Vol. 34, May 26, 1994

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, May 26, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

ACCESS Program Funding

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

An Honourable Member: Read it, please.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, you want it read? The Clerk will read it.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post‑secondary education and training; and

WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and

WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and

WHEREAS the enrollment has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and

WHEREAS the provincial government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2 million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post‑secondary education and training; and

WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and

WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and

WHEREAS the enrollment has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post‑secondary education and training; and

WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and

WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and

WHEREAS the enrollment has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.

* (1335)

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Santos). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post‑secondary education and training; and

WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and

WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and

WHEREAS the enrollment has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Barrett). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post‑secondary education and training; and

WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and

WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and

WHEREAS the enrollment has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Committee of Supply

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd. for 1993, and, as well, the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for Manitoba Energy and Mines.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 11‑‑The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 11, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 209‑‑The Manitoba Environmental Rights Act

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that leave be given to introduce Bill 209, The Manitoba Environmental Rights Act (Loi sur les droits environnementaux au Manitoba), and that the same now be given and received for the first time.

Motion presented.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Speaker, the underlying principle of this bill is the declaration that all citizens have a right to adequate and safe environmental resources, to clean air, clean water and uncontaminated land.

In granting this right to Manitobans, it imposes a collateral obligation on their government as a whole and not simply on any single minister or department to protect the environment. It establishes an environmental commissioner whose responsibility it will be to conduct investigations and reviews of practices, proposals and policies which may be harmful to the environment.

Mr. Speaker, rights cannot simply be conferred without naming the ways in which these rights are to be exercised. This bill outlines the ways in which Manitobans will have an increased role in environmental protection.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend Bill 209 to all members of this House.

Point of Order

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, from the remarks made by the member for Osborne, it seems to me that the hiring of staff and the paying of same is a money bill that would require a royal recommendation, which I do not think the member has.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the question may arise, but it would be more appropriate on second reading. It is a member's right to be able to introduce legislation. If the government House leader wishes to pursue that at that point in time, I am sure it will be dealt with, but at this point in time it is in order, I believe, for the member to be able to introduce this at first reading.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, the honourable opposition House leader is quite correct. Until we see the bill‑‑we have not seen the bill, so you could be right and you could be wrong, sir.

We will allow this matter to proceed until such time as we get an opportunity to see the bill.

* * *

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered then.

* (1340)

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the J.R. Walkof School fifty‑six Grade 5 students under the direction of Miss Linda Bergen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard).

Also, from the Minnedosa Collegiate we have fifty‑five Grade 11 students under the direction of Mr. Daniel Kiazyk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer).

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

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Kenaston Underpass

Justification

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

The largest project approved by the three levels of government dealing with the infrastructure program to date is the Kenaston project, the underpass proposal requesting some $29 million of taxpayers' money be spent. We have received a lot of advice from individuals concerned about this project, both in the community and outside of the community, that there is really no major economic benefit for this project, and it has very questionable merit in terms of the amount of money that is being proposed by the provincial government.

We are also aware that the City of Winnipeg is to complete their own transportation plans as part of Plan Winnipeg with extensive public hearings. Those transportation hearings will not be completed until December of 1994, yet this project is approved by the three levels of government prior to this project.

Does the Premier have any cost‑benefit analysis that he can table in this House to allow us to be having this as the No. 1 priority in terms of spending for infrastructure, and why would we approve this project when the study under Plan Winnipeg is not even to be completed until December of 1994?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Firstly, Mr. Speaker, this is not the No. 1 priority. There have been hundreds of projects announced under the infrastructure program. In fact, the amount of money that has been allocated to this point is $160 million for several hundred projects. So it is one of many priorities.

I might also say that as was our desire, we have had a process of consultation that has involved the two levels of government in addition to ourselves; that is, the federal government and the municipal government being involved in stating their priorities, in agreeing to the projects that have been put forth.

