the MTS uses the 54 percent plus the provincial levy, the 19 percent that the minister refers to‑‑was 27 percent, now 19 percent‑‑adds those together to get the provincial contribution. I am not certain of that, but I would think that is what they would do.

There is another element of this as well, and that is, the minimum effort that the province requires of school divisions to levy, the minimum levy. What percentage of that 27 percent that is levied locally is actually a requirement from the province as a minimum local mill rate?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, the member is right. Under the old values of assessment, the number used to be slightly over 8, and under the new value of assessment, the uniform levy is 7.29 mills. That then becomes the threshold, and everybody has to levy up to that point.

We reduce their support on the expectation that everybody raises or can raise or will raise 7.29, the equivalent of 7.29 mills against their assessment.

Mr. Plohman: In actuality then the province is responsible for more than the 19 percent. By decree, by policy or by regulation, school divisions have to levy another 7.29 mills. It varies in percentage terms, but, in fact, the figure that would come from provincially initiated property taxation would be much higher than that reflected by the minister's statements earlier.

Mr. Manness: One can make that statement, yes.

Mr. Plohman: It would be interesting to get these figures in percentage terms rather than in mills. My point is that I guess there is a lot of money there that is raised as a result of provincial taxation that the province does not necessarily get blamed for or credited for.

It is deemed to be local levy and therefore ratepayers tend to look to the local municipality and the local school division and say, well, you guys are taxing us this amount of money when in fact it is because of government policy provincially that they are doing a lot of that. To some extent we just established that 7.29 mills, for example, in addition to the other property tax that is levied as a result of the provincial levy.

* (1520)

I guess I would ask the minister, as a previous Minister of Finance, simply because it was historically done this way, that there be monies separated from the general revenue and school finance board, whether he finds that desirable, or why he has not looked at perhaps combining all sources of provincial revenue in general revenues and then using that to disseminate in a fair and equitable way to school divisions across the province, which would mean greater fairness perhaps in how these dollars are divvied up.

Has the minister studied that at all or considered that option or a change of that nature?

Mr. Manness: The way we are receiving the money, in essence two pots, in support of education, that is not the issue around fairness. Fairness ultimately, as the member knows, that designated funding as a result of taxation, occurs basically in one area of government. It is the only area the Provincial Auditor has not challenged the setting up of a separate reserve, which does not come, by the way, before this Legislature and that is the Public Schools Finance Board.

I look at my colleague, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and the former Minister of Natural Resources, who always wanted government to set up in support of Natural Resources expenditures designated funding where the fees that came in, for instance, did not find themselves totally consumed within this big monster called the Treasury, then to find its way never again back into Natural Resources.

I understood the arguments, but for years Provincial Auditors have been forcing governments to consolidate all of their revenues. The one area they have never been successful since the beginning of time, of course, is in the area of education, because there was a belief that if you put forward a levy against property in support of education and it ended up in the big fund, then how did we know for sure it would not end up in some other department?

In this day, of course, it would be in health. Today you would see if it ended up within the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the $200 million I am talking about, the provincial levies by way of education support levy‑‑

Mr. Plohman: Plus.

Mr. Manness: Slightly plus, not much. Roughly $200 million, today it would not all come back to education. That is a hard statement to believe, but that is the fact. The member says, well, maybe it should be collapsed into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I am telling you, it is a designated fund. If it is a designated fund and education wants it to stay designated, it better stay there. That is exactly what Alberta is doing to control it. Now it hits the big pot, and now it is whoever wins the hardest or the greatest at the decision table.

I will tell you, health is not going to lose. If it comes down to health and education, I will tell you where I will bet the farm. It is going to go to health.

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is the reality. The member may say, well, change the accounting, but that is not the issue. The issue is fairness. I mean, we still put it into a formula, and we still try to take into account the ability of school divisions to raise funds by way of local levying and if they are short by way of equalization or supplementary funding. [interjection] That is right.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we can look around at the other models; in the Toronto area, for instance, zero comes from the province. They are all local levy‑‑not a dollar. So there are plenty of models to look at, and I will be interested to hear which of the models the member talks about, but let us not get into a conflict or a belief that because we have two pools of money, that somehow inhibits the greater degree of fairness. That is not the case.

Mr. Plohman: The point is, of course, that we do not get to discuss or consider the $200 million. We are only talking about the general revenues, the funding that comes from the general revenues. We are not talking about the whole picture. The other thing is, we are not even talking about the other portion at all, of course, even in the Public Schools Finance Board. That is the mills that are levied as a result of government policy, and that is the minimum effort that must be raised locally by school divisions. In fact, the province is actually responsible for much more taxation than is being acknowledged, I guess, in most sources, and that is why I asked the question of the minister in terms of what his views were on consolidating that to present the whole picture.

I guess the concern that the minister raises is a valid one in terms of determining what the priorities are, but it is he that is saying that you would have to choose between Health and Education. I would think that we would be choosing among the 20 or 30 departments of government, and we would be making choices on the basis of priorities, not one priority.

The Minister of Natural Resources knows that he has had to ante up year after year. Of course, things have been that way for many years if you look at the budgets for Natural Resources, and perhaps even in some instances I can speak with some experience with regard to Highways insofar as where the priorities would sit. But I do not think it has to be the case, and I would strongly argue‑‑I am certainly not making the case that there should be a choice between education and health care in terms of the final dollars allocated. What we have to do is ensure that there is adequate public investment in public education on the basis that it is a priority; and, if the minister wants to turn it into an argument between health care and education, he can do that with someone else. He is not going to find that very rewarding insofar as his discussion here.

I think what I will do is move to some specific school divisions after we have an opportunity for the Liberal critic or whatever the Deputy Chairperson is deciding in terms of who he is recognizing.

I know some of my colleagues have concerns about school divisions in their constituencies. There is some serious concern, as I have outlined, about the way the money has been allocated by way of the formula, the way the cuts have impacted. That is why I have asked the minister to provide us with a copy of those school divisions that received cuts two years in a row, because I believe it has been inequitable in terms of the distribution of funds, as a result of the reassessment and formula that the minister is responsible for. So I know they will have some concerns about how it has impacted in their constituencies, and I hope we have an opportunity to give them time to raise those questions.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I had a number of questions in this particular area, and I guess a good place to start off is maybe to follow from the Question Period that led into the beginning of the discussions with respect to independent schools.

I know, and I appreciate the minister, in fact, tabling the document based on the percentage increases over the last number of years because it does paint a fairly clear picture, which is not necessarily as consistent.

I did want to spend some time to make comment on this because I think it is important that there are a significant number of people that are out there watching, and are no doubt going to be reading Hansard to try to find out in terms of where all three political parties are coming from on whole issue of independent funding.

I know at the last couple of meetings that I have been at with the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) that he has been fairly clear in terms of a commitment to 50 percent and the issue should be resolved by going back to court, but I did, in fact, meet with the independent school federation. They are a bit unclear in terms of if that is what‑‑that is not necessarily what they have been telling that particular interest group, if you like. So I think that for those sorts of organizations it is somewhat beneficial for the clarification, because it is indeed needed.

* (1530)

(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

I know that in the questions I asked today during Question Period, there was quite a bit of heckling from actually both sides, indicating that there seems to be a bit of a flip‑flop on the Liberal Party's position. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to take this opportunity to make sure that it is fairly clear in terms of what is in fact going on in independent schools.

I, too, have met with different groups, but I like to believe that I have been fairly consistent, and would like to suggest to the other two political parties, in particular, the New Democratic Party, that they, too, should be consistent.

An Honourable Member: This is today's position. Right, Kevin?

Mr. Lamoureux: This is a very sensitive issue, because I do believe that the New Democrats would like to make this a political issue in the next election, one that is based on classes of individuals. I find that most unfortunate, but in terms of a flip‑‑it was interesting hearing the dialogue that went back and forth between the member for Dauphin and the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness). I will end with a question to the Minister of Education. I do appreciate his being patient with me on this.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, if you follow the percentage increases that have been given, the NDP, while in office, sent a very clear message to the independent schools that in fact they were in favour of substantial increases, and we do not know what level they were actually hoping to achieve.

I talked to the independent schools and individuals that had sat down with the New Democrats, and they did not indicate to me that it was 50 percent. They had indicated to me that the NDP have always been committed to independent schools, and if you take a look while they were in office, it is fairly clear that in fact they were committed to independent schools.

