LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, May 12, 1994

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

PRAYERS

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

TABLING OF REPORTS

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to table the Annual Report 1992‑93 for the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation.

 

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act):  Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me today to table the Annual Report 1993 of the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba, as well as the 1994 Five Year Operating Plan of the Workers Compensation Board.

 

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act):  Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Manitoba Hydro‑Electric Board 42nd Annual Report for the year ended March 31, 1993.

 

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 Maple Leaf School seventy‑six Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Strachan, Mrs. Forsyth and Mrs. Metcalfe.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson).

 

          Also, from the Grant Park High School, we have ten Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Richard Dooley.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray).

 

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

 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

 

Royal Bank

Data Centre

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I think all members of this Chamber appreciate the fact that Manitoba is very well placed in Canada and North America to attract data service jobs, high‑tech jobs and telecommunication jobs.  We have a skilled workforce, we have a tremendous location in terms of time zones and we have the capacity to be a centre of excellence.

 

          Mr. Speaker, Manitoba was competing with a number of other provinces dealing with a data centre for the Royal Bank, a national banking centre.  Unfortunately, Royal Bank has announced that the 500 jobs and some $20 million of investment is going to go to the province of New Brunswick.

 

          I would like to ask the Premier:  Why did the Royal Bank choose New Brunswick over Manitoba?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member opposite's question and his interest in ensuring that Manitoba gets all of the job opportunities that it is capable of getting here, particularly in areas such as the telephone call centre and telecommunications operations of various large corporations.

 

          I spoke yesterday, immediately after learning of the decision, to the chairman and CEO of the bank, Mr. Taylor, and asked him to provide us with information on the basis of their decision.  Mr. Taylor did not give me any direct comparative data to be able to justify it.  He repeated many times about how Manitoba's presentation was an excellent one and Manitoba is very highly competitive in this field, but he did not have any final information on which we could evaluate just where it was that Manitoba's proposal was lacking.

 

          We are concerned of course that the decision may well have been made based on subsidies for jobs.  I know that we have in recent times been successful against competition with New Brunswick, for instance, in attracting the CP call centre, as well as the Unitel call centre.  One that we did lose, which was the one that went to Purolator, was based on some very large input by the New Brunswick government, I believe close to $15,000 per job.  The average we are told that New Brunswick puts out for jobs is some $10,000.  That is not an area in which we like to deal.

 

          So we are trying to find more information about it.

 

* (1335)

 

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the material, I am aware that New Brunswick has bid quite extensively for jobs in the past, but in reviewing this proposal it appears to us that there was no direct subsidy, although we cannot determine whether there was an indirect subsidy in that they have promised engineering and other technical assistance from the telephone company and the Province of New Brunswick.

 

          Mr. Speaker, were there comparable proposals?  Was Manitoba offering comparable supports through the Manitoba Telephone System or other agencies or expertise in our government to attract the Royal Bank that was deficient compared to the New Brunswick bid?  I know the government is bidding for both telemarketing and data service jobs.  It is very crucial to our future.

 

          Were there any comparable offers indirectly through telecommunication companies and other engineering expertise that was offered in New Brunswick that was not offered here in the province of Manitoba?

 

Mr. Filmon:  We are led to believe, Mr. Speaker, that our proposal was at least comparable in all the areas that the bank was looking for.  We are trying to find more information to try and find any substantive differences or the basis on which the final decision might have been tipped.

 

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, I wish the government well in this endeavour.

 

Interprovincial Trade

Competition

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  We have been very concerned that bidding has gone on, and we certainly cannot see any direct subsidy in this proposal from what we have seen at this point.

 

          On the larger issue, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other proposals before a number of other private companies dealing with a number of other provinces, and it appears to us that Saskatchewan bid for jobs with the Sears project, and that was the NDP, that Manitoba's bid was for jobs with the GWE plant, which we have been critical of, and New Brunswick is of course with the Purolator operation and has also bid quite extensively and expensively for jobs in this related industry.

 

          Are the Trade ministers in Canada and the Trade minister of Manitoba and the First Ministers, as part of their dealings with so‑called free trade within this country, going to come to an agreement, an agreement across Canada, that taxpayers' money will not be used to bid one province against another, so that we can have a level playing field based on our expertise, on our great location, on our skilled workforce and other competitive factors in our economy, rather than on subsidies, both either direct or indirect to private companies?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  As the member knows, our government has been very, very strongly working towards the removal of interprovincial trade barriers.  Back about four years ago, we put on the table an issue which we added to the issues that are involved in interprovincial trade barrier removal, and that is what we call destructive competition for investment.  We call destructive competition for investment utilizing taxpayers' dollars to create an unlevel playing field.

 

          We are very much attempting to ensure that that becomes part of future agreements in Canada towards removal of interprovincial trade barriers, that we also have in it a restriction of utilizing taxpayers' dollars to create an unlevel playing field in an effort to attract investment and jobs in the province.

 

          We are very much in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition that there should be a code of practice that is developed and that is what we are working towards now.

 

* (1340)

 

Youth Court

Backlogs

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I have a new question.

 

          A citizen phoned us today and we have been getting a number of calls from the public about the whole issue of court delays.  This is an issue that we have raised in this Chamber before, particularly in the youth court and in courts dealing with sexual abuse and child abuse.

 

          I want to ask specifically about young people.  We have repeatedly asked the Minister of Justice about the issue of backlogs in the court.  Our Justice critic has raised this day after day.

 

          Today, on an open‑line show, Mr. Speaker, the question was put to the Child Advocate of Manitoba about the issue of juvenile offenders and the delay in the court backlog:  What about the court backlog?  The Child Advocate says, I do not believe the court system is working.  I think part of the problem is there is not any justice for children offenders under the Young Offenders Act.  It is not swift for one thing.  Children are waiting six months, up to a year.  They are being delayed, constant delay in sentencing children and the Child Advocate of Manitoba goes on to say, I think this really does little to impress children, that he has to wait for something so long in terms of something in the wrong that is not legal.  They are remanded and remanded.

 

          I would ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in light of the fact that his Minister of Justice has repeatedly said there are no problems in this backlog, whom are we to believe, the Minister of Justice who says there are no problems in backlogs in the youth system or the Child Advocate who is saying clearly today, there are major problems in the Young Offenders Act here in Manitoba?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Mr. Speaker, I am very interested that the Leader of the New Democratic Party raises the issue of problems with the Young Offenders Act, because his party does not seem to think that there is any problem with the Young Offenders Act.  In fact, they have never once put their position forward.  They have never once offered support to this government.

 

          We have recognized difficulties with the Young Offenders Act.  I have taken that position to Ottawa.  It is the strongest position across Canada.  The New Democratic Party refers to the Young Offenders Act, but they do not have the courage to put their position on the table.

 

Mr. Doer:  Well, no wonder people in this province are saying they cannot get any justice from the Minister of Justice in the province of Manitoba.  Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question.  She did not answer the question two weeks ago.  She did not answer the question three weeks ago.  She could not answer the question four weeks ago.

 

          I would like to put it to the Premier, who presumably the Minister of Justice answers to.  Whom should we believe, the independent Child Advocate who is saying there are major problems with the delay in the youth court of Manitoba, or the Minister of Justice who tells us that everything is okay and we should not worry about it at all in the province of Manitoba?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the New Democratic Party referred quite specifically to the Young Offenders Act.  I want to make a point of saying that we look forward to their position being declared.  We still have not heard it.

 

          However, in the matter of the youth court, Mr. Speaker, again, I have to say that the critic and now his Leader continually cast negative statements.  They should know that we have managed to bring down any backlog in the youth court.  We are booking for cases where young people are in custody into June‑‑that is next month‑‑and that there is booking now reduced from seven months down to five months for those in noncustody.

 

          Perhaps the Leader of the New Democratic Party does not understand the due process of law, the requirements to take a case before the courts, the requirements for pre‑sentence reports and, in some cases, psychiatric assessments.  There is a due process of law.

 

          The people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, want to make sure that we are working diligently where there is a backlog, that the due process of law is being handled, that there is an effective management of the case.

 

* (1345)

 

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, of course the minister knows full well that the five‑month statistic that she is quoting is from when a court date is set, not from the time in which a charge is laid in the province of Manitoba.  That is why we have so many other people except the Minister of Justice saying there is a major problem in the backlog of the youth court.  Justice delayed for young people is justice denied.

 

          I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon):  Why does he not take some of the money, the $500,000 they are spending on promoting themselves in lottery ads, and take some of that money and put it to young offenders in the young offenders court so that we can deal with the backlog in this province and deal with youth offenders in a timely way, rather than delays that we see now in the young offenders court?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, again, I will remind the Leader of the New Democratic Party about the due process of law, about the requirement of the three‑‑that there needs to be also the presentation by the Crown, there needs to be work by judges, there also needs to be work by the defence bar or people who are acting on behalf of the person who is accused.

 

          Let me give every assurance now that we are working diligently with the chief judge of Manitoba and with the justices of the Court of Queen's Bench, as well, that we will deal with any issues of court backlog.  We are working with that, through that, very carefully and very diligently.

 

          The people of Manitoba are concerned that cases are handled effectively, that there is a proper handling of the case that respects the due process of law, and that the guilty are punished, Mr. Speaker, and that where the member has any question about the laws which then cover those courts, he should make himself clear, particularly in the area of the Young Offenders Act.

 

Lord Selkirk School Division

Funding

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, my question, in fact, is for the Minister of Education.  He is not getting many chances these days and I want to help him out.  I know he is eager.

 

An Honourable Member:  He is already up.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) is a little pent up these days, too, so I will try‑‑they should let him out more often.

 

          Ironically, Mr. Speaker, we have learned that last week the Lord Selkirk School Division sent out 55 layoff notices.  That was as a direct result of a $2.6 million cut to their funding and represents approximately 10 percent of their workforce, including 25 teachers and 22.5 support staff.

 

          Now, that $2.6 million cut ironically is awfully close to the $2.5 million that the government is prepared to put at risk for Mr. Blue Taylor.

 

          My question to the Minister of Education:  Why do they not just take the money and use it to keep the people who are there, who are working, who have been doing their jobs and educating children?  Why do they not just keep that money and those jobs in that community right now, jobs we know are already there?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party draws a long bow as between Blue Taylor and the Lord Selkirk School Division.  This is an issue that was raised by a member of the NDP several weeks ago, dealing with public school funding.  Again, I point out for the member, if he wants to try and leave the impression that money has flowed by way of economic development support to a company, it has not.  He is well aware of that.

 

          But, Mr. Speaker, the issue is funding overall.  The Lord Selkirk School Division has in the past done reasonably well under the existing formula that is in place.  This year, though, it has felt some pain with respect to the impact of reassessment and how that flows through the funding model.

 

          Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of some of the decisions that that school division has made; indeed, they are not a lot different from many the other school divisions have had to wrestle with over the course of the last two or three years.

 

          I have had representation from members of the community and indeed from the board, and I am hoping of course that next year will be providing a result that is more acceptable to that division.

 

* (1350)

 

Mr. Edwards:  Well, Mr. Speaker, 55 people are out of work.

 

          My question further for the minister:  Not even the proponents agree that there is any chance of getting the 600‑‑

 

Some Honourable Members:  Oh, oh.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Education:  Part of the agreement with Mr. Taylor is that that company will put back $2 million eventually into the education system in that local area.  We are giving that company, encumbering through loan and prepared to put at risk, $2.5 million.  It is a paper shuffle.

 

          My question for the minister:  Instead of cutting these jobs now in education in Selkirk, why does this government not just leave that money there and tell Mr. Taylor that it will be used to train those workers if they ever materialize in that community?  Why are we doing this shuffle via Mr. Taylor and not just leaving the money in the community now with people who are working, teaching children right now in Selkirk?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Speaker, I know the member could care less about the creation of wealth, of course, from which the support comes for all of our social services.  It starts somewhere and it starts of course‑‑I am talking about the money that is directed into education to help starts with the creation of wealth.  So whereas the Liberal Party does not seem to understand that or care less, our party does.

 

          To the extent that this proponent can live up to all of the conditions agreed to, then maybe there may be a loan.  But the member tries to make it state that indeed it is a transfer of money.  If he knew anything about the accounting in this province, it does not work that way.  We set up an allowance.  If the money is lent out, we set up an allowance which is far short of the two‑point‑some million dollars in this case.

 

          The member does not understand accounting, the member does not understand the books of this province and the member does not understand finance and business generally.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, this from a minister who brought in six deficit budgets, promising a balanced budget every time‑‑19 years in a row.

 

          Now, Mr. Speaker, until this government realizes that education is the key to the creation of wealth, we will be on the same road we have been on.  Education is the key to wealth in this province.  Until they realize that, they are going to be lost in the wilderness.

 

          My final question for this minister:  Tonight in Lockport those teachers are meeting to discuss these cuts.  They are meeting to discuss the impact on education in their communities.

 

          Will the minister or his representative or someone else be attending to listen to the people in those communities who are doing the teaching and understand the effect this is going to have on their children and the effect this is going to have on their futures, including their economic futures?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Speaker, yes, I did bring down six budgets and there were six deficits, and the members opposite voted against every one of them because the deficits were not high enough.  They wanted more taxes.  They voted against every one of them.  From where are these members coming?  They make no sense.  There is no logic behind their questions.  These people are at sea. [interjection] I have to indicate that I think we are going to have to put a committee together afterwards to decide how we spell that word to help Hansard out.  That is a new one to me.

 

          The knowledge of the meeting being held tonight was presented by the Leader of the Liberal Party.  I met with a number of associations and school divisions over the course of the last number of months, trying to go through the basic rationale used with respect to some of the funding decisions that have been made, but throughout it all many divisions have been impacted through reassessment.

 

          The policy which was supported by the Liberals when this government brought it in was widely supported, totally supported, by all the members of this House because they saw the rationale that you should tax wealth.  But wealth moves from location to location over a period of time.  That has impact, obviously, on certain school divisions.

 

* (1355)

 

Youth Crime

Prevention Programs

 

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, after a summit on youth gangs and youth crime held by this government five months ago, involving 500 people and 700 recommendations produced, and after a nine‑point plan being announced by this Minister of Justice three months ago, I understand that the minister will shortly be announcing a phone line on gangs.  I am sure Manitobans will rest safely tonight.

 

          I ask the Minister of Justice, what meaningful action has she taken to rid Winnipeg of illegal gang activity?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Again, we certainly would look for the support of members opposite as we deal with the very serious issues of youth gang and youth crime and violence in Manitoba.  We did take very seriously the issues raised by Manitobans at the summit, and we welcomed the participation of Manitobans at that summit and took their views very seriously.

 

          As a result of their participation, yes, we did announce that we would be putting in place a youth gang line which would be useful for young people who are involved in gang activity and who wanted to find some ways‑‑

 

Some Honourable Members:  Oh, oh.