This was a project that was a high priority for both the federal government and the City of Winnipeg. As one of the partners to the process, it is one of the programs that was included in hundreds of projects for an expenditure in excess of $160 million.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier to table any cost‑economic benefits analysis that would be available and why we are approving this project before the transportation plan under Plan Winnipeg with public consultation‑‑not consultation just with governments in back rooms but with public consultation‑‑is completed.

I would like to ask the Premier a second question, and I would still like him to consider my first request for the analysis, but the second question is: The government in its press release indicated that truckers and motorists will have uninterrupted four‑lane access from Highway 75 south of Winnipeg all the way to the Winnipeg International Airport. On March 21, 1991, the Premier wrote one of his constituents and said that it is his government's priority, and it is committed to diverting as much large truck traffic to the Perimeter Highway as possible.

It seems to us and citizens in the area that all we are doing is facilitating truck traffic from the location. Even with the relocation to the Sterling Lyon Parkway of the intermodal centre, we are facilitating more traffic of trucks to the airport, Mr. Speaker, and again it does not make any economic sense.

Can the Premier please tell his constituents and citizens why he is proceeding?

* (1345)

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member for Concordia has a good memory, but it is short. He, of course, conveniently forgets that when he was the Minister of Urban Affairs, he put extra money into the capital spending of the City of Winnipeg and a carrot of $10 million on the understanding that they would create the Chief Peguis bridge and freeway that connected northeast Winnipeg that included his constituency and that of his then‑member for Rossmere, Mr. Schroeder. It included, of course, the constituency of his colleague at that time, Vic Schroeder, and he was very interested in having that constructed.

They did not do any cost‑benefit study on that, Mr. Speaker, no cost‑benefit study whatsoever. All they did was say, for political reasons, we want that bridge to go and we will give you $10 million if you build that bridge. So let him not suggest now that there should be some different type of analysis than he was prepared to do when he was in the position to make decisions.

Mr. Doer: The Premier has so many errors in his answer, but the biggest error of his answer is that he did not answer the question about his contradiction between truck traffic through Kenaston Boulevard up to the airport, contradicting the letter he wrote to his own constituents in 1991.

I would like to ask the Premier another question, and I hope he can answer it.

Mr. Speaker, there are now plans underway to have a combined air cargo trucking centre close to the airport. A number of proposals would call on rail, air and truck transportation to be intermodally performed near the airport on a different rail line than the one which the government is now building an underpass under.

I would like to ask the Premier, why did the government not consider this proposal in terms of its future implications for jobs and economic development. Why are they going ahead with the underpass on Kenaston, Mr. Speaker, which is obviously contrary to other proposals that are in the economic arena now in Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is the understanding of both Mr. Axworthy and the member for Winnipeg South, Reg Alcock, that this is a key link in that project in order to ensure that there is‑‑[interjection] The member does not want to know the answer, I am sure.

Home Care Program

Appeal Committee

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, last year the government changed the rules regarding home care services, charged a user fee for home care equipment and charged a user fee for ostomy supplies. Today, we are glad to hear that the minister has announced an appeal committee and an advisory committee on continuing care. We welcome this announcement. Even though it is one year too late, we welcome the announcement.

Can the minister advise this House whether the appeal committee will have the power to change decisions in home care, even though the government rules and regulations that were changed last year say otherwise?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's support for this measure which I believe will create a buffer between home care clients and the service provider, i.e., the government itself.

If you put yourself in the position of a client of home care and you are not comfortable with the service you are getting, you really feel in somewhat of a helpless position whereby you only have the government to turn to. So I believe this appeal panel is the right approach and the right thing to do.

The criteria which have been in existence from the beginning will initially be the criteria by which the appeal panels will make their decisions. However, as they do their work, they will see and notice, no doubt, certain trends in the delivery of home care, and working alongside the Home Care Advisory Council, we expect to review all of those policies and delivery mechanisms and so on, Mr. Speaker, so that if improvements are the result of recommendations made by either or both panels, then the clients, the people we work for will be all the better for it.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House whether an individual or individuals who now have to pay for home care equipment, supplies, or ostomy equipment will have the ability to appeal that decision, that user fee, to the appeal committee the minister has set up?