Another point that I think has to be emphasized is the New Democrats are also being somewhat inconsistent by making the statement, look, you have the Catholic schools versus the elite schools. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and other critics from the New Democratic Party often refer to the Balmoral Hall and St. John's‑Ravenscourt, but they never mention St. Mary's or St. Paul's or Western Christian College, and there is a list of other independent schools that are out there. That, I believe, is the primary reason why I say that to them it is a question of class, and they are trying to portray themselves as individuals that are, in fact, supportive of the public school system outside of some of the interest groups that are there.

When I sat down and met, I have been consistent in terms of saying that this whole issue is something that we are looking at. The first priority of the Liberal Party will be to reinforce that the public education system is the No. 1 priority, and we are going to do what is necessary to ensure that is, in fact, portrayed to the public. We have also ensured interested individuals with respect to in the future there will be some very detailed explanations in terms of what the party's position will be. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think that is a responsible way of dealing with this particular issue.

I was very interested in the minister's comments in terms of the percentage increases, and I would ask the minister if he could provide the same percentage increases for the same period of time in the public school sector.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will undertake to provide that information.

Mr. Lamoureux: I did not want to spend too much time in terms of the independent schools other than just to get that onto the record.

I do want to move on to the whole education funding formula, and I listened fairly closely with what was being said about the whole funding formula. I know at one point in time, at least it was indicated to me, that the current minister, I believe, when he was in opposition, had made a commitment that that particular opposition party at the time was in favour of seeing increased general revenues towards the financing of education. I would ask the Minister of Education if that was the case.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are going back now nine or 10 years, and at that time when revenues to government were growing at the rate of in one year 20 percent, in '84‑85, and the condition‑‑

An Honourable Member: How come you did not mention that when you talked about the private schools?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are talking about '84‑85. The big increase to independent schools was in '88 when already there was beginning to be a slowdown in revenue growth.

An Honourable Member: In '88 there was a slowdown in revenue?

Mr. Manness: In '88, yes. We had it in '89 coming from the 2 percent tax on‑‑[interjection] Right. At that time, with the condition being that revenues to government grow, at a minimum 5 percent to 8 percent, the government of the day sensed that 80 percent support could be provided. Now that was no different than when our former Minister of Education Mr. Cosens, in the last year of the Lyon government, changed around the formula and fused, I think, $50 million or $80 million to once again take the level of provincial support to a pure 80 percent. That number then began to slide through the Pawley years.

We have found ourselves in a situation where, given that revenues to government are no longer double‑digit but for the most part are in the area of 2 percent or 3 percent, we have had no alternative but to hold the level of funding at the level that we inherited, and there has been some slippage from there, as far as taking money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Yet, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I say for the record that we have still put into public schools over the last seven budgets an additional‑‑well, using last year's base‑‑$130 million. That is an extraordinarily large amount of money. Just like we have put $500 million, a half a billion dollars, more into Health over the course of seven budgets, we have put $175 million into Education. So nobody has to tell me about priority setting and the impact on the other departments, because of course their share of the total revenue pie has decreased some 10 percent.

But back to the question, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. I think the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is trying to say, well, what is the target? Well, the target of course is to provide more, but it can only be provided if indeed there are additional revenues to government. We have sensed the only way today that we can bring in additional revenues to government in a significant way is to increase the tax load, the individual personal tax load, on Manitobans. This is where we disagree so much with the Liberals and the NDP. We have sensed that it is unfair to brutalize your taxpayers by going and asking them to pay more. That is why, of course, members in opposition have voted against us in seven budgets, because they voted against our freezing individual tax rates, personal income tax rates.

So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know it has been a long circuitous argument, but the result is we still have committed over $100 million more to public school education‑‑happy to do so‑‑and will continue to try to provide a fair share in the years to come.

* (1540)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I take it then, in the minister's answer, that he did in fact make a commitment to the 80 percent, even though he brings up a caveat of 5 percent increases in general revenues, I believe. But the concept is still there, and that is that the general revenues, I believe, is a much more progressive way of collecting taxes than to have levying against property taxes, whether it is the provincial government levying the property tax or the local school councils levying the property tax. What we have seen‑‑[interjection] The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) says, they are all forms of taxation. I would like to think that he too would acknowledge that one is much more progressive than the other ones.

But, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the point that I am trying to get at is that over the years we have seen a shift from general revenues, the reliance of funding education from general revenues‑‑the reliance of funding education from general revenues being shifted over to property tax. The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) has consistently said, and he has been the author of six of the budgets that have been brought down, that this is about fair taxation, that they are fair. They might be implementing cuts, but at least they are fair.

I do not see the shifting of reliance onto property tax from general revenue as something that is fair or appropriate. I would ask the Minister of Education whether he feels that the taxing of property is a more equitable way of taxing or collecting revenues for funding education.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, obviously not. That is why, since we have been in government, we virtually, on the provincial levy, have frozen that over seven budgets. There has been a slight increase over the period. We have not significantly taken total dollars off property, have increased, and as a matter of fact, we have probably decreased the take from local levy as a province.

So conceptually he is right. In policy, we agree with that. As a matter of fact, we removed education tax from bare farmland about four years ago. What the member has to bear in mind is that still the percent of the total education budget that is supported by the provincial purse as a percent, straight percent, has not changed. It is still in the realm of mid‑range 50 percent.

So the question being when the member says, well, you should not be taking more from property, he should be then more specific in his charge when he talks about fairness. Is fairness then in terms of absolute numbers or is fairness in terms of percentage? Because, of course, if we are going to maintain our percent of roughly‑‑and it is an arguable point‑‑around 70 percent, and yes, we would like to ultimately go to 80 percent, but indeed if the pie is growing and indeed the contribution is growing by a hundred‑some million dollars in our case, then obviously, if the local school division, the local ratepayer is going to pick up 20 percent or 30 percent, then I say that number of a growing expenditure, that number is obviously going to increase in absolute terms. It is going to increase.

So the member is going to have to tell us where he stands. Does he mean by 20 or 30 percent even though that means more and more from year to year as expenditures increase, or do you like to see the absolute amount on the property tax frozen, the absolute dollars that a roll or a reference number was on the property roll?

So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member can talk about‑‑[interjection] Some member from the side says, a small percent. Well, I do not know what he is talking about. Let us talk either percentages or absolutes, because when you are getting down into this sensitive area there certainly is a vast difference.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, let us deal with the percentages. It is fairly clear in terms of what it is I am saying, that we need to see direction from this government to move more toward a reliance on general revenues in financing education and over the last decade it has been the opposite.

If you take a look, using the minister's own numbers that he gave a half hour, three‑quarters of an hour ago, with respect to the reliance on property tax, in his answer that he gave just now he tries to leave the impression there really has not been any increase from the province on the provincial levy in terms of percentage.

But let us look in terms of the school division levy. The figures he gave, and he can correct me if I am wrong, was in '82‑83, the reliance for the school division was at 19 percent. In '94‑95, and he did not really say the year, I am assuming it was '94‑95‑‑

An Honourable Member: '92‑93.

Mr. Lamoureux: In '92‑93, it was actually 27 percent, a complete reversal from what it was previously. I would interpret that as a form of offloading. The same sort of opposition that the government says whenever the federal government does something.

The local authority, if you will, is the one that then has the responsibility because of the government's actions to be able to provide a quality of education that they have been requested to give to increase their local levies. Again, if you look at that in the spectre of a 10‑year time period or a bit better than 10 years, because I did bring up the copy that MTS actually had circulated, and I am sure the minister has read it. It makes reference to the myth of No. 2, if you like, provincial funding for public education has remained high because education has been a priority of the Manitoba government.

I think, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that the minister would have a very hard time refuting that particular statement. Then it goes into reality by saying, operating funds from the Manitoba government have steadily fallen from 82 percent of the actual yearly costs of public school programs and services in 1981, to only 66 percent in '93‑94.

After listening to the Minister of Education and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) in their questions and answers, one might question some of the numbers that have been presented. I would seek to try to get some clarification on it, which I will bring up with the Manitoba Teachers' Society, because I noted that in 1982, the minister indicated that 54 percent came from general revenue, 27 percent was the provincial levy, which brought it up to 82 percent. That is what the Minister of Education was saying for 1982. According to this graph provided by MTS, they said 78.2 percent for 1982. It is off, that is considerable. From 82 percent to 78.2 percent, that is a considerable difference. I believe that there is a need to seek some clarification on that particular issue.