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  The members opposite, Mr. Speaker, do not think that this is a serious problem.  They do not think it is a serious problem because they continue to avoid listening to the answers.

 

Mr. Mackintosh:  I ask the minister to indeed take Manitobans seriously and the summit recommendations seriously.  Where is the phone line?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  I think it is very important that all the members of this House take very seriously the issues of youth crime and violence.  That is why I ask those members of both the Liberal Party and the NDP to make it clear where they stand on the Young Offenders Act.  Where do they stand on the framework that deals with youth crime and violence?

 

          In terms of the youth gang line, yes, I do intend to make an announcement very shortly on the operationalization of the youth gang line.  I also look forward to making other announcements.  We are moving very, very quickly in the area of youth crime and violence.  We have also made ourselves clear.  We are moving to rigorous confinement in our institutions, moving towards the youth gang line, and we have made ourselves clear on the Young Offenders Act.

 

          I have received now over 8,000 petitions to strengthen the Young Offenders Act.  I have heard nothing from members opposite.

 

Surveillance Strategy

 

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns):  As part of the nine‑point plan, the minister also announced increased police surveillance of gang members.

 

          My question to the minister is:  What new surveillance strategies are now in place?  Can she explain to me why the Winnipeg Police advise me they have not received a single cent from this government for that project?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  The member would like to have me reveal in this House today exactly what the surveillance methods are.  Would that not be helpful to all the gang members and youth crime in Manitoba, that the member would have me reveal it today in this House?  What a foolish question that follows on a whole range of other foolish questions raised by that member.

 

          Mr. Speaker, let me just mention the youth gang line again which the member seems to think is of no use.  The concept originated in NDP British Columbia.

 

Workforce 2000

Northern Blower

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, I took a question yesterday from the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) as notice.  It was to do with Northern Blower Inc.  The member asked a series of questions.

 

          I would like to inform the members of the House the training plans approved for Northern Blower contribute to the skill development of 50 Manitobans employed by this firm.

 

          The curriculum requested by the member for Wolseley is not available.  A training plan is on file, but, again, that too is confidential information at this time.

 

          I wish to clarify for the House that approved training costs are those upon which a company's payroll tax refund will be calculated, not the actual tax refund itself.  Finally, it is our view that the provincial support represents only about 15 percent of the company's total training costs.

 

* (1400)

 

Victims Assistance Fund

Status Report

 

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Mr. Speaker, since 1991‑92 the government has decreased grants from the Victims Assistance Fund by 41 percent.  Last year the government changed legislation to allow these funds to be diverted to general Justice departmental programming rather than used for community‑based services, projects and research grants as was the intention of the original legislation.

 

          The last annual report from the Victims Assistance Fund is from 1991‑92, even though legislation requires that it be tabled in the House within 15 days of the sitting of the Legislature.

 

          I would like to ask the Minister of Justice how much is currently in the Victims Assistance Fund, what services or programs were funded in 1992‑93 or is this also‑‑

 

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

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  During the Estimates of the Department of Justice, we will be able to cover in detail what is available within the Victims Assistance Fund.  I can tell the member that we certainly see the whole Victims Assistance line of the budget to be a very important one.

 

          I can tell the member, and in Estimates I will be able to elaborate, that over 55,000 Manitobans have been assisted by the services provided through that Victims Assistance line.  I do expect to be able to table the annual report very shortly in this House.

 

Ms. Barrett:  Mr. Speaker, given that the minister, in a March 11 meeting with the Winnipeg service providers group, stated that she did not know the status of the Victims Assistance Fund, does she now know what is happening with the external agencies' grants requests?  Some of those agencies have waited over two years to hear about their request forms.  When will these agencies finally hear about their requests?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member makes my point that I do meet very carefully and as often as requested with groups across this province who ask for information and who want the opportunity to make sure that I understand their issues.

 

          As the member knows, March 11 was before the budget.  Therefore, I was not able to reveal at that time exactly what was in the Victims Assistance line.

 

Ms. Barrett:  Mr. Speaker, what guarantee do the victims of crimes in the province of Manitoba and the external agencies that historically have provided services to those victims have that the Victims Assistance Fund actually will provide services and programming to victims and to external agencies, rather than being used as a legislative change last year allowed for internal Justice department programming such as the deputy minister's salary?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, again I will not even comment on the accusation that the member has made regarding something which she assumes and accuses occurred.

 

          We are able to speak in Estimates.  However, I can tell her, and she will see in the budget, that there most certainly is a line for Victims Assistance.  I can tell her that Victims Assistance does assist certain programming, programming such as Women's Advocacy, and the member will know that in terms of Women's Advocacy we have expanded that to Brandon, Thompson and The Pas which is an increase in service.  I will remind her that from the programs within the Department of Justice over 55,000 Manitobans have been assisted as well as those assisted by outside agencies.

 

Abitibi‑Price‑‑Pine Falls

Environmental Licensing

 

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Native Affairs.

 

          As the minister knows, the federal government granted a two‑year extension to the environmental licence for the Pine Falls mill.  As well, the minister may know that the mill workers of the Abitibi‑Price mill will be voting on a deal in six days from now, May 18.

 

          Given that the meeting of the engineers and company officials with the band to review the environmental licence proposed changes takes place on the 16th of this month, I believe, is the minister prepared to ask that the deadline be extended so that no workers and the First Nations community of Sagkeeng will have an opportunity to review the agreement?

 

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for Native Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that I had a meeting with the council and acting chief of the Sagkeeng First Nation.  I believe it was on Saturday, March 19, in which we discussed a number of issues.  That was not one that they particularly requested.  That is a matter that the federal Minister of Environment will have to determine in his process to ensure that there is an adequate opportunity for all involved to participate.

 

Mr. Robinson:  The First Nation of Sagkeeng has waited over 60 years for this plan to be improved.  Surely the proponents can wait a few days for the band to review the plans.

 

          My question is for the Minister responsible for Native Affairs.  Is he prepared to support a short delay to give the First Nation community time to review the improvements?

 

Mr. Praznik:  Mr. Speaker, certainly one appreciates the interest of all people who live down river of the Pine Falls Generating Station and the need to improve water quality.  That is why, in fact, this administration has supported the mill buy out with a $30‑million note.  I know the Liberal Party does not support that in principle, those types of loans, but that is one of the reasons why we are there, to ensure there is a sufficient upgrade to improve the water quality.

 

          At this particular time, I appreciate that the member is the local member for the Sagkeeng First Nation.  He raises this issue.  It is one I would suggest that that representation be made to the federal Department of Environment and to the local member of Parliament who have some control.  We, as a province, have no control on that particular process.

 

Mr. Robinson:  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), will the First Minister overrule his minister and contact the First Nations community of Sagkeeng and also Abitibi‑Price to ensure and request an extension of the takeover deadline so that all the shareholders have equal treatment?

 

Mr. Praznik:  Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the member, I did have a meeting following the spill incident with the particular council, and that was not a particular issue that they raised with me.  There is ample opportunity for the Sagkeeng First Nation to express that position to the federal minister.

 

          Their environmental licensing with the federal government is for them as proponents and those of the various communities to be involved in that process.  It is not one in which I as local MLA or minister have been involved, nor do I think it appropriate that they do.  I would suggest that those comments be made to the federal Minister of Environment.

 

Community Policing

Government Support

 

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

 

          We are all deeply saddened by the tragedy that occurred in the north end, where a 15‑year‑old was killed.  I worked for two years as a community police officer in the housing complex where the tragic event occurred.  I know and consider many of the parents and children my friends.  I also know that parents in this housing complex are now fearful and extremely concerned about the safety of their families.

 

          Will the minister, as the chief law enforcement officer for the province, set up a meeting with the chief of police for the City of Winnipeg and take a lead role in the process of reorganization that is going on with the police service to ensure that community‑based police are adequate and families in that community are protected?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying any remarks that I make are not to be considered in any way close to a case under investigation by the police, and that any remarks that I make should not in any way be attributed to the police investigation.  My remarks are to be considered in general only, and in terms of in general only, my remarks are that certainly we really are very supportive of police and communities working together, and communities being able to express to our police officers what their issues and what their priorities are.

 

          Certainly, for the RCMP, we do have a mechanism, that is a police force and a police service, and which I deal with very directly.

 

          In terms of the City of Winnipeg, I am always happy to work with the chief of police and also with the city councillors, who directly employ the City of Winnipeg Police, to look at working with neighbourhoods, working with Manitobans to make it the most efficient and helpful for them.

 

* (1410)

 

Mr. Kowalski:  Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice:  Because I worked as a community officer in the north end, I am well aware of the unfortunate fact that the number of community‑based police was reduced due to a lack of resources.

 

          I ask the minister, is she prepared to confirm her government's support for community‑based policing by backing up those words with adequate resources from the province?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the province provides a block grant to the City of Winnipeg and that grant is then determined by them how they will use that grant and, based on their own system, how they wish to have their police service operate.  So I think that he also needs to look at working with the city councillor and with the City of Winnipeg so that he can also make his points to the City of Winnipeg about how that grant is utilized.

 

Mr. Kowalski:  Will the Justice minister do as her predecessor did with a very successful ALERT program, where the province did put in resources to aid the Winnipeg police force in its program, do the similar thing targeting youth crime and gangs and put in the resources to aid the police to do the job they would like to do?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, of course the work of policing is very important.  I meet regularly, and am always careful to make sure that the needs of police and the needs of citizens are being considered, but as we deal with the issues of youth crime and violence that the member has raised, I ask him again, where do you stand on the law that covers the Young Offenders Act?‑‑because he has never once made himself clear.

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Beauchesne's is very clear.  Citation 417:  "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

 

          This minister has repeatedly abused Question Period, Mr. Speaker, by trying to engage in debate.  We are prepared as opposition members to debate this minister any time, any place, on her record‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member did not have a point of order.  The honourable minister had just finished responding to the question.

 

Lockport, Manitoba

Tourism

 

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, given the confusion and opposition of the Liberal Leader to jobs coming to Selkirk, I will table a letter sent to me by the mayor of Selkirk supporting and endorsing the SHI project. [interjection] Shameful, exactly.

 

          My questions are to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

 

          As the minister will recall, last year, due to the bungled closure of the Lockport bridge, Lockport tourism and business were substantially down, in some cases as much as 60 percent for some businesses.  Given the problems of tourism in that particular area, would the minister be prepared to review the matched funding arrangements for Lockport business?

 

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):  Mr. Speaker, this government has been working extremely hard, as it relates to the development of the tourism industry and the advertising promotion that we carry on with as well, to attract jobs to the province of Manitoba so that it can in fact increase the economy to increase the support for the social safety nets that we all expect.

 

          I will look into the issue which the member has raised without making a commitment at this time but will look into the proposition which he has laid before us.

 

Mr. Dewar:  Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree to meet with the Lockport marketing corporation in the very near future so that tourism promotion of Lockport, Lower Fort Garry and Selkirk can be assisted as soon as possible?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Speaker, I indicated that what I was prepared to do was to take a look at the issue which the member has laid before us without making any commitment until after that time.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Time for Oral Questions has expired.

 

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

 

Manitoba Day

 

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

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of the House to join with me today in celebrating Manitoba's 124th birthday.

 

          The Province of Manitoba was created on May 12, 1870, when Royal Assent was given to the Manitoba Act, and the actual proclamation was made on July 15 of the same year.  The passage of that act recognized the important role of the western prairies in building Canada.  From that moment, Manitoba has been a partner in the creation of one of the largest and greatest nations in the world.

 

          In 1970, Manitoba's centennial year, this Legislature officially designated May 12 as Manitoba Day.  It is a time to reflect on who we are, where we have come from, what we have achieved and perhaps, most importantly, how we wish to shape the future of Manitoba.

 

          We are a rich and diverse multicultural society with many cultures, heritages, languages and customs, but we are all proud to be Manitobans.  The sense of pride is founded on an understanding of our past and optimism for our future.

 

          Our history has been an exciting tale of discovery and adventure, of growth and prosperity, of endurance and perseverance, of people and events.  All these factors have contributed to the continuing saga of Manitoba's development and evolution.

 

          By commemorating our past, we can look forward to the future with excitement.  The announcement made earlier today epitomizes this feeling.  By replacing the existing monument of our founding father Louis Riel with a new statue, we are not only recognizing our diverse heritage but, most importantly, we are celebrating our future.  We are also recognizing the 175th anniversary of the oldest education institution in western Canada by giving the existing monument to the Collège de Saint Boniface.

 

          Manitoba's future is one of unlimited potential.  We are building on our strengths in multiculturalism, natural resources and human skills to create a role for Manitoba in the global marketplace of the 21st Century.  The world of tomorrow will belong to those who understand themselves and their potential.  For Manitobans, Manitoba Day is an appropriate time to look back with pride and renew our commitment to our dreams and aspirations for the years to come.

 

          I ask all members of this House to join with me in recognizing and celebrating May 12 as Manitoba Day in our great province.  Thank you.

 

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

 

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  I am pleased to be able to respond today on behalf of the opposition to the message of Manitoba Day.  This is the one day of the year that Manitobans have chosen, at least in the last decade, to celebrate their sense of a provincial community and their shared past.

 

          This year, in particular, we celebrate two anniversaries, the beginning of our 125th year of the creation of the province and 1919, the 75th anniversary of the General Strike in Winnipeg.  The juxtaposition of these two commemorations demonstrates that history and heritage has many voices.  The decision, the choice of celebrating the 125th anniversary this coming year, reflects the official voice of the past.

 

          It argues that the important milestones in Manitoba's past have been those of legislation and incorporation into the growing Canadian nation.  It is the voice of the dominant majority culture which sees our past as the story of the spread of a particular world view that they have chosen to call civilization.  It gains its strength and charts its successes in the material growth of agriculture, industry and the building of towns and villages, and it reaches its current articulation in the presentation of Manitoba as an industrious multicultural and tolerant society.

 

          This is the story we teach in school.  It is the story given to those who tour the Legislature.  It is the story recorded in the majority of the monuments of our province, and it is the story written and recorded as one of victory.  But there are other voices, other histories and other ways of commemorating our common experience in this land, and there is a people's history to be told on Manitoba Day.  It is the story of those who wish to reclaim the memories that go unrecorded by the dominant culture.

 

          In Manitoba, this means teaching our children that the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries of our province were not primarily the story of fur trade empire and exploration, but of a widespread and changing aboriginal world at whose margins these few newcomers from Scotland and France plied their trade.  It is a story which sees the 1870s not as the triumph of the new Canadian nation, but as the dispossession of Manitoba's Metis.

 

          The pride in the growth of Winnipeg as a commercial centre must be tempered by a recognition of the implications of a General Strike of 1919 which sought to limit the power capital and which led over the next generation to create a consensus for the creation of our social democratic state.  The people's story is a story of work, of labour, whether on the trap line, on the railway, in the hospitals or in the 40 percent of the GDP which has been unrecorded and unpaid and performed largely by women in the household.

