LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, May 16, 1994

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

PRAYERS

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

Introduction of Guests

 

Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Dr. Garcia Reyes, Head, Generality of Cataluna, President's Department, External Affairs, Relations with the United States and Canada.

 

          On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here today, sir.

 

          Also with us today, we have 10 senior provincial 4H public speaking competitors, and they are under the direction of Mr. David Hay.

 

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

 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

 

Immigrant Investor Program

Federal Government Policy

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

 

          On Friday, we learned that the federal government allegedly is going to override the provincial decision on freezing Immigrant Investor Funds in the province of Manitoba.  The freeze that the government implemented arose out of a long series of investigations and inquiries dealing with the integrity of the way money is raised, the integrity of the way it is invested and the integrity of money in the fund.

 

          Mr. Speaker, we were very concerned when we heard about this decision.  We wonder, can the First Minister indicate whether that is indeed the decision of the federal government to override the provincial government in terms of the Immigrant Investor Funds in Manitoba, and what rationale is the federal government utilizing in this decision?

 

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to reiterate the fact that this Immigrant Investor Program is a federal government program, not a provincial program.

 

          It was this government that initiated a review, an investigation into the activities of the Immigrant Investor Fund, and the conditions have not been met that we have put forward.  In fact, we had asked that an independent representation for the investor be put in place, the court‑directed solution be carried out, and that full disclosure to the investors be made available.  Those are the three conditions which this government put forward, Mr. Speaker, and they still have not been met.

 

Immigrant Investor Program

Federal Government Policy

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, we will recall that the Crewson report dated May 19, 1993, indicated on dealing with the proposals in question that in a report there is a cash deficiency in the escrow accounts to complete the project, based on either the projected budget or the revised budget.

 

          Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a cash shortage in some of the projects that are now apparently getting federal government approval, according to the accountant hired by the provincial government to provide an analysis of these funds.

 

          These projects represent investments by immigrants in our province, and it represents an issue of credibility for credible investments in the province of Manitoba.

 

          I would ask, again, the Premier:  How can the federal government override the freeze that the provincial government has put in place, when one of the funds has been documented not to have enough money in the fund to complete the projects?  It seems to me to be very unfair to investors and very, very unfair to our reputation.

 

* (1335)

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) said, that is precisely why we have concerns.  We have told the federal government very directly that we do not support the removal of the freeze because much of what was produced by the auditor who investigated on behalf of the provincial government‑‑and I emphasize that the audit was caused by this government, that the federal government of the day, the previous federal government, did not agree with it and would not pay for the work that Mr. Crewson did in identifying the concerns with it.

 

          Yet all of that has been overridden by the federal government today, and the only way in which I can respond to the Leader of the Opposition is to tell him that this is totally within federal jurisdiction, that this Immigrant Investor Program is totally a federal program and within their jurisdiction to remove the freeze.

 

          We disagree with it, but they have proceeded on that basis.

 

Mr. Doer:  I am sure we will have all‑party agreement on this matter.  I remember the former Finance critic of the Liberal Party, who is now a member of Parliament, indicating in 1993 that they were opposed to visas being sold for purposes of immigration, Mr. Speaker.

 

          It quite concerns us because with the new government in late 1993, the new minister, Mr. Marchi, indicated that they would be reviewing and curtailing the Conservative Immigrant Investor Fund as part of their new federal program.  So we were quite surprised to hear about the approval of these investments.

 

          I would ask the provincial government, given that the original decision required a recommendation of the Province of Manitoba prior to the federal government getting an approval, and given the fact that we have frozen our decisions and frozen these funds given the fact that some of these funds do not even contain the original amount of money that was indicated, will the provincial government, on top of the freeze, be required to rescind the decisions, to recommend to the federal government that these funds be approved?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition knows that we were not in a position, we did not have the authority to freeze those funds, but as a result of the findings of the investigation of Mr. Crewson, the auditor whom we hired to do that review, clearly there were major concerns that were identified and conditions that he was recommending that needed to be fulfilled, so the government of the day, which was the former government in Ottawa, did cause the freeze on all those funds.  The new federal government, against our wishes and recommendations but totally within their jurisdiction, have now removed that freeze.

 

Crown Corporations

Layoff Statistics

 

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  Mr. Speaker, there is continuing evidence of the impact of the government's economic policies, which resulted in high unemployment, a combination of public sector layoffs, the continuing concerns expressed about Bill 22, continuing minimum wages.

 

          I would like to ask the acting Minister of Labour if the government can indicate the total number of public sector jobs that will be lost in terms of Manitoba Hydro following the announcement of layoffs last year and the announcement of layoffs in the Manitoba Telephone System only a few weeks ago.

 

* (1340)

 

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act):  Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friend is referring to the recent news coverage on Friday last, that is the final working through of the corporation of some downsizing of 500 that was commenced approximately one year ago.

 

Mr. Ashton:  I would like to ask as a follow‑up question, Mr. Speaker, how the government can justify having brought in Bill 22, supposedly to preserve jobs in the public sector, having had that communicated to Manitoba Hydro workers, and now we are seeing today that upwards of 500 jobs have been cut from Manitoba Hydro following the announcement last year, and there are continuing layoffs in such areas as Manitoba Telephone System, when some of those Crown corporations are making a considerable profit?

 

Mr. Orchard:  First of all, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend should get his facts straight before he makes such statements to the House.  There are not 500 layoffs at Manitoba Hydro as my honourable friend alleges.  There was a downsizing of some 500 positions commenced a year ago.

 

          We expect by the time the most recent layoffs, which are approximately 100, filter through, with every effort being made at redeployment, there will be a significantly lesser figure of actual people who will be laid off after redeployment has taken effect.

 

          So I do not want my honourable friend to indirectly provide incorrect information to the people, but, Mr. Speaker, maybe my honourable friend would support the president of the MGEA who preferred 500 people to be laid off, rather than the 10 days off.  Maybe that is the position of my honourable friend the New Democrat:  more layoffs, not less.

 

Mr. Ashton:  Mr. Speaker, we would like to see jobs maintained in the Manitoba economy.  That is what we would like to see.

 

Reduced Workweek

Impact on Service

 

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  My final question is to the Premier, once again in regard to the implications of Bill 22.

 

           There is an indication today, Mr. Speaker, that the chamber of commerce is concerned that service has been affected, particularly in rural and northern communities, because of the impact of Filmon Fridays.

 

          As we enter the latest round of Filmon Fridays, will the Premier respond to the concerns that have been expressed, not only by civil servants and by members of public but now by the chamber of commerce, and recognize that there has been reduction in services and review what is happening in terms of services because of Filmon Fridays?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Manitoba chambers of commerce who are taking a far more sensible, common‑sense approach to this, rather than the dogmatic, ideological, narrow approach of the New Democrats who would rather see 500 people laid off.  We will not accept that solution.

 

          We believe that the public does want their taxes kept down.  We believe that the public does want us to continue to look for ways to make government more efficient.  We are going to heed some of the advice that many people throughout the province have given us that coincides with that of the Manitoba chambers of commerce and look for ways of ensuring that it is applied in a common‑sense fashion with flexibility.  That flexibility will allow us to continue to maintain services while at the same time to reduce our payroll by $20 million and maintain 500 more jobs in the public service.

 

Regional Economic Co‑operation

International Trade

 

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

 

          The Premier, later this week, will be meeting with other western Premiers in Gimli at the Western Premiers' Conference.  In view of that, I want to speak briefly about international trade.  He has put that in the press releases as a key area of concern.

 

          Just some time ago, we closed down our Hong Kong office, as the Premier well knows, and Mr. Walker, who had been heading up that office, was put on a contract.

 

          My question for the Premier is, perhaps he can enlighten us, after that 19‑day trip that he took last fall to the Orient, on what basis that decision was made and whether or not he is going to be proposing to the other Premiers that perhaps this is an area that the western provinces could co‑operate in.

 

          Is there some way that we should be co‑operating as a region to have a more substantial presence in the Far East?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, that proposal was made two years ago at a Western Premiers' Conference.  It was repeated again last year.  It was, in fact, discussed on December 21 in Ottawa with all of the First Ministers of Canada.  We will continue to pursue the opportunity to have joint missions as opposed to individual missions, because the member may know that during the course of the month and a half or so prior to Christmas, there were five different Premiers from Canada who were over in the Asia‑Pacific region.  So it makes ultimate good sense.

 

          The move with respect to the representation in Hong Kong was one strictly of ensuring that we could operate more efficiently by hiring the same individual on a contract basis, rather than undergoing the immense cost of space that I think exceeds $100 a square foot to maintain premises in Hong Kong, whereas the individual who is the key to the operation can be hired on a contract for less and not have to have the expenses, yet can get the same effect for our services and for assurances that we can keep in touch with and promote our business interests in that Asia‑Pacific region.

 

          Mr. Walker will very happily be part of our continued effort to expand business, trade and opportunities in the Asia‑Pacific region.

 

Regional Economic Co‑operation

Walker Contract

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, again for the Premier (Mr. Filmon), Mr. Walker, I understand, is currently in the process of negotiating a contract with the province for the new arrangement.  I note that he has been the employee, the head of that mission in Hong Kong.

 

          Now that he is moving to a contract basis, will there be a commission aspect of that contract?  Will Mr. Walker be paid a straight salary, as he has been, or a straight amount of money, or will there, in fact, be some relationship to what is actually secured in terms of investment in Manitoba as a part of his pay package?

 

* (1345)

 

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):  Mr. Speaker, the detail of the contract I am prepared to get for the member.  I do not believe that there is a commission part to the contract.

 

          There is a quantity that he will be paid, but there will be an ability for him to, as well, contract his services to other individuals who may need those services when he is not, in fact, working on behalf of the government of Manitoba's interests, which we believe will broaden the interests on behalf of the people of Manitoba and enhance the opportunities to encourage business to come to this province from the Asia‑Pacific area.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, no doubt.  However, I do ask the minister to consider tying some remuneration to actual productivity and actually securing investment in this province from that region now that they are going to a contract as opposed to an employee basis.

 

Regional Economic Co‑operation

Procurement Policy

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, my final question for the First Minister:  The procurement agreement which is currently in place between the western provinces does not include the largest departments this government operates, that of Health and Education, and currently does not include the contracts under the Crown corporations.

 

          Is that going to be a key priority for this Premier in the upcoming session?  Clearly, the biggest expenditure departments and the Crown corporations are essential to making this overall western co‑operative effort work, in particular in terms of procurement, seeing as we already have an agreement in place.  It just excludes the major departments.

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, what we will be attempting to do from a Manitoba perspective is broaden the agreement so that it does include as much as possible the procurement initiatives of the governments of the western provinces.

 

          We are very much aware that although we have an agreement that was, I might say, the first in Canada‑‑the western provinces signed it in 1990; it was the first in Canada among provinces‑‑it does not go far enough and it does not include, for instance, destructive competition for investment.

 

          So we will be looking at broadening it and extending it to include as many areas as we possibly can for co‑operation and access to each other's procurement markets.

 

Health Care System

TQM Training Program

 

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a manual produced in the United States which deals with total quality management and is used together with a video about how to make juice and is utilized at several Winnipeg hospitals to train staff.  Just quoting from it, it says one of the reasons that third‑ring organizations can charge more is their customers feel they get their money's worth.  They return for more and more and tell others about the quality.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister:  Is it government policy that this program, which is being used at these hospitals, is approved by the government to teach and train staff at Winnipeg hospitals?

 

* (1350)

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is that the honourable member has against the Seven Oaks Hospital.  Repeatedly he batters the administration and the staff and employees at Seven Oaks Hospital for trying to improve patient care and service for all people who have dealings with the Seven Oaks Hospital.

 

          First of all, he is against improving discharge service for people so that they can receive appropriate home care, and now he is against a total quality approach to better service for the patient.  I just do not understand where the honourable member is coming from.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister:  Since it is the government's plan that has called for TQM to be introduced at all the hospitals, as related in their own reform document and their own throne speech in '91‑‑if the minister looked to read it‑‑since it is government policy, I am wondering is it not possible for the government at least to have a plan that is made‑in‑Manitoba and deals with health care sector, rather than used cars and juice‑making?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the honourable member has against Seven Oaks Hospital or against trying to do a better job for the patients.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Speaker, the government could do well by improving the CAT scanning facilities at Seven Oaks Hospital.

 

          Mr. Speaker, in light of the Connie Curran fiasco, will the government not introduce, because they said they would in their own health care plan, a program that is made‑in‑Manitoba and deals with health care and its approach to people, not this custom, assembly‑line, U.S.‑based kind of industrial program that is not applicable?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Mr. Speaker, our health care system is a made‑in‑Canada health care system.  It is governed by a national Health Act which is a statute of the Parliament of Canada.

 

          The honourable member is afraid of anything that will improve service for patients because his union boss friends will get angry.

 

Railway Industry

Hopper Car Shortage

 

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Agriculture is in Winnipeg today meeting with representatives from the grain industry to talk about the serious problem there is in the industry with the shortage of hopper cars.  They are meeting with representatives of the industry.  Unfortunately, farm groups will not be there to raise their concerns.

 

          I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture what message he will be taking to the meeting or whether he will be meeting with the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that the issue of shortage of hopper cars is addressed.  Will he be asking for additional cars to be built?  Will he be suggesting that grain be shipped through the Port of‑‑

 

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

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the member for Swan River.  The meeting that is occurring while we speak has more to do with what can we as Canadians do to better utilize the cars that we have in the system.  My understanding is that the questions range from looking at some of our own legislation.  When I say "our own," I am speaking primarily of federal legislation.

 

          There is considerable concern that the bureaucracy that runs the Western Grain Transportation program needs to be revised, looked at, indeed fundamentally altered.  It is not so much a question of not having enough rolling stock in the system, it is having them here and where we need them at the appropriate time.  That is what is going on at that meeting this afternoon, Sir.

 

Ms. Wowchuk:  Mr. Speaker, since it is the industry that is responsible for getting the hopper cars, as the minister says, will the minister raise with the Minister of Agriculture the possibility of the railway companies paying the demurrage at the port, instead of all that cost being picked up by farmers?

 

          It is not the farmers' fault that the cars are not there.  Why will he not speak up for the farmers and have the railway companies pick up the demurrage costs?

 

Mr. Enns:  Mr. Speaker, I will make a deal with the honourable member for Swan River.  I will certainly suggest to the railway companies that they have a responsibility with respect to any unnecessary demurrage charges that are accrued to the farmers if she will take that same position when organized labour walks out on strike, as they did in Vancouver, and leaves the farmers with millions of dollars in demurrage charges.  These are the kinds of issues that I understand are being discussed.

 

          As to whether or not we have to fundamentally overhaul our grain handling system, it is just not fair to the farmers of Canada that our customers should be left waiting.  It is jeopardizing our position in the international trade markets.

 

          Mr. Speaker, these are legitimate points that will be raised, I am sure, at this meeting.

 

Ms. Wowchuk:  Mr. Speaker, the minister should remember that that was a lockout and we would‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  This is not a time for debate.  The honourable member for Swan River, with your question.