It portrays 1981 funding at 82.4 percent. This is all from general revenues, and we will assume that they are taking into account the provincial levy on the property tax.

An Honourable Member: No. They are not. You cannot assume away 20 percent.

Mr. Lamoureux: In 1981, they are saying that the province facilitated 82.4 percent of education funding?

An Honourable Member: Right.

Mr. Lamoureux: Would that not include the general and the provincial property levy?

An Honourable Member: There is very little levy on them.

Mr. Lamoureux: Very little, but it still includes it? [interjection] Okay, it still includes it.

* (1550)

So they are saying, from 82.4 percent, 1981; 1982 to 78.2 percent; to 77.8 percent to 74.7 percent, 74.3 percent, 72.5 percent, 71.7 percent, 71 percent, 69.9 percent, 69.2 percent, 68.4 percent, 67.8 percent, and in 1993‑1994, 66.1 percent.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what that clearly demonstrates in their graph is that there is a significant decrease of monies coming from general revenues in favour of the school divisions having to increase the level of property tax, which points out a number of problems, two of which I take great exception to.

One is the fact that the property tax is a much more regressive tax than a personal income tax. The second one is that some school divisions, because the school divisions themselves have a limited base, to a certain degree some have a significant advantage over others. The socioeconomic demographics of some school divisions will dictate some of the services that they have to provide. So there are many natural inequities that are there to justify that what the government, not only the current government but the previous New Democratic administration, the direction that they have been taking, the whole funding of education in the province of Manitoba has been backward, that it is moving in the wrong direction.

Now I am not going to say that the actual percentages, as presented to me from the Manitoba Teachers' Society, are a hundred percent accurate, but I would ask the Minister of Education if he can clarify for the committee, just how accurate is this? Have we, over the last decade, seen a continuous shifting of responsibility for funding away from general revenues and onto the property tax? Has that been consistent?

Mr. Manness: Absolutely not. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what is in dispute here is whether or not the ratepayer wants to pay all the funding, all the levels of taxation to the province and/or the local school division directly by way of local levy.

I am saying to the member, will the ratepayer feel better if all of a sudden we take away the movement of the money by way of the ratepayer paying the municipality, the municipality paying the provincial Treasury, the Public Schools Finance Board, in other words, adding to the provincial levy, and the province then being able to stand up and boast, we are now back to 80 percent from two sources, the Consolidated Revenue Fund and from the property?

Will the property ratepayer feel better? My answer is no. What difference does it make, because today, the ratepayer, as a percent of the education bill, pays exactly the same‑‑as a percent of the education bill. That does not mean that the impact on his property or her property is not going up, because 30 percent of 200 is still twice as much as 30 percent of 100. That is why we are talking percentages.

So does the ratepayer feel better if all the money comes to provincial Treasury and then goes out to the school division, when the actual cost on the piece of property keeps going up year after year? Do they feel better? Not a bit. Who feels better in that situation? Well, the local trustees, because they can say, well, it is not my cost. The provincial government levied it. So when the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says the Liberals will do it differently, that they want it off property, fair, that is a different issue. That is a much different issue than I have been talking about, that he has been talking about.

What the Liberal Education critic is saying then, he wants that $200 million that we raise by way of education support levy, the provincial levy, to do away with it. Of course, we will remind the voters where the Liberals stand on this, that they want an increase in the sales tax rate of 2.1 percent. They want to take it from 7 percent to 9.1 percent, or they want an increase of 10 points in the provincial income tax levy. Right now, it is 52 percent of the basic federal tax, and they then would want that increased by 20 percent to 62 points of the federal basic income tax payable. We will remind the citizens of that, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, or we can go through all of the other tax sources, because indeed we only have those tax sources.

So I would suggest to the Liberals‑‑[interjection] Well, of course, it would double. It would double the rate of taxes, of levy. It would take the price of‑‑[interjection] That is right, and tobacco tax. Of course, we know where the Liberals stand on that. So then we would have to turn to motive fuel tax, or not motive fuel tax, but gasoline tax, and we would jump very quickly. I think we have a levy in place today of 11 or 12 cents a litre, and you would double that over‑‑no, you would have to more than double that overnight. These are the sources that you turn to. So maybe the Liberals are going to do that and say that this is the way they are going to do it; if they do not, we will.

But the bigger issue‑‑and it is something the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) said. I can make an argument that when you start to compare '82‑83 with '92‑93, that right today, we are providing 80 percent of funding‑‑today. The argument is no different than the federal government uses with the provinces when we talk about equalization and backing out in tax points‑‑absolutely no difference.

What the federal government did‑‑at one time, we had a provincial tax rate I think of somewhere around 40 points, 40 as a percent of federal payable tax. Then they let us jump to 50 percent, but they have never let us forget that they allowed us to move into that tax area.

I can make the same argument with the school divisions. We have held back our provincial tax and let them move in. [interjection] Well, I can make the argument, because the first chunk of the local levy is what we allowed them to move into.

An Honourable Member: You required it.

Mr. Manness: We require it. Same argument, and we are not quite‑‑we are at 80 percent exactly. So when the member comes up and reading‑‑I believe that came from the Teachers' Society‑‑arguments, you can argue it either way, but the reality is today that, as a share of the consolidated revenue, what we are voting on today, 54 percent, is no different than it was 10 years ago. That is the issue here.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Minister of Education says that currently it is 80 percent that we finance education, and I want to make sure that is clear in terms of what he is saying. I know what he is attempting to say is that by legislation he is telling the school divisions that they have to charge this amount in terms of a mill rate. That is mandated. He is saying that the provincial government is financing 80 percent today?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, through direct funding including equalization‑‑and this is the key‑‑and for backing out of local levy and backing out of provincial levy, allowing local levy to replace us, I can make the argument strongly that we are providing 80 percent of the funding. No differently than the federal government can argue and has argued, and because they hold the hammer most successfully, that when they backed out of income tax and allowed the provinces to increase their level of income tax, in essence they still should have the benefit.

* (1600)

I guess what I am saying is, we now then could levy that 7.29 uniform mill rate across all the divisions; we could do it, haul that money out into the provincial government. The local levy then would drop like that, and we could boastfully claim that we are providing 80 percent of the funding. Is the ratepayer locally any better off? Definitely not. He is paying the same bill. Who is better off? The trustees. The trustees will say, well, it is not us that you should turn to if you have got a concern about property tax; it is the provincial government.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Minister of Education says, look, if we took that 7 percent‑‑

Mr. Manness: No, 7.29 mill.

Mr. Lamoureux: ‑‑or 7.29 mills and we accounted that as monies that we have raised. Well, the Department of Education forces a number of different things to all the different school divisions, but the individuals that are held accountable for that money that is being collected, including that 7.2 mill rate, are, in fact, the school boards. Under the property tax line, it will say that it is the school trustees that are doing the increases. From 1982‑83, one could say from 19 percent to '92‑93 of 27 percent because of the offloading, and that is what it is, offloading of the Department of Education. It is the school trustees that are now collecting the tax, not the province.

When an individual taxpayer looks at the property tax bill, he says, well, look I have this amount coming from my city taxes or municipal taxes; I have this amount coming from my school taxes; and I have the provincial levy of this amount. Sure the provincial levy might be maintained in real dollar terms and actually going down in percentage terms, but it is the school boards that are, in fact, having the constant increases. They are having those constant increases because of the funding decisions of this government.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the honourable member has got it confused again. What he is saying is you are not giving additional additional money. I said we still are supporting 54 percent, no different today than ten years ago, of the larger pie. If you want to move from percent to absolute dollars, we have put in $130 million more.

So the school board does not collect a dollar. The municipalities collect the dollars, as the member knows, but we cause to have collected today in support of public school education 80 percent of the fee. What do we do with this 7.29 mill uniformly? Well, we force the equal distribution through equalization, the sharing. We take from the rich and we give to the poor. It is called equalization.

So what the member says is then, why do you not do it totally, bring it all into the province? Bring it all in and remove it from the authority of the school divisions. But I want to point out this model we have, where did it come from? Did we develop it in isolation? No, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we did it in concert with representatives of the trustees, with representatives of all of the educational groups, with the superintendents, and the reason it was developed this way was to allow the greater flexibility with the local area.