 

          On this Manitoba Day, in the official opposition we are proud to remember the part played in our shared past by hunters, fishermen, farmers, domestic workers, industrial labourers, public servants, teachers, nurses, parents, husbands, wives and children whose voices collectively, in Cree or Cambodian, are those of Manitoba.

 

* (1420)

 

Mr. Speaker:  Does the honourable Leader of the second opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with the honourable Premier as well as the member for Wolseley, speaking on behalf of the opposition party, on behalf of the Liberal Party, the second opposition party, in commemorating and acknowledging the 124th anniversary of the Province of Manitoba.

 

          I join comments with the member for Wolseley in recognizing that, of course, the history of this province and this land and its people began many centuries before May 12, 1870, when we officially joined Canada in a forum as the province of Manitoba.  I think it is important on this date to remember that tradition and those people and the many centuries that they were on this land long before certainly my family, my forefathers and that of the dominant culture today arrived here.

 

          I want to also recognize that it was those people who welcomed the rest of the people in this province who came here, showed them how to live in a very hostile, very difficult environment, taught them the ways of their culture and their people and so a culture evolved.

 

          Mr. Speaker, as we go down the road together with the First Nations and the non‑First Nations communities in this province I think it is important to remember today, perhaps more than any other time, that we may not be exactly on the same road, but we must strive to be travelling in the same direction.  I think today is an important day as we see many changes with the First Nations community to remember our obligation to them and to remember that we must live together in peace and in a tolerant society as we both try to progress for ourselves, our families and our community.

 

          The people who came to this province came seeking peace and freedom, and they have had that with some exceptions.  They have had that and built a tolerant society which has provided opportunity for their children over the decades.  Mr. Speaker, while I think that we live in a society in which we often see conflict‑‑and this House bears out that conflict as the diverse society tries to work out common decisions and a common future‑‑it is an important day to look around the world at all the nations that have struggled and are fighting and are involved in armed conflict trying to achieve what we have had and what we have got.  Let us remember on this day that we have a very, very wonderful society here in this country that has been built, and in this province, and we are the envy of the world.

 

          I want to, of course, wish all Manitobans, all members of this House, congratulations on the anniversary of our province and its birthday.  Thank you.

 

International CFIDS/ME Awareness Day

 

Mr. Speaker:  The honourable member for Radisson, does she have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

 

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Mr. Speaker, I am rising to commemorate this day, May 12, as a day to recognize chronic fatigue and immune deficiency syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis.  It is a mouthful, and it is also causing a lot of problems throughout our province for a number of residents.

 

          Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnipeg has designated this the first day ever for Winnipeg to recognize this increasingly common illness, but there are a number of cities in Canada and the United States that have been recognizing this day for quite some time, and there is a march on Ottawa today.

 

          I was going to read the proclamation signed by the mayor of the City of Winnipeg

 

          WHEREAS the Nightingale Research Foundation, Manitoba Chapter, was formed in 1993 to provide support, education and information about the nature and impact of Myalgic Encephalo myelitis, Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome and related disorders; and

 

          WHEREAS the local chapter of the national nonprofit Nightingale Research Foundation holds monthly meetings for self‑help and the exchange of information; and

 

          WHEREAS the foundation has chosen May 12, 1994, as a special day devoted to increasing public knowledge, awareness and understanding of ME/CFIDS in the hope of obtaining more funding, research and treatment for this disease.

 

          It is then signed by Mayor Thompson proclaiming this day International CFIDS/ME Awareness Day.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I just want to say as well, that the World Health Organization has also recognized this illness and this day at the international level, but there are many areas throughout our country, and indeed in Manitoba, that are not recognizing this illness.

 

          I have had the chance to work with three members of my constituency who are stricken with this illness and I just found today, with the article in the paper, that there is a third boy who also lives in my constituency who is ill with this illness.

 

          The symptoms are varied.  They seriously affect the ability for people to earn a livelihood.  They provide incredible stress on families, and there is an incredible stigma attached with this illness, partially because it is not recognized.

 

          In conclusion, I would just like to give recognition to the Nightingale Research Foundation Manitoba Chapter for all the hard work that they have done.  I wish them continued success.  Thank you.

 

National Nurses Day

 

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

 

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  Mr. Speaker, it is quite appropriate, I believe, that on May 12, as we celebrate the birth of our province, that we also celebrate a group of what used to be mostly women, who are now men and women, who have helped to build this province.  This group of professionals are nurses.

 

          It is National Nurses Week, and today is National Nurses Day.

 

          Certainly, all of us in our lives know of nurses, whether we have had an opportunity to have them take care of us, whether we know them as friends, whether we know them as neighbours.  Nurses are very much an intricate part of our lives and are very important persons in Manitoba and certainly across this country of Canada and internationally as well.

 

          Many of us, of course, when we think of nurses will remember Florence Nightingale who was certainly called the lady with the lamp.  She was a British nurse who worked under appalling conditions during the Crimean War.  She later went on to found the Nightingale School at St. Thomas' Hospital in London.

 

          She had an interesting quote in one of her writings on notes on nursing.  In those days, Mr. Speaker, of course all nurses were ladies of the lamp.  There were no men.  She said that no man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this‑‑devoted and obedient.  This definition would do just as well for a courtier.  It might even do for a horse.  It would not do for a policeman.

 

          So, Mr. Speaker, Florence Nightingale in those days was saying that nurses are more than individuals who are obedient and devoted.  Certainly, this is a profession and it certainly has grown into a profession where I would say the key word is service to the people.  Nurses are there to serve the people whom they work for whether they are public health nurses out in rural and northern communities, whether they are nurses who work in intensive care in some of our larger institutions, whether they are practical nurses who work in our personal care homes.  Certainly, nurses are very much an intricate part of our society.

 

          Nurses are also very much important in Third World countries and on the international scene where many of our nurses take on the idea of service and go to Third World countries to see if they can provide a better quality of life to the citizens in those countries.

 

          I am sure that all members of the Legislature today will join me in recognizing the valuable contributions over the centuries of the profession of nursing.  We wish them well as a profession, and we certainly are very much pleased that they are there, that they will continue to grow.  We wish them well, and we hope, in fact, that we can give them the same respect and offer them as legislators what they have given to us as a community.  Thank you.

 

* (1430)

 


ORDERS OF THE DAY

 

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), 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):  This afternoon the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will continue consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.  When the committee last sat, it had considered item 2.(b)(1) on page 38 of the Estimates book.

 

          2.(b) Education Reform (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $505,400.

 

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just had a couple of cleanup questions here on some issues that were outstanding.  The other evening the minister said that he would be glad to attempt an answer regarding which private schools were allowed to an exemption on the compulsory teaching of the independent living skills course that has been made compulsory for the vast majority of schools in the province.  He said when he got to the School Programs area, he would attempt to answer that.  I wonder if he would want to do that now.

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have to correct the record.  I started to make reference that I thought that some schools were giving flexibility in that they did not have to offer it this year but had to offer it by 1996.  Specific to the question, the one independent school that is not offering it in '93‑94, the present year that we are in, is St. John's‑Ravenscourt.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The minister had mentioned that Glenlawn had, without permission, not offered it for, I believe, this current year as a public school.  That is what the minister had said.  Now he is saying that there is only one independent school that has been allowed to vary, with permission.  Is that correct?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did not say Glenlawn Collegiate had not offered it.  What I said was, they had not offered it as its own course.  They had integrated it, without permission I gather, but they had integrated it into other curricula.

 

Mr. Plohman:  What the minister said, and I quote:  I would have to think it would all have to be taught.  One example for sure in the public school system‑‑and Glenlawn Collegiate did it, but they did it without permission.  Permission has to be granted for it to occur anywhere, independent or public school system.  So nowhere did the minister say the other day that they had integrated it.  He just said they did not, he talked in a generic sense about them not getting permission, and I think he has clarified today that they did not get permission to integrate it into other subjects.  For this year, are we talking about continuously, or is this just for a one‑year period?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think I also made a reference to another point to Glenlawn where I may have been more expansive, I do not know.  By the time we found out what had happened in that situation, we were well into the school year, at least it was too late to change.  Yet the department and myself were certainly not willing to grant a blanket exemption across all divisions, given that there has been work over several years and a lot of pressure with respect to this particular issue.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to clarify then, is Glenlawn Collegiate asking for permission to integrate this into other courses for the '94‑95 year, and have any other schools in the public school system or any school divisions asked for the same permission?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is my understanding that formally Glenlawn has not filed a request for '94‑95, but three high schools within the River East School Division have put forward proposals for '94‑95 that would be similar to what existed at Glenlawn in '93‑94.

 

Mr. Plohman:  And the minister is saying, that is it as far as he knows in the whole province of Manitoba as far as the public school system.

 

Mr. Manness:  As far as we know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, but, as I think I have alluded to previously, sometimes the department is the last to know through no fault of their own.  An awful lot of bureaucracy all the way through the system, and some school divisions interpret guidelines in a certain way and move accordingly.  I imagine this has happened before in other areas of new subject matter and probably will happen again.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Can the minister indicate whether any decision has been made on these three for '94‑95?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it has not been brought to my attention in a formal matter.  As a matter of fact, some of this information I present now is new to me, but beyond that I am also, of course, reminding myself that with the whole Ed Reform side I have to try and make decisions consistent also with what I sense might be the new approach through the broader context.  There are other factors at play here.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I thank the minister for that, and is he saying also that there is only one independent school that has asked for permission, or is there none at the present time, for '94‑95, with St. John's‑Ravenscourt being the one only for '93‑94?

 

* (1440)

 

Mr. Manness:  Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is the only school.  We have been in contact with the Manitoba Federation of Independent Schools, and, I guess, indicated very strongly that we expect all of their community, all of their membership to implement according to the plan.  They indicated that will happen across all of the membership.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Across all of their membership.  All those schools that are members of the Manitoba Federation of Independent Schools.

 

          In addition, I wanted to clean up one other area we had.  A number of questions have been asked about these specialists and consultants, but I was looking through‑‑and I had received a call from MAPAL, the heritage language organization, the Manitoba Association for the Promotion of Ancestral Languages, who said that they understand that there have been some changes in the consultants' roles there.  I was looking through the document that has been circulated, Program Development and Support Services Reorganization to Become School Programs Division, by the minister's department, and under provincial specialists there is a Rupert Barensteiner listed as a German consultant now.  It seemed rather odd to have one person in charge of German and yet seemingly no one in charge of phys ed, which is something right across the province in every school.  Then there is Tony Tavares, languages, antiracist.

 

          So I just wondered about the position here that there would be one person for one particular group, albeit one of the larger ones in the province, but certainly Ukrainian‑‑I do not know if I see a Ukrainian consultant here.  Just what is happening here with regard to these consultants?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, Rupert Barensteiner is an interesting person.  He is a citizen of Germany and is here with the pleasure of the German government, which is paying his salary and accommodations.  We in the department, I guess, are providing some office and supplies.  This is not anything new.  He has been here, I understand, for three or four years.

 

          I tell you who is making the greatest use of him and where he is finding his work most fascinating, because I have spoken with him:  it is within the Hutterite colonies.  There is some of the traditional, the very traditional, and German is still the language.  As a matter of fact, he told me that the German language around the world is almost the purest with the Hutterites in Manitoba.  So anyway there is some very interesting background there.

 

          He has been here three or four years.  His salary is being picked up by the German government.  It is an outreach on their part to the German‑speaking people in our province, and whether or not there is any affinity between that fact and the German base in Shilo, I do not know, but it is a fine gesture on the German government's part.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Okay, that explains why there is a separate German consultant, but what about the other heritage languages.  Where would we find them included?

 

Mr. Manness:  Under Tony Tavares, who is responsible for language instruction, which includes heritage languages.

 

Mr. Plohman:  That would include all heritage languages?  There is no one else that is going to be doing some part of that.  Is that correct?

 

Mr. Manness:  That is right.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Just to follow on the questions that were asked last day.  Looking at these charts, these organization charts, where would I find the phys ed consultant as a vacancy, or does it no longer exist in any of the charts?  Regional teams or whatever, I have looked through, I cannot see a phys ed consultant there, and I do not see an industrial arts consultant either.

 

Mr. Manness:  Basically, there has not been a position; I know the field's sense is that I have one and that I should be filling it.  But that staff position, basically, the focus of that has been changed over the course of the last year.  I believe that half of that position has been directed into race relations‑‑no, the violence prevention consultant‑‑and for the activities that used to be maintained in that staff position, we have now asked Joyce Martin, who is in the development unit.  She will continue to be the contact through this transition with respect to physical education matters.

 

Mr. Plohman:  What is the rationale for having some of these consultants as provincial specialists in other sections of the department, rather than this one unit?  You find these consultants throughout now, the regional teams in implementation and in program development.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it depends where you want to start on the pyramid.  Where do you want to call at the top?  We have decided now through the reorganization to call it program development.  That takes priority over, therefore, the grouping of specialists in one area.  So if Program Development is the top, and then you were going to break it out into implementation and support services and you are going to do it on a regional context, that takes priority over the old re‑organization.  Now, if you want to give the grouping of specialists the priority, then it would have to be higher up on the pyramid.

 

Mr. Plohman:  But in some areas, you have your consultants in the specialists area, and in others, they are in the Program Development area.  Is that a reflection of where the work has to be done, in Program Development as opposed to where it is believed that we basically have a good program developed, and now it is a matter of continuing to work with schools and teachers in delivering it?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, it is a reflection of a flatter organization, where you are going to have to have these specialists, obviously, in the reduced number of areas, and it is a recognition that in development and in implementation and in student support services, you have to have specialists in all of these areas.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I am just wondering if we do indeed have specialists in all those areas.  When we look through here, we just do not see some of those titles.  That is what I mean.  For example, the Vocational Education and Apprenticeship, Marshall Draper, is that also now including industrial arts, or is there a separate industrial arts position yet to be filled?

 

Mr. Manness:  Certainly, that is a fourth area, Vocational Ed and Apprenticeship Training.  That is an important area, and there will be obviously specialists that will be located there, but generally, I guess the term "specialists," I do not know whether it is a generic term or whether or not within education it has specific meaning, to my way of looking at the world, there are reasons for having specialists across the horizontal plain of focus.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The minister missed my question.  I asked him if industrial arts was included in Vocational Ed under the same specialist or same consultant.  Obviously, it is a different philosophy, a different type of education and yet was done separately previously with Gene Happychuk, I understand, the industrial arts consultant.  That name no longer appears, nor does that position appear, and I just asked the minister if that responsibility has been rolled in with Vocational and Apprenticeship.