 

* (1355)

 

Grain Transportation Proposal

Government Position

 

Ms. Roseann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he will also be raising the issue of the Crow benefit.  Since the Crow benefit was changed under the previous Conservative government and is now carried out by the Liberal government, reducing the benefit by 15 percent, farmers' freight bills will be rising an average of 54 cents per tonne at a time when the NTA says the transportation costs for shipping grain is reducing.

 

          Will he stand up with farmers on that, and will he support final offer selection next time there is a labour dispute?

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand up for the farmers of Manitoba and of Canada, and I do that whenever I can.

 

          The question that she specifically raises, however, is far too complicated to answer in the short period allotted to me here in Question Period.  I invite her to pose these questions to our officials when we deal with the departmental Estimates which will be coming up shortly.  I will have the necessary staff available to provide all those answers.

 

          This is not the meeting that has to do with internal broader agricultural policies like the Crow benefit, although they play a role in it.  I also suggest that all of us in this Chamber ought to be thinking about when those transportation subsidies come off our feed grains, what are we going to do with the feed grains?

 

          One of the answers is, we can raise hogs.  We can raise more livestock.  We can raise more chickens.  I want some support for that from honourable members opposite, Mr. Speaker.

 

Minimum Wage

Review

 

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  In December 1990, the Minister of Labour announced that the minimum wage would be increased.  At the same time he claimed that he recognized the importance of reviewing the minimum wage on a regular basis.

 

          The Minimum Wage Board has not met since 1990, and there has been no annual review of minimum wages in Manitoba which have now fallen considerably below the national average.

 

          Will the Premier today tell the House why his government has not met its commitment to Manitobans who are earning the minimum wage?  Will he explain why it has been four years since his government looked at that minimum wage?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  First and foremost, we have been working to ensure that those on minimum wage are in a much more favourable position vis‑à‑vis the taxes that they no longer pay as a result of the efforts of this government.

 

          In addition to that, I would have thought that the member for Wolseley would have been complimenting the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) for striking the minimum wage review board now so that this matter can be looked at and we can review just exactly how the changes that have taken place since 1990 have affected those on minimum wage, and we can take a good position together on adjustments to the minimum wage.

 

Ms. Friesen:  It is difficult to compliment a minister who promises one thing and does nothing.

 

          Will the Premier give us a clear commitment today on behalf of his government of his opposition to a two‑tiered minimum wage rate in Manitoba to give some assurance to the increasing number of students who as a result of this government's policy must combine work and study?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to listen to all of the people of Manitoba and do what is best for them in the circumstances.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Will the Premier then confirm that his government's labour strategy, whether it has been in the ending of FOS, in the 18‑month delays on the construction wages act, in the absence of any discussion of the minimum wage act, that his policy, clear and simple, has been to create in Manitoba a low‑wage, low‑skilled province?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Absolutely not.  I think that the member opposite is an intelligent person who has certain knowledge of many things, but on this issue she is out to lunch.  I just invite her to read things that are being said about Manitoba in the new areas of the new economy.  This from the Telesolutions magazine that says, Manitoba offering a philosophy of economic development.  The province of Manitoba has become a player in the call centre community the old‑fashioned way‑‑they have earned it.

 

          It goes on to tell all about the things that Manitoba is doing to attract high‑tech jobs in telecommunications, in computers, in aerospace, in all of those things, Mr. Speaker.  I reject totally the absolutely foolish statement that she just made.

 

* (1400)

 

Boot Camps

Programming Regulations

 

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

 

          I would like to congratulate the minister for adopting Manitoba's recommendation for a more humane approach to camps for young offenders and her rejection of the military‑style boot camps announced in her nine‑point plan of February 17.

 

          I also want to thank the minister for sharing with me the document entitled, Guidelines For Proposal To Operate A Youth Camp, produced by her department.

 

          I ask the minister:  Given that, according to the guideline, programming for camps may consist of activities, including school, substance abuse treatment, aboriginal culture awareness, what regulations will be put in place to ensure that privately run camps include these important elements in their programming?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Mr. Speaker, the member has obviously misread the original announcement. [interjection] Yes, it says boot camp.  However, I will make it very clear that I have always been clear that this will be a made‑in‑Manitoba solution, that it will be developed in Manitoba, and I have been clear from the very beginning about the principles that boot camps will operate within.

 

          I have made it clear it will be made‑in‑Manitoba, highly structured, well‑known rules, consequences that are well known, an austere environment and a high level of activity or work.  In that, there has always been an assumption that this will be humane treatment.  The member has not found anything new.

 

Mr. Kowalski:  I have the news release here that talks about boot camps, military boot camps, and if she would like to read it, I could share‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order.  Question.

 

Mr. Kowalski:  Mr. Speaker, my question:  If these camps are privately run, how can the people of Manitoba be sure that public safety and the rehabilitation of young offenders will not be compromised for the sake of profit?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no decision on privatization, so I think the member had better back up there.  I would like to tell him, from the day of the announcement Manitobans strongly supported more rigorous confinement in our institutions, and that is exactly the way we are moving.

 

          Manitobans also believe that they have opinions and they have information to offer.  So, unsolicited‑‑and let me make that clear‑‑we received proposals and information from Manitobans.  In an effort to standardize what they sent to us, we put together the letter which said, if you have information to offer, here are the issues that we are looking at so that you can cover all of the areas of importance to us.

 

Mr. Kowalski:  My final supplementary:  Will the minister ensure that adequate staffing resources are in place to monitor and enforce these regulations if these are privately run facilities?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  The member, of course, is dealing with a hypothetical, the if, if.  However, I would be happy to say that anything we put in place in Manitoba will certainly ensure that the treatment follows exactly what we have said.

 

          Let me make it clear again.  We are looking at, obviously, humane conditions, but we are not looking at summer camp.

 

Provincial Sales Tax

Arrears

 

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):  Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.

 

          Almost a month ago I asked the minister to table the outstanding arrears in sales tax collection.  At that time he said that he had recently received such a report.

 

          This morning at the Public Accounts committee the minister said he had still not obtained such a list.  Now, I would like to know, which is it?  Does he have it, or does he not have it?  When is he going to release it?

 

          I would like to know when he is going to be able to tell the House how long ago his department was aware that‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  You have put your question already, sir.

 

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance):  Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is a shortage of questions today from the opposition party because the honourable member did raise this issue with me this morning in Public Accounts.  I did indicate to him that I would obtain the information.  I have asked my deputy minister to look into it.

 

          There are certain aspects of confidentiality whenever you are dealing with an individual taxpayer here in Manitoba, which I think we can all appreciate in this House, or at least I hope we can.  But I have undertaken to provide him with answers to his questions and will do so very shortly.

 

Manitoba Securities Commission

Clancy's Ventures Group

 

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):  It is clear that we are not going to get any answers from this Minister of Finance.

 

          My supplementary is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the minister responsible for the Securities Commission.  Maybe we can get some answers from him.

 

          Can the minister explain why a letter from an investor to the commission questioning 13 concerns over the way Clancy's was operated, dated last June, was not responded to by either the minister or the commission?

 

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):  I can advise the House that the commission is just that, an independent commission.  It is not controlled by the minister, but if the member wishes information I will inquire.

 

Mr. Maloway:  My final supplementary to the same minister is this:  Will the minister also check whether the second letter from a group of investors to the commission dated this May 3 is going to be investigated?

 

          Will he also investigate what role the Securities Commission is playing in this business collapse?

 

Mr. Ernst:  Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

 

VIA Rail

Layoffs

 

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  My question is to the Acting Minister of Highways and Transportation.  Before September of this year, CN Rail will, after 75 years, move from the VIA Union Station location.  There are currently some 360 employees working for CN at the Union Station.

 

          My question is for the acting minister:  Has the minister met with CN to discuss the implications of this move?  Will any CN or VIA employees be losing their jobs as a result of CN's move from this location?

 

Hon. Albert Driedger (Acting Minister of Highways and Transportation):  Mr. Speaker, I will take the specifics of the question as notice for the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), but I want to give an indication to the member and to the House that the minister has been meeting with CN and VIA people on an ongoing basis to try and raise the concerns that Manitobans have about what is happening.

 

Mr. Reid:  Can the acting minister tell the House, Mr. Speaker, what the impact of CN's move will be on VIA's operation and viability in the province of Manitoba?

 

Mr. Driedger:  I will take that question as notice, as well, on behalf of the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

 

Mr. Reid:  Will the Acting Minister of Highways and Transportation tell the House or confirm to the House, Mr. Speaker, that there will indeed be job losses for the custodial and maintenance staff of the CN workforce in Manitoba?

 

Mr. Driedger:  Mr. Speaker, no, I will not confirm that.

 

Personal Care Homes

Flin Flon, Manitoba

 

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):  Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Health busies his staff with the hospitality‑plus approach to our hospital system, there are almost 30 senior citizens staying in extended‑care hospital beds in the Flin Flon General Hospital, awaiting a placement in the personal care home.

 

          Mr. Speaker, since 1988, the Flin Flon area has been awaiting the construction of a 66‑bed personal care home.  I would like to know whether the Minister of Health intends to place the 66 beds that are desperately needed in Flin Flon on the agenda for construction this year.

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I will take the honourable member's question as a representation on behalf of his constituency and remind him that province‑wide, certainly much, much progress has been in the area of community care and long‑term care as an alternative to acute care.

 

          We do not see ourselves as being in the hospitality business, but I would like to correct the honourable member's comment that my staff are involved in programming in a particular hospital; in this case, the Seven Oaks Hospital which the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) repeatedly attacks in this House.

 

          That is a program of Seven Oaks, but from what I know of that program, it puts the patient first, and that is the right approach, as far as I am concerned.

 

Mr. Storie:  Mr. Speaker, the minister had a previous occasion to repudiate the hospitality‑plus approach to health care in the province.

 

          My question was, after waiting now six years, will this minister indicate to the people in Flin Flon and particularly those who have relatives, mothers and fathers, in extended‑care beds‑‑will he now commit to building the personal care home which has been promised for six years?  It is a simple question.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Mr. Speaker, I said in my last response that I would take the honourable member's question as a representation.  As he knows, there are at any given time any number of proposals in Manitoba for various kinds of capital projects.  We look at the care needs of people in all the regions when we make our decisions about the long‑term care requirements.

 

* (1410)

 

Mental Health Care

Rural Manitoba

 

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):  Mr. Speaker, on a different subject but to the same minister, the minister will have received a letter from one of the people participating in the mental health committee respecting the improvements that this minister announced for the communities of The Pas and Flin Flon.  One of the concerns is the level of human resource training.

 

          My question to the minister is:  After receiving the expression of concern from people in the Flin Flon and The Pas area about the lack of training that is going into mental health workers and particularly in the area of developing physician capability, will the minister now undertake to make sure that the human resources are in place so this proposal that the minister has put in place will actually be effective in northern Manitoba?

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  We certainly want the community‑based model of mental health care delivery to be successful, Mr. Speaker.  In order for that to happen we are going to need dedicated and trained individuals.  That is one of the reasons that we have supported, along with the University of Manitoba, a program to train physicians, notably physicians in rural Manitoba, but physicians in psychiatric issues.

 

          Not every community will have a psychiatrist living in it.  At the present time in the first round of the program we have I believe six physicians being trained in further psychiatric knowledge.  This is not to make psychiatrists out of them, but it is to attempt to make general practitioners able to deliver a wider range of services to their patients.

 

Social Assistance

Single‑Parent Families

 

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, last week in a question to the Minister of Family Services I quoted from a paper titled:  Federal‑Provincial Framework Paper‑‑Sole Parents Pilot Project.  The minister seemed unfamiliar with this paper.  Perhaps it is because the federal government has not shared it with her yet.

 

          I find this surprising in view of a press release put out by the federal and provincial governments in which the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is quoted as saying:  The public and private sectors need to work together to identify solutions that will get welfare recipients back to work and enable them to become self‑sufficient.

 

          Can the minister tell us if her federal counterparts have now shared their position and their proposals on the sole parent project, and if so, could the minister inform the House?

 

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services):  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious by that question that my honourable friend across the way has never been in government and quite probably never will be.

 

          The fact of the matter is that from time to time, right throughout government, in any department, at any level there are working papers and working documents that the bureaucracy prepares from time to time.  Nothing moves forward from a government or a ministry unless there is ministerial approval.  A working paper that the federal government produces is not necessarily something that receives approval from a provincial minister or provincial ministry.

 

Mr. Speaker:  The time for Oral Questions has expired.

 

Committee Changes

 

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows:  Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for Thompson (Mr. Ashton); Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), for Tuesday, May 17, 10 a.m.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):  I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows:  Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs).

 

Motion agreed to.

 

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 Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows:  the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay); the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey); the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); and the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).

 

Motion agreed to.

 

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

 

Arctic Harvest Wilderness Trip

 

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

 

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):  I rise today to congratulate, Mr. Speaker, members of the Arctic Harvest team, almost all of them from Fisher Branch and area, for their recent unique and amazing 14‑day trip from Churchill to the Arctic Circle.  This trip has never been done before.

 

          At this time, I would like to read off the names of the members of the trip:  Cubby Barrett and his sons, Kris, Karl and Doug; Dave Bouchard; Gerald Deneau; Jules Giasson; Dr. Bass Gouweloos, who, Mr. Speaker, is a doctor from South Africa; John Rudyk; from Stonewall, Kelly Langevin, John Hrominchuk, Sergeant Wyman Sangster, Lorne Ross; from Swan River, Ivan Balenovis and from Sebastian, Florida, Dennis La Beur.

 

          As members may be aware, the crew travelled on 14 snowmobiles over some of the most difficult terrain in this country along the Hudson Bay to Repulse Bay.

 

          I want to particularly congratulate and commend Arctic Harvest organizer Cubby Barrett and RCMP Sergeant Wyman Sangster who came up with the idea to make this journey and make it a fundraiser for the Winnipeg Harvest food bank.

 

          Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Does the honourable Minister of Agriculture have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, the modesty that honourable members have become accustomed to has prevented myself or my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) to have drawn the House's attention to this indeed very worthwhile and exciting wilderness trip that the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) quite appropriately puts on the record.

 

          It was, in fact, the privilege that I had shared with the Minister of Natural Resources with the same group to explore the beauty and the wonder of the Seal River just a year ago in a similar wilderness occasion that got us out onto the rough waters of the Hudson Bay in our light canoe craft for a very worthwhile experience.  A few years earlier, I and the same group travelled the historic Hayes River to its final destination up at York Factory.

 

          So I appreciate the comments that the honourable member for Interlake put on the record.  I know that my colleagues with whom we have enjoyed these wilderness trips will appreciate their public recognition in the journals of this Chamber.

 

          Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

ORDERS OF THE DAY

 

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), 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 Health.

 

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 2.(c)(1) on page 38 of the Estimates book.

 

          Item 2. School Programs (c) Assessment and Evaluation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $675,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $361,100‑‑pass.

 

          (d) Native Education Directorate (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $159,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $79,700‑‑pass.

 

          (e) Program Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,506,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $998,100‑‑pass.

 

          (f) Program Implementation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,776,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $3,495,400‑‑pass; (3) Less:  Recoverable from Other Appropriations (7.5).