You know what has gone wrong, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson? Basically, you have school expenditures at the local level that outstripped the increase in revenue to the province, that outstripped, in many cases, inflation, outstripped inflation, and rather than face up to that, what local boards have done, in most cases, not all, they have turned to the local ratepayer as they wanted to have the right to do. I have given all the numbers with respect to our level of increase, outstripping inflation even during hard times, even during a tight‑fisted government time.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I had read over‑‑the Manitoba Teachers' Society also had a presentation to the Boundaries Review Commission, and in that particular presentation I wanted to quote one thing that they had on page 3, and they talked about this: Taxpayer equity depends on a standard and accurate assessment of all classifications of property throughout Manitoba, and property ratepayers being asked to make a similar effort toward the contribution of revenue for public schools. Equity among taxpayers is best served when taxation is uniformly levied by the provincial government. When taxes are paid not by residents of any one school division but by all ratepayers within the province to support all public schools.

I would ask the minister if he agrees with that statement.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what I read into that statement is that the Teachers' Society is saying that there should be no availability or no opportunity for local levying, and that indeed all of the taxes, all of the levies against property would be done provincially, one rate across the province, and all brought then into a common pot and redistributed.

I take it the essence of that statement means that local divisions should no longer have the local authority to tax. If there is going to be one provincial rate across all ratepayers, how else can it be other than building upon the model that is now in place, but increasing it significantly and allowing no variation as between local school divisions.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would highlight, I guess, maybe the operative words of being best served.

I would ask the Minister of Education what is being suggested here, and if one does not say, well, 100 percent, maybe there is a better percentage. What would the Minister of Education‑‑what sort of a percentage does he believe that the provincial levy should actually cover, or is that the right direction? Should we continue to move downwards and have more reliance on the school divisions?

Mr. Manness: Under the present regime of revenues coming to government, where we are at right now is the perfect place.

Mr. Lamoureux: What about the direction? Are we going in the right direction in terms of provincial levy?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am referring specifically to the reliance on again more on the property tax, and just talking strictly within the property tax. I do not want to confuse it. Just strictly within the property tax. There is more reliance on the school divisions raising the local levy as opposed to the provincial. Is that the right direction, and is that the direction we are going to see this government continue into the future?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are two forces at work here. You have a case where for the provincial government, one of the basic planks of its framework for economic growth and wealth is that taxes will be kept down. That is across the board. That is the answer. So, when the member says, well, will you assume, as a province, will you take on the levying of greater taxes against property to allow relief for the local division, I am saying, well, listen, with autonomy and making local decisions and the right to tax comes a responsibility, you cannot have it both ways. Now the Liberals want it both ways.

He wants the local divisions to remain autonomous, have this right to tax, yet sort of hold the tax level. At the same time, though, he wants the province to be forced to increase the taxes on property. We have said‑‑and the members have voted against us for seven straight budgets: No, we will do everything within our powers to hold down the tax levels, not only the personal income tax, not only sales tax, but also levies on property tax. Everything we can, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

We have been consistent in that other than the respect that we took away some of the rebate last year. We have been totally consistent, but when school divisions locally say that they still want have autonomy and maintain the right to levy locally for the purposes of program, with that comes incredible responsibility. They, then, have to make the decisions accordingly.

All we know as a province is basically two things: 54 percent comes out of consolidated revenue; and the total amount paid by the ratepayer across the province is no different today than it was 10 years ago. No, I am sorry. I will be distinct. When I say the total amount, in absolute terms, it is higher; in terms of percentages, it is the same.

* (1610)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in 1982‑83, the provincial levy was 27 percent. In 1992‑93, it is 19 percent. Are we going to continue to see that trend with this particular administration?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is in percentage terms. We still are expecting the ratepayers‑‑in absolute terms, they are still paying more today on provincial levy than they were 10 years ago. The decision as to whether or not that continues to fall is purely held in two other centres: It is the vote that we do here with respect to the money coming out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund; and also how much, locally, decisions are made, reflected directly onto the ratepayers outside of the discussions that happen here.

The member seems to say, well, it is the only choice they have, once they find out how much funding you will give. I am saying no, they are equal partners; they are equal taxation partners. So to the extent that local levy increases and provincial support out of the consolidated revenue‑‑the 54 percent I am talking about‑‑remains fixed, then that number will continue to shrink. To the extent that local levy begins to decrease, local levy meaning a local levy by the school board begins to decrease, our share on the provincial side will increase.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I take it in the answer the minister then is saying that he is not prepared to give a commitment either way in terms of the actual percentage, whether it is going to continue to decrease or if in fact he is going to reverse the trend that has been happening since 1982.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am powerless to make the commitment because it is a variable. It depends on what the local school does. If the local school spends more, the amount that we are looking at will decrease. If the local school division spends less, then the level that we are providing by way of our share of the property tax will increase.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not going to suggest to the minister that he put in a cap, but he has put in a cap in the past, and it would be interesting to see actually if there was any variation for the last two years.

I would like to get a response from the Minister of Education with respect to an issue that I have brought up in my constituency dealing with this particular issue. I had sent out some cards, and I had tabled these cards to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) a month ago. I believe it was just over 750 cards. Each card represents a household, and I represent approximately 7,450 homes.

The card reads as follows: Dear Mr. Filmon: I‑‑and it has a name; in many cases, it is a couple names, but from a household‑‑believe you and your government should reform the way in which the school portion of property tax is being collected. Even though there may be different services in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, it does not justify the difference in property tax I have to pay over everyone else in the city.

Now, I have had petitions also, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, trying‑‑[interjection] Well, the Premier has got over 750 of them.

Point of Order

Mr. Plohman: The member for Inkster has read from a document, from a card, and it is tradition that that must be tabled for the committee.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be more than happy to table this particular card, as long as it gets to the Premier, because I did make a commitment to ensuring that all the cards I did collect would go to the Premier.

Mr. Plohman: I would like to inform the member that we will photocopy it and get him his copy back.

Mr. Lamoureux: Okay. But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sure that even members of the New Democratic Party who have north end ridings, if they consult their constituents, will find that the support for the government of the day to take some form of action on‑‑[interjection] I appreciate the member for Dauphin's vote of confidence in dealing with this particular issue. I would just like to see his party take some form of action that would substantiate some of the talk that they make.

But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I digress somewhat. To the individual constituents whom I represent, and I believe a vast majority of Manitobans would be onside, what is the minister doing to ensure that the taxation that is in fact being levied to finance Education is more fair and more progressive?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, we are talking about huge sums of money. If we remove the total property tax in support of education, the $200 million that we collect plus the $310 million‑‑if we remove $510 million from the property taxpayer, not just the 200 I was talking about earlier, 510 now, this is what it means. It means you take the sales tax rate from the 7 percent it is at now and you move it to 12.4.

You see, that is the dishonesty inherent with politicians who say, well, we will do this and that. They never give the option. They never say to the householder, but do you know, sir, or do you know, madam, that what you are advocating is to increase the sales tax to 12.4 percent? Are you prepared to do it? Because when I have done that, all of a sudden, the homeowner says, well, gee, that is quite an impact‑‑or to increase the personal income tax rate from 52 percent of the federal to 79 percent. That then will raise the $510 million that the member wants to take off of property.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are talking about huge amounts of money, and it is so easy to glibly throw out, well, let us take it off of property and make it a responsibility of the public purse. The individual is going to pay for it one way or the other. I guess what the Liberals are saying now, and we will begin to use this, we will begin to use it, that the Liberals will want to see an increase in this one area alone, will want to see the personal income tax rate move from 52 percent of basic federal tax to 79 percent. That is now a way we are going to target the Liberals as their policy in support of education finance reform.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess, ultimately, the Minister of Education can say whatever he wants in terms of what he believes the Liberal Party's position is, and until the Liberal Party says what its position is, much like the government or the New Democrats say, I do not believe the public is going to listen. I do believe the public will recognize, as the many constituents that I represent, that this government in 1982 collected 27 percent from the provincial levy which was applied through all of the local ratepayers. That was then reduced to 19 percent.

The difference was picked up from the school boards, the school levies. It went from 19 percent to 27 percent.

An Honourable Member: The ratepayer paid the same.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is just it. You cannot say they are paying the same for the simple reason that it depends on what school division you live in which will quite often dictate. For example, Winnipeg School Division No. 1 has many other programs that are necessitated as a direct result of actions that are taken from government or lack of actions taken from government, and I will go on to that after I pose my final question with respect to the graph.