 

* (1450)

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will try and do a better job of answering.  Vocational Education and Apprenticeship is now part of, falls within the provincial specialists area, and Mr. Draper is listed under that title.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The minister did not do a better job of answering.  I have that here.  I know he is under the provincial.  I asked about industrial arts.  I do not know if the minister is aware that he has had separate consultants there.  Industrial arts is quite different than Vocational Education.  Industrial arts is a general education available to all students.  They do not have to specialize in the same way that vocational education has traditionally been.  Industrial arts is a general nature and is an education, a field of study, for students who are enrolled in academic or any of the other streams in high schools.  They can take this as an option.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is all included within that single line, but I guess the import of that is, as the recognition is we move to ed reform, this will become more public over the while that we are going to want to focus more on, particularly in the latter senior years, more on apprenticeship and vocational education as per the old industrial arts connotation.

 

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

 

Mr. Plohman:  That can be somewhat alarming, I think.  If the minister‑‑he talked about high school particularly, so I will accept that.  What about junior high industrial arts, which is a major part of exposing younger people to all forms of technical and industrial education at an earlier age, so that they can use that knowledge to determine perhaps where they would like to go on further and specialize in those areas.  It serves a very valuable role in introducing all of these areas, whether it be in home economics or industrial arts, the broad range of industrial arts fields of study, and emerging ones, like computers and so on.  Is the minister saying that that is something he is considering eliminating from the junior high curriculum?  If he is not, where are they going to get their support, if they indeed need support?  Or does the minister feel they do not?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, no, the introductory aspects are certainly valuable and necessary, but I think we will want to rethink how it is we do that.  I am not saying that anything will change, but a lot of the introductions that I see, as I travel throughout the land, are concerning me a little bit.  I do not see where, in all cases, a full effort is being put in by some of our students to learn what is available.  There is certainly a role for it‑‑a significant role, a very important role‑‑but I want to make sure that it is meaningful to the students as it is to the member for Dauphin and what I would like to see it be.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I think, though, that if the minister is already eliminating‑‑and maybe he will say, this is a question of priorities‑‑but I think we have to admit‑‑and he said that technical education, in this case, industrial arts as a preparatory kind of study to vocational and apprenticeship training and so on is important, is a priority actually.  It is an area that we have to address in the future, more than we have in the past.  Then is it not putting the cart before the horse in terms of removing the supports here and saying:  Well, I have already made a judgment that maybe it is going to have to play a lesser role when, in fact, the minister is not convinced of that yet?  He is convinced that there maybe needs to be some change, but is that a reason why the industrial arts consultant should have been removed?  I am just looking at it in terms of priorities here.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we should not read into the fact that that consultant being no longer here says that the department places any lower priority on it.  These are decisions to be made, although I can tell you, this is a very important area.  Introduction has to happen at this age, but I think that, when we are looking at the whole program of instruction within our high schools, we should do an evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the industrial arts program as we have known it now basically for 20 years.  It is time.

 

Mr. Plohman:  You said high schools.

 

Mr. Manness:  I meant junior high‑‑I am sorry; for the record, I meant junior high.  It is time to do that evaluation.  Although we have not started on it, I see the importance of introducing our junior high, middle, whatever we want to call it, the middle‑year students, to the concept of something other than academic study for the sake of academic knowledge.  We have got to evaluate how we have done it over the last 20 years and whether or not those changes should be considered.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would suggest the minister has taken a rather peculiar way to go about it by sending the message that he is going to evaluate and, in so doing, eliminate the person that would be most involved in that process‑‑the position at least, whether he is satisfied with the person or not, I am not commenting on that.  He may have been a very good person.  However, I think the minister is not sending out very clear signals on this, and I wonder how he intends to communicate this matter to the education community.  He certainly has not communicated it anywhere that I know of at this point.

 

Mr. Manness:  Certainly that has to be an aspect of the communication that is out in the field now.  I mean, we just started into the reorganization big time not quite a month ago.  I would think that, as our staff are out there telling all as to the changes, organizationally, this question will be asked, and a clear response will be presented.  Failing that, I am hoping my comments on the record today are clear.

 

Mr. Plohman:  For the minister, I think this staff will have a very great difficulty convincing education community with that person in that position no longer there, that somehow it is still a high priority and that it is just a matter of a review taking place, and while that review is taking place, we will not have a consultant in the area.  It just does not make a lot of sense, and I would have difficulty if I were a staffperson trying to convey that message.

 

          Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think they will look at these charts that are here, look at the positions and draw their own conclusions as to priorities.

 

Mr. Manness:  The member talked about Mr. Happychuk.  He now works for the Public Schools Finance Board on industrial arts facilities, and now Mr. Draper is free to plan and work with field on curriculum.  That is what we have done here.  We have tried to make them greater specialists in their own rights, and so Marshall Draper is going to assume part of the responsibility.  Yet we have a need in the Public Schools Finance Board capital side to look at what we have out there as far as plant with respect to facilities, and so there is some order, considerable order to the changes announced.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Well, just to close on this matter, may I indicate to the minister that Mr. Happychuk was an industrial arts specialist, that Marshall Draper is a vocational specialist, and that is quite different.  You have now got a vocational specialist partially in charge of industrial arts, so some might not see that as making that much sense.

 

          A question to the minister regarding the issue of protocols for special needs, delivery of services for special needs students in the schools.  It is a major area, one that has been discussed at Estimates over the last number of years, one that really has not been addressed in terms of any concrete action in the field; it has been more that there were deputies' committees and other committees looking at this.  We went through this last year, and during the Estimates.

 

* (1500)

 

          I have a letter here which I would be prepared to table that Mr. Carlyle has written on April 21 to Health and Safety representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees about this issue, because they have been concerned about it.  It seems to indicate, and I will quote from it:  For your information, the interdepartmental committee reviews existing service mandates and jurisdictions on an ongoing basis to identify areas where increased service co‑ordination is both possible and desirable.  The committee prepares this material for consideration by the ministers responsible for the human service sector.  I am not in a position, therefore, to release reports publicly which are prepared as background information to assist ministers in setting future policy directions.  I would be pleased to forward a status report, however, once the government decides deliberations are complete.

 

          That was on April 21.  So can the minister bring us up to date on the status of‑‑as I said to the minister, if he would like, certainly they can have a copy of this‑‑I quoted from the letter‑‑if they so wish; anyone can have it.

 

          But I wonder if the minister could indicate what reports have been prepared, are completed for ministers, and when we can expect a policy statement on this.  Is this something that the minister is placing any priority in?  It is something that is identified in all education circles as critical for the efficient delivery of services to special needs students in our schools.

 

          Teachers are very often being asked to administer medication, and a lot of rather complicated medical procedures, and they are not trained to do it.  They are having to deal with students who have severe disruptive tendencies in many cases, and there need to be resources put into this from other professions, other departments, I think, to have it done efficiently in the schools.

 

          Now, maybe the minister does not agree with that; he is shaking his head.  Let us see if he does and whether he is inclined to put this on the back burners again as his predecessors have done, or whether he intends to bring it forward and address it in a similar way that the protocols have been developed in other provinces such as British Columbia, which I am sure he is familiar with.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know this has been a long‑standing issue, and I know many in the community and education community are waiting for a response from‑‑

 

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  Order, please.  It just happened that this came up about this last letter here.  You did say, I will table the letter.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I said I am prepared to table it if it is asked for.

 

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  Order.  That is not what was said.

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Plohman:  On a point of order, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.  We have just interrupted the minister in his response because you, as Chairperson, have said I said I was going to table it.  It is a small difference between what I did say and what you think you heard me say.

 

          What I did say is that I am prepared to table this letter if it is desired by anyone‑‑that copies can be made available.  I did not say I was tabling it.  I said I am prepared to table it if I am requested to do so.  That is the standard way it is dealt with.

 

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson):  Order.  You have made it clear what you said now.

 

* * *

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would appreciate in fact a copy of the letter.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we do not need a copy because we sent it out.

 

          This issue is a vexing issue in many respects, but very important, as we try and decide how to deal with a problem that is real and that many sense that government by decree or edict has the magic solution and/or the resources to put into place a solution.

 

          We are still internally, within government, reviewing, and the member uses the word "struggling," and he is maybe not too far from the truth.  But we know that there are critical situations with respect to emotional and behavioral disordered children and yet trying to come forward with a multisystem case‑management system‑‑I do not know what term you put to it‑‑including all of the players, is not proving to be very easy.

 

          We do have a blueprint.  We do have a form.  Certainly, I will not release it at this time, because it is not government policy at this time, but we are continuing to struggle with this issue.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Can the minister indicate whether this will be released as part of his education reform blueprint then?

 

Mr. Manness:  No, I do not think it will be, but it could very well‑‑there could be a release, I am hoping, more or less at the same time.  But as far as an integral part of the reform, no.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Is the minister saying then that we will have a definitive position or a statement of policy as current as anything that is possible then of the government of day when that is released?

 

Mr. Manness:  I am not promising that.  Certainly, though, that is an objective of mine.  I mean, it really is.  I have indicated I was hoping to have this released by early, early summer, but that is a goal.  I cannot promise that.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Is the difficulty greater with regard to the various hierarchies of control and the unwillingness of the bureaucracy to give up the control, or is it more with resources with money that the minister is struggling with here?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, it is a bigger issue than that.  I mean obviously resources are a significant part to it, but is it not time to maybe evaluate the whole process of inclusion?  I mean it is time to do that too, so it is a bigger picture.

 

Mr. Plohman:  So the minister is saying he is also dealing with the desirability of the whole process of mainstreaming students, physically and mentally disabled‑‑challenged is, I believe, more appropriate‑‑students into the regular classrooms.  That question is being dealt with as well.  That seems fundamental then to education reform as well.  I am rather curious about that, since the minister said it would not be part and parcel of his education blueprint.  It would be rather fundamental to that it would seem.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, there is no doubt, I mean, if we bring in a major new reform, there will be some ramifications that may change the way we look at things and the way we have accepted the status quo.  Of course, then that leads to other considerations as we move up that road, but the most important is the whole discussion on the role of the school and the relationship to other government departments.  So if you start at that beginning point, you would then have to take all of your thinking down that path.  So I guess what he is saying is, in part, he is right; he would say, well, then you have to have this all thought out with respect to reform.

 

          Obviously we are going to have to think around it.  Whether or not a specific recommendation or action flows as a result of it is too soon to say.

 

Mr. Plohman:  So this ties in then with the special needs review that the minister was referencing in answer to questions yesterday, and this whole area of review of special needs services, the principle of mainstreaming, perhaps, even as part of that review‑‑well, of inclusion of the students in the regular classrooms.

 

          Mainstreaming refers to high school terminology as well as in the elementary school when you bring students into the regular classrooms.  I know that very often those words are thrown around and maybe in a confusing way, but I am using it in the sense that disabled, physically and mentally challenged children are not separated out the way modern practice has been, but included as much as possible, that being mainstreaming into the regular classroom.

 

          So is that principle, just to clarify then, one that is being reconsidered by the minister as part of this review?

 

* (1510)

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the left hand has to know what the right hand is doing.  I mean that is a given, and the special needs study obviously will attempt to do that.

 

          There is no doubt in my mind that mainstreaming and reaching out to a large cross section of handicapped is well accepted and a high ideal to be able to provide, and we want to continue to do that.

 

          But the question is, and I think it is time to question.  I mean do we include absolutely everybody?  Was this the original objective?  Are we in keeping with the original objective or have we gone beyond it, and if we have, what are the impacts?  These questions have to be asked.  They are not easy to ask.  They are not always the most gentle areas that one would like to find themselves, but the reality is they have to be asked.  So rather than just building in another add‑on, another calling on a bunch of resources and say, well, throw some more money at it, it will fix it, I think it is time to be bold and brave and to step back and look at the larger issue, and that is what we are attempting to do.

 

          (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

 

Mr. Plohman:  Yes, well, the minister is quite right in terms of reviewing policies and practices that are in place.  They should be questioned and reviewed as to whether they are effective and efficient and are meeting the needs from time to time.  That is obvious that that should happen.

 

          I guess I am working from the assumption that this is a good policy.  It may be when dealing with all of the problems out there and with all of the students' needs out there, the minister may come to the conclusion that he cannot afford to do it, to meet all of those needs, and so it is a question then of which one is the most efficient, which model.

 

          I believe that by centralizing those services in the schools, especially in areas where they really need it, where there is a large number of students, that it is the most effective way to go, that the public health nurses have to be in the schools, and the other services, social services have to be‑‑the professionals have to be in the schools in contact with those children and free teachers up to teach.  It should not cost more overall, I would not think, because those specialists are there.  It is just a question of how accessible they are to the students.

 

          They have to deal with these children after in the other parts of their lives, but they do not have to deal with them in their school lives, and it does not make sense that they stop at the door of the school.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is part of our problem because, for instance, in the rural areas, I am led to believe that Health is of the view that public health nurses are not trained.  This is the point, I mean, if public health has to divert their resources that are not working in the field during the day into the public school, then obviously the work in the field is not being done, and so obviously then we are calling on a significant increase in resources because no person that I know of can be in two places at one time.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The fact is though that it may be the most efficient way to deal with these children instead of dealing with them after school hours when they are at home and in a crisis situation.

 

          It is kind of the ongoing support that may be needed, and, of course, there are other tasks now that teachers are having to do in the schools.  It is a question of whether it is efficient use of, you know, teacher time, so it does distract considerably from their ability to meet the educational needs of those students and others.

 

          The question is, is that fair to everyone else in the classroom?  The minister might come at it from the point and say, well, maybe we should just change the system and consider whether those kids should be in that classroom in the first place.  That should be considered, but I am saying working from the premise‑‑ I am not trying to put words in the minister's mouth nor a position in this for him to take‑‑but given that they are in the classroom, then is it not best to have other specialists providing the services that they are trained to do and leave teachers free to teach?

 

Mr. Manness:  The member makes a strong point, and I do not disagree with anything he said.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a couple of questions maybe about the Winnipeg 1 questions that were asked yesterday about a $10.2 million categorical grant that is made available for special needs students and 60 percent, 59 percent of it going to Winnipeg 1 to meet the additional needs in recognition of the greater numbers.  It was asked yesterday.

 

          I just want to ask the minister, he made his argument very forcefully to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that, in fact, this recognizes the need and addresses the need.  Will he recognize as well that with the considerably more numbers there‑‑and he just has to ask his staff for the proportion of special needs students in Winnipeg 1 versus the rest of the province‑‑that perhaps those resources are just scratching the surface in terms of the total needs and that therefore there is a considerably greater burden on the Winnipeg 1 School Division to meet the needs of these children, but well beyond what most other school divisions have to do.  Well, I am asking whether the minister agrees with that.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, I do agree with that, and that is why the categorical funding is in place and so much of it goes to Winnipeg School Division No. 1.  I do agree.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Is the minister aware, for example, that $400,000 was spent by Winnipeg 1 for physiotherapy for special needs students, which is totally paid for by the school division?  Is that something that the minister sees as a responsibility of the school division to fund versus coming from the province as opposed to a school division?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I mean, appropriate, who should do what and when and all that when it comes to interrelationships between levels of government, that is always a tough call.  All I know is it ends up in the same pot, and local decision makers decide where the highest priority is.  That is the basis of local decisions.  I mean, I can think the City of Winnipeg in my view, it is my view, may be too actively involved in social programming, but they have been given a right to levy taxes and to make certain decisions; they do so.