 

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just for the record, we have discussed a number of issues under all of these under education reform and therefore are passing these at this time.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Item 2.(g) Student Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,905,300.

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  A couple of weeks ago I had asked the minister under this particular area why there was a substantial cut of 22.5 percent.  In asking the question there was a great deal of concern that in fact the minister talks about a budget which is fair and appropriate and that everyone has to share the pain.

 

          If we take a look at the Student Services and the individuals that the Student Services serves, one has to question whether or not this is in fact a reflection of sharing the pain that the government is talking about.

 

          I guess I will just start off by asking the specific question, why was it cut 22.5 percent?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  There are a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that part of this service is now provided under a different program area, that being within the Program Implementation area, so we are not quite comparing apples and oranges here, firstly.

 

          To drive that point home I would like to indicate to the member that we have the same number of vision and hearing consultants that we always had.  We just sort of changed the location of housing some of their staff years, so that is the main reason for the reduction.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I notice even under the Program Implementation line that there was in fact a decrease.  So the minister is indicating because of reshuffling that the 22.5 percent could be found under the Program Implementation line?  I am wondering if the minister can then assure us that part of the objective, no doubt, is to ensure that the materials that are necessary are, in fact, there and in place.  Can he give us some sort of an assurance that the level of services, then, for those within the special needs or the student services are not going to be handicapped in any way or any fashion by this particular line cut?

 

* (1430)

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know it is never easy when you are on the other side of the table to follow these changes that result because of a divisional reorganization, but I would indicate to him that the following positions:  Statistics Specialist, Consultant Special Education, Consultant Special Education Extreme Behaviour Disordered Learning Specialist, Senior Psychologist, all of these specialists are now to be found within the provincial specialists listing.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  The list that the minister just read off, is there any change in terms of responsibilities that they will be incurring as a result of the transfer over?

 

Mr. Manness:  The answer is no.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  My question, then, would go back to the original thought of, can the minister give assurances that those individuals who require the student services will, in fact, be receiving at least at the same level that they received last year?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, generally I can make that statement, but there may be some nuance of a service that maybe has impacted, if for no other reason a person is in a new department or a new division or a branch as compared to the other, but generally across the way, there was no intent here to withdraw services.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know the other day I had asked some questions with respect to the special needs funding.  The minister had indicated that it might not necessarily have been the most appropriate line.  I wonder if I could ask some specific information with respect to that special needs at this time.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, whatever the member wishes.  I now have the information.  The question is probably more properly put in another section, but I think I have information I can deal with a specific school division if he wishes that right now.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I know I had requested the minister if, in fact, he could give us some sort of actual cost.  I believe the two school divisions I had given him were Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and Winnipeg Seven Oaks School Division, specifically in terms of the special needs I formula funding received.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, answering that question, this now is not the special $10‑million funding I am talking about.  I am talking about the general formula funding in support of Level I, II and III and the clinician services and all the special ed needs that flow under formula.

 

          There were roughly $90 million spent in '93‑94.  Winnipeg School Division's share of that was $19 million and the other school division requested was Seven Oaks.  Their allocation was $4.6 million, again, based on the criteria that are in place.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  The minister is referring to specials I through III.  The biggest problem with that is that the special needs II and III, from what I understand, is decided upon request, where you actually have to identify the individual who would be the recipient of those funds, whereas the special needs I is something that is given via formula.

 

          I am wondering if the minister can give us the special needs I.  It is the formula that is being used to justify the amount of resources going to each school division that we are really calling into account.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the formula is this.  You take the number of students within the school division‑‑and I think there are roughly 33,000 in Winnipeg School Division No. 1‑‑and you divide it by 180.  That is the divisor, 180.  Whatever you come up with, then you multiply by the allocation on a professional basis of $43,700.  That used to be $45,000, but it too received a decrease this year to $43,700.  That is the funding that, in part, I guess would be maybe the significant portion of the $18 million or the $19 million to Winnipeg School Division No. 1, but not all of it.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I guess that is what we were at least trying to refer to the other day when I was asking the questions.  The formula that the minister just finished indicating, does it not work to the advantage, if you will‑‑if there is an advantage to be had‑‑to school divisions that do not necessarily have the same demographic socioeconomic impact?  I know the minister had made reference to a manner in which he was supplementing that.  I would ask the minister maybe if he can expand on that for me.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know what point the member is trying to get to.  If he is saying there is just not enough money put into it, come out and say that.  We sense that the formula, although it is working and although it is working well, and although it is working in keeping with what the divisions want, because the divisions did not want to identify person by person by person, it just took too much administrative time, too much additional cost.  They wanted to go to formula.

 

          So we went to formula and that is what I have given you.  But we realized that there is a problem with the formula.  Even though it probably addressed the reality of the situation, overall it still was a little bit short.  So we put in an additional $10 million‑‑

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Was that for special needs?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, students at risk.  We put another $10 million into that pot of which Winnipeg School Division, from memory, was around $5.9 million.  So we have recognized that.

 

          Now if the member says, well, that still is not enough, then he is going to have to say that.  I think, in principle, we have tried to reflect, firstly, a system where you do not have to build massive administrations and do all this counting.

 

          Secondly, we tried to take into account the fact that Winnipeg School Division still under the formula is probably short, given the experience.  They then command virtually 60 percent of the additional funding, again in support of students at risk.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Does the minister see any difference between students at risk, let us say, and special needs I students?  Is there a difference between the two?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, there certainly is a difference.  Special needs would deal with those who are suffering from autism, those who have some real special learning disabilities, whereas students at risk are those who have learning difficulties due to migrancy, again, social economic factors, more so than inherent learning disabilities.

 

          I will give you some of the examples:  migrancy, income, single‑parent families, academic achievement and second language.  There may be overlap.  But still a larger number of the students at risk not called into question is their ability to learn‑‑when I say their ability to learn, their inherent ability to learn.  What is called into question is their ability to learn because of outside influences.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister quite correctly demonstrates that there is a difference between the special needs and students at risk yet does not acknowledge, through funding, the differences between school divisions and their need for funding resources.

 

          I tried to indicate to the minister, speaking strictly with the special needs I students, which is based on a formula in which everyone, whether you are a private school, whether you are in a school division that has a significantly smaller number of students per capita than other school divisions‑‑and the minister refuses to really acknowledge the difference between those school divisions.  I think that is a mistake.

 

          He talks about this review that is ongoing, dealing with the special needs students.  I would strongly encourage the minister that whole area of that funding formula, if you will, can be improved upon, primarily because you are penalizing a significant portion of the student base by not acknowledging where there is the greater need.  Even though he talked about the additional, I believe it was, $10 million for students at risk, the minister himself acknowledges that those are different students, those are not the same students as the special needs.

 

* (1440)

 

          I want to go on to some other questions on special needs, but I know the minister would like to respond to what I just said.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot leave the comment unchallenged.  This is exactly the line of questioning we reviewed last week.  That is fine.  We will go through it again.

 

          The fact is, No. 1, the government has understood that.  I can remember when we were on the other side of the table and we asked the very same questions of the NDP government and they put additional funding in.  I want to remind the member in case he forgets that when we brought in the new formula in '91‑92, we increased Level I, Level II, Level III support by 40 percent.  As a matter of fact, it was one of the issues, believe it or not, that got tried into the support of independent schools.  Anyway that is for another time.

 

          The reality is, this government has again, in keeping with the arguments put forward by the member, increased funding in these areas by 40 percent.  The member then would seem to try and leave an impression that all the special needs problems are in the city of Winnipeg.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  No.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, he says no.  Then he says he wants one or two things, and I hope he would be so honest to say so.  Either he wants a shift or he wants more money yet, and if he does, say so; or secondly he wants to shift away from these divisions here, all of them, all of them who receive a portion, including Brandon which receives $3.2 million.  He wants to shift away‑‑and I will table this, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.  He wants to shift away then from Brandon.  He wants to shift away from Dauphin Ochre.  He wants to shift away from Morris‑MacDonald into the city of Winnipeg.  He wants one or two things.

 

          Why does he not tell us which he wants, because I can tell you he cannot have it both ways in sitting idly by and just saying, well, this is inappropriate, because right now what we are doing is we have done it, not by favouritism or ad hockery where we try and guess and all that, we have done it in keeping with what the divisions have asked for, and that is a system of a divisor.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is very important the minister note that what I am referring to is the special needs I, which is based on the formula.  If he is asking in terms of a very specific, well, let me give him a very specific.  I do not believe it is appropriate, for example, for Ravenscourt to receive financing on special needs on the same percentage as Winnipeg School Division No. 1, using the same formula.  I would ask the minister if he feels it is appropriate that that should occur.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the member is right.  There is some history there which, when we have the other people here involved in finance, this is the time to ask the questions of the independent schools.  I would say this, Level I always has included gifted, high need, special needs.  That is what gifted Level I always has included.

 

          Now, if the member is saying that he wants to change the definition, then let him say so, but that has always been the meaning of Level I.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, through my example I tried to demonstrate fairly clearly in terms of the priorities.  If we look at the special needs requirements throughout the province of Manitoba, both rurally and urbanly, we will see that there is a considerable amount of difference and to see the minister at the very least acknowledge that, and I do believe that he is aware of it.  I just trust that he will in fact be bringing this up.  He did mention that he does have a special needs review that is going on, and I think it is imperative that that discussion take place at that particular committee.

 

          I do have a couple of more specific questions.  I hope the minister is coming back.  I cannot make reference to him not being here, so if we might want to recess for a few minutes I think, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and then I can maybe resume my questioning the moment that we get back.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  We will recess for just five minutes.  Thank you.

 

The committee recessed at 2:44 p.m.

 

                                                                                         

 

After Recess

 

The committee resumed at 2:49 p.m.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, fortunately, today we had tabled the May 11 Hansard in which the minister had indicated the Level II funding for special needs was at $8,520, and for Level III it was $18,960.

 

          Again, fortunately, between then and now I have had opportunity to talk to a number of administrators with respect to both special needs II and III and some of the actual costs of being able to service or to at least enable those individuals to be able to participate in our public schools.  I am wondering if the minister can give the committee some sort of indication on what he believes the actual cost, if there is an average cost that he might have at hand, for having a Level II and a Level III special needs student in the classroom.

 

* (1450)

 

Mr. Manness:  If the member wants me to acknowledge that the government funding level does not cover all the costs, I will acknowledge that.  That is a given reality.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I think everyone knows that is in fact the case.  What I am trying to find from the minister is if he can give us some sort of an indication on what the department believes is the actual cost of having a special needs student, special needs II for example.  Maybe that is what we will do, talk about the Level II special needs student.  What does he believe the actual cost is?

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all of the questions that I am about to ask would be applied both to Level II and Level III special needs students.

 

Mr. Manness:  What we know is that school divisions are spending roughly $122 million in special education expenditures.  What we know is that we are providing support grants of $83.4 million‑‑well, in the latest year, $89 million.  Those are the rough numbers.

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the members say you are short, well, we are short what school divisions are spending, but then we are not in charge of how it is and what it is and on what basis that school divisions ultimately spend, what models are in place, because the cost varies dramatically from child to child‑‑dramatically.

 

          Some school divisions have programs which are better than others.  Does that mean that one division is doing it better than others?  One division has a program which is more expensive than the other divisions.  Does that mean that they are doing a better job?  No.  So what does local autonomy mean?  Local autonomy means you can sort of set the educational program you want, and secondly, you can go to the taxpayers to support it.  That is a lot different than calling on the provincial government to support every dollar you spend.  Those days are long gone.  They are not coming back in the foreseeable future.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Using the figures that the minister has just brought forward‑‑and I thought it was interesting in terms of when he says, well, the school divisions $122 million, but it is the school divisions that ultimately determine what sort of services that they want to provide.  As a result, that has an impact on that $122 million.  I think that is an accurate statement.

 

          That is the primary reason why it is I ask the Minister of Education in terms of what does he feel, or the department, and one would think that the department would have some sort of an idea of what the average cost of having a special needs Level II and a Level III, because if I take the two figures that the minister gives and take the total number of students in Level II and Level III, and maybe the minister could even possibly give that.  I do not know if he has that.  It is not really all that important to have that actual number, but, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if I take those two, the Minister of Education would quite accurately say, well, that is not necessarily an average because some of the school divisions have different services than other school divisions.  That is why I am more interested in knowing what the Minister of Education and his department feel is the actual average cost of Level II and Level III.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is a philosophical question almost.  That is not a question of math.  I mean obviously we feel we are covering the needs across the whole wide cross section because we are putting up roughly 75 percent of the global funding.

 

          Now, the member does not have to stop there.  I mean he could ask the Premier tomorrow.  He could ask them whether or not we are putting enough in to support the social programming by the City of Winnipeg.  The City of Winnipeg says we are not.  It says, we are not covering the needs, you are only covering X and X percent.

 

          The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is here.  He knows that there are individuals from the farm communities saying your GRIP program is only covering basically 50 percent, 60 percent of the actual cost of farming.  You are not covering the needs.

 

          Well, I tell the member this is being in government.  This is what governing is all about.  So he can come and say, well, within the area of special needs programming, do you realize you are only covering 75 percent of what is being spent?  I will say, well, no, that might be what is being spent, but of the needs, covering the needs out there, I would say the government is doing about the right amount.

 

          I will not be drawn into this debate as to, well, what is the average per child, do you not think you are away below?  I will not be drawn into it because that is not governing; that is giving away what everybody asks.  In essence, what the recipients are saying, look, we will spend it, you provide it.  Sorry, that is not governing.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, some of the arguments I would buy in terms of what it is that the minister is saying.  The government in fact has to make some decisions on funding, and put so much into an envelope, but there is another aspect that again I have been somewhat supportive of the minister, not only presently but at times even in the past, when he argues very eloquently that it should also be fair.  I think it is.

 

          When I look at this, you know a question could be asked of the minister, does he believe that in fact it is fair?  If you look at the actual numbers, you have $122 million.  Even if one might want to go as far as to say that is excessive, whatever justification the minister might want to put on the $122 million that the school divisions would put in, Level II and Level III, and where again the biggest demand for those programs are coming from, you find that it is another level, at the school board level, where it is being asked to pick up the additional cost.  Yet it is a provincial government decision that it is important that we enable these two levels of special needs students to attend our public schools.  That is what we are telling them.

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on the other hand, we are saying to them that we will provide you a level of funding.  By just looking at the numbers, it is far less than what is actually required in order to facilitate what the provincial government has mandated the public schools to do.  I do see a bit of contradiction there in terms of the whole question of fairness because of the amount of subsidy that school divisions had to put in.

 

          Again I would use the argument that, depending on the area of the province, one would argue that there is a higher level of special needs in Levels II and III.  It would be interesting, in order to prove that‑‑I know when we entered into the discussion of this nature the other day, the minister says, well, the member from Inkster was jumping to conclusions, that I could not substantiate that there was a difference in demographics to warrant what it was that I was saying.  Yes, maybe I was jumping to some conclusions, but I think a vast majority of Manitobans agreed with me on that.