There are huge discrepancies that are out there, and the only way in which this thing could be handled in a fairer way‑‑and we are not saying that you have to increase personal income tax or provincial sales tax‑‑is that the provincial government has to take a stronger role in paying for education in the province of Manitoba.

* (1620)

What they have been doing is they have been consistently offloading it. The percentages that were pointed out in MTS' newsletter might not be accurate according to the Minister of Education and the comments made by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), but, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do believe‑‑

Mr. Plohman: I did not say they were not accurate. Do not put words in my mouth.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, okay, I will withdraw the member for Dauphin saying it, but I am sure MTS will read what the member for Dauphin actually pointed out. But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is fairly clear that there is in fact more of a reliance on the school divisions, which is a form of offloading, and the minister can say whatever it is that he wants but he is not fooling the thousands of teachers and the professionals that are out there, the school trustees, and I believe the parents that are out there.

I would end this particular area by asking the Minister of Education if in fact he can provide for me the actual percentage or to respond specifically to what I had put on the record earlier of the newsletter that MTS circulated, and I would ask that he include the provincial levy and the general revenue portion of contribution from the Department of Education. Not the mandated 7.2 mill rate that the province has said to the school division that they have to collect as a minimum. Would he take that on and provide me that detail?

Mr. Manness: Sir, I do not know what the member is asking for. He is all over the map here. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know whether we could have had a clearer discussion of ed finance in such a short period of time.

I will not let the record show for one second that there has been any greater percentage impact on the ratepayer. Today the ratepayer, as a percent of the total cost of public school education, pays the same as they did 10 years ago. Nothing has changed. The absolute amount. Just like the provincial government has thrown a hundred‑and‑some million dollars more, has had no impact on our share of the total amount. Even though we have put $130 million more since we have come to government the amount we are funding, as a percent, has not increased. It is 54 percent.

See, the member, of course, conveniently tries to confuse the ratepayer from the school board. They are not the same. The school board does not pay taxes. The school board levies taxes. The ratepayer and the taxpayer pay all the taxes, and the ratepayer today as a percent of the total bill pays no more or no less than they did before. The local school division, because they have decided in many cases to increase expenditures and not curtail expenditures, are having to levy a greater percent on that ratepayer, and the more they increase the levy the greater their share is of the total responsibility for collecting and, therefore, causing a diminishing share in the provincial levy against property.

Is the property taxpayer paying more today? Yes, he is. But are all the taxpayers who contribute to the consolidated revenue of the province paying more today collectively? Yes, they are. Slightly more, and that money, of course, is going into education.

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member wants to try and make it a black and white issue. He is going to be the salvation. He is going to be the protector of the property ratepayer, but little does he state that really all he will be doing is forcing that same ratepayer now through their taxes, their income tax, their sales tax, all the consumption taxes, to pay this very same amount of money. He is going to get it from another source.

So, if he is the Minister of Finance some day in Manitoba‑‑heaven help us‑‑what he will be doing, of course, is increasing significantly the consumption taxes and/or the personal income tax across the board. If he does not do that, then he will edict that school divisions will not increase their expenditure, will reduce their expenditures, by maybe what? A Bill 22. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is he going to take on the teachers because indeed they consume 80 percent? The Liberals of Atlantic Canada, they understand the basic arithmetic here. There is nothing terribly complicated‑‑

An Honourable Member: Teachers do not make 80 percent.

Mr. Manness: No, no, I did not say they made 80 percent. I am saying‑‑I will correct it. For all employees of school divisions, the wage bill, in other words, is 80 percent.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not going to let the Liberals off the hook here. They are going to try and reach out and be on all sides of this issue, but they had better realize that when they talk about a significant change, the people whom they are going to hit are the very same people that are paying the tax in a different form today.

If the member says, well, no, really I care about the school division now, then he is an advocate basically of the local authorities who do not want to collect locally, want to have the services; they do not want to collect locally, but have the province pick up the bill.

So what we are talking about here is the hot shell of taxation, and ultimately who holds it. But this government has been consistent in holding down, through seven budgets, the levy against individuals on property and also consumption tax level and income tax level. The consistency lies with this government.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the government provides funding for special needs II and III, and they will set‑‑and I, but that is based on a percentage, if you like. If you take that particular funding and the actual cost of providing for the special needs, there is a substantial difference in cost.

As a result, Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and some other school divisions have an additional requirement for taxation. What has happened in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 is that, yes, there are some different services, but there are some essential services, some of which the Province of Manitoba mandates, which then dictates to a school division that they have to raise additional dollars.

Let me give a bit of a specific. In Winnipeg School Division No. 1, an individual who has an assessed valued home at $98,000 to $100,000 could pay up to $320 more than someone in the same assessed value of a home that lives in another area of the city of Winnipeg.

Now, the minister will justify that by saying, well, it is the local school board, but, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, many of the programs that are being provided from the school board and the additional costs that are being incurred are because of the student population and because of some of the offloading that the province is doing. The more that you rely, as this government has been doing, on the local school divisions to be able to raise the property tax, the more unfair the taxation collection, whether it is on the property tax, as in this particular case, is going to be. That is, in fact, what the Minster of Education is doing, and he is substantiating his argument by saying it is okay. We can shift it, if we want, from 27 in '82 to 19 in '92‑93 to what, 14, 13 two, three years from now, and that is going to be justified because the ratepayer, after all, is going to be paying the same. Well, that is not true.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have been through this exactly two weeks ago. Yes, we talked about the special needs support. I do not know if the member was here. At that time, I indicated that my predecessor, the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach), brought in the new formula and shortly thereafter boosted up the base of support for special needs funding from $67‑68 million to $91 million‑‑at this point, $95 million. Winnipeg School Division No. 1, I believe, from memory, consumed one‑sixth of that. There was another fund of $10 million where they had 60 percent of the funding, taking into account the arguments made by the member.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there will never be enough money for special needs students. There will never be enough. So, when school divisions decide how it is they want to reach out in support of special needs students, and if they decide that they want to provide services beyond what the province is prepared to provide equally, uniformly across the province, and they make the decisions within their free will to do so and to accordingly tax, that is a decision made locally. If we were to try and curtail that decision, I can tell you, hell would rain down because the very essence of local autonomy is that you can make those decisions and levy accordingly.

* (1630)

So the member says he has constituents who are on one side in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and some that are not. Well, by virtue of the fact where they live, they have decided to be in a school district which is providing these services and levying locally. Because of that, they are paying higher taxes. Not because of anything we have done or no shortage of funding. It is so easy to say, well, if we had more provincial funding, then it would not happen. That is an easy. That is like falling off a log. It does not take any great wisdom to make that statement.

Of course, the other constituents of the member here who are on the other line, probably in the Seven Oaks School Division‑‑[interjection] All of Winnipeg No. 1, and where of course they have decided for whatever reason not to provide the services and have not gone to the local levy, well, that is the difference. That is the freedom in this country. You have a freedom of choice when you decide to live in one place versus another.

My goodness, you have a freedom of choice deciding whether you want to live in Ontario versus Manitoba, Manitoba versus British Columbia. That is the essence of choice. Indeed, when you decide to build or buy a home in the city of Winnipeg, one of the other choices is you can either build and locate in this school division as compared to this school division, and with that go consequences. Pure choice, nothing more, but the greatest choice is left with the local school division as to what level of services they want to provide beyond that which the province is willing to support. That is a free decision made locally.

I do not know why the member, the Liberal Education critic, would fight that unless he, of course, is for the provincial government to take back all the powers, disband local school boards, and now all of a sudden put the great heavy hand of equalization, in this case, provincial equalization in its fullest definition, across all the students, all the ratepayers of the province. We could do that. That is what happens in the Yukon, and some moves by other provincial governments, Liberal and the cousins of the members opposite in Atlantic Canada, are happening. I will tell you, there are voices in the Teachers' Society who would strongly support that so that there would be uniformity across the day. So then when Bill 22 impacts one school division differently than another, we would not have to listen to those arguments: one policy in place for all.

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I give advice. It is free advice, so maybe that is what it is worth to the member. He had better have an understanding on whose side he is on because he cannot be on all the sides of this issue. We will not allow him to. He has to pick one side and stay with it.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it becomes clear in terms of the side that the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) is on, and I am not on that side, I can assure him of that. That is a continual decrease of the provincial levy or the continual support of the school levy increasing while at the same time the provincial levy decreasing.