 

          A school division, if it decides that there is not enough support there and decides that on its own it wants to tax its citizens to provide that support, that is its free choice to do so.  I do not know how we change that system.

 

          But on the same hand, when they decide to do it and say, well, we are doing it, but really it is the senior levels of governments' responsibility, I can tell you, you can argue until the cows come home and you are not going to be able to reach the conclusion on that one.  I mean, things sort of move along, and then they jump.  By that I mean I look at the contribution made to special needs over a period of time.  They sort of move along on a constant continuum, and then something causes it to spike upward in support.

 

          These last few years, sometimes it is a downward provision of support because of the reality of funding today.  I cannot draw any conclusions out of those that come to me and say, hey, we are doing this, but it really should be your responsibility.  I mean, we do that as a provincial government.  We say that to the federal government.  You know, here we are doing this, but you are offloading there, and really, it is not our responsibility.  I mean, you can waste away all the time of the day arguing and debating these points.

 

* (1520)

 

Mr. Plohman:  Yes, well, the minister has to recognize, I would imagine, that socioeconomic conditions, poverty, has a great deal of impact on the ability of students to learn.  It presents a great myriad of problems that maybe would not be found in other school divisions, so when we are talking about things like nutrition programs and so on, these are almost fundamental for these children in getting to the schools.  So the minister cannot just turn his back on them either and say, well, they are being offered by the school division, and we do not have the resources to do it.

 

          It is kind of like ignoring the problems and letting someone else look after them, and that is why I asked the question about the degree of need in the Winnipeg 1 School Division, even though the minister is leaving the impression that, yes, there is more going in there proportionally to that school division.  The fact is, though, that the need, I think, has been proven to be much, much greater, and growing when we are dealing with poverty, and the minister just has to look at the growing welfare rolls, the increase of 200 or 300 percent in the last number of years, to know that in fact this is a growing problem.

 

          I want to move on to another area just briefly.  The minister has stated that he is moving, he is inclined, I guess, to accept that there is less reliance or should be less reliance on a single textbook and that there should be more variety in materials available for courses.  It kind of would indicate to me that maybe the minister is‑‑

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a point of order.  I did not pass judgment one way or the other.  What I said was it was reality.  That is what exists today.  Less reliance on a single textbook indicates that is what we have in place today.  We do not have that in place today.

 

          It is not a point of order, but I had to clear the record because the words were not quite properly put down by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  The honourable minister did not have a point of order.  It was just a dispute over the facts.

 

* * *

 

Mr. Plohman:  I want to thank the minister for facilitating my question.  He had written a letter in April '94 to the Teachers' Society, school trustees, included in the resource‑based learning and education model that was sent out.  In it he said that resource‑based learning is an educational model which, by design, actively involves students, teachers and teacher‑librarians in the meaningful use of a wide range of appropriate print, nonprint, and human resources.  This goes on to say students mastering independent learning skills is a means to handle their present day information needs.

 

          It seems to indicate, since it was signed by the minister, that in fact he does recognize the value or the advisability of moving away from a single textbook to a wide range of materials as contained in the resource‑based learning model, or did he just not really endorse it‑‑he just sent it out for reaction‑‑because from reading this letter, I would assume the minister endorses this approach.  I am kind of interested to know now whether, in fact, he does or does not, especially since his clarification of a moment ago.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, I remember, when I signed that letter, I read it once and I read it twice and I read it several times, and would you not know it, the member for Dauphin had to ask me a question on this.

 

          I understand the rationale, in all walks of life, of having various resources at your disposal and how important that is, but I still am of the belief that something has to be primal.  Now, as I said yesterday in my remarks, this is becoming kind of a troubling issue with me because I am trying to decide which way to go on it.

 

          In my view, there should be a provincial text.  Now the question is, should everybody follow it religiously?  Well, I am not as troubled by that as long as everybody religiously works toward the learning associated with the basic concepts that are in our provincial text, and the vast majority of them have not, not all of them, of course, but virtually all.  So I guess that is my general view that I bring to the office.  I know it would take us some time to get there.

 

          Notwithstanding what the member thinks or what I think, how are we going to do it in the global context outside of Manitoba, because as I have said many times, many places, I think we are past the days when Manitoba can have a Manitoba curriculum.  You cannot have that anymore.

 

          I think we are going to have a regional curriculum.  Let us play that in theory.  Let us say Saskatchewan has its 20 resources.  Manitoba has 20 different ones.  Alberta has 30 different ones and B.C. has 60 different ones.  What we are saying, then, is basically, to give full effect to my letter if somebody wanted to take the interpretation out of it that some might, well, we can have a curriculum based on 150 resource texts.

 

          You know I am using the argument to the extreme, but the reality is where does that leave us?  So then you are going to see the constant pressing down to something of greater commonality.  I guess in a math context the concepts have to be similar throughout, but once you start to move into some of the other courses of study, and you start to allow room for interpretation around concepts, then it becomes a little bit troubling.  So I do not know whether I have addressed the member's question or I have left him more confused than I am myself, but I am saying I understand why there have to be various resources and why we should not fixate everything on one.  I can tell you that at the end of the day, something is going to have to be held out that is higher than the rest.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I think teachers in the school divisions and people involved in education take this pretty seriously when the minister sends this out.  It is not just, here is some resource materials.  This is an education model that he was endorsing and sending out to the education community, a resource‑based learning education model.  It would seem he was endorsing it, not that it was just a minor perhaps deviation or diversion from his task to move towards greater uniformity.

 

          I think, though, that it does fit in with what I was saying yesterday.  Perhaps the minister will be helped by this, or perhaps he will not be, but it is really the bench marks and standards that are established that are the important features here for curriculum, not necessarily the recipe book to get there, that there are maybe several paths to get students to attain because everyone learns differently at different rates and so on.  So would the minister say, then, that perhaps by marrying those two ideas, in fact this could fit in quite nicely with that proposition?

 

Mr. Manness:  I do not think we are too far apart on this.  I mean, I honestly believe that as we give more‑‑I will not use the word "jurisdiction"‑‑influence to local schools to decide programming outside the core subject area particularly, and even with maybe influencing also the core subject area, that they will want to reflect on the material used.  Some may very well want, within their school communities, notwithstanding the educator's desire, to try to influence collaboratively a decision that moves in some settings to a more rigid system of textural, if there is such a word, leadership.

 

          In other divisions and/or schools they may want to leave that school community completely flexible to accept the pureness of the resource‑based freedom.

 

          But you are right.  Ultimately the great arbiter between those two approaches, if we allow the greater flexibility as far as the community deciding, will be the standards themselves and the evaluation methods put in place.

 

* (1530)

 

Mr. Plohman:  Well, perhaps inadvertently the minister has moved himself down the path to greater flexibility than he desired, but I am pleased, actually, that he may have done this with perhaps some degree of question and doubt when he signed the letter.  I think that it actually is a positive development, and I hope that he does not reject that move in the future.

 

Mr. Manness:  I will not, as long as the education community does not reject my desire to have a main text, not the compulsory use of it but to have a main provincial text, because I am pretty sure I am going to have to develop one in concert with the other provinces, as long as we do not reject each other.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Well, that is an interesting statement by the minister in terms of the text.  I thought that what he might want to be developing with the western provinces is a common core curriculum with the outcome for each level clearly outlined, but, again, the way to get to there left with some flexibility for each of the provinces and indeed each of the school division's schools, and  this is what seems to indicate resource‑based learning moves toward.

 

          As long as you have those outcomes and the standards and bench marks outlined, why do you need the recipe book?  Why do you need that textbook that the minister now says he is going to probably have to develop and he is going to want endorsation for, if indeed he is going to continue to support this kind of thing, which is a broader base of research materials available to supplement the curriculum?

 

Mr. Manness:  Because I believe it is the government's responsibility to make sure that exists.  I am not saying, and I am not at this point advocating that everybody, that anybody has to use it, but there has to be a point of reference.  That point of reference, in my belief, in my view, is that the government has to have a main text.

 

          I am not advocating, again, for the record, that it has to be used; I mean that is the thinking.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I think the minister would have a lot of people confused in those two statements then in terms of saying he wants to have the main text, but he is not advocating it has to be used, and then he has said that bench marks and standards are the key.  He has agreed with that proposition.

 

          The question is then, what force in fact will this main textbook really have?  I think the minister has now waffled over it.  If you are going to have a main text, but you are not going to require it, then, again, the main text is just another one of the reference materials, but the standards are the key.

 

Mr. Manness:  The standards are the key.  The main text, for those who want to use it, that will be their reference‑‑for those who want to use it.  For those who do not, they will not use it.  They will use other sources, other references, other reference material.  The standards are the key.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will wait and see how that falls out in the minister's blueprints, expected hopefully in the next month and a half, by the end of June.  We will hold the minister to that.

 

          A couple of questions yet on Distance Education.  I have a meeting to go to at four, just in the building here, with MAST representatives.  I am hoping that either the Liberal critic will want to take the last hour, or else I will have to get my other critic to deal with some of the other issues.

 

          I wanted to ask the minister, just in regard to that meeting that we are having, MAST has come forward clearly endorsing the distance education task force report.  They have mentioned a couple of major areas that they would like to see government action on.  We discussed the initiative in Distance Education just yesterday, the $750,000 for pilot projects and so on, but we really did not deal with the task force report at all.

 

          I am wondering whether the minister could tell us as to the progress made.  It seemed to me maybe he was suggesting that perhaps it is outdated already, because things move along so quickly.  There was some reference.  Is the minister implementing or intending to implement, and I draw his attention specifically to the establishment of the provincial council, with representatives from regional consortia, like where is that at, and from the department and other users of the system and so on, the MTS?  That was a major, central recommendation and it would seem to me would be fundamental in perhaps even deciding which pilots should be funded, and the minister talked about making decisions on that.  So has that happened?

 

Mr. Manness:  We have Treasury Board clearance to begin to build that council, and yet we are going to have to do it carefully, bearing in mind some of the other comments I made yesterday, working towards the greater integrated model.  When the task force wrote, of course, its report and made reference by way of that recommendation, it was thinking, the writers, I know, were thinking almost purely of education.  A year hence‑‑I mean, we have as a government policy‑‑education is obviously important, if not the most important, but there are other factors that had to be taken into account.

 

          So we are struggling to see how it is we give a council on education total advisory capacity dealing with education, and yet hoping and wanting that it would also consider the greater requirements of the community.  So that is what we are struggling with, and yet we certainly have agreed to the council.  We see where it has an incredibly important role, and we will bring it into being in one fashion or another.

 

          Now, as far as my reference to the report changing, I was not talking about the concept of clustering and/or working together and sharing services.  That, in itself, is still very important and would be the mainstay behind the new distance education thrust.  What I was talking about more so was the technology and how that is changing, and there are certainly two different areas to consider.

 

Mr. Plohman:  I do not think the recommendations from the task force were based on one technology.  The microwave advances would certainly fit in with this, I would think, as well as fiber optic cable, but they did talk about integrating in the community.  Everything seems to be based on that, the importance of the need for focus on community commitment to lifelong learning; not just the public education system, the importance of co‑ordinating activities at the local level, libraries and so on.

 

          So it seems that was always intended, to recognize that this was going to be broader certainly than just the public education system and post‑secondary institutions.  So it seems to be reflected to a certain extent in here, and I think that that is what that council was supposed to do.  It was supposed to deal with the education aspects of it.

 

          Now, is the minister saying that he is struggling as to whether the government as a whole should set up some type of mechanism, a council to co‑ordinate all these needs, as opposed to one that co‑ordinates education needs, and then have a separate, maybe, arm that would deal with the other issues?

 

Mr. Manness:  The member is correct.  Certainly, when this was written a year ago, we knew conceptually that there would be other services, but not until we got into‑‑for instance, let us use an example, the Department of Health, and realized that on its own, it is also almost duplicating, not duplicating, but it is putting into place systems using technology.

 

          Nobody that would have written that report would have known, because we did not know until several months ago that there is tremendous potential and that, indeed, if you do not take that into account at the beginning you put at risk the ability to support not only the education system, but a health application and anything else, so you had better do your thinking properly at the beginning.  That is what we are trying to do.

 

Mr. Plohman:  The integrated approach seems to be included in the regional consortia.  That seems already to be built into the recommendations, not just for education.  The point is that the provincial council is supposed to have representatives from that, as regions, so it already could reflect that integrated approach, and it is just a question now whether it should be broader at the provincial level to include all of those other departments as named, with representatives named by government or through agencies of some kind to add to the expertise in rounding out the nature of the council.  Is that the way the minister sees it going, or is the council idea perhaps in jeopardy?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, no, that is the way it has to go, but the question is, is it a council that is focusing on education first and then integrating in everything else, or is it a council, a broader council that is looking from an umbrella standpoint of which education is a very important goal.  That is our‑‑I will not call it a dilemma, but that is where we are.

 

* (1540)

 

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, they also suggested that the Telephone System be strongly encouraged to establish a branch dealing specifically with telecommunication services for educational use.  Has that been done?  Has the minister been in contact with his colleague responsible for the Telephone System?  In fact, do they have the kind of expertise that is required and needed to carry out their role in the delivery of and the development of the electronic highway, distance education being a part of it?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, who am I going to be in trouble with most if I answer that question?  I mean my sense is that Manitoba Telephone System, there are a couple of individuals within the organization who understand fully well where this approach is going.  Now, the question is whether they are senior people or not.  I think there has been a realization at senior levels over the course of just the last few months how important an emerging area this is to the well‑being not only of the Telephone System, but as importantly to rural Manitoba.

 

          Certainly they will be part of any dialogue as we try to work towards a better integrated model.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Would the minister see them as being the primary player when dealing with fibre optic technology and the cable companies being the primary player when dealing with the digital microwave or would that be oversimplifying it?

 

Mr. Manness:  That is oversimplified.  I mean, I guess the question the member really is asking is should they maintain a monopoly or restricted monopoly‑‑[interjection] No, I am putting words in his mouth, I acknowledge that‑‑and/or whether the competitive model be allowed to have a greater influence in a lot of these decisions.  You know, we are struggling with that element too right now.

 

Mr. Plohman:  Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have no further questions at this particular point in time.  I will pass it to someone else and come back to a couple of points my colleague has on native education, but not a great deal more in this particular branch.

 

          We want to move to the bureau as soon as possible, but, as I said, I will have to leave for a while.  If it is necessary to deal with those other issues now, we can.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I wanted to pick up on the meeting that I had with the Manitoba School Library Association, actually, where there was a great deal of concern with respect to the resource‑based learning model that the minister had in fact issued out.  Generally speaking, I had thought that it was received quite positively in terms of what they believe is the direction that the Minister of Education was wanting to see us move towards.