 

          I would imagine‑‑and if I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister of Education would be more than happy to demonstrate it‑‑that there is a higher percentage of Level IIs, Level IIIs, in some school divisions over others.  Those school divisions once again are being put into a position in which they have to‑‑whether it is raising at one level or maybe cutting back on a service in order to be able to compensate‑‑but they are trying to fulfill a mandate.

 

* (1500)

 

          Again the minister emphasizes about the whole question of fairness.  I am not questioning the amount of dollars.  One could question the manner in which the school divisions are being treated, and should not the funding formula take into account, more so, the per capita needs of special needs II and III and possibly even have some sort of a sliding scale?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, nothing has changed.  The member is asking for more money.  I mean, that is what the issue is‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  No.

 

Mr. Manness:  What do you mean, no?  When he says put more into Level II and Level III, that means more money.  More means more.  More does not mean less; more means more.  I mean, he can try and talk around this issue all he wants, but when he tells me at $8,520, Level II, he wants more, that means more.  When he says at Level III, $18,960, he wants more, then he wants more.  He wants more money; that is what he wants.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wonder if the minister can indicate, or give us some sort of an indication, whether it is percentage or even in terms of numbers of some sort, of where the school divisions are at in particular.  Again, we can draw two school divisions.  You could take a look at Charleswood versus Winnipeg School Division No. 1, base it on a number of special‑‑

 

Mr. Plohman:  Assiniboine South.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Assiniboine South‑‑with Winnipeg, and I thank the member from Dauphin for bringing up Winnipeg Assiniboine.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Where was I?

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  But where was I, as the member for Dauphin says.

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the minister can actually bring the actual numbers, if you like, of Level II special needs in both of those school divisions and base it on the percentage‑‑again, I have not necessarily had the same resources that the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) does to actually come up with the numbers, but I do, and it is somewhat speculative, believe that you will find that there is a higher per capita special needs Level II in Winnipeg 1 compared to Assiniboia, and if the minister sees that as not being a problem, or somewhat problematic in term of ability to be able to raise or to finance.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have the breakout by school divisions, we could probably get that, for Levels I and III.  I can tell you globally, a breakout from the $89 million I was talking about, Level II, 1,928 students throughout the province, that is '93‑94 number, but if you multiply that by the $8,520, it would give you a total number of $14 million, Level II.  At Level III, 436 students at the $18,960 comes to roughly a little over $8 million that was spent.

 

          So of the $90 million we referenced earlier, roughly $22 million across the province is being spent on Level I and Level III.

 

          Now, the member says, ah, yes, but even by formula a greater proportion of those accruing to Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and therefore by reference, you should back that off into the Level I consideration.  I think that is what he is saying whether he knows it or not, the Level I consideration, that should be built in as another factor.  What the members is saying here basically is, some divisions are getting too much and that Winnipeg School Division is not getting enough, and there should be a real look at the Level I numbers and the shift occur.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be interested in getting some of the percentages of some of the different school divisions so that the next time we go through this, possibly next spring, we will be able to continue the dialogue with respect to this particular issue, especially given that the minister this year is going to be having a study on special needs.

 

          I wanted to move on to the whole question of learning disabilities, and you could, well, I should not say you could, namely ask the minister up front, students at risk, do individuals with learning disabilities fall under that particular category?

 

Mr. Manness:  No.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Is the minister doing anything in terms of acknowledgement or reviews or studies?  Is the department doing anything with respect to individuals with learning disabilities?

 

Mr. Manness:  That is in part the special need review.  That will cover that off.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I did ask the minister the question initially in terms of what it was going to be covering, the special needs review, and he did not indicate the learning disabilities.  I am glad to hear that is in fact going to be incorporated into it.

 

          That is about it in terms of questions I have for this particular line, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Just briefly to follow on a couple of issues, the minister said that Level I includes gifted as well as high need and special needs.  Will he admit that traditionally the amount of money that goes into gifted education as part of special needs is about 10 percent or less?  Is that a fair figure?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know whether that is an arbitrary number, or whether that was put into place as targets by the divisions, or ultimately, at the beginning, is the way divisions split their funding.  I do not know the history of that.  I guess it depends from division to division.

 

          Sometimes the division does not have a large component of special needs children, and so over a period of a few years, I imagine, then they take their funding and shift it to other priorities, because it is basically a per capita grant.  So I do not know how it is he could probably come up with a hard number like that.  I have not seen the rationale to support his number.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in a discussion I had with the former gifted consultant, she indicated to me that 10 percent was about the figure that was realistic in terms of the gifted, or actually less than that.  I think she said 10 percent probably would be a real target that would increase the funding.  So it is probably substantially less than 10 percent of the funding that goes into special needs.  As I recall, I think the latter is the case; she had said that would be an increase.  It is actually less than 10 percent.

 

          On that basis‑‑and I think it would be fair to assume that it is less than 10 percent, or at least no more than 10 percent would go to gifted education out of the Level I funding‑‑then how can he rationalize some of the elite, private schools that have entrance examinations to in fact ensure that they take only students who are able to meet their entrance requirements, should get the same kind of formula funding for Level I special needs as other schools in the province who in fact take every student who comes into their doors, with no choice?  Does he think that is fair, or is this just another way to provide a little slush fund to some private schools under the guise of special needs?

 

          I would like to hear the minister's rationale for this.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member talks about a slush fund.  I do not know how it is, when it is all formula‑driven, you can have a slush fund for some private schools.  All the independent schools, 53 percent population of which is Catholic, or at least a Catholic‑based education, and all the other 47 percent that fly under the independent school banner, I do not think any of them have slush funds.

 

* (1510)

 

          If the member senses that we are somehow twisting funding formula, which applies to all equally, to provide special support to some elite schools, using his term, I cannot do that.  The funding formula will not allow me to do that.  All of those schools under the independent school banner are all treated the same.  It is on that basis that schools all be treated the same.

 

          You realize in today's world there is a complexity in place, that students, regardless of what school they attend, have requirements.  I can indicate to you that there are some students who come from socioeconomic homes that some would say are above average, but I will tell you that schools tell me, whether they are independent or public schools, that these students also, from time to time, have complexities and problems that have to be dealt with.

 

          As a matter of fact, nobody can make the argument that there is not a school setting where one does not necessarily have problems, but the bigger issue with respect to increased funding to the independent school system, taking into account the special needs funding base, had more to do, again, with an agreement that was reached by the provincial government years ago, supported strongly by the Liberal Party at the time, that we, taking into account a challenge that was going to be rendered against the province‑‑that it would probably be better to work to a higher level of funding.  So that is the No. 1 order of things.

 

          Secondly, there was quite an increase made.  Once that agreement was struck, it was on the basis of per‑dollar‑spent‑in‑education basis.  Two years ago, as I have referenced in an answer here about half an hour ago, there was a significant change made in the formula increased to special needs‑‑I say this to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)‑‑and that change in base was frozen out of the base increase to independent schools.  That was in spirit, if not in the letter of the law, in violation of the every‑dollar principle which we used as the base against which we placed the percent funding.  Now it is 63.5 percent.  It was the recognition of that shortcoming two years ago, when we made a tremendous infusion into special needs funding, that was taken into account.  That is what has been done, and now students in the independent school system are receiving roughly a little under two‑thirds of the per capita level of those students government funded in the public school system.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just so we can move along here, we will want to know from the minister the amount of money that is going to private schools for Level I special needs under the Support to Schools when we get to that section.  Also, we will want to know, when we are dealing with the private school funding issue at that time, how many schools have entrance examinations, how many Level I kids do they actually have, considering that they are getting funded on the same formula, and how much goes to gifted education for those schools.  If the department has any information on this 10 percent figure that I was using, I certainly would like to shed some light on how much funding, on average across the province in the public school system, goes towards gifted education out of the Level I funding.

 

          So those are some of the pieces of information that we would like to have when we get to that.  I just wanted to raise that with the minister for his and his staff's information at this time.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Item 2.(g) Student Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,905,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $818,600‑‑pass.

 

          2.(h) Manitoba School for the Deaf (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,651,600.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister can give us some sort of indication.  Over the weekend, actually, I was talking to an individual who was talking about the School for the Deaf and had asked me specifically if I had heard anything with respect to the future of this school.  I am wondering if the Minister of Education could comment.  You know, it is completely‑‑I do not have anything to indicate that there is something out there that is going to change, make a change, and that is why I just ask it straight up in terms of, is there anything that is on the agenda for the Manitoba School for the Deaf in terms of a potential sale or anything of that nature?

 

Mr. Manness:  The reason probably for the question from somebody outside of this process wants asked, no doubt, is because we are doing a pretty in‑depth study.  The facility requires significant amounts of money if it is going to be maintained in refurbishing and upgrading.  So we are trying through study to provide ourselves a list of options because the age and structure of the building are not conducive to providing a high‑quality program.  Some decisions are going to have to be made not too far down the course, and we are trying to give ourselves options so we can make the best decision.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister give the committee some sort of a time frame that he might be looking at?

 

Mr. Manness:  We thought we might be making a decision a year ago this year, but the more we dig, the more we have to dig for more information.  I would not want to put a time frame on it.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I wonder if the minister then could give some sort of assurances.  Are we looking at dismantling the idea of having a School for the Deaf or are we talking about relocating to another facility in which there would be an outright purchase of another building, capital dollars put in for a new building?  Give us some sort of indication on that aspect.

 

Mr. Manness:  We have absolutely no plans to dismantle the program.  The issue is whether or not the present setting or a better setting would provide better programming at a much reduced cost.  We could probably do better programming if we could just decrease the costs of the plant.  It is costing us an arm and a leg to keep that plant running, and with the savings we could probably do even a better job of programming.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Is the minister aware or does the minister see the building going up for sale shortly?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot answer that.  Again, this is part of the study, and the Department of Government Services is in charge of the building.  Ultimately we will be part of that decision, but I do not see anything happening too quickly.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Finally, the minister made reference again to the part of the study.  Is there a reporting time for the study?

 

Mr. Manness:  We would like to have it as soon as possible.  We have been studying it for more than a year, and I would expect we would have some options presented very soon.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Would this be just an independent study from within the Department of Education or would it be Government Services who would be responsible for the study?

 

Mr. Manness:  We do this jointly.  It is our program, it is their building, but the way government works, it has to be done in concert or otherwise you do not have order; you have chaos.  Government Services cannot sell a building out from under a department that is using it, and a department cannot start building them or moving around willy‑nilly without Government Services being involved.  We work together.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Just in going through the Activity Identification that makes reference to the programming and the actual numbers, has that actually increased over years or is that a fairly constant number of individuals at the Manitoba School for the Deaf facility?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is fairly constant, although it represents an increase of two from a year ago.

 

* (1520)

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did not think we would get quite this far this afternoon.  I know I had intended to bring forward some questions that were put on the Order Paper from the former member for Osborne with reference to the School for the Deaf, and I would ask if the minister is aware of those questions and maybe what current state they would be at.

 

Mr. Manness:  I am aware there are some questions, what they are on I honestly do not remember.  As the House leader, I was as close as I came to them, but the department tells me that we had responded to those questions.  We will try and follow up as to the process and whether or not we have reported.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  The reason why I asked was actually that I was reading through the Order Paper just the other day and the questions appeared there with Mr. Alcock's name on them.  So yes, if it is possible, it would be much appreciated; otherwise, we are prepared to pass the line.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Should the item pass?  The item is accordingly passed.

 

          2.(h)(2) Other Expenditures $332,000‑‑pass.

 

          Resolution 16.2:  RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $20,291,000 for Education and Training, School Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

 

          We will move on to 3. Bureau de L'Éducation Française (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $127,900.

 

          The honourable minister, to introduce his staff.

 

Mr. Manness:  I would like to introduce Assistant Deputy Minister Guy Roy, no stranger to anybody who has been part of education before; Roland Pantel, and he is director of official languages and administration‑‑gee, Roland, that is quite a title.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, perhaps we could discuss some of the policy and experience surrounding the new Francophone Division in a general way under this section.

 

          I wanted to ask the minister first of all with regard to Bill 34 that was passed last year, to give effect to the new Francophone School Division, whether in fact there have been any difficulties with the implementation of the bill as it was set out, whether there have been some changes or inadequacies recognized that have to be changed in terms of the bill and its implementation for the new Francophone Division, or are things working fairly smoothly insofar as the procedures as spelled out in the bill?  I am not talking about specific situations at this point, as to whether there are some difficulties; I am talking about the administration of the bill.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I suppose I should answer that from a number of perspectives.  Firstly, as the House leader and also head of our Legislative Review Committee within government, myself and the MLA for Emerson, Jack Penner, when this bill first came in we were mindful that this was going to be a difficult process, that the bill would take great craftsmanship, to use a word, because of all of the sensitivities around the change.  So I was kind of close personally to the bill at its drafting from an overall perspective, and a lot of direct questions were posed by government members before the bill was tabled.

 

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

 

          The bill was subsequently tabled.  It gave power and authority to a process which we entrusted under the leadership of Chief Justice Monnin and which attempted to implement the process of taking the effect of the bill into the communities, providing background material and information, trying to indicate the essence of the change and then ultimately calling on individuals within the community‑‑those in single‑program and double‑program schools, but particularly those parents who had students deemed to be part of a français program‑‑to make a decision.  That process, for the most part, has worked well because decisions were made, votes were taken through the formality of registration in a number of‑‑well, all of the eligible areas.

 

          Subsequent to that, ward boundaries‑‑a governance model was built upon some of the decisions because you had to have a feel for what population you were talking about before you could then build ward boundaries and representation models, and it had to be done within a very, very narrow time frame.  Through some very good drafting and, I sense, an awful lot of good will in the department and those outside of the department, it has worked reasonably well.

 

          Then, of course, we hence have come to discussions between provider school divisions and receiving school divisions as to how assets, direct and indirect, and properties and programs and staffing and how all of the changes that would cause impact in those areas have occurred.

 

          But we are still not that long from the beginning of a new school year‑‑we are only four months away basically‑‑and in certain divisions that process has worked extremely well.  I have sensed that we are well on our way to have it in place with certainty with respect to the fall term.  That has not occurred, though, in one area, and we are still trying to find ways to make as many people happy as possible.

 

          Now, the member asked a general question, and I gave him a general response.  I would say not the least of which is an outside person by the name of Victor Goldbloom, the Commissioner of Official Languages from Canada, who has come and looked at the change.  Although he has not certainly looked at the process in minute detail, certainly we have been recognized as forging forward and trying to provide what is in keeping with the spirit of federal court decisions.  We have come pretty close to moving to a system to reflect that.

 

          So, all in all, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry I have taken this much time to answer the question, but I want to put on the record that the process of this most sensitive issue, from my point of view, not being a person inherent within the Manitoba Francophone community, I sense, has gone reasonably well.

 

Mr. Plohman:  There are so many areas that one could question or discuss here.  The minister, in his overview, seemed to indicate that without addressing legislation in particular, there did not need to be any major changes to ensure that the transition goes smoothly.  As a matter of fact, I guess the legislation will be obsolete, that portion of implementation, by the time any changes would be made in that case.

 

          I would ask the minister perhaps to just comment on the issue of parallel programming, firstly.  The policy decision whereby the government decided that existing divisions would be able or would be forced to, or at least able to‑‑I am not sure if they would be forced to if there were sufficient numbers‑‑but upon request from parents to offer français programming, not just immersion programming, but français programming in existing divisions even though the Francophone Division was there and quite capable of providing the service, in other words, parallel programming in existing divisions.