Mr. Manness: Decreasing support of an increased levy. What kind of nonsense?

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not how many times I have read it into the record. The minister has stated that the provincial levy has dropped from 27 to 19; the school levy has increased from 19 to 27. The minister is saying that he does not see any problem with that and that will continue, and the reason why is because of local autonomy. That is fine. That is what the minister is saying.

I believe that the minister is wrong. I believe that most Manitobans would look at this and argue that the minister is wrong. He made reference to special needs again himself, and said, for example, that $95 million was being used for special needs, but he does not point out that that includes special needs II and III. I should say that he said $95 million for special needs, of which Winnipeg No. 1 is receiving one‑sixth. He does not point out that the special needs II and III are higher percentages in fact in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, and the balance is with the formula for special needs I.

The additional $10 million that the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) just made reference to is for learning disabilities. At least, that is what he had indicated earlier, or two weeks ago, when we had that particular discussion, which was entirely different, as the minister himself had pointed out. There are, in fact, different services that are required that are mandated from the Department of Education that the school divisions have to have in place. Special needs is one of those things that is mandated.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the MTS in the statement that they made said: Equity among taxpayers is best served when taxation is uniformly levied by the provincial government, when taxes are paid not by residents of any one school division, but by all ratepayers within the province to support all public schools. Well, I am not saying that we have to move 100 percent to provincial tax levy or to provincial general revenues. I do not believe that it is something that the Manitoba Teachers' Society is necessarily saying, but I am not going to interpret. The next time the minister meets with that particular association, maybe he should be bringing that particular issue up, but I believe that the MTS has brought a valid concern that I have attempted to bring up with the Minister of Education, who fails to recognize that it is not fair, that there are some inequities that are there.

An Honourable Member: Where?

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, I have talked about it, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I do not know, I would suggest the Minister of Education maybe go to a more unbiased group, such as the Manitoba Teachers' Society or MAST. My understanding of MAST was that they, too, would like to see more of a reliance on the funding of education taken on by the Province of Manitoba and less on the school divisions. So, if the minister were actually having a dialogue, as opposed to just listening to the different groups that he is meeting with, and he had some dialogue, maybe then he would start to find out that there are some things that are not acceptable. The government's current course is not acceptable.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because I do want to move on to, as I pointed out earlier, some questions that were raised with respect to Question Period, I would ask the minister once again, because he was very unclear in terms of what it is that I was requesting, all I am requesting from the Minister of Education at this point is‑‑he has the graph. If he does not, I will hand this over to him. All I want is how the province would respond to that by putting numbers right above it. In other words, in 1981, this particular report says 82.4‑‑how much was it? The minister can put in those percentages. I would like the accurate figures because the Minister of Education says it is wrong, and I think it is legitimate. I hope the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) is not making light of it.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, how can I disagree with the presentation? It came right out of the Frame Report. We collect all those numbers. I cannot disagree with the presentation. I am saying, once we factor in the equalization portion by the forced mill rate‑‑in other words, the taxation room that we have given up‑‑I will start at a plateau of 82 percent and, using my methodology, I will come across that graph more or less horizontally flat, and nothing will have changed over the course of the year.

* (1640)

So we will do the numbers using our methodology. We will go to the same base of numbers as Frame. We will go to the same source per this discussion that we have had, and we will give the member our numbers under our methodology.

Then I do not know what he is going to do with them, but I can tell you one thing, when he reads me that printed version what he is saying is that the province, drawing money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, should take more than 54 percent of the funding. That is what that statement is saying.

What the Liberals are saying now is that the provincial purse should find money, either increase the deficit significantly or, secondly, increase taxes significantly in greater support of public school education or else cut Health; in other words, transfer money over from the Department of Health.

I am not going to let the member get away, at least on the record, without saying where he is going to get the additional funding from in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, because, you know, he can dream all night, but, believe me, there is no way of getting away from bringing forward additional money unless you levy additional taxes somewhere. So he cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, not wanting to have it both ways, we can make it very clear that the Liberal Party has made a commitment to increase the reliance of funding public education through general revenues. That is very clear.

An Honourable Member: What is the source?

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would suggest to the minister who begs for the source to ask himself, when he made the commitment to increasing general revenues, where was the source that he was committed to? [interjection]

Well, when the Minister of Education was in opposition, he said that we were going to increase it. [interjection] I do not want to borrow a Tory promise, but I do believe that you will see a commitment to increase general revenues under a Liberal administration.

An Honourable Member: What are you going to tax?

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) can say, what are you going to tax; where are you going to get it from?‑‑and so forth. Well, in good time, they will know where the money is going to be coming from, because I believe Manitobans do have a right to know, and they will see that. But at least we are making a commitment that will be in fact fulfilled because it is the right thing to do, and that is to have a heavier reliance on the general revenues for financing of education.

But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to move on to what the Leader of the Liberal Party had brought up during Question Period, and that was the special needs funding that was being given to independent schools. I am wondering if the Minister of Education might want to expand on that first before I comment.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am here to answer questions. I can talk for half an hour about this issue, but I do not know whether I would lend any more to the record than I have already put on in response to the questions in the House today and indeed other questions dealing with this issue.

Mr. Lamoureux: Let me ask the minister then, the 5 percent which all independent schools are given based on the percentage for special needs I, because the students do not have to be identified, the funding that is given to those in the school‑‑some independent schools have a screening process that could and, I believe, in some cases, do eliminate the possibility of having special needs students attend that school. I am wondering if the Minister of Education could tell me if in fact it is fair or appropriate to give special needs funding on a percentage formula to schools that do not even accept individuals with special needs.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the principle that we used at work here‑‑this is a block grant, so to speak, and we provided it for three reasons. Firstly, there was an historical‑‑I am not even talking about the Constitutional historical problem‑‑but when we entered into the agreement, there were some changes made in funding that had severe negative consequences to the independent schools. We tried to take that into account. Secondly, we became growingly aware that there is a growing number of special needs students who are finding their way into independent schools.

Thirdly, we are also well aware that even within the public school system, providing the general grant that we do, there are some school divisions, public school divisions, who do exceedingly well under Level I grant funding. It just happens to be that the set of circumstances, the population representative at that time is more beneficial to some divisions than others, but that changes and the next five‑ or six‑year cycle could be exactly the reverse from division to division. There is no perfect science, and as perfect as we can get, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is to start to set up an army and go into the schools and start to grade 200,000 students.

An Honourable Member: You would not need an army for that.

Mr. Manness: Yes, we would. We would need sufficient resources. I am talking now not only about the independent schools. I am talking about the public schools because there are some school divisions that are held back because of the formula, some are supported around the margin. So taking that into account, those three factors, we realized it was time to make the policy with respect to Level I support similar as between the independent school system and the public school system.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate to us how much in special needs I St. John's‑Ravenscourt would receive?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, roughly 500‑and‑some students times the grant of $150 or $154.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate how many special needs students they would have?

Mr. Manness: Well, the member would have to ask the school. I do not know how many special needs students today are within Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and Level I with certainty. What we do, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is we divide the total population by 180‑‑today, we do not count under Level I. We take the number of students within the division, divide by 180 and multiply by $43,500. So we do not count anywhere under Level I, but we do a count under Levels II and III.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister could indicate to us what he would believe would be the number of special needs I students that would be attending St. John's‑Ravenscourt?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did not realize now the Liberals were starting to focus in‑‑out of the 53 independent schools, they are focusing in on one. I guess what they are saying‑‑I do not know for sure. I would not hypothesize. I do not think it would be wise for me to speculate, but I dare say that if they have special programs in support of slow learners and/or gifted learners, it would not take long to use up the macro amount provided as a result of $154 per student support.

* (1650)

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister provide‑‑it is probably not the proper terminology‑‑a definition of what special needs I, II and III are?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are looking around for Level I. Level II, for each pupil who is severely multihandicapped, psychotic, autistic, deaf, hard of hearing or very severely emotionally and behaviourally disordered.

Level III support goes to pupils who are profoundly multihandicapped, profoundly deaf or profoundly emotionally and behaviourally disoriented.

Level I basically goes to some of the students who have some level of learning disability or those who have exceptional learning ability and who have difficulty fitting in to the regular classroom. That is also a special needs requirement.