 

          In the discussions that I had, I thought they had put it quite well, and it is going to lead to a series of questions that I would like to ask the minister.  They talked in terms of the differences of a school library compared to a school library program.  It is a significant difference.

 

          I wanted to read in terms of how they worded it.  A school library is a collection of books organized and catalogued, able to circulate with minimal loss and confusion.  A qualified technician or qualified clerk would give you a school library.

 

          A school library program, on the other hand, matches the material resource of a school library to the curriculum design of classroom activities, the teachers' styles, the teachers, the learning styles of the students and the information skills of both.  Only a qualified teacher‑librarian can give students and teachers a school library program.

 

          As the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) has pointed out, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe that there are a number of people from within that whole area, and particularly the School Library Association, have received this report in a very positive way.  We would like to believe that the minister is not trying to build up expectations that he is not going to be able to deliver later on.

 

          There ware a specific number of questions that they had asked me or concerns that they had expressed to me.  I want to see if we can get some of those questions answered.  One of the major ones was, if we are going to be moving into this area, how will the educators, if you like, be trained in the future to be able to facilitate having library programs?

 

Mr. Manness:  We have a school library specialist who has been working in the department for two years and will continue to do so to try and share the knowledge that we have at the department with those practitioners in the field.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  On the organizational chart where would the school library specialist fit in?

 

Mr. Manness:  She is in the provincial specialists area in the Program Implementation Branch of the division.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Could the minister indicate in terms of what specifically her role is in terms of trying to provide programming, training seminars?  Maybe the minister could comment on that.

 

Mr. Manness:  As the member indicates, he has answered his own question.  Her role is to lead training seminars and professional development sessions and, of course, to be there as a consultant as individual problems arise or questions need to be answered.  He has answered his own question.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Can the minister indicate, in terms of the number of training programs, is this something that we are looking at the expansion of?  Is there a role, for example, for the University of Manitoba to play as part of the curriculum for teachers ed?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, planning for next year is happening at this particular time.  So there are not any definitive plans at this point in cast, but we are working on those plans.  As far as using valued experience or views from outside of the department, whether they come from the university or elsewhere, certainly we are welcome to accept all offers of support.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Can the minister indicate in terms of what sort of planning they are putting into works for the upcoming year and how that would vary from the previous year?  Do we see, for example, additional resources towards seminars, in particular, in rural Manitoba?

 

* (1550)

 

Mr. Manness:  We will develop a plan.  We will take it out to the regions.  We will let them react to it.  If they deem that it is in keeping with what they feel the local clientele wants, then they will be accepted.  If there are some changes required, we will change those.  If it requires some additional resources, that can happen, but that will have to come out of their allocation.  If that is deemed as the highest priority within their allocation, then there will be more resources directed.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I wonder if the minister can indicate whether or not he sees, in the future, the need to have some sort of a certification for librarian‑teachers in our schools.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is quite an issue.  This does not begin or end with a specialist as a librarian and the certification showing that.  That is the question, but certainly the answer does not end there, because there is no end of individuals today who want specialization under the certification process.  It is not only in education, I might add.  Why do you think this government of the day referred to the Law Reform Commission‑‑how it is the professions come to grips with the expanding proliferation of powers that they want within subdisciplines, want by way of legislation.

 

          So the member asks very direct questions specifically dealing with librarians, and I know he would like me to be able to give him a very direct answer, but from the government point of view, it expands and explodes to something much greater.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Can the minister indicate in terms of what is there currently at universities to facilitate librarians expanding their skills?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are courses on being a librarian.  The member asks, well, are there enough of these courses offered during formal training as one proceeds through the Faculty of Education?  We are asking those questions ourselves right now.  Certainly, the teacher training initiatives committee that has been put into place and is working closely with the Faculty of Education is trying to delve in greater depth into this whole issue.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  The minister made reference to the teachers training committee.  Is there, in fact, a librarian on that particular committee?

 

Mr. Manness:  Yes, there is.  She happens to be a staff member of the department at this point, but she is a qualified librarian, so I would say yes.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Given the importance of educational reform in the incorporation of a library program, if you like, which is no doubt an important and integral part to distance education, I am wondering if the minister feels that there is a need to have some form of enhanced curriculum development at the faculty over at the University of Manitoba in order to keep up with the technologies.

 

Mr. Manness:  A very important role, extremely important.  You know, the question is, is that more important than developing curriculum in math, science and language arts?  I mean, this is an issue of priorities, very important in itself.  The location of where that expertise should be placed is maybe in question but very important, but I say no more important than developing curriculum in the core subject areas.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  The minister, throughout the Estimates, refers to the core curriculum area.  Does he include technology as part of the core curriculum?

 

Mr. Manness:  That is a very key element to essential learning, unquestionably, but is the member then saying that he envisages that only in a course, or is he more inclined to envisage it like I tend to do, across many courses?

 

          It is part of our activity, and I would have to think rather than just focusing on it in its own course area, that maybe it should be integrated in other learning.  I mean nothing impressed me more when I was in River East high school and saw the relationship between français and computer science, and here there were two teachers who were putting their course work together and fully integrated.  I would have to say that is more important in my view than maybe just trying to focus it as a "you either take it or you don't, make your decision now."

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is all the questions I have on Education Reform.  I am quite prepared to go into Assessment and Evaluation.  I know the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) is back, unless you have some more questions for Education Reform.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  2.(b)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $505,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,744,600‑‑pass.

 

          (c) Assessment and Evaluation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $675,900.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under the objectives, it indicates that the department is to analyze school and student data to determine if standards are in fact being met.

 

          My question is, in terms of, how is this data information compiled and what data is collected and how?

 

Mr. Manness:  Three ways, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.  The member would know that the department has been doing assessments on curriculum for a number of years, over the course of the last two years, three years, provincial exams with report back to local divisions and, thirdly, a provincial report with respect to the results associated with those provincial exams.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I am not necessarily referring to provincial exams.  In my reading of it, I take it that there is data or information that is collected from the local schools.  This is the information I am referring to, that school divisions might have in place for their local exams, that sort of thing.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know whether the member has spent the time in some of the curriculum assessment results.  I remember when I was a critic 10 years ago, it seemed like I got bogged down on them and I spent two weeks in them, Norm.  I guess if the member has not done that, he would not know that there are data references there and indeed there are conclusions reached.  That is the database to which I refer.

 

* (1600)

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I am asking information in terms of the putting together of that particular database, the sorts of information that would be accessed.  I am quite pleased that the minister, when he was critic, might have had access to that or thought of looking into that.  For me, I would want to know if the minister would in fact be able to at least enlighten me on that issue.

 

Mr. Manness:  I do not know whether I can do that in the context of a few minutes.  I would invite the member to talk to Mr. Norm Mayer who is here and heads up that whole branch, and he would do a much more adequate job of trying to lay out the methodologies and the processes in place than I could probably do in a short period of time.

 

          I mean, there is nothing sinister at work here.  This is a long‑standing process that has been in place in this province for 15 years and certain subjects‑‑a subject every year is targeted as one in which we go out into the field and we have people write some type of an exam or a test.

 

          But the focus is the curriculum itself.  This is where the focus exists.  I would have to think that over 15 years, math may have been looked at three times at grade levels 3, 6, 9 and 12, and almost all of the major subjects have probably been looked at two or three times in that 15‑year period.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess I am referring to‑‑and I do not know if the minister is getting the point that I am trying to get at.  The department is responsible to ensure that the curriculum is, in fact, being delivered.  If you have exams one year in math and exams in another year in language, that does not necessarily ensure your curriculum is, in fact, being implemented.

 

          What I am referring to is there is no doubt internal things are being done within the school divisions, within local schools, but I would have anticipated that the department would be having some sort of monitoring process to ensure that the curriculum is, in fact, being implemented.  Again, I appreciate the minister's advice in terms of sitting down with one of the staff people, but I also believe he has a responsibility to indicate to us in terms of what is going on.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member‑‑his sentiments are not new to the world.  I mean, that is why the former minister, Mr. Derkach, who on behalf of the government shared many of the same views, caused to be brought in provincial exams to begin to try to determine, in a broader context, whether or not the curriculum was being followed.

 

          I am telling the member what was the status quo, the process in place.  Where it broke down, I suppose, is that when there was a recognition that the curriculum might be short in some areas and/or students who were short in their understanding of it in some areas, the governments of the day refused to mandate that action be taken within school divisions, that would force students or classrooms to either present the curriculum in a different way, or whatever.

 

          So a lot of the work had been done, but beyond that, we sensed that provincial exams should be brought into place to try to determine whether or not the curriculum was being imparted, and we have done that.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  The minister indicates that Mr. Derkach, his colleague, brought in provincial exams.  Prior to that, you mean there is absolutely no monitoring of the implementation of the curriculum at the different levels?  Even the provincial exams that the former Minister of Education brought in were not necessarily for the full curriculum.  It would have been for specific areas, is that not true?

 

Mr. Manness:  That is true, but the reality is we had to begin to build all over again.  I sense by the tone of the question, the member is critical for not having tests across the board in all subjects.  I do not know what grades he might be referring to, but maybe he would even say all grades.

 

          At the same time we were constituting our own, we were making a collaborative effort towards a national test under the student achievement.  I always get that "s" mixed up, student achievement indicators project on a national context.  We are trying to move along with this and, of course, the very basic and the essence of reform which will be made public next month, will again indicate how strong we are of the view that we have to continue to increase the measurement and the evaluation within this area.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to be very clear in terms of what I am critical of, and that is that the minister is not able to indicate to me in terms of how the curriculum is being implemented or give assurances that a curriculum is in fact being implemented from K to 12 or K to S4.

 

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

 

          He refers to the provincial exams.  He does not refer to any of the communication or co‑ordination from the department with the school divisions nor the independent schools in terms of what is actually going on.  That is in fact what I am critical of.  One of the responsibilities of the department‑‑and it is fairly clear here‑‑is to ensure the administration or implementation of the curriculum.

 

          Can the minister give us that assurance?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not going to sit here and be subject to a simple question which would call for a very difficult complex question, even though the member would like me to simply answer.

 

          Why does he not phrase his question in terms of outputs?  Why does he not say is the system doing its job?  Why does he not say do you know for sure that our students along the way are achieving certain goals?  I would also ask him to‑‑and here I am telling him how to ask his questions‑‑but the reality is, is Manitoba leading or following other provinces who are rushing to try and measure at various points along the system?

 

          I would indicate to him that the reform package that we are working on right now would show that we are quickly trying to become a leader in this area.

 

          But, I am not going to try and answer his question in a quantitative objective fashion because, quite frankly, I cannot.  I have to believe that in most of our schools and most of our classrooms that the curriculum is being imparted.  Does he ask me to guarantee that it is happening in all areas?  I am sorry.  I cannot do that, because the process of delegation that started long before I was in office, long before this government was here, of delegating these responsibilities from the ministry to school divisions, to superintendents to principals and ultimately to the teacher in the classroom, has been a process of 40, 50 years, unless the member is dictating that there should be school inspectors once again put into place so that I know more, with certainty, what is happening in the classroom.  Maybe he is advocating that.  Right today that is not in place.

 

* (1610)

 

          So the good‑faith model that I talked about in other answers to other questions is what we have today.  Of course, what we are trying to do to get a read on that is to bring into place more quickly than possible standards and tests that indicate how our students are achieving as against that standard.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  The minister suggests questions that I could ask.  I could also suggest ways in which he could answer questions.  The minister says that he is responsible for delegating.  He delegates.  He is also ultimately the one who is responsible.  In fact, if you read the assessment and evaluation to assess the degree of the curriculum implementation, the minister has not yet answered that question other than saying there is something that is in place.  What that something is he is not prepared to answer, but if I like, I can go and talk to one of his staff people.

 

          I would suggest to him that it is an appropriate question to ask:  How does he ensure, using the words of his Supplementary Estimates, to assess the degree of curriculum implementation, or how is that done?  That is the original question that I had asked.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I answered that question in detail.  The member then went on to say, how can you be sure that the curriculum is being implemented‑‑and I think, by reference and inference, he meant‑‑in all schools and across the total subject area?

 

          I said I cannot give a simple answer to what I think is a simple question because I did not delegate the responsibility.  Legislators long before me delegated much of the responsibility to other educational authorities.  I am responsible for what happens in the university.  Believe it or not, I am held accountable for what happens at universities ultimately.  But, believe me, the powers that the ministry has with respect to programming within universities are minute.

 

          These decisions of delegation have been made long before I inherited the office.  So that is why I react in the fashion I do.  I guess I say that is why the government, though in keeping with the essence of the question, has introduced provincial exams at Grade 12 because we too are concerned as to whether or not the curriculum is being taught completely.

 

          That is why we will probably be introducing some base‑line assessment as we move into the reform package.  That is why, of course, we have joined other Ministers of Education across the country to put into place a student achievement indicators program, because we are concerned that certain standards are not being met.  Whether or not that reflects as to whether the curriculum has been taught or not, well, we will have to determine that.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Can the minister indicate in terms of what the department has in place to correspond with school divisions and schools with reference to the curriculum?  Are there ongoing discussions?  Is there something that is formal?  Is it something that if a school has a problem they write to the department or they go to the school board or the school board goes to the minister?  What is actually the process for that?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, when it is a new curriculum, we literally have hundreds of meetings.  If it is existing curriculum, we have always let divisions and/or educators know that we are prepared at a phone call to sit down with them and discuss the curriculum.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, maybe what I can do is to bring up a specific example.  If you have a two‑semester high school and each high school has, let us say, 90 days in each semester, some will have four classes for that day; others will have five.  If you are in the four‑class semester day, if you like, the four‑class‑a‑day semester school, you will get the required regulation of 110 to 120 math hours, for example.  If you are in a five‑class day in a semester, you will fall considerably short in the math because there are 80 minutes in the first followed by a much shorter period in the second.

 

          Does the department follow things of this nature?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that may happen in some schools, but the most that I am familiar with, the principal in setting forward the timetable has to have these revolving as to what week is four and what week is five of the various subjects.  I suppose, in some instances in some schools, there may be a shortage of hours, but I still think that most principals who do the timetabling‑‑and my goodness, I do not think the member is advocating that I do the timetabling or the department do the timetabling‑‑but I think in most schools, there is an attempt to hit the guidelines on all the subjects.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not suggesting to the Minister of Education that he would set a timetable per se, but I am suggesting that the department does have a role in terms of knowing, in terms of what is going on throughout the province in the many different schools that are there or at least have some sort of an idea of what is out there.