 

          I believe Saskatchewan said, no, the Francophone Division is in charge of français education, and they are going to provide all of that.  If parents want their children to receive français programming, they will belong to the Francophone Division.  Otherwise, they can expect only immersion in existing divisions.  This government chose not to do that.  I ask the minister, in retrospect, considering some of the situations that are developing, whether he thinks that that policy decision should in fact be reviewed.

 

* (1530)

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is always easy to look backwards and see things in clear view.  I would say to the member that bearing in mind that those of us who represent Francophone communities, and there are a number of us certainly on the government side, and bearing in mind that over all of the sensitivities within those communities and how the communities react with their neighbouring communities and taking into account the history, this government was not going to put into place a system by way of vote where winners take all.  If we had, then we probably would have even been more careful and watchful of the voting procedures that went into place and, ultimately, who had a chance to vote and who did not.

 

          I do not know whether the member represents any Francophone communities, but I have represented many for years, and I was struck that in a number of situations there was harmony within a number of communities.  Some of it was hard fought, some of it was recent, but it was there, and just to allow a vote which would have then forced hard decisions was not in keeping with the history that some of us had of our communities.

 

          So consequently, we decided then to allow for parallel programming, realizing that the people basically in number would reflect which level of governance they wanted.  That has occurred in most areas.

 

          So he asked me the question, if you had to do it all again, would you force français programming purely to occur under the auspices of the Francophone Division, newly constituted in our case.  I would say the political decision was made not to do that, and I think we made the right decision.

 

Mr. Plohman:  It is interesting the minister is saying that, and it is not unexpected.  But in terms of the cost of that, of course, there is a cost to it as well when you are offering parallel programming.  There is efficiency in numbers, and there is also the impact of the new division on existing divisions' ability to offer programming because of loss of student numbers.

 

          That is another issue I want to ask the minister about, in terms of declining enrollment phenomena.  In some divisions there is rather a substantial number of students transferring.  With them goes the funding, and it leaves behind a smaller student body with a shrunken ability, I guess, to offer the same range of programming.  As a result, there may have to be reductions in programming and reductions in services because of the reduced dollars.

 

          Has the government made any provision or taken any steps to alleviate the impact of the declining enrollment phenomena as a result of the establishment of the Francophone School Division on school divisions so that they will not be faced with cuts because of that to students in the existing division?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the direct answer to the questions is yes, $480,000 roughly put into place for transition this year, to take into account that the providing divisions, in other words, those divisions who are losing a student count and who still may want to provide a program for those students who are left behind and/or to take into account that administratively and staff‑wise, you just cannot adjust that quickly, that money has been put into place for one year.

 

          The member's other argument, when he says, you know, if providing divisions still want to reach out to a smaller français base and try and provide some programming, that calls into question the efficiency, the economy and ultimately, I guess, the quality of education‑‑a fair statement.  That is the essence of free choice.  That is what choice means.

 

          As a parent, I can tell you, I have been through it.  I have been through it in my own community, and it has nothing to do with language, absolutely nothing.  It has to do with whether or not you are willing to make a commitment to your local school or some other school, if it is further away, to drive, and what is the value of it?  I can think of a case where I committed three of my children to a two‑room school that I went to that had 22 people because I could see the numbers coming and ultimately it grew to 60 people.  Tough, tough decision, it did not come easy.  Some would say that was foolhardy, close the school, close the small school, let your children go at an earlier age a further distance.  Their quality of education will be better.

 

          That faces us time after time in rural Manitoba, those of us who support small schools with the attendance of our children.  The programming‑‑and I say to the member, the fact that we have left choice to parents who may want to leave their children in the older division, in a français program which may not be as good as it was or move their child over to the new DSFM School Division No. 49, where there might be a larger number and theoretically greater access to programming‑‑that is a free choice and that is what the government provided.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The minister could very easily be on the other side of it in saying we just cannot be everything to all people, all students.  We just cannot afford to do this.  We have to make choices and if people want to have access to other programming, they have to be prepared to pay for it.  He is arguing in this case that he is offering choice, but the question is, who is paying for it, and can he afford to do it?  What I was saying to him was, if there was not parallel programming provided for‑‑I mean, it is politically expedient, perhaps.  That is why I think the minister had said it was a political decision to allow that, but he is trying to justify it on the basis of choice when he is talking about scarce resources.  I find that a little bit hollow because in fact in other arguments he said, well, we cannot afford to do everything, we cannot provide all the funding to special needs kids throughout the province.  The days of providing all those services to special needs kids are gone; we cannot provide all the funding from the province.

 

          In this case the minister has made a choice to provide additional funding to school divisions to continue to provide parallel programming, and he has made that a priority over some other services that are certainly lacking throughout the province, severely lacking in many areas where kids are really being affected.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry for interrupting, but I wanted to make two points.  Firstly, the funding that we are talking about, for the most part, is just to support through the transition year; in the second year, that will not be there.  So there will be no additional funding.  The funding goes where the students go at the same level.

 

          Secondly, the member ignores the fact that there was a challenge of this political decision, as the member says.  There was a challenge.  I do not know who took it forward.  The Francophone parents took it to the Supreme Court.  I do not know, and I am on thin ice out here and I am a little at sea, but the Supreme Court, in its judgment that it handed down, was silent on that issue.

 

          This was an issue that this parallel programming could be offered.  Yet, when it was taken forward certainly we were not ordered by anybody to not maintain the policy.  If it has been taken to the highest court of the land and the highest court of the land is silent for the most part, then I‑‑and again I point out, there are very few cases, if any, of provider divisions continuing to offer français programs, very few.

 

* (1540)

 

          I guess there is one case in Laurier, and the other cases are all in the 50‑50 programming:  in St. Malo, Notre Dame, Provencher and St. Claude also.

 

Mr. Plohman:  It was not a question of whether it would be something the Supreme Court would want to rule on.  I mean, it was not that you wanted to take away the right of Francophones to govern their own education system, but whether they would be offered additional services in French in existing divisions.  This is a luxury really.  It is not a matter of not providing enough services.  It is providing in‑addition‑to services through another means.  The question was, is it in fact a luxury and can it be afforded?  That was my angle there.

 

          As far as the existing act is concerned, I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions about that, and maybe he could also table the provisions for transfer or for implementation that Justice Monnin had distributed.  I would like to have a copy of the background material and so on, pursuant to the act, that went into the establishment of the division and the kinds of material that was provided to parents.  That document that is being shown, we had that last year already, I think.  Were there additional materials that were distributed to parents at meetings?

 

          I wanted to ask the minister about the transfer of school divisions.  It talks about a regulation in 21.20 whereby if a decision is made or after consultation with parents is made and only a Francophone program is going to be provided in the school, the school shall be transferred.  So the wording in the regulation would determine whether 2l.20 would be invoked:  shall transfer the building.

 

          Is that the way all regulations were, where a majority of the Francophone eligible parents voted in favour of joining the Francophone Division, that the building would be transferred automatically, or was there usually a provision for sharing programming in an existing school?  Was that an option or was it always worded in such a way that the building had to be transferred if a majority of eligible voters voted in favour of joining the new Francophone Division?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the difference between 21.20 and 21.21(1), of course, is single‑program schools versus shared program.  The legislation was written in a fashion that the government had no discretion with respect to the school being transferred after a vote within a single‑program school in which the majority of the vote was in support of transfer.  There was absolutely no discretion left with the government or the minister.

 

          Now where there were shared‑program schools, in this case being a school which housed français and 50‑50 program or French immersions, then there was some discretion for the minister to set up a process of arbitration and/or committee review.  There is a different process in place.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is what I wanted to get at.  It talks about the regulation which is something that the government drafts.  Why was it read into a decision that you had to have the building transferred if a majority voted that way if you could say, leave it open for additional programming, 50‑50 programming, which would enable a sharing arrangement to be undertaken in a particular building?

 

          I have to ask then, was it based on whether a 50‑50 program was being offered prior to the vote, or could a division say, no, well, we are interested in offering one now, and we would like to have a sharing of that building, rather than having it completely transferred?  Then you would invoke your arbitration process.  Why is it black or white in these situations?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know where the member is leading.  There are times I wish I had more discretion, and even in this case I wish I did.  But the reality is you had to set the rules.  You cannot set rules, see what the results are and then change the rules.

 

An Honourable Member:  The rules are in here.

 

Mr. Manness:  That is right, but before you could even go through the process you had to have legislation in place.  What the member is I think saying‑‑and not to put words in his mouth‑‑he is saying, well, there is this certain school; it, by all definitions, was a français program, it had a français program.  What the member is saying is, well, once you see‑‑you should allow freedom within the legislation or the regulations that flow therefrom so that the host division, and seeing the results, could then rush in a variation of a français program of 50‑50.  I think that is what the member is indicating.  That is like changing the rules after you know what the results are going to be.

 

          I dare say that if you wanted to do that, it would have been much better probably to, in my view, from the member's perspective, allow the discretion with respect to single program schools right at the beginning.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I am going by what I thought should have been the intent of the legislation.  I am not sure about his words "rush in"‑‑a school division to rush in.  It is a question of whether maybe they are responding to a request that is longstanding and never offered it and then come in and suddenly make a decision to offer it so it looks like they are rushing in.  If the act was worded in such a way that it recognized there would be sensitivities on this issue and would be disputes and there was an arbitration process set up to deal with that, specifically, did it not envisage the kind of situation that has occurred in some areas, and is that not why the arbitration process was set up?  Because I cannot understand why the government would not even want to be dealt with by arbitration.  I thought that was why they would have drafted the act in this way.

 

Mr. Manness:  Remember what arbitration is.  Arbitration is winner take all in a case like this, or you force two communities to share a building.  Arbitration ultimately says that somebody, some small group of people are going to make a decision to deal with those sensitivities to which the member refers.

 

          In the schools which were considered single‑program schools, they have been single‑program schools for years.  They were pure in that sense.  So why would the legislation not expect then that the purity around that school, which by the way had drawn students in from far outside of the traditional school boundaries‑‑why would the legislation not presuppose that there was purity of an opportunity at least to express a democratic position?

 

          I hear what the member is saying.  I say to him again, the act has worked in most divisions.  The only area where it has not is the Mountain School Division, and certainly we have difficulties there.

 

Mr. Plohman:  What the minister is saying is that the kind of situation where there was only one program being offered was never envisaged to come under this arbitration process.  It was just assumed that would be a complete transfer if the majority wanted it.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, the legislation was drawn that way for the belief that you wanted to basically keep politics out of it.  You did not want to keep political influences too closely associated with the process.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but then the government recognized there might be situations like that and put in an arbitration process and time lines.  Then, further to that, a committee, I guess, to arbitrate even further on some issues according to the act, which recognized perhaps that arbitration can be tough in terms of its impact and, therefore, perhaps there should be another process.

 

* (1550)

 

          In the case where we have a major dispute now in the Mountain School Division, neither of these two applied.  I was just trying to explore why that would not have been envisaged and why it was not provided for in the act.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, when you have a shared‑program school, who owns it?  Who owns the school when you have existing programs?  Who should it be?  I mean, does winner take all?  When a program leaves, that is where the difficulty is.  That is why the legislation said, no, in that case it is probably better to allow the safety valve of second thought, sober thought.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Yes, but what the minister is saying is that if it is not a shared‑use school prior, it cannot even be subject to this arbitration process.  I am saying that might have been a good place to have the issue of sharing of the building, not the ownership of it, but the sharing of the facility dealt with by arbitration, but the minister says, no, you cannot even go to arbitration for determining how best to share this, or whether in fact sharing should take place, because we have gone past that point on the basis that the section dealing with transfer has already preempted the arbitration process.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what happens if we had 20 arbitrations?  It gets so easy then to pass on the decision to the next level or a different level.  These were heady, heady decisions that individuals had to make, so I do not think the member‑‑on what basis do you arbitrate?  Let us say yours is a single‑shared school‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  You set it up.

 

Mr. Manness:  No, I am asking the member, using his theory.  So let us say you do have a community‑‑single‑program school, 20 percent of the parents voted against the transfer into the new division, 80 for, is that the basis of which you call into place an arbitration, or is it 30‑70?  I mean, on what basis would you want to do it?  Do you feel it out?  Do you take delegations and sense the political pressure before you turn the hot potato or the Queen of Spades over to somebody else?  I do not know, ultimately, how it is you run away from these decisions.  You sort of have to face up to them.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the government set out a process for a transfer of schools and for arbitration to deal with shared services or shared use of the building.  It is all set out in the act, but it did not apply to this case in Notre Dame in the Mountain School Division.  I am trying to find out why it did not, because it seemed like it would have been a natural to fall into here.  When we have a difficult situation like that, you might go through some type of process.

 

          Has the minister appointed a person, Larry Desjardins, or has this been appointed by someone else to be a conciliator then, a process that is not envisaged in this act?  What process is he now undertaking?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it has been reported.  Yes, I turned to Mr. Desjardins to mediate between the existing and new school divisions with the intent, of course, that there could be some give and take on both sides and we could find a solution.

 

Mr. Plohman:  So what the minister is indicating is that he has run into a situation here with the whole thing that was not even envisaged in the act.  There is no provision for that kind of person.  I read in 21.24(2) that the minister could refer matters to a committee, many matters dealing with shared use or transfer of a school, for its advice and opinion or its determination, either/or.

 

          Is that the section the minister is using, or is this something else now that the minister has come upon because the act did not envisage this kind of situation?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, remember, three parties put this act through.  I cannot remember any member of the House voting against Bill 34.

 

Mr. Plohman:  But there were a lot of concerns raised, and you got it with your majority.

 

Mr. Manness:  But I cannot remember anybody not supporting Bill 34 and posing a question about whether or not there was adequate discretion in the minister's office to deal with these unforeseen circumstances.  The member says, well, is that the reason now you have reached out to Larry Desjardins because the bill did not anticipate the sensitivity.  Well, as I said in my first remarks, the bill took a great time to draft because it did anticipate significant sensitivities.

 

          I can say to that, the government policy in allowing for parallel programming also took into account the potential for great sensitivity.  This whole bill was steeped in sensitivity, but the reality is we brought in a third party because we do not need legislation to do that.  No government ever has.  We just sensed that if we could find a solution and somebody could mediate and find that solution more quickly, that that person should be called forward.  That is why we reached out to Mr. Desjardins.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I think the minister made a good choice, and I hope that they will be able to find a solution that is one that everyone can live with and support.  However, I find it rather odd that the minister did not use the procedure that he had outlined in his legislation.  It is a simple point that I think needs at least mentioning with the minister in this particular venue, and it draws into question the legitimacy of the act if it is not being used.

 

          I do not think the minister has adequately been able to explain why he put in place a very definitive arbitration process involving arbitration, all involving committee.  It involved discretion in terms of whether a determination would be made or whether opinion or suggestions would be made.  All of these things were envisaged, and yet that process was not used.  If that is not used there, then I have to ask the minister, well, why indeed did the government draft a process if it was not going to use it.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, I point out for the record‑‑and the member has access to this.  This is the booklet that was taken out by former Chief Justice Monnin, Francophone School Governance, page 10, table 1.  It indicates all the single‑program schools.  There are 19, and 18 of those I understand right now there is an agreement‑‑16, at this point between provider and accepting the division.