Mr. McCrae: These committees and panels are there to assist people who get caught up in the bureaucracy which sometimes develops in programs like Home Care. These advisory councils will be there to make available advice to government, and rather than try to tell them what their advice ought to be, as the honourable member seems to suggest we ought to do, I think we should show a little respect for the process and hear from the advisory council or the appeal panel at the appropriate time.

* (1350)

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's answer is no.

APM Management Review

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: Can the minister finally today make the Connie Curran report on home care public, and will he have the advisory committee that is looking after continuing care changes, will he let the advisory committee look at the Connie Curran home care report?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. The advisory council will have the advice that flowed from the project available to it. I have told Dr. Connelly and Miss Keirstead today that there are a couple of things about this that I would like them to bear in mind.

One of the things is that I have a concern that has not been resolved yet respecting any suggestion that home care services might be contracted out to personal care homes in light of the fact that personal care homes are now the subject of a review which we announced recently. I did not feel it was appropriate that that be part of the review at this time. I am also not interested in recommendations that would get rid of the services of licensed practical nurses in the program.

I am interested, however, as a result of the APM work that was done last year, in improvements to patient care. I am interested in improved information systems, improved co‑ordination and improved equity of assessments for patients and clients of the Home Care program.

Manitoba Telephone System

Faneuil Corporation Agreement

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System.

We have been advised by government staff that there will be an announcement in the coming weeks of a further deal with the Faneuil Corporation. They are already here and have a three‑year contract for telemarketing services previously done by the Manitoba Telephone System. Given recent events, the staff at the Manitoba Telephone System are truly in a state of unknowing and flux at that corporation and I think deserve some answers about their future and about the corporation's future.

My question for the minister: What is the nature of the further deal with Faneuil? I recognize details cannot be forthcoming today, but can he tell us what is on the table of existing services which MTS now offers?

Surely he can come clean on that and put that on the table. What is being offered of current services currently offered by Manitoba Telephone System as part of this arrangement?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to a three‑year contract that has been signed to market value‑added services that MTS has to offer to the public. I can tell the member that they have been very, very successful, increasing the activity at MTS with those value‑added services. So it is a very significant plus, increasing the opportunity for more jobs at MTS because more services are being bought by members of the Manitoba public who are made aware of the services that MTS has to sell.

Any further discussion with Faneuil about any future operation is based on exactly the same thing, more services to be sold, more use of the Manitoba Telephone System network to generate more revenue and more jobs within the system. It is an attempt to expand the use of the system by services that are marketed inside and outside the province through the use of a joint venture operation.

The member realizes the discussions that have been going on for some time are not concluded, and we cannot say anything more other than the intention is to have more jobs, more use of the service in the province of Manitoba to do services inside and outside the province.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, further for the same minister: Can the minister indicate, because this is a critical time‑‑two of the unions are meeting tonight to decide whether or not they will take another vote on the layoffs versus the Bill 22 days‑‑whether or not the current arrangement which is being negotiated will have any effect on the current staff complement at Manitoba Telephone System?

Will there be any layoffs from MTS regardless of overall employment in the province? Are MTS jobs at risk as a part of this deal? Can the minister at least give that assurance to Manitoba Telephone System employees today?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the member must understand technology. Overall, through telephone systems around the world, particularly in North America, more technology actually leads to less jobs. Our vision here is to find ways and means to have more services marketed by the MTS and through MTS to solidify more jobs in MTS, absolutely.

We are looking at the upside of this to protect jobs that are there and expand the opportunity for more jobs. That is the sole intent that we are about here, and if we do not get those jobs in this province they will happen somewhere else in North America. So we are chasing them, pursuing them so that there are more jobs, more network activity in Manitoba.