Mr. Lamoureux: I want to stick with the Level I. With the Level I, if you take a look at the special needs that are disadvantaged, special needs students, not necessarily the gifted students, does the minister believe that the public school divisions as a whole have the extra dollars from the special needs percentage that is being allocated to be able to finance gifted children programs?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are really rethrashing straw, I can tell you. We have covered this area in great detail the other night. That is why we are doing a special needs study because we want to, again, review where we are in this.

Mr. Lamoureux: Right, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister did not answer the question. He is rethrashing it; I am pleased to hear that, but maybe the minister could answer it?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the member ask the question again, please? I am sorry.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister indicate whether or not sufficient funds are there for school divisions in the public sector to be able to provide for gifted students? I was under the impression that they were having a tough enough time coming even close to getting those children that are in need of assistance.

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there will never be enough money for those in need. So I do not know what the essence of the question is by the member.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under Special Needs you have learning disabilities, is what the minister said, and gifted children. If the public school system does not even have enough funds to facilitate the learning disability, none, what percentage would actually go towards the gifted children? You compare that to independent schools, and you cannot use independent schools generally, because some independent schools or the majority of independent schools have a very open‑door policy, that there is not criteria that has to be met and exams that have to be passed and so forth.

So I am asking the minister specifically if he feels that it is appropriate, given the lack of financial resources for the public schools, to be able to finance special needs children and not the gifted ones of special needs, but the ones with the more of the learning disabilities, and the minister at the same time is financing gifted children in one or two of the private schools. Does he believe that is fair?

Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe it is an unfair assertion. I mean, I wish we had more money. I wish I had more money to put into education. Today the province puts almost $1 billion into education.

As a nation we are amongst the highest if not the highest of the G‑7 countries. Across the piece we spend an awful lot of money on education and what the Liberals are saying is that they intend to spend more. They are going to spend more. I wish we had more to spend.

The Liberals obviously are going to tax people at a much higher rate so they can spend more, because they cannot print money. I know that for a certainty. They may be able to move mountains, but one thing they will not be able to do is print money. So they obviously have no other source but to go to the people and increase the taxes significantly, so that they can put more money into a system which in all comparisons, when you compare it throughout the world, by all the measurements, percent of GNP, percent on per pupil basis, rates amongst the highest in the world, and by some measures is indeed the highest in the world. So if the Liberals want to spend more that is the bottom line comment that I have to make.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not doubt for a moment that the arithmetic that you have given us in response to the Liberal critic's repeated search for some other taxation base other than property to make up the difference, the $500 million that you speak of, whether it is a 12 percent sales tax or a 70 percent increase of the provincial share of income tax and so forth, but I do want to come to the aid of my friend and colleague the Liberal critic.

I do not really expect the Minister of Education of the Province of Manitoba to put himself on record on this, but surely if we are talking, and as it has been said, if you are talking about taking away the taxing authority from local school divisions, we are in essence taking away local autonomy, and if anybody, particularly the Liberal Party, is considering that, then surely the question has to be asked wherefore the local school divisions?

Would it then not be helpful to have these figures, property figures, as to what in fact would the elimination in terms of administration, infrastructure of the entire local school divisions would be about? That may somewhat influence the figures that you have referred to. So that in trying to support the Liberal Party here, my friend the Liberal education critic, there is a point to be made that some additional dollars need to be put to the education system if indeed the Liberal Party is at this point encouraging the Minister of Education to in effect dissolve and abolish local school divisions.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I always appreciate the advice from the dean of the Chamber. I have acknowledged that the Chairperson recognized him, and I did not get upset when that was done either because it is always words of wisdom. But at times, I must disagree in the sense that if you look at some provinces, you will see that there is actually 100 percent financing through general revenues. Through that 100 percent, you still have school divisions that have local autonomy.

I believe that if you check with other interest groups that are out there, both parents‑‑

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour is now 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour. I am interrupting the proceedings of the committee. The Committee of Supply will resume considerations at 7:30 this evening. Thank you.

FAMILY SERVICES

Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Family Services.

We are on item 2.(b)(2), page 58 of the Estimates manual.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Chairperson, I would like to go back to a question that I gave the minister and her staff notice for yesterday, namely, the Order‑in‑Council No. 880/1993, dated December 1.

I wonder if the minister is now prepared to explain this to me.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Chairperson, the Order‑in‑Council was not an Order‑in‑Council to change the agreement at all. It was an administrative change to allow the Minister of Family Services the authority to sign rather than a generic minister, and that if the Department of Family Services does change its name in the future, we will not have to amend the agreement in any way to give the minister responsible for that newly titled department the ability to sign the agreement. It has been done in other provinces too.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you for that explanation.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what benefits or entitlements recipients of social assistance are entitled to who are either HIV or AIDS patients. The reason for my question is that I have been contacted by someone who frequently advocates for these individuals and finds that they are having trouble getting sufficient resources, particularly to pay for the high cost of drugs.

Now, I know that there are some programs that they should be able to access, like the Life Saving Drug Program, but one of the specific problems, I guess, that they are experiencing is that they are on a CPP disability benefit, and income security is clawing 100 percent of it back.

Maybe I should make that my first question and say, is that correct? Do people normally have their CPP disability clawed back if they are on provincial assistance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, CPP is considered income, so they would not be entitled to keep both. It is either welfare or Canada Pension benefits.

Mr. Martindale: I guess that my assumption was correct, and that is really the crux of their problem, because their drug costs are so high that after they are‑‑well, they do not really get any benefit from the CPP benefit. What they are left with is a very minimal amount of provincial social assistance, and yet their costs are very high, and their needs are considerable, including home care and transportation, which I would like to get into in a minute.

Do these individuals get any special consideration in recognition of their extraordinary costs of living?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, anyone who is on social assistance does have their essential medical needs covered. I do not know whether you are referring to someone who is not on social assistance who is having to pay for drugs. That might be a case of them having to apply for social assistance, if they were not on social assistance. All drugs, medical essential needs are covered if you are on social assistance.

Mr. Martindale: Okay, well, that is helpful. My understanding was that it was people who were on social assistance and getting a CPP disability benefit and were having trouble making ends meet because of the high cost of drugs. Is the Life Saving Drug Program under the Department of Health or Family Services?

* (1430)

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is the Department of Health, but going back to the other issue, if there are specifics around any one individual that my honourable friend would like us to look into, we can certainly do that, but it is my understanding that all of their essential medical needs are covered under social allowance.

Mr. Martindale: What about extraordinary transportation costs, such as having to use a taxi rather than a bus because of their medical condition or other special needs, for example, a special mattress to prevent bedsores, special clothing needs, a trolley for oxygen, brighter lights, turning the heat up higher, are they entitled to any of these special needs?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, each individual case is assessed on individual need. If there are medical circumstances, we would consult with a physician and get an opinion on whether that was the kind of thing that should be covered.

Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that there has been a change in the special needs budgets. It used to be that the $150 a year, although inadequate, was fairly automatic, but now I understand that there has been a memo and quite a substantial change and that now people are greatly restricted in what that $150 can be spent on. I do not know the date of this change, but I think it is sometime in this calendar year.

I wonder if the minister could explain the change that was made to the special needs allowance.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, this was a change that was made through this budgetary process. The things under the revised policy that will be covered under special needs include a newborn allowance, a one‑time allowance within three months of the date of birth of a child up to $250 for the first born and up to $75 for each subsequent child for necessary items for newborns.

Also, what will still be covered is appliance repair and purchase where no other alternative is feasible; one‑time, start‑up household allowance if recipients cannot find furnished accommodations. Beds and bedding are still covered. Moving costs such as moving costs that might accommodate confirmed employment and school supplies are still covered under special needs.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us why this change was made?

Mrs. Mitchelson: This change was made to provide enhanced targeting of benefits and tighten guidelines for items which are provided above and beyond the regular monthly social allowances budget. By limiting these benefits to those situations where the most need exists, we can still provide a good range of benefits while helping to ensure that funds remain available to maintain our overall social safety net. Clients can still wish to budget appropriately for purchases using some of their exempted sources of income where available or some of their liquid assets.

I believe, if I can continue, just that there is enough flexibility maintained within the policy that we can provide in extenuating circumstances over and above the items that I have listed that are still included in special needs on an individual basis.