 

          In the objectives, for example, it says:  "To analyze school and student data to determine if standards are met."  We referred to the provincial exams.  I gave a specific example.  How does the minister or the Department of Education monitor what is actually going on in the schools other than just through delegation?  Is there anything that is in place?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, other than several years ago when there were inspectors and then field officers, which no longer exist and were taken out, in my belief, in the NDP years for the final time in the '80s, the department has no day‑to‑day insight into the classroom other than by way of examinations, which were brought into place in '91‑92, after a year of piloting.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Then how would the department know the degree to which the curriculum is being implemented?  How would they know that?  Is it because they have delegated it and they believe that they are doing a good job, all the school divisions and the administrators at that level?  How does the department know the degree of its implementation?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, other than the assessment tests and the exams that we have in place and I guess some extraneous information‑‑I do not think that is the right word‑‑that may be shared with us with universities upon our other post‑secondary institutions, upon what they are finding in first‑year students coming into those institutions, we have nothing.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I am wondering if that is maybe part of the reason why then the minister was surprised to see the standard math tests come as low as they were.  Would that be a fair comment to make?

 

Mr. Manness:  I do not think I was surprised.  I never said I was surprised; I said I was disappointed.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  If the minister was not surprised, then what made him feel that in fact it was going to be there at that level?

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, again, my greater disappointment was as much with the Canadian results as they were with the Manitoban results.  The great concern from a lot of people in the education circle in the first place is, uh‑huh, we are going to be ranked Manitoba versus Alberta or something, and we are going to be ranked on the basis of degree.  Quebec is going to look good, and we are going to look bad, but the degree of difference between the results was very, very narrow.

 

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

 

* (1620)

 

          My disappointment was more with the Canadian results and how the whole student body within our nation probably fare.  So this is not a Manitoba issue per se.

 

          How did I know?  How did I sense that maybe it would not be well?  Well, we have looked at other results before, an international assessment of education results.  We are mindful of the fact that we now have progress all the way through.  I was mindful of a new term I have come to learn called mark inflation, which is being practised at some of our institutions, post‑secondary, whether anybody wants to admit it particularly or not, and no doubt is happening in some of our public schools and independent schools for that matter.

 

          I mean, how did I measure this?  How did we know it?  With certainty I guess we do not, but the reality is many people, particularly members of our government coming into office, sensed that not all was right, and to that end, we brought in to try and get a snapshot of where we were at‑‑we are the ones who brought in provincial exams.  We did it.

 

          Of course, we also saw similar results on the international assessment of education progress in math and science, and some of our schools are now actively involved in that.  I mean, this has been building.  The member, the tone of his questions indicates this is a new revelation, that he has discovered oil or something, but the reality is this has been growing for some years.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister indicated that his curriculum implementation is monitored by assessment tests, by exams in certain places.  At least that is what I had written down as he was speaking, and those are all provincial.  Is that not correct?  So that is the only way in which they monitor the curriculum being implemented currently?

 

Mr. Manness:  For 15 years, again, I will push the member on this, as far as monitoring curriculum, not student progress, but curriculum, for 15 years that is the process that has been in place in Manitoba.  It is in place in some other parts in Canada, but I would have to think we have one of the more elaborate processes, from what people lead me to believe, as far as curriculum assessment anywhere in Canada.  In some provinces, this was not being done at all, I am led to believe.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if we go to expected results, it will say that school division examinations will be reviewed and approved as needed.

 

          I would ask the minister if in fact they do review school division exams.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, at this point we do not.  We are mindful that they are in place, and yet we sense that we should become a repository for those results if indeed school divisions, within their freedom of administering division‑wide exams, if they want to register them with us, the results I am talking about.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Then would this be an entirely new line that has been entered into this year's Estimates?

 

Mr. Manness:  It is not a new line at all.  It is just a new service.  It is not a new line.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I do not understand.  It says that school division examinations will be reviewed and approved.  I asked the minister then, had that occurred, and he had indicated no.  I seek just some clarification on that.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, many school divisions are wrestling with this same question and some have been administrating division‑wide exams for a number of years.  Others are contemplating them.  They want to, in developing their division‑wide exams, they would like to have an outside judgment as to whether or not they are in keeping with some model and cover basically the important areas.

 

          What we have said to them is listen, if you want to begin to measure within divisions or if you have been doing it for some years‑‑and some divisions have‑‑and you want an outside party to pass judgment on it, we will attempt to do that.  That is something new.  I do not know if we have had a formal request yet, but we expect that some divisions will.

 

          Now, there was a Strategy 59 under Answering the Challenge which, if we accepted that recommendation, would dictate that all divisions would have divisional exams.  We are not at this point imposing Strategy 59.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister says that some school divisions are, some school divisions are not.  Does the minister believe that school divisions should be doing it?

 

Mr. Manness:  I do not know whether what I believe is terribly relevant.  I am for tests and exams, but I am also for greater school autonomy and the programming aside outside of the core curriculum areas where I think the ministry should be very much involved.  After that, divisions and schools should reflect what is important to them.  If they want to have a score, a divisional score or a test procedure in place to deal with all the areas of study, so be it.

 

          I think, in my view, it is a rigour that all of us should be subject to as citizens, particularly as we come through those formative years.  I am not saying that they should be pass‑fail, but there is nothing wrong with being challenged to understand that study is important and critical thinking is important and from time to time that should be tested.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would argue that in fact the Department of Education is in the best position to be able to do the sorts of reviews that are necessary, the sorts of reviews that have been at least indicated that the Department of Education has been conducting, but as it turns out has not been conducting.

 

          I am wondering if the minister could give us some sort of assurances that at the very least those school divisions that have been conducting these tests, that there will be some sort of a monitoring process.  I would like to think that might have even possibly had something to do with the blueprint that the minister is going to be introducing in June, if he has a better idea.

 

          Some school divisions could have been doing extensive monitoring of their own whether it is through having individuals come in to oversee what is going on in the classrooms or having standard exams in noncompulsory courses, that this sort of information could have been very beneficial.  Again, I would express some disappointment in the sense that this review has not taken place, because I do believe that it should have been taking place at the Department of Education level.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have to sit here and take this nonsense.  I mean, I have to take it, but the reality is I do not remember when I said exactly the same thing in Brandon before Christmas.  I do not remember the Liberal Party, their leadership or the critic of Education getting up and supporting me.  As a matter of fact, I remember exactly the opposite.

 

* (1630)

 

          I said that.  I was severely criticized in some quarters for saying that.  I said there should be standards and there should be uniformity and that we should be open with our students and tell them where they rate.  I do not remember‑‑maybe I am wrong, maybe I did not see it‑‑the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) and/or the Education critic standing up and applauding.

 

          As a matter of fact, the great irony of this is‑‑and it is foolish of me to put this on the record but I cannot hold myself back‑‑an individual who used to be part of our party now gives notice to the world, who happens to be the head of school trustees, that he is leaving our party to join the Liberals because we are the ones who said that.  I mean this is the joke.

 

          He is joining the Liberal Party because our view, my view, on standards and how it is that we should try and begin to do this was something that belonged way in the past, and he is going to join the Liberal Party because he thinks they are going to have a much kinder approach and stay with the status quo.

 

          I am not confused on this, but I question where the support was.  I will be very thankful for the support of the member for Inkster, the Education critic of the Liberal Party, when we bring forward our blueprint which will, of course, have heavy focus on the areas of standards and testing.  I know he will stand up and applaud that effort, and he will embrace it as if it were his own.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  You know, I am surprised.  No, I should not say surprised, but the minister interprets what he likes out of what I have said.  If he will read Hansard, he will see that what I said is that there is a role for the department to make use of the information that has been collected through the different school divisions.  He himself acknowledged that some school divisions have, some school divisions have not.

 

          The minister says that he does not feel he should even have to be here to answer a question of that nature.  I think that he does have a responsibility not only to be here to listen to a question of that nature, but also to be held accountable for an Estimates book that says there is a review that is going on and then we find out the review is not going on.

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is '94‑95 Estimates.  We are into the second month.  It talks therefore about the '94‑95 school year.  The member seems to say, we want you to impose this with respect to the new school year.

 

          I am sorry that the member always takes out literal interpretation of what is written.  I am sorry for my outburst.  Naturally, I am to be held accountable.  That is why I am here, and I will stay here as long as the member wants, but the reality is I do not think he has a strong enough base of knowledge in this whole area to ask the questions in the manner he does.  That is not a criticism.  This is not an easy area, and you have to be in it for some period of time.

 

          I want to assure him that hopefully we are on the same wave length.  I kind of resent the fact that he is saying, as a government‑‑he is not saying it, but I think he is inferring that as a government you should have done this sooner or you should be more in charge, you should know what is happening in the schools.  I am saying that is an easy thing to say from the comfortable pew of opposition.

 

          As I say to many who are pushing us to do the ed reform more quickly than we are, this is not an easy task.  Yet, if we were to move too fast, the very same member‑‑because I have seen it in health reform‑‑would be criticizing us for not consulting enough.  That is what disturbs me so darn much as I sit here.  The very same group of people who will chastise us for not having the instant results in Education are the same people who have run us through hell and back because we have not collaborated and we have not interacted with the health community.  That is what galls me a little bit with respect to the question.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are a number of things that gall me with respect to the answer.  I could talk in terms of contradictions that the minister has put from yesterday to today with the whole issue of special needs.  He can feel assured that once Hansard is printed I will show it to him, some of the contradictions.

 

          The minister says this is '94‑95 budget.  If you will recall I asked him the question, was this in fact a new initiative‑‑I should not say a new initiative‑‑was this a new line.  He indicated to me, no, it is not a new line.  If it is not a new line, then that tells me that it was there in the previous year.  I had asked him‑‑and the minister says, no from his seat.  Again, I do not want to spend the rest of the afternoon on this particular line.  I do want to get on to special needs.

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister cannot say, look, this is the '94‑95 budget and you cannot expect us to do it in the past two months since April 1, because he did indicate that it was being done before.  I do expect the Department of Education to be able to be doing some sort of a review of what information is out there.  The Minister of Education has failed to indicate that he is making usage of the information that some school divisions‑‑using the minister's words‑‑are in fact having, whether it is exams or monitoring or anything of that nature, which is a far cry from what the Minister of Education was saying at MAST in Brandon at the end of 1993.

 

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  Mr. Deputy Chair, I have not been here all afternoon, so if I am repeating questions or not on the right line, then please tell me.

 

          Under this line, which I believe deals with Assessment and Evaluation, I would be interested in having some comments from the minister on the assessment of the phys ed evaluation that was done last year in English and French programs at the‑‑I think it was Elementary 3 and Senior 11, was it?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the final report is being put together.  I have not even see it, therefore it is not ready for distribution at this point.

 

Ms. Friesen:  But the results have been distributed.  There are four booklets that I have received from the department.  They are green‑‑well, if we are going to get into colours, two are green and two are yellow.

 

Mr. Manness:  Those are the statistical raw data numbers, but the analysis has not been put to that, so that is why I am saying the report‑‑that is the import of doing it.  The analysis has not been done.

 

Ms. Friesen:  That was why I asked for the minister's comments because those were just numbers, but there are obviously inferences and policy directions that are going to come from that, so when will this evaluation be ready?

 

Mr. Manness:  Again, I say do not hold us to it, but we are going to try and have that done by fall.

 

Ms. Friesen:  What would be the normal procedure after that?  When an evaluation is done then published, what is the next step?

 

* (1640)

 

Mr. Manness:  The member puts her finger on a problem.  Mr. Mayer is with me and certainly when I came into the ministry and asked him to give me an in‑depth study or knowledge of this whole area up to this point in time the department, whether it has not had‑‑probably does not even have the legislative authority today to cause changes in the divisions with respect to the conclusions.  Divisions that read it and their education instructional leaders who read it and say, yes, we have a problem, and to the extent that they want to vary or make stronger their curriculum, we will do that.  We sense that most divisions file it on the shelf and I know it is one of the areas of consternation that has bothered the staff particularly who have gone through it in a diligent fashion in trying to make this system work.  There is no teeth today for the department to impose changes on divisions.

 

Ms. Friesen:  The evidence that was published in that study was not given in terms of divisions.  It was given in terms of programs, so how would the divisions in fact be expected to apply those results to their own particular programs?  It could be that a particular division has performed very well but they would not know it and it may be that a certain number of divisions in fact are "dragging down" the whole statistical basis.

 

Mr. Manness:  Well, divisions that are interested can approach us and get an analysis of their group of students if they choose to do so.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Have any chosen to do so?

 

Mr. Manness:  The majority have those results.  The question is, have the majority acted on it, and I gather the majority to our understanding at least do not act upon that information once it is provided to them.

 

Ms. Friesen:  The minister is actually making a very broad general statement about the impact of evaluations that no action is forthcoming from the divisions.  How long a period are you looking at?  Has that been the case for 20 years or 10 years or five years?  What basis is there for making that statement?

 

Mr. Manness:  Both for the micro and macro, first of all the micro, we do teacher surveys and we ask that question specifically, given the results of the last go‑round, have you made changes in methods and/or curriculum in this subject area?  The results of those surveys for the most part indicate that changes are not made.

 

          For the macro level, we have been to math three times.  You sense that if you evaluate it and you have pointed out where some of the weaknesses are in math five years hence and then you come around again and do it and the same weaknesses and soft areas show up, then you sense that you have not made the progress you had hoped.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I will pursue two areas.  One is the methodology, the teacher surveys.  Are those sampled surveys or are those every teacher who has participated in the evaluation?

 

Mr. Manness:  Sample survey.

 

Ms. Friesen:  How broad is the survey?  Does it incorporate, for example, every division?

 

Mr. Manness:  No, the survey methodology certainly is scientific.  We would approach, of 12,000 students across the province, as many as 600 by way of scientific method.  So we think the survey is pretty pure.  Of that, about 90 percent return completed surveys.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I am sorry, I did not understand the minister's response.  I was asking not about the testing but the teacher survey.  Does that mean that you are surveying 12,000 teachers?  There was a confusion‑‑

 

Mr. Manness:  I said out of 12,000 students, pardon me teachers, we are surveying 600, but they are drawn randomly on a scientific basis.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Do they include representation from every division?  How random is that?

 

Mr. Manness:  I could never make the statement random and scientific if they did not come from every division.

 

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the second question that I asked a little while ago was the basis of the minister's statement for believing that no changes ever follow upon these kinds of evaluations.  His example was the math program which has been revisited a couple of times.  Is that the only example, and is that the length of period that we are looking at over the experience of the last five years, and is it only in math?

 

Mr. Manness:  I do not know whether the member was here when we covered some of this ground.  We have had this policy of assessment in place now for 15 years.  Math, I guess, would be the one subject that has gone around three times and there might be a couple of other areas.  Here is a sample, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in 1985 reading was done, in '86 science, '87 math, '88 social studies, '89 biology, '90 chemistry and physics, '91 the French science area, in '92 reading, '93 phys ed, '94 science.  This is the schedule of events.

 

          Still to the question, I could not say categorically that some divisions have not made changes.  I cannot make that statement and I never did.  My statement was general, and it is based on, again, the empirical evidence that we have, first, the survey and, secondly, the return to the same subject and basically the same areas of questioning and testing and the results therein.