 

          When the member calls into question the legislation, I guess it is a matter of degree.  He is saying that legislation is faulty because at this point there is a nonagreement in one school and therefore‑‑he will not say it, but really what he is saying is, you should have left the discretion with your office in all cases in all schools.

 

An Honourable Member:  The process.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, the process is the discretion.  That is the process he is pointing to.  The process, I mean whether I do it in my office or I set up an arbitration, it is my power to put that into place.  So the issue is the same.  The issue is whether or not you maintain the power in the minister's office.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The issue is in the hands of the arbitrator or committee and in what way they would make a decision or a recommendation.

 

* (1600)

 

          I will leave that issue, because it is a difficult one.  I recognize that.  I thought there was a very helpful process put in place in the legislation.  I asked the minister about this in Question Period.  We had a little chat after, and he said it did not apply.  I wanted to find out precisely why it did not apply.  I am not sure that I feel comfortable with those reasons, but in any event, it did not apply in this particular situation.

 

          The minister is now engaging in another kind of process.  Perhaps that will not have the strength of law, but it is something that might end up coming up with a solution, and that is what we all want.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry for interrupting again, but obviously what the member would have done differently had he been the Minister of Education at the time is he would have brought in legislation that would have done one or two things.  Firstly, as a policy he would allow no hope for a parallel.  In other words, the school and the community decided once and for all whether it was going to be part of the governance model or not, in which case the Notre Dame situation, to use an example, would be no different than it is today.

 

          Secondly, he is saying, no, if he did not have a situation winner take all, he would allow for the process where the arbitrator would dictate who the winner was, and in that case the winner take all.

 

          Thirdly, he would put into place an arbitration process that allowed the school to share more than one program, or to have more than one program.  Indeed the courts of the land might dictate, and I am sure would dictate that would not be acceptable.  The member for Dauphin cannot have it both ways.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Oh, yes I can.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, yes, I guess he can.  But on the record he cannot have it both ways.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The minister is assuming that arbitration means there is a winner take all.  I have said right from the beginning that the recommendation or the decision that is made‑‑and there is also room for recommendations by way of a committee to be set up.  The minister should not try to simplify the process further than what is in the act.  There are a few steps insofar as dealing with these disputes, and it is quite possible that a compromise decision could be rendered by an arbitrator.  It does not have to be all one way or the other.

 

          In any event, insofar as the parallel programming, I think the minister has to recognize what he is doing here in terms of giving meaning to the Supreme Court decision.  In fact, other jurisdictions have said the Francophone School Division is responsible for the delivery of Francophone services for français programming throughout the province, throughout their jurisdiction.  So I do not think that would have been any more difficult than what the minister has put in place here, because he has still got a situation where some people would say they are not even having access to parallel programming because the division may not offer it.

 

          If we look at the St. Claude situation, the people there are saying‑‑and they have been trying to meet with the minister to have this issue dealt with.  They are very concerned that the voting was changed in terms of who was eligible.  They said it was at the last minute.  I do not know if that is correct, but the minister has not even met with them.  Why does he not meet with them to explain what has happened?  Apparently, these are parents who represent the 18 percent of the students in St. Claude who voted for the Francophone Division.  Could the minister agree to meet with these people, with the representatives, and discuss with them the various options that have been considered and how they fit into this?  They very much want to be part of the Francophone Division.  They want to have access to the program, but they do not want to have to travel to Notre Dame to get it.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, some do not want to travel to Notre Dame.  I have others saying that they want to travel to Notre Dame.

 

An Honourable Member:  They have been for six years.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, of course, they want to keep travelling to Notre Dame.  So the member has been a minister before.  He knows at times you have got to make difficult decisions when people are one side and the other.  I have made no decision.  My first request to meet came in at the end of March, and I have said I am not going to get involved.  I have tried not to get involved actively in this process in fairness to all and the history of sensitivity around this issue.  The member says, well, no you should be granting audiences.  I know exactly what the request is from the St. Claude parents.  I will be meeting with them, but I am not going to do so at an instant request because I know the issue as well.  I represented that area for the first nine years of my political life.  It is my area.  I know the issue.

 

An Honourable Member:  Well, then, do not be sensitive.

 

Mr. Manness:  I have to be sensitive.  I have to be sensitive to the sensitivities around this issue.  So the member does not have to tell me how to do my job, and expect me to just sit here and say nothing.  Naturally, he can tell me how to do my job, but not to sit here and not say anything.

 

          Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I recognize that overlap and duplication is not going to allow for a français program and a 50‑50 program all the way through the Mountain School Division.  That is not what we promised.  As a government we promised parallel français program, and français means what it means.  So we are trying to work through this way.  We are trying to find some common ground.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The parents that are wanting to meet with the minister and have not been able to get an audience with him have said that the St. Claude program is not a 50‑50 program offered by Mountain School Division.  It was an assortment of courses offered in the French language which do not adhere to any underlying philosophy, and if a student were to take all of the courses, they could get a maximum of 50 percent of instruction in French, but that is not what a 50‑50 program is.

 

          (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

 

          They would like to join the Francophone School Division.  The 37 students who have been bussed for six years did so because they had no alternative.  They wanted to have français program, so they did, in fact, travel to Notre Dame to get it.  Those 37 students have now issued a letter saying they want to, for the '94 year, stay with the Francophone School Division in Notre Dame and be bussed.  They are silent on, if there would be a Francophone School Division jurisdiction in St. Claude and the français program would be offered there, whether they would prefer that.  We can only assume that they would prefer to stay home and have it if there was an equally good program in their own community, that they would want to have it at home, but that seems not to be available to them.

 

          The minister has apparently told them that they can only have access to the Francophone Division if they have a program transferred as by the provisions of the Bill 34, but they say there is none to transfer in fact.  They want to establish one.  They want to be part of one in St. Claude.

 

          I am also hearing that Francophone Division has said to them that, if the minister indicates that he is prepared to support that, the Francophone Division will support them getting a program in St. Claude.  So really they are going back to the minister for a decision on this.  Does the minister accept that he has a decision to make on this, or does he feel that this is up to somebody else to make a decision?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, these parents of 39 children, I believe, voted in the Notre Dame registration process.  If they had not been there to vote, who knows then what the result would have been in Notre Dame?  I know for sure that, had they voted in the St. Claude school setting and all of them had voted for governance, they would have lost.

 

Mr. Plohman:  As far as 50 percent.

 

* (1610)

 

Mr. Manness:  That is right, and that is what this legislation said.  They would have lost.  So what we said was, and we are well aware of St. Claude, it offered a 50‑50 program.  Now some would say we cannot necessarily define it; maybe it is not keeping with a program principle.  That may or may not be the case, but that community set up its affairs on a 50‑50 basis.  That is what it did.  This government was not going to rush in and overturn the balance associated with the level of français offerings that were offered in St. Claude, would not do that, and we still would not do that because that particular community had organized its affairs in its way to reach out to all comers within that school division.  I guess the member is now saying, well, that is not right.  You should take into account those parents, and I referred to all of us before in "parents," sometimes in the rural context of having to make a decision that costs us more with respect to our children if indeed the programming we want is some further distance away, or whatever the circumstance around it might be.  Obviously, as the member said, for six years now, the parents in St. Claude have made the decision that they wanted a program that was offered further away from their local community.

 

          The member seems to, by extension be saying, aha, right now they should be offered that same programming within a shared context within the complex at St. Claude.  That is a pretty heavy decision to make and to order onto the school community of St. Claude which has organized its affairs around a 50‑50 program.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Well, I am not really trying to tell and I certainly am not, and the minister seems a little sensitive because he says he represents this area and he does not like to be told, but there is a real problem.  They are coming to us as representatives of the people of Manitoba, as critics and so on, and wanting to, in desperation, have some solution to what they see is a legitimate right and request under this act.

 

          I am asking the minister what action he is going to take, first of all, to meet with them, and, secondly, to resolve this situation.  How does he see it being resolved, or is it just going to linger for years and fester, because I do not think that is going to do anybody any good.  Is it impossible to solve it then, under this act?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will not speculate, in fairness to the sensitivity we have talked about so many times, the hard, hard and fast views on either side of the issue, the unwillingness in some respects to compromise to any degree, it would be foolhardy for me to speculate at all at this point.

 

          I know one thing.  I am the minister under our democratic system, who is held accountable for everybody being in school in the best program possible, starting the school year of fall '94, and I have to take that into account.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I hope the minister will consider the wishes of this group as well, though they seem to be fairly desperate in terms of not being able to get an audience with the minister.  I cannot support him in that, in refusing to meet I mean up to this point, I cannot support him.  In fact, he has not met with them.

 

          I wanted to ask the minister a couple of other questions about the federal dollars now that are supposed to be available.  Is there any resolution in sight on the negotiations there with regard to the $112 million, what portion Manitoba would get, what would be eligible and over what period of time?  Do we have any answers to that?  Are we talking five years, 10 years?  Are we talking two years, or what?  What would be eligible and then on the amounts.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, almost a year ago to the day the announcement was made by Madam Landry, of the former federal government, indicating $112 million was to be set aside to assist the provinces with implementation of schools managed by French‑speaking minorities.  To this point we are led to believe 70 percent, in other words, $78.4 million was to be allocated over six years to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, meaning that the rest, I guess, was for Quebec for the implementation of English and the remainder‑‑I stand corrected, the remainder, beyond the $78,400,000, to be allocated to New Brunswick and Ontario where governance was already in place in support of post‑secondary education.

 

          I had a lot of meetings with the federal governments over the last year, the last meeting being held the middle of March.  At that time, both governments were pretty adamant in their positions, our position being as the Province of Manitoba that given the percent of our population and the number of Francophone students that we have in the history, that we were eligible for at least as much, if not more than Saskatchewan.  To this point in time, the federal government has refused to accept our argument.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Can the minister indicate, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, whether in fact there was acceptance of this proposal by the previous government or did it not reach that stage‑‑the previous federal government?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you must remember when we got really hot and heavy on this, there was an election call.  It was hard to talk to people, although at that time we sensed that if the present government had been returned there would have been certainly an understanding of our position and that there would have been some accommodation made, but that has not been achieved under the new administration.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Is the minister indicating the amount being requested now is far apart for the parties, or has there been no counteroffer at all in terms of the federal government on this?  Is it just a question of not accepting the Manitoba proposal?  Are we talking about $11 million or $12 million here?

 

Mr. Manness:  I do not know what numbers the member used and I will not‑‑

 

Mr. Plohman:  $11 million or $12 million.

 

Mr. Manness:  That the federal government has offered? [interjection] Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Dauphin uses the term $11 million or $12 million that the federal government has offered is our share over six years.  I will not confirm that, but certainly his number is not too far away.  Of course, to go a number higher would have us picking up a bunch of new funding, and this government will not do that at all.

 

Mr. Plohman:  If it is $12 million, it would be $2 million a year, and it would be a significant amount of money for what purpose?  This is what I was trying to arrive at earlier as to what we are talking about here, the cost of building new schools or all programming dollars, per student funding?  What is it?

 

* (1620)

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it would be used to cover one‑time costs with respect to the implementation of the new governance model.  It would not be directed to programming.  It would be directed towards all of the additional costs in starting up the new governance division.

 

Mr. Plohman:  We are already part way through those costs.  A lot of that money is being spent because this is when it is being established, so obviously a running tab is being kept.  Can the minister indicate what costs have been expended by the province in the hopes that, of course, this will be split by the federal government or will come out of this money later?  How much money are we talking about so far?  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what would be the budget projection for implementation?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is asking us to reveal our negotiating position with respect to the dialogue between ourselves and the federal government, and we will not do that.  But the question with respect to implementation is again a number that we need which is far beyond that which has been offered to this point.

 

Mr. Plohman:  So what the minister says is that, if he were to reveal money actually spent, it would weaken his bargaining position.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry, the member knows that I cannot go too far out on this.  This is part of the public record, and it is a very sensitive issue, one that Manitoba feels very, very strongly about, given our commitment and the recognized commitment we have made to try to make changes in keeping with the spirit of the country.  This is a very sensitive issue.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Could I ask the minister, then, whether in fact some of the costs that could be allocated could be costs incurred by existing divisions as a result of the transfer, in other words, loss of buildings and so on that may have to be replaced, that kind of one‑time‑only cost?

 

Mr. Manness:  The answer is no.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Can the minister just indicate whether he has an expected timetable for resolution of this issue, any indication as to when the federal government is coming back with a proposal or anything further on this, any further discussions?  The minister indicated the last meeting was the middle of March.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is not an intergovernmental dialogue that does not include some dimension of this issue.  Requests have been made of the Prime Minister.  The Prime Minister has turned this issue back to Mr. Dupuy, who, I understand, is the minister in charge, and I do not think there were any meetings set up to hammer anything out right now because right now there is just such a strong difference of opinion.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I will just leave it then, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.  I take it the minister is saying that the two sides are far apart on the dollars that are being requested and the amount being offered.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Shall the item pass?  The item is accordingly passed.

 

          Item 16.3.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $27,900‑‑pass.

 

          3.(b) Curriculum Development and Implementation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $796,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $150,300‑‑pass.

 

          (c) Educational Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $219,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $69,500‑‑pass; (3) Grants $974,500‑‑pass.

 

          (d) Official Languages Programs and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $450,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $275,700‑‑pass; (3) Assistance $486,000‑‑pass.

 

          (e) Library and Materials Production (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $418,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $197,200‑‑pass.

 

          I am just going to revert back to one that I might have missed.  It was (a)(3) Francophone School Governance.  There was nothing on that line‑‑pass.

 

          Resolution 16.3:  RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,194,000 for Education and Training for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

 

          16.4. Advanced Education and Skills Training (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $602,100.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, at the beginning of the Estimates, I had indicated that the Liberal caucus does have this area, Education, broken into K‑12, and I am the critic for that area.  The member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) is, in fact, the critic for post‑secondary.  Unfortunately, because the Health Estimates are going on right now, she is not necessarily able to be here, and that is the primary reason why I had asked at the beginning of the Estimates if, in fact, we would be able to have post‑secondary after we have gone through K‑12.