Mr. Martindale: Enhanced targeting really means saving money on the backs of the poor, does it not?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think it is incumbent upon all of us to spend all of the dollars that we have wisely no matter what program it is. We have included, or left included in our policy, special needs‑‑the items that I listed previously‑‑and have indicated on an individual basis that we can, in exceptional circumstances, look at other approvals. There will be some savings on this side, but I think it is an area where we have thought through very carefully ensuring that those special needs that are required for special circumstances will still be met and we can over and above that. It is tightening of controls, yes.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask about the flexibility, since it is my understanding that all other requests for special needs funding will be considered on a case‑by‑case basis. So what is the criteria when someone comes forward on a case‑by‑case basis? How do frontline staff decide what fits the department's policy and what does not? It seems that the minister already read the list of items that are allowed. When I inquired with staff, I was told all of the requests will be considered on a case‑by‑case basis. So how were those decisions made?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, we will look at individual cases on a case‑by‑case basis, and if there are extenuating circumstances that indicate that we should allow purchase of cutlery or pots and pans, those things will be assessed on an individual basis looking at the background of the circumstances, the situation surrounding the individual.

I might just add to that, we still with this change in policy have one of the most generous special needs policies right across the country.

Mr. Martindale: Well, is it not true that it is not as generous as the City of Winnipeg, which I understand used to be about $135 a year, and after standardization of rates, although they could have lowered it to‑‑no, I am thinking of something else. I guess I had better not finish that question. Everyone is entitled to one mistake, including the minister. I was thinking of some other category, it will come to me.

The member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) is delayed, so I would like to keep this line open, Madam Chairperson, if we can.

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (River Heights): Well, I have a few questions that I want to ask in this particular issue, and I do not want to be repetitious, but it seems to me that there is a significant difference between the figures for Social Allowances and the reduction there and the Social Allowances, Health Services proportion. Is that correct?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, could you just indicate what line we are looking at?

Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Chairperson, I see a 3 percent reduction in Social Allowances a fiscal year, year to year, but there seems to be a greater percentage of reduction in terms of Health Services. I would have thought that the two would have gone hand in hand, and I wonder why they seem to be disproportionate.

* (1440)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the reason for the difference is that they are parts of a program. They do not run absolutely parallel; they both provide for different circumstances. They both provide for different things in the Social Allowances budget, so they do not run absolutely parallel, so there would be different reasons for different amounts.

Mrs. Carstairs: Well, then, for purposes of clarification, is that not the line that in fact takes care of the Health Services for those on social allowance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, it is.

Mrs. Carstairs: Well, presumably it was decided by the government, and I do not know on what evidence, but they obviously decided that they were going to have 3 percent less need for social allowance monies, presumably because there were going to be fewer people on social assistance. I certainly hope that is the case, although I am not as optimistic as the minister seems to be. One would think, therefore, that there would be a proportional change then, bearing some reference to the demand on health services of those same social assistance recipients, and yet this seems to be skewed.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, understanding that the two lines, as I indicated earlier, serve different purposes, and the Social Allowances Health Services line does include services of pharmacists, dentists, opticians, and I guess in the analysis on the cost‑per‑case basis they do not run exactly parallel, so there is a difference in the amount.

There are a couple of changes that we have made in the drug program, and that is that the drug program for social allowances recipients will be brought more into line with the drug program for all Manitobans. The same drugs will be covered, and we are looking at generic substitutes in instances when it is warranted rather than high‑cost prescription drugs. We are also looking at providing larger quantities of medication for those that are on long‑term medication. We are moving to a 100‑day supply in some instances rather than a 30‑day supply. When someone is on a drug for a long extended period of time, and it is not a drug that‑‑for chronic conditions so that the dispensing fees would be less often as a result, so there is some saving in that respect.

Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Chairperson, in terms of the changes to the drug program itself, what drugs have now been removed from payment to social assistance recipients?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have a list here of Amytal, which is a sedative, which is a highly addictive medication, and it is not covered by Pharmacare. There are alternative products available in these instances. Seconal, Ponstan, which is an analgesic, and in most instances there is a less costly drug available. I will just read the names and if there are any questions on what specific drugs are‑‑Idarac, Imitrex, Azogantricin and Anusol.

Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me if the whole category of drugs known as antihistamines are covered for those on social assistance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, we still have a more extensive coverage list than Pharmacare does. We still provide products specifically designed for children and expectant mothers will not be affected or impacted in any way.

* (1450)

Mrs. Carstairs: So, just to clarify, because I was, in fact, given alternative information, and I want to get the minister on the record, because I think what she is saying is what I want to hear her say, is that children who have asthmatic allergic conditions or allergic conditions who have, in fact, been prescribed antihistamines, which are over‑the‑counter drugs, will in fact be eligible to have these covered by social assistance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have a list here of antihistamines, pediatric products for pediatric use are allowed.

Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Chairperson, if the member is agreeable, I am willing to pass this line.

Mr. Martindale: I too noted what the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) noted about a reduction in the appropriation for all of the Social Allowance budgeting. So I would like to ask the minister if she has figures comparing last year's budget item, which was $371,952,700. Does the minister have the fiscal year '93‑94 actuals for Social Assistance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I am told we do not have the final figures yet, but we are underexpended on the Social Allowances line.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I think that is a first. Could the minister tell us why her department is projecting less money to be spent in this fiscal year from last year?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I think we have every expectation that with some of the initiatives that are upcoming that there will be less people on social allowance. We certainly last year did not require all of the money that was budgeted for social assistance, and we were underspent, but we already have announced a $10‑million infrastructure program that has a Welfare to Work component.

We are looking at other options and alternatives to get people off of welfare and into the workforce. We will have some pilot projects on the single moms, single mothers side of things that hopefully will allow us the ability to reduce even further our social assistance caseloads.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if her department has calculated what it would cost if all of their clients in the city of Winnipeg were to be given a free bus pass?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, we are just doing a rough guesstimate, but it would be probably over $10 million a year.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us what it would cost to give everyone on social assistance a telephone? I understand, and I cannot remember whether it is at the city level or the provincial level, but there is already a very high percentage, I think something like 85 percent, already have a telephone, either authorized and paid for by the department or that people are paying for themselves out of their budget. What would it cost approximately if the department were to pay for a telephone for everyone?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, for the provincial caseload I am told it would be about $4 million per year.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to move on to 9.2 2.(c) Welfare to Work, but leave the previous line open since the member from Osborne is going to be back, and I would like to give her an opportunity. I am told we can pass it.

Madam Chairperson: 9.2 2.(b)(2), Health Services, $13,947,400‑‑pass; 2.(b)(3) Municipal Assistance, $106,905,600‑‑pass; 2.(b)(4) Income Assistance for the Disabled, $9,410,000‑‑pass;

9.2 2.(c) Welfare to Work.

Mr. Martindale: I have some questions for the minister on the recommendations to the government regarding single‑parent families, namely the Single Parent Families Report, 1990. I think it was released publicly. I have a press release dated April 23, 1991. This report was put together by the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Since this minister is talking about and has talked considerably about new initiatives to help single parents, I would just like to go back to this report which had, I think, 28 recommendations to help single parents. Since it is in four categories, I wonder if we could start with the first category, of Income Security, and ask the minister what, if any, of the recommendations her department has implemented since the fall of 1990.

* (1500)

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, as a result of the recommendations, I could list the things that have changed over the last three, four years as a result.

We have adjusted the basic benefit rates for inflation. We did in 1991, '92 and '93. The federal child tax benefit and goods and services tax credit has been exempted, the health benefits have been extended to sole‑support parents moving to employment, liquid asset exemption levels were increased significantly for most cases, provincial tax credits were converted to a monthly supplementary benefit. January of 1992, we, as a province, assumed responsibility for sole‑support parents during their first 90 days of separation. That was a change in 1992, '91‑92.

Children's earnings have been exempted from consideration as income. Children's trust accounts have been exempted up to $25,000 if established due to personal injury or death of a parent. Income assistance for the disabled has been introduced. I guess the one thing that I can recall that was very positive, of course, was the maintenance of health benefits for the first year as people move from welfare into employment.

So there has been change made. I think as we look toward the pilot projects that we might be implementing or introducing, we may see some further changes in the way we deal with social allowances and support single parents.

Mr. Martindale: Well, it sounds like a familiar list. I think I had it read to me several times in Question Period and Estimates last year, but under Income Maintenance, of the first seven items listed, this government has acted on one.

Under Income Supplement there are five items. The government has acted on one.