* (1355)

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, finally, for the same minister, an arrangement with Mr. Steve Childerhouse, former head of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, was extended recently. That arrangement with him, and reading from the original Order‑in‑Council, was for the writing of a definitive agreement required for MTS, Manitoba Trading Corporation and the Faneuil Corporation developing a structure for working processes and documentation.

What is the nature of Mr. Childerhouse's work? Is it with respect to this further arrangement? Can the minister indicate when we can expect to see and get definitively the things that are on the table from the province, from Manitoba Telephone System and from the Manitoba Trading Corporation as part of this deal?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I think I have given my answers so far on that. We have the intention to create more jobs. In his profession, he knows that it is not an easy process to write agreements and those agreements are worthless until they are signed. That is the process we are in.

Education System

Physical Education

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): The fitness and health professionals organizing and supervising young people at the Fit Week launch today find it incongruent that the four ministers sponsoring the venture are all cutting back on fitness, physical education and health prevention programs while claiming to support all of these initiatives.

My question is for the Premier. Will the Premier clarify this government's policy in terms of preventative health care and in terms of quality daily physical education? Does this government support the program? Whom does the Premier believe should teach this program providing active living skills, physical education and health and fitness education to young people in Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, my government and I personally are very supportive of encouraging healthy lifestyles in Manitobans. We believe that educating and encouraging Manitobans to maintain a healthy diet, nutritious intake, to play sports actively, to maintain their physical fitness are all very positive things that ought to be encouraged.

I personally try to always ensure that I participate so that I can be an example of that, and I know that the member who asked the question leads a very healthy and active lifestyle herself. I believe that is a very important part of what we do here, and I would certainly encourage it in every way possible.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that was a specific answer to the specific question that I asked, which was about daily quality physical education program which this government's Education minister is planning to eliminate by eliminating phys ed professionals in the schools.

My second question for the Premier: Why is the government penalizing future generations due to the habits of their parents who did not benefit from these programs, and does the Premier agree that these programs should be eliminated because, as the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) seems to have indicated to the specialists in this area, that they are not showing people‑‑

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

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we are not eliminating the programs and I reject the fact that the parents of these children did not have these programs.

My involvement on a lifelong basis and commitment to physical education and healthy lifestyle is based on what I learned when I was in school and based on the dedication of tremendous numbers of teachers who were dedicated to helping children, to working with them, to coaching, to being involved in all of those things.

I might tell you that they were dedicated because they believe in it, not like the member for Radisson, who believes that people should only do that if they are paid extra to do it. I reject that totally.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, we believe that all people of Manitoba should be able to participate in physical education and fitness programs, not only if they can afford to belong to‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, with your question.

* (1400)

Ms. Cerilli: My third question for the Premier: Will the government listen to young people of Manitoba when they responded overwhelmingly to the High Schools Athletic Association survey and said that sports and athletic and cultural and arts programs help them stay in school, help them develop life skills, make school more enjoyable and make them feel good about themselves? Will they listen to those young people and ensure that schools have strong arts, culture and athletics programs so these children have a positive alternative?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, my government and I could not be more committed to that process. I participate several times a year with the Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association in various events they put on because of a commitment to ensure they carry on the good work that they have been doing for decades and generations. [interjection]

Now we hit it, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite goes like this: money. She believes that the only answer to everything we do in society is more money, more taxes, higher taxes. More money is all that she believes makes the world go around. There are thousands of dedicated people who organize, coach, participate in sports throughout our society who do not do so because of the money they are getting, who do so on a volunteer basis. I reject totally the attitude that is demonstrated by the member for Radisson.

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, to clarify‑‑

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, what is your point of order?

Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, the Premier should look at his budget and‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson, you do not have a point of order. You asked for clarification, and that is not a reason to use a point of order.

Louisiana‑Pacific Co.

Environmental Assessment

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, when the Louisiana‑Pacific project was announced we said we welcomed the project but we wanted to see it done right, and we wanted all aspects of the project to be looked at, in one‑stage environmental review to see that all concerns were addressed. However, the government has chosen to do a split review and review the plant and then the forest separately.

I want to ask the Premier why