 

          I would ask if, in fact, there is will of the committee to deal with Education and Training 16.5 so that the member for Crescentwood would be able to be facilitated, as opposed to pulling her out of the Health Estimates.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Then I ask what the will of the committee would be.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think we were given no notice that this in fact was going to happen, that we were going to jump from one area to the other within the line‑by‑line consideration.  We have gone through the bureau and now we are coming to post‑secondary education.  We want to continue with that, and we can, I think, give assurances to the member that they will not be passed tonight, and so his colleague will not have any difficulty in terms of being able to participate in that section of the Estimates at the next sitting.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Just for clarification, that the Estimates for post‑secondary will not pass this evening and, just to correct, I did indicate at the beginning, I believe, and I could check with Hansard, that we would have liked to have seen post‑secondary follow.  Earlier this afternoon, in fact, I did indicate it to the post‑secondary Education critic for the NDP.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Order, please.  Could I advise the honourable members that post‑secondary education is 16.6.  Right now we are dealing with 16.4, which is Advanced Education and Skills Training.  It is the same, but‑‑[interjection]

 

          Okay, so we will just carry on then, and we will be dealing with 4.(a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $602,100.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like at this time to introduce the members of our staff.  I will start with Mr. Paul Goyan who is the deputy minister of the training part of the department; Dominique Bloy who functioned in that capacity previously and is now a director of special projects; Bob Gorchynski who is looking after some of the specific program administration.  Have I got that right, Bob?  Management Services.  Of course, Tom Thompson joins us again from the administration area of the whole department.  Those are the staff this afternoon.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Shall the item pass?

 

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  I would just like to begin with some clarification about the numbers on page 77 of the 1994‑95 Estimates, the Detailed Estimates, and the reduction of the eight Career Options SYs.  I am looking at this in a historical perspective and notice that there was considerable reduction in SYs on that line last year‑‑and I am actually just trying to look for it on the year before‑‑but perhaps the minister's staff will be able to give us historical perspective on that reduction.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is the final fallout from the movement to the governance model at the colleges.  When we transferred over the colleges to their own governance model from the provincial government, we indicated that there would be no layoff, and to give effect to that we had to maintain staff years without dollars against them.  This year, after that ran its course, we were able then to reduce the staff years in keeping with our commitment to the transfer.  I mean, the dollars‑‑there was no reduction in dollars because that had been done two years ago.

 

Ms. Friesen:  And the minister would confirm that a similar pattern was there last year.  This is simply the same pattern as last year?  The second part of the question is, I just want to confirm whether this has resulted in any loss of jobs.

 

* (1630)

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, there is certainly no impact, as I said previously, to the department, and colleges do not use staff years anyway.  They do not use that process.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Then could we start to look at The Private Vocational Schools Act and regulation.  I asked a number of questions in this area last year and wondered if there had been any changes in the department's approaches or procedures vis‑à‑vis vocational schools.  Perhaps we could start by asking how many, if any, complaints have been registered with the department this year?

 

Mr. Manness:  What kind of complaints?  I ask for clarity.

 

Ms. Friesen:  People who have issues of dispute with private vocational schools.  There have been, in the past, particular sections of that industry where there have been a number of individual complaints, and I am asking the minister how many there have been this year.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, there were 25 complaints in the calendar year '93; 13 were withdrawn voluntarily, 11 were resolved, and one is outstanding.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Could the minister give me a comparison to the previous year?  It sounds to me as though that is quite an increase.

 

Mr. Manness:  In 1992, there were 28, so there were more in '92 than there were in '93, and of those one was withdrawn and 27 were resolved, so actually there was a decrease '93 over '92.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Last year there was a 20 percent increase in enrollments at private vocational schools.  Does the minister have the enrollment figures for this year so we can perhaps evaluate those numbers of complaints as well in that context?

 

Mr. Manness:  We will try and provide that number, but it obviously makes the argument even stronger, the conclusion even stronger, that the percentage of complaints are decreasing even faster than the raw numbers indicate.

 

          Enrollments in '92, 5,587, and in '93, 5,653.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Does the minister have any ideas of why the enrollment has dropped this year in private vocational schools?

 

Mr. Manness:  It did not decrease.  It increased by 1 percent.

 

Ms. Friesen:  My mistake.  I have them listed the other way around.

 

          One of the questions I tried to ask last year and got very little response on was the number of students in private vocational schools who are on some form of public assistance, whether it be UIC or Workers' Comp or Canada Student Loan or Manitoba Student Loan.  Is there any portion of that public assistance which this department has access to in terms of numbers or statistics?

 

Mr. Manness:  We will have to go to our student aid overview to find that information.  We will provide whatever information is there flowing out of 16.40.

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is here.  It is going to take us a little bit to find it.  Does the member want to wait or does she want to proceed?

 

Ms. Friesen:  We can move on or rather move back, actually.  I want to come back to the disputes and ask about the 11 which were resolved.  Could the minister give us an idea of what kind of resolution process is in place?  How are these resolved?

 

Mr. Manness:  The short answer is no, I cannot, but I will try and find out, and again‑‑this is the procedure.

 

          There is a limited period of one year from the date of the commission of an alleged offence.  Initial contact, at that time the potential complainant contacts the private vocational school's administration either in person or by telephone establishing (1) whether the complaint is valid, the person is or was a student at a private vocational school, and (2) the date of the occurrence of the complaint falling within a one‑year period.

 

          If there appears to be grounds to lodge a formal complaint, then I guess a person is given an official complaint summary form by their private vocational school's administration.  The branch determines whether an appointment for an interview is necessary or if the complaint will be sent in writing, and a request for documentation is determined‑‑and there is a request for documentation‑‑sorry, I am having trouble reading this‑‑a copy of the enrollment contract is sought then from either the vocational school and/or the client.

 

          That is the initial contact followed by follow‑up, where a written acknowledgement or receipt of the complaint should be sent to the complainant.  In other words, once a written signed complaint is received by the private vocational school's administration or a personal interview with the complainant, it results in a transcribed signed statement.

 

          So initial contact by follow‑up and then investigation.  Here the vocational school's administration reviews the complaint and determines whether it falls under the act or the regulation, and then to support that, research is done.  The school is contacted for their position.  Any other documents or information is sought, and then fourthly, resolution occurs.

 

          The evidence is gathered and verified by the administration, hopefully, allowing a decision to be rendered.  Then administration, once the resolution has been made, informs all parties to the complaint of the decision in writing, and if necessary, requests compliance under the act and I guess has an opportunity to make regulations for change; and two, once a resolution has been made, verifies compliance and then files the copies under the school's file.

 

          So I am sorry, although I have not maybe given all the detail, I have tried to provide fair detail.

 

* (1640)

 

Ms. Friesen:  So essentially the department investigates and then checks for compliance with the act and then makes a resolution as to whether the school or the student understands and is in compliance with the act.

 

          In the 11 cases, in this past year, which have been resolved, have any of them resulted in‑‑I am not quite sure how to phrase this but‑‑a recognition that there has been noncompliance with the act?  "Resolved" is a rather ambiguous term.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the one case that there might be a problem we are powerless to move on it, because the allegation comes from an outside third party and that can be put in the area of hearsay.  We cannot move unless a complainant comes forward and initiates a process.

 

          We just cannot listen to third‑party hearsay.  The act does not allow us to.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Is the minister in that case referring to the one case that is still outstanding?

 

Mr. Manness:  The answer is yes.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I was interested in the 11 which are listed as resolved.  I was asking whether that resolution, which is a very neutral and ambiguous term, were any of the resolutions based upon noncompliance with the act?

 

Mr. Manness:  I cannot answer that.  If the member wants me to try and find out whether or not there were subsequent actions to be taken because of noncompliance against, I gather, the vocational schools, we will attempt to find that out.

 

Ms. Friesen:  The 13 which were voluntarily withdrawn, which is a much higher proportion than the year before, what was the basis of that voluntary withdrawal?  Was it at the request of the department or was it at the initiation of the student?  I mean, is it, for example, as a result of investigation?  It seems a rather large number of people changing their minds.

 

Mr. Manness:  I guess it falls into two main areas.  Once people understand the process and it is reported to them or it is indicated to them, I gather they say for the most part, too complicated and do not want to be involved.  And a subset of that is that once people realize they have to register a formal complaint, that their name has to be behind it, some also back away.  Those would be the two main reasons of voluntary withdrawal from following the process as laid out.

 

Ms. Friesen:  My concern in the past has been for the nature of the agreements which these students sign and the general educational level of students who are entering private vocational colleges.  Does the minister have this year any indication of what the average educational level is of students entering vocational colleges in Manitoba?

 

Mr. Manness:  Yes, I do.  The average student profile‑‑this is interesting; I have not seen these numbers before myself‑‑17 to 22:  31 percent.

 

          This is age, first of all.  Three broad categories:  age, prior education and gender.  Under age:  17 to 22, 31 percent; 23 to 28, 22 percent; 25 to 44, also 30 percent; and 45 and over, 13 percent.

 

          Now under the heading, prior education:  Grade 11, 10 percent; Grade 12, 48 percent; community college, 9 percent; university, 15 percent.  Gender‑‑

 

Ms. Friesen:  I missed that last one:  community college, how many percent?

 

Mr. Manness:  Nine.

 

          University 15.  And then the final, gender:  female, 71 percent; male, 29 percent.

 

Ms. Friesen:  That is very interesting, and I am comparing it in my mind to Saskatchewan, where 60 percent of the students are in fact at the Grade 8 to 9 level, and I wonder what the difference is, at least this is in the review of the Saskatchewan private vocational schools.  Has there been a‑‑does the minister have with him or does the department have available to us an historical look at that, say, over the last 5 years?  Do we have a sense of how that has changed?

 

Mr. Manness:  I understand we have been tracking this for a few years, and we do not have that information with us, but we will endeavour to provide that and determine whether or not there is a trend that has been at work for the last few years.

 

Ms. Friesen:  The private vocational schools‑‑has there been a change in the number of schools in the last year?

 

Mr. Manness:  There has been a reduction from 43 last year to 41 this year.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Did those reductions occur in Winnipeg or outside of Winnipeg?  And while the staff are looking this up, I would also be interested in which section of the, quote, industry this also occurred.  I know that there are four or five broad sectors that are often spoken of in the private vocational school area.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will endeavour to provide that information also.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I am also interested‑‑that was really an introduction to asking some questions about program changes that have been obvious, over the last five years, clear reductions in the kinds of programs and courses which have been offered at our community colleges, and these are the areas where the private vocational colleges have picked up, particularly in business area.  I am wondering how many of the private vocational colleges have also moved into industrial programming.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I hate to say this, but we probably cannot answer that here.  When we move into the colleges section, I know that information should be available when we come at that time, but certainly, within the "industrial/electronic," the private colleges offer courses in driving, career development.

 

          I will list below the colleges that are offering study under the broad grouping "industrial/electronic."  They are the Manitoba Driving School, the Career Development Institute‑‑CDI, Computer Multimedia Technology Centre, ICS Canadian Ltd., McGraw‑Hill, Mid‑Ocean Recording Studio, National Institute of Broadcasting, Patal Vocational Preparation Schools, Professional Transport Driving Training, Reimer Express driving training, Right Choice Driver Training, rural Recording Arts of Manitoba.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I think all of those were in existence last year.  What I am really looking for is a sense of whether the reduction in the nonbusiness side of the community colleges is, in fact, being picked up by the private vocational schools?  I do not get a sense of that particular answer addressing that issue.

 

* (1650)

 

Mr. Manness:  I do not know whether to beg to differ with the member or not, but I did not sense that colleges, within their new flexibility, are really weeding out a lot of the private or nonsocial area of programming to any significant extent.  That is a general statement.  There probably are some courses that‑‑I know there were reductions.  The very essence of the governance model was to give them the flexibility to take out what courses they did not sense having a demand.

 

          Unless I am corrected over the next little while, I guess I will accept what the member says, that the private colleges are not rushing in to fill the void in any area of programming that is no longer offered by the community colleges.

 

Ms. Friesen:  The broader point I am making, of course, is that the community colleges do rush in where there are programs to be offered that do not require much equipment, do not require much capital investment, and it is very difficult at the moment to see where the community colleges are going.  My concern is the very small number of graduates from those programs and whether the private system is in fact going to pick up those opportunities for training for Manitobans.

 

Mr. Manness:  They will if they are profitable to do so.  I mean, that is a given.  These are private colleges whose motive is to make a return on their investment of time and/or energy and skills, and I guess every decision is made probably on that basis as to what courses to offer.  That is the marketplace at work.

 

Ms. Friesen:  What provisions are there under Manitoba programs for students on social assistance to enter private vocational schools?

 

Mr. Manness:  I cannot answer that at this sitting.  That would be a Family Services issue where they would buy spaces from the private vocationals, I guess, if they have the budget and it is deemed as a necessary requirement in the greater public support of that individual.

 

Ms. Friesen:  So there are places available at the private vocational schools for people who are on forms of provincial social assistance?

 

Mr. Manness:  What we are saying is we are not certain what they do.  I mean, that is hard to believe that I would make that statement, but that service is not provided in this department.  So, having been a Treasury Board minister, I know that Family Services has great powers to spend money in support of their clients, and it would not surprise me one bit if they did spend some of that resource on education within the private vocational schools.  Do I know that for a certainty?  I do not have the count here.  Do I know that for certainty that there is some policy against them doing that?  The answer is no.  So, again, I would have to seek the information from a different source.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Would the minister then undertake to gather that information from the Department of Family Services and let us know how many students in Manitoba on social assistance are attending the private vocational schools?

 

Mr. Manness:  Again, I am not so sure they have that, and if they do, it would only be on the provincial listing.  It would not be on all those who are drawing social assistance.  What the City of Winnipeg offers, for instance, or municipalities, I do not know.  We will attempt to see whether that global number exists.  If it does, we will certainly share that with the member.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Last year, when I asked about the relationship between students and the private vocational schools, the minister indicated that she would be including in the Manitoba Career Prospects newspaper a discussion for students of the kind of questions that they should be asking as they looked at private vocational schools.  I wonder if perhaps for the record the minister might table the section of the Career Prospects that did do that.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, from memory, staff senses that one of the issues dealt with private vocational schools, setting them out as an option.  We do not have that Prospects with us.  As a matter of fact, the second publishing has just come out, I believe.  But this is what the department puts out as a pamphlet on vocational schools, if the member would like to see a copy.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I thank the minister for the copy of the brochure, but I would, however, also at the next sitting be interested in seeing the copy of Manitoba Prospects which did deal with this, since I raised a number of issues, very specific ones, that the minister said she would include in that.

 

          And of course, I think, one of the reasons for perhaps being hopeful about that particular way of spreading information is that it is a newspaper which is widely distributed and which young people and those with perhaps lesser degrees of literacy would certainly look at.  I do not know how the minister distributes this particular brochure that he has just tabled, but my guess would be that it would not have the same wide distribution as the Career Prospects newspaper.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, additional information, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we put out the latest Manitoba Prospects in January '94, and it was of course distributed to approximately 66,000 high school students and 25,000 adults in the province.  As an aside, part of the government volunteer program used an individual, a Grade 11 or Grade 12 student, who volunteered their time to the government, part of the volunteer program, to assist us with writing that Prospects to make it more readable‑friendly, or friendly‑readable‑‑whatever the term is‑‑to students, Grade 11 or Grade 12.

 

          But anyway, this year's release did include an article, one entitled "How to Choose the Best Private Vocational School."  So we will still endeavour to find that, the Prospects '94, and we expect there will be a reference to choosing private vocational schools and possibly even reference to this document that we are holding in our hands right now.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have not had the chance to read this document yet, but it does seem to include many of the questions which I had suggested to the department last year, and I wonder if the minister could tell us perhaps the arrangements for distribution of this.

 

Mr. Manness:  All private vocational schools, all high schools, and all Canada Employment Centres are the locations where this pamphlet is lodged.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  The hour being 5 p.m., I am interrupting the proceedings.  Time for private members' hour.  We will reconvene at 8 p.m.

 

HEALTH

 

Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay):  Order, please.  Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

 

          This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health.  We are on item 3.(a)(1), page 83 of the Estimates manual.

 

          Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

 

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Madam Chairperson, when I last left off my question for the minister, we were discussing the $2‑million expenditure for the delivery of the independent program, and I still am not clear precisely under what expenditure line that $2 million comes out of.  Perhaps the minister can enlighten us as to specifically where that $2 million comes out of.  I believe the minister indicated it comes out of the Supplies and Services, which is $14,522,700.  Is that correct?

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  Madam Chair, I think it is, as I recall my discussions with staff last week, but if it is not, then it would be that other line that is entitled I believe Home Care Assistance.  What page are you on?

 

An Honourable Member:  57.

 

Mr. McCrae:  I am almost certain it is out of the Supplies and Services line.  If I am incorrect, I will correct that later, but I believe that is what my staff advised me last week.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate how much the VON contract will be for this fiscal year '94‑95, because as I understand it, that also comes out of the Supply and Services line?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chair, I will make a note and provide the honourable member with further information about the VON arrangements for this fiscal year later this afternoon.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, can the minister also indicate what the cost was for the VON contract for '93‑94?  Can he advise whether or not the VON contract has in fact been signed?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chair, the financial or contractual arrangements between the government and the Victorian Order of Nurses, those arrangements have not been finalized for '93‑94 or for '94‑95.

 

* (1430)

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Having said that, can the minister outline what the projected cost is for '93‑94, since the year is literally completed?  Surely the minister must have a projection for the cost of the VON contract in '94‑95 as well.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, while we are working up those numbers for the honourable member, I would just by way of background point out that the Victorian Order of Nurses provide short‑term home care services, and the work they do for clients or patients or customers‑‑as the honourable member calls them‑‑that is driven by the amount of demand there is.  That demand is driven by issues like length of stay, like discharge policy of the various hospitals here in Winnipeg.

 

          While we are working on this, Madam Chairperson, I would provide for the honourable member some response to questions previously raised.  I do not want to get too far behind in supplying information that I have undertaken to supply.

 

          The first one has to do with the epidemiology unit.  I will advise honourable members that the Healthy Public Policy Programs Division is developing a collaborative epidemiology unit to improve the development, analysis and dissemination of population‑based health information.  The epidemiology unit will be a collaborative effort between the Department of Health, the University of Manitoba, the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, the Cadham Provincial Laboratory and other agencies.  It would service health associations through vital links to medical officers of health.  The epidemiology unit will involve epidemiologists and other population health scientists based within and outside government.

 

          They will collaborate to provide the professional resources necessary to carry out the following functions:  research and analysis to support the development and evaluation of provincial priorities, epidemiologic research to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public health activities, collaboration and consultation with communities to provide community health needs assessments, surveillance of communicable and chronic diseases including compiling, analyzing and interpreting data for routine use in the field, education of health professionals at the graduate and post‑graduate levels in the use of population health data and principles, support the development of a vibrant epidemiology research industry in Manitoba.

 

          In the short term, the epidemiology unit will review, organize and analyze many of the various Manitoba health data bases and registries to remove redundancies and to improve their utility for program management and planning.  The epidemiology unit will also provide data support for provincial priority program initiatives.

 

          In a longer term, the unit will more fully develop the potential of Manitoba's health information resources by providing a centre of expertise in epidemiologic research and analysis.  It will provide Manitoba with a competitive advantage in competition for health research contracts and grants from national and international agencies and funding sources.

 

          Madam Chairperson, I was asked also about the Environmental Microbiology Section of the Cadham Laboratory.  This was in regard to water and food testing.  An amalgamation of Provincial Environmental Laboratory Services has occurred at the former W. M. Ward Technical Services Laboratory, effective April 1, 1994.  This includes the W. M. Ward Technical Services Laboratory from the Department of Environment, the Environmental Microbiology Section of the Cadham Provincial Laboratory from the Department of Health and the Analytical Chemistry Services Section of the Technical Operations branch of the Economic Innovation and Technology Council into one organization under the control of the Economic Innovation and Technology Council.

 

          These amalgamated laboratory sections now form the Environmental Sciences Centre.  The Environmental Microbiology Section of Cadham Laboratory analyzes water, waste water and food to determine if they meet Canadian microbiological standards.  Food‑ and water‑borne illnesses are also investigated in co‑operation with local public health agencies.  These were charged to the federal government and a number of agencies for these services.  Microbiological testing of water, waste water and food occurs at the environmental micro section at Cadham.  This will be moved over to the Environmental Sciences Centre Lab this fall.  Presently there is no fee for public testing.  Private companies are presently assessed fees on a cost‑recovery basis.

 

          These fees are under review.  The new fee schedule will be prepared in mid‑June, 1994.  Fees for private testing commenced April 1, 1994, and public fees are scheduled to commence April 1, 1995.

 

          One of the honourable members asked me for a job description of the Chief Medical Officer of Health.  That, of course, is Dr. John Guilfoyle.  Dr. Guilfoyle works for the Community and Mental Health Services Division of the department and his office is located in Winnipeg.  With respect to general accountability, the Chief Medical Officer of Health is a senior position within Manitoba Health, reporting to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Community and Mental Health Services Division.  The Chief Medical Officer of Health acts as an advocate spokesman for public health in the province, provides advice to the minister about threats to the public health and represents the department as required within and between directorates and other departments.  The Chief Medical Officer of Health insures that the relevant statutory requirements of the Public Health Act are met.  The Chief Medical Officer of Health provides professional supervision, serves as a cohesive and integrative force and is accountable for the program standards and professional performance of the regional medical officers of health.

 

* (1440)

 

          With respect to the nature and scope of Dr. Guilfoyle's job, Manitoba Health has restructured to facilitate population‑based programming and service delivery and to facilitate efficient linkages between policy, programs, operations and finance.

 

          The mandate of the Community and Mental Health Services Division includes provincial program development, monitoring and operations in hospitals, community health centres, personal care homes, funded agencies and in the community.

 

          In the past, the practice of public health has necessarily been restricted to concerns about infectious diseases and sanitation.  With the broadening of understanding of health, the role of the Chief Medical Officer of Health and the scope of population health practice has widened to concerns about the general health of the population as a whole.  In this regard, the Chief Medical Officer of Health provides direction to the epidemiology unit that reports to the position.  The epidemiology unit's data system has access to the various databases within Manitoba Health and provides timely information on the health of Manitobans and makes recommendations for areas of improvement.

 

          The Chief Medical Officer of Health provides to the minister and the department senior independent medical advice in examining options and recommending policy within the health care system.  As a senior position, the Chief Medical Officer of Health represents the department, along with other departments, in those areas where physician expertise or influence is necessary.  The Chief Medical Officer of Health acts as the department's public spokesperson, advocate and provides expert medical advice to the public and the media.  This public profile of the department is essential in those circumstances where public anxiety is expressed about public health issues.

 

          The Chief Medical Officer of Health is responsible for monitoring the Public Health Act, its application, and making recommendation for change.  This is particularly true at the present time as profound changes are occurring within the health care sector and, importantly, concurrently in the organization of the department.  The Chief Medical Officer of Health serves as a link between the policy planning and the program delivery sector and fosters a close working relationship with other divisions to allow for input in policy development in all areas as needed.

 

          As a team leader of the regional medical officers of health across the province, the Chief Medical Officer of Health ensures consistency in program and content and delivery between regions.

 

          With respect to the specific accountabilities of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, he must provide expert medical advice to the minister and act as department spokesperson to the public and the media on public health issues.  He must provide leadership to a team of community health physicians to ensure services have a consumer focus and meet the needs of Manitobans.  He must provide expert medical input into the development of healthy public policy.  He must interpret and ensure that the statutory requirements of the Public Health Act are implemented and adhered to.  He must insure that the epidemiology data is used to ensure sound policy and program development.  He must identify threats to the health of Manitobans and play a key role in devising strategies that improve health and well‑being, and he must promote healthy lifestyles and environments so as to prevent and control the impact of communicable disease on the health and well‑being of Manitobans.

 

          You can see, Madam Chairperson, from having listened so intently to this job description how very responsible a position the position of Chief Medical Officer of Health is in the province of Manitoba.  Certainly, the incumbent has been kept very busy keeping the minister advised and the department advised of health developments in Manitoba.

 

          The honourable member has asked about the Bell‑Wade Report.  They asked if the contract was tendered, and the answer is yes, and obviously approved by the government.  The cost breakdown is as follows:  fees $200,000, and out‑of‑pocket expenses $30,000.

 

          I have also been asked about home care hospital co‑ordinators for 1994‑95.  Hospital home care referral nurses manage the referral to community home care services of patients discharged from hospital and the complete assessments for personal care homes or long‑term beds.  There are 16.75 equivalent full‑time referral nurses in seven hospitals.

 

          Hospital home care co‑ordinators manage specialized, complex caseloads of persons who reside in the community and require access to hospital, for example, respiratory, children or palliative care.  There are four equivalent full‑time co‑ordinating nurses:  one each at the Health Sciences Centre, Children's centre, St. Boniface and Riverview.  There are, additionally, the equivalent of 4.6 equivalent full‑time positions provided for vacation and sick replacement and workload peaks.

 

          Now back to the question the honourable member asked, now that I have caught up some on some of the undertakings I have given, with respect to the Victorian Order of Nurses, for '93‑94, the projected actuals are $7.7 million for nursing, $.5 million for home help and $1.2 million for co‑ordination and referral.  For 1994‑95 it is estimated‑‑and "estimated" is the word here; these matters, as I have pointed out, are driven by the amount of demand there is‑‑nursing, $7.8 million; home help, $.8 million; and co‑ordination and referral, $1.3 million.  So, for '93‑94, a total of $9.4 million; for '94‑95, a total of $9.9 million.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister might just give me a brief breakdown of each of those services‑‑the direct service, the home help, and the co‑ordinating service‑‑as to the purpose of each of those three breakdowns.

 

* (1450)

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, nursing services are hands‑on nursing services.  Home help are those services that allow a person to be home, i.e., certain cleaning chores, certain other services such as cooking that can keep a person at home.  The other is that co‑ordination and referral job that has to be done to facilitate discharge from hospital and placement for home care services.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Who is that $1.3 million this year paid to in terms of the co‑ordination?  Does that go directly to VON or does that go to VON co‑ordinating nurses?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Previously these monies were paid to the hospitals, and this fiscal year it will be paid directly to the Victorian Order of Nurses.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  The minister cited on several occasions the lack of options available at certain hospitals, Seven Oaks being the one specifically alluded to, concerning discharging of patients.  We Care has now taken a contract to do some of this work.  Would that work have previously been undertaken by the Victorian Order of Nurses or by some other entity or agency with respect to the nursing component?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chair, the We Care Home Health Services contract, I have to stress that is a pilot, that is a 12‑week demonstration, or whatever you call it.

 

          What it is doing, Seven Oaks Hospital has contracted on this pilot basis with We Care to take long‑term patients who could be discharged and put them into a home care situation.  The reason for that is that our government program was not perceived by Seven Oaks to be responding in a timely way to the needs of these long‑term patients.  So Seven Oaks, wanting to deal appropriately and put the concerns of long‑term patients number one, contracted in this way with We Care Home Health Services.

 

          Meanwhile, the We Care Home Health Services program is filling that gap.  Also meanwhile, our government‑run Home Care program is something that is the subject of considerable work and review.  We are trying to improve that program so the government program can be more responsive.  Certainly it is not a question of a lack of commitment on the part of the program, because the funds have certainly grown very, very significantly, in the last few years especially.

 

          It is not felt appropriate that beds‑‑this goes back to a discussion the honourable member and I have had already, but it is not felt by Seven Oaks, or I suggest to most reasonable people, that hospitals should be used in this way.  There is a significant cost to hospitals to keep patients, that is true.  Therefore beds that are able to be used in hospitals ought to be used by patients who need them as opposed to long‑term patients who should be at home and getting service.

 

          What the We Care is doing is filling a gap that is created by the inability of the Manitoba Home Care program to respond quickly enough to these discharge needs.  Meanwhile, as I say, we continue to attempt to improve the operations of the government‑run Home Care program.

 

          I think the honourable member knows that, even though we offer all these services, they are not guaranteed in the strict sense of the word.  We offer them as we can make them available, and Seven Oaks perceived that if we could make those services available on a more timely basis, we could make space available in the hospital for those who need to be there or alternatively to save the dollars.

 

          The Manitoba Home Care program itself could stand to learn a few things from the demonstration project.  I think that we serve our patients well when we attempt to learn how better to deliver services to them.  To leave things as they are is to say to the patients, well, we do not really care about you, we care more about the comfort of ourselves and our staff.  I mean, we do care about our staff, but we also care about the patients.  So the patients come first, and we try to treat the staff in a reasonable way.  But, when we are not able to respond to the need that is there, then we need to make some adjustments, and when we do make adjustments, we are going to need support for that.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, just trying to understand this line item, $9.9 million is going to be the VON contract out of the $14,522,000 for Supplies and Services.  The minister has indicated that approximately $2 million will come out of this line item for the expansion of the self‑managed care program, which takes us to about $11.9 million.  Can the minister indicate what the other $2.6 million in that particular line item comes out of?

 

* (1500)

 

Mr. McCrae:  Just to be a little clearer, I think, Madam Chairperson, under Supplies and Services, I am not sure what I indicated earlier, but the self‑managed care program has been budgeted in that figure, the half a million dollars, and that is the amount in there now, and $1.5 million of the direct service appropriation is for self‑managed care, and ultimately will be moved down to that $14.5‑million line that we have been talking about.  That needs to be clarified.  In addition, there is money in here for the Fokus, Ten Ten Sinclair people.  There is money here for the district health centres, the Community Therapy Services, Luther Home, and then $800,000 for other miscellaneous costs and expenses.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, just in regard to the Luther Home, the Fokus and the Ten Ten, I recognize obviously the Supplies and Services issue.  The forwarding of the money to Ten Ten would have to be in the form of service, and probably a back service in relation to Fokus.  Is most of those monies in services, or are there any supplies in there?  I am just trying to get an idea as to what money is used for what.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chair, with respect to the number for Fokus and Ten Ten Sinclair, that number is strictly for services.  Supplies are covered under some other appropriation, and direct grants are also covered somewhere else.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, just returning up to the line Direct Service Workers, do we have any figures with respect to staff years and the allocation of those dollars to specific staff years?  I mean, are there a certain number of staff years allocated for home support workers?  Are there a certain number of staff years allocated for attendant services?  Are there a certain number allocated for other direct services?  Is it broken down by staff year or some other meaningful category that we can get a handle on?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, the number in the book for direct service workers covers only direct service workers.  Most of these people, all but a few, are nonpermanent people.  They are all casual people.  That includes home care attendants, home support workers, LPNs, although there are a few in Winnipeg I understand that are on staff and are permanent.  That also includes registered nurses, overnight and daily workers.  All of those people are casual employees and are called on an as‑needed basis.