 

Ms. Friesen:  The minister talked earlier of his frustration with the absence of legislative authority for making changes.  I wonder if he could expand upon that.  I am thinking, for example, I would be interested in a general discussion of that, of what the minister learned, because it seems surprising to me as well that that is the department's understanding of its role.

 

          I am thinking, for example, in the context of the phys ed survey.  I think a number of divisions and a number of schools have been diminishing the amount of time spent in physical education, particularly in the senior years, to the extent where‑‑well, I will not go into the extent‑‑but certainly a diminishing amount of physical education.  That seems to me within the legislative bounds of the minister and the results that have been shown in that phys ed study, and I emphasize particularly females because that is where the decline is seen most dramatically, but certainly there are striking differences between the French and English programs which are not easily explainable.

 

          It does seem to me that one avenue of change that the minister has is the amount of time that is spent on a particular subject, whether it is math, whether it is phys ed, whether it is English or whatever.  So what legislative authority then is available to the minister?  Are there areas, for example, in terms of time devoted to certain subjects that may not have been used recently or may need a broader application?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I indicated yesterday in a question similar to this, very limited powers, guidelines for the most part and then, of course, the ultimate of by regulation stating what should be compulsory courses.  Of course, many, many in the community, in the school communities, are calling into question this imposition from on high and I do too, by the way, as to a broad range of activity and professionals and learned people from outside, in other disciplines outside of education trying to almost impose their will or certainly their belief that if we do even more of imposing certain areas of study or unit of study on the public school system, we will be better able to address some of society's ills.

 

* (1650)

 

          I am not one for one moment who believes that government edict in any way is going to cause to be a better educated student, either in a physical sense and/or in some other areas.  I came through school at a time when physical education was not mandatory, yet there was a certain make‑up of teachers and educational leaders within the school setting who just wanted every‑‑I mean every young man and woman wanted to be part of that, and there was nothing there.  It was just kind of the spirit of the school.  It was the very personality of the teachers and the educational leaders.  It was supported in the home and in the community.

 

          There is no way I could resurrect that by just passing along and saying it has to happen.  I am as concerned about some of the results and some of the backing away from physical activity in the public school system as the member.  I gather she is concerned about that.

 

          I am as strong an advocate that there should be physical education in the school day as anybody around this room, but to mandate and enforce it under the belief that this is going to cause students to want to like to do it, I do not believe that for a second, because I go into schools today.  I go in some cases where physical education is being practised, and it is a compulsory course, and I see kids who just do not want to be any part of it or are bored or are just wasting time.

 

          I have people criticizing me because I am not‑‑[interjection] Well, I have the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) criticizing me because I am not listening to the students.  One of the last student groups I talked to were Grade 11 students, and they said, my God, take away this mandatory phys ed that we have to have in our school; there is no way we should have to be a part of it.

 

          We are all over the map here, and I have come to the conclusion that as strong a supporter as I am of physical education, unless the school body wants it and the community that supports that school body wants it, it is not going to be there in a productive way.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I wanted to ask about home schooling and home schooling assessment.  Is that feasible under this line?  Home schooling itself is not directly, but the issue of assessment and testing.

 

          I notice that in the '92‑93 annual report, there was a 22 percent increase in the number of students involved in home schooling.  Could we start perhaps by the minister telling us what the percentage increase has been in '93‑94?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to ask the member whether or not we can hold that off until one of the major sections coming up, because then we will have all of the data here, and we are certainly prepared to share that.

 

Ms. Friesen:  That is fine on those kinds of issues, but on the issue of testing and evaluation, can we look at how home schooling has been dealt with under this line?

 

Mr. Manness:  The tests I have been talking about, the assessments and the provincial tests are not applicable to home‑schooled students at this point.  The parents of the students that are taught at home are expected to file with the department three times a year, progress reports, which are monitored closely and of course we have the right at any point in time, as we do, to go into the home and do an assessment of some fashion.

 

Ms. Friesen:  For these 780‑odd, I guess it is more than that now, let us say a round number of 800 students in home schooling [interjection] 750 then‑‑how many people are involved in that assessment from the department?

 

Mr. Manness:  We are well aware, too, of some shortcomings in this area.  There is one full‑time person in an independent study program office in Winkler, but we are also aware through the reorganization that our regional teams are going to have to have a greater involvement to help with that workload.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I would like to ask some more questions about the number of home visits that are made and the number of evaluations.  Do you have that information here or is that on the other line?  One assessment person, curriculum person and support person for 750 students is disturbing, I would say.  I wonder what they have been able to accomplish, and given the increase in this area, what the government's plans are for future assessment?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the member is wanting that type of detail in some type of log fashion, we are prepared to try and provide greater insight into‑‑in I think Section 16(f)(2) tomorrow.  I hear the thrust of her comments, and through our evaluations, certainly we can think of two or three cases where deregistration has been put into place.  It is a good‑faith model‑‑again, another one of those and it works in many cases well but it does not always work as well as I think we would like.  When we find it is not working well we take actions accordingly.  We know we will have to put more staff and we plan to for the next year.

 

Ms. Friesen:  I noticed that the highest proportion of students in that home schooling program, and I am going from the most recent annual report I have, which is '92‑93, 62 percent of them are taking a Christian curriculum.  Could the minister tell us what kind of evaluation is done of that curriculum and how does it correspond to the Manitoba curriculum?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we have found here is that the basic curriculum is the same.  We make sure it is.  But, when it comes to the values, the values around some of the principles, naturally there is a difference there from the provincial curriculum.  Our progress, what we stipulate is that it has to be equal or better, not the same, taking into account the value judgments that the Christian home schoolers want to have in place.  Our progress report generally suggests quite strongly that equivalent to, if not better, results are being achieved.

 

Ms. Friesen:  But, the minister has no means of assessing that or very little means of assessing that completion.

 

Mr. Manness:  Generally, yes, but of course we still have people in these schools.  We still have this one person we are talking about and some others who are going into many of these homes and there are some conclusions reached.  Yes, not that can be measured other than subjective, but in a sense that we have confidence in him and we will have confidence in the other regional people who will be joining this effort, if they continue to bring back reports as to progress, equivalent to, we have to take that into account.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.

 


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 2.(d)(1), page 83 of the Estimates manual, Healthy Child Development.

 

          Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

 

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Madam Chairperson, yesterday, the minister gave us some figures about the number of schools participating in the fluoride treatment program.  I wonder if the minister might repeat those figures for us today or the number of participants, or the percentage of participants of children or schools or divisions that are participating in the fluoride, the prevention, the preventative program that the minister referred to.

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  Madam Chairperson, the weekly fluoride rinse program is offered to all rural school divisions.  Dental health education is mandated as a component of the Manitoba schools health curriculum.  Consultation and resources are available from Manitoba Health.  Daily tooth brushing in schools is promoted by Manitoba Health.  Community water systems fluoridation is promoted, funded and monitored by Manitoba Health.  Grants are made available to agencies in communities to conduct prevention projects.  Monitoring is provided by Manitoba Health.

 

          The number of schools involved in the weekly fluoride rinse program is 175; 454 schools have been approached but 175 are participating.  There are 55,346 eligible children in Manitoba for the weekly fluoride rinse program and the number of children enrolled in the program is 22,500.

 

          The number of water treatment plants in Manitoba with fluoridation systems is 60.  The number of communities with access to fluoridated water is 80.  The number of regular consumers of fluoridated water is 777,000.

 

          It should be noted that all 60 water plants participate in the voluntary fluoridation monitoring program.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  It appears therefore from the minister's statistics that well less than half of the students eligible for the weekly fluoride rinse program participate.  Does the minister have any idea of how many children of those eligible participated prior to the government's change in the program last year?

 

Mr. McCrae:  We can check, but those who have not participated have opted, through their school divisions, not to participate.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  I am given to believe that when the program was in place, 80 to 90 percent of the children eligible participated in the weekly fluoride rinse and its weekly preventative program, community based.  Now it appears, since the government has cut the funding to the program, less than half of those eligible are participating in this preventative community‑based program.  I am wondering if the minister has an explanation for that.

 

Mr. McCrae:  As I said previously, the option not to participate is a local one.  The communities involved have made that determination.  The province has offered the program.  The communities have accepted to the extent that I have set out.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Has the government done any epidemiological or studies otherwise, or of a type, to see what the effect of the cancellation of the program has had on the dental health of children in rural Manitoba, because one of the reasons given I think initially for the elimination of the program was the fact that people in rural Manitoba could take advantage of third‑party insurance.

 

          I am given to understand that only 20 to 30 percent of children in rural and remote areas have third‑party dental insurance, which means getting access to dental treatment is both difficult and expensive.

 

Mr. McCrae:  It is too early in any event to take an appropriate reading of the effect; however the prevention side of the program is what we continue to support and encourage, and as I say, it is too early to have a meaningful study.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, does the minister envision the possibility that should it be determined through studies that access to dental care has created some difficulty in rural Manitoba, that the preventative program is not as extensive as it should be and that dental health is deteriorating, that the government reconsider reinstating all or at least a portion of the Children's Dental Health Program?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, the program that was discontinued was the treatment part of the program.  The prevention part of the program is still available for communities.  The treatment part of the program never was available to residents of Brandon or Winnipeg.  I have discussed with the honourable member the history of that already and how it was handled initially.

 

          We have been encouraging the Manitoba Dental Association and the Manitoba dental nurses organization to continue dialogue to ascertain what opportunities might exist for co‑operation with communities to see what efforts could be expended in the whole area of further prevention.  If treatment opportunities are available through this dialogue and co‑operation, I would be interested in seeing the outcome of those discussions.

 

* (1440)

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, I am now going to turn my attention to Healthy Child Development, sort of specifically.

 

          I noticed both this year and last year in the Supplementary Estimates that 16,000 children attended child health clinics.  I wonder if the minister could just briefly outline for me what these child health clinics are.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, child health clinics are conducted by public health nurses throughout the province, and as discussed with the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) yesterday, the public health nurses of Manitoba play a very important role in various aspects of healthy communities development, Healthy Child Development.

 

          Our public health nurses attempt to identify specific and priority needs areas amongst the population and design their child health clinics accordingly.  They are involved, as well, in immunization programs, particularly in areas where physicians are not as readily available as elsewhere.

 

          Really, the public health nurse in Manitoba epitomizes a number of the comments the honourable member for Crescentwood made a little earlier when she was discussing the contribution the nursing profession has made to Manitoba and Manitobans throughout most of the history of this province, if not all of the history of this province.

 

          Certainly, this is a week for us to observe and celebrate and acknowledge those contributions.

 

          I certainly join with the honourable member for Crescentwood in the comments that she made, going all the way back to the Grey Nuns and the Sisters of Miséricorde in the early part of our history, a contribution that was made in bringing care to people in need of care in Manitoba as an exemplary history.

 

          Certainly, the activities of nurses in a contemporary society in Manitoba is carrying out that tradition in a stellar way.  The nursing professionals are at work caring for people in acute care facilities in our communities, in our homes, in our personal and long‑term care facilities and in all manner of ways.  So that tells me that nursing has an extremely important present and an extremely important future.

 

          I do not hesitate to agree with what the honourable member for Crescentwood said because not only in my personal experience, but certainly in the last number of months as Minister of Health, I have had many opportunities to be reminded very, very clearly and graphically of the continuing contribution of nurses.

 

          I thank the honourable member for Kildonan for asking the question because it points once again to the valued contribution made by public health nurses employed by the Department of Health in carrying out these healthy child clinics, which deal with all manner of issues that really only are defined, to a large extent, by the need that is in the various communities in Manitoba and they are able to tailor and design their program function to the need that exists in a particular community.

 

          I think the versatility of the public health nurse is something that ought never to be taken for granted.

 

* (1450)

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, one of the reasons I asked this question was I was trying to understand.  Two years ago in the Supplementary Estimates book, it indicates 20,000 children attended child health conferences and last year's book indicates 16,000 attended child health clinics.  This year, it says 16,000 children attended child health clinics.  Is that one and the same?  Is that something different?  Has there been a different emphasis?  I am just trying to get a handle on that.

 

Mr. McCrae:  I think any reference to conferences or clinics or classes are all basically the same reference, and the number of children taking advantage or benefiting from those sessions fluctuates from year to year.  In recent years, there has been no change in the complement of public health nurses in Manitoba.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, we are looking forward with great anticipation to the release of the report on Healthy Child Development.  The previous minister outlined his vision for it last Estimates; I remember he went on at length one evening in fact.  I am personally aware of a number of people on some of the committees, and certainly they are very high quality, hardworking people.  That is not to say that, when the report comes out, we may find‑‑subject to the report, we may have some criticism.  Nonetheless, that has happened on occasion.  It has happened on occasion that we have disagreed.  We have found policy to not fully meet our needs and expectations; nonetheless, we do look forward with a good deal of anticipation towards that.

 

          The impression that I have obtained about the committee and the final report and the work that is being done is there is going to be an emphasis on things like birthweight and assisting in healthier births for people on lower income levels and things of that nature.  Am I correct in that observation, or am I off base?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, the birthweight of a child is one important matter that I think should be looked at, but it is only one.  I think the early and formative stages of a child's life can have one very large impact on the rest of the child's life.  I know that from experience in our own family, but I also know that from many, many other experiences that I have had.

 

          I had opportunity when I was Justice minister to attend a conference in Toronto about youth justice issues.  It was brought home very clearly by a number of presenters at the conference, including myself, that we should stop with this business of putting all the emphasis on picking up the pieces of people's lives‑‑I should not say stop, but put more emphasis on what we do with young and formative lives.  I think the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) would agree with this approach.  What are young children getting to eat right from the time they are born?  What kind of care are they getting at home?  What kind of love are they getting?  What kind of attention are they getting from people in their families?  If they are unfortunate enough not to have families but have extended or foster families, are those people properly equipped to provide the kind of nurturing and support that young lives need?

 

          The Head Start program conducted many years ago now in the United States demonstrated oh so clearly the impact of giving young people a break as the impact that can have on the rest of their lives.  It affects crime rates.  It affects the rates of failure in high school.  It affects the likelihood of getting involved with substance abuse.  It affects all of those things, and I believe very strongly that emphasis on what happens with young people at that very early age‑‑and I am talking about between the ages of birth and two and three‑‑how you are treated in those first years can have an effect on whether you are going to be a criminal when you grow up.

 

          I dare say that in this country we have fallen a little short in that area, and we need to address more of our attention to that area.  I think any study that would be done would show that I am right about that.  I think studies already done have shown that I am right about that, and any support that we can get from honourable members for programming directed at that particular group in society, taking into account that many of these young people live in poorer circumstances than the average.  All kinds of emphasis should be placed on a break for people at that particular age, and their parents need to take more responsibility than they do.  They do not take enough responsibility.  Some of their local leaders do not take enough responsibility.

 

          When I was at the conference, one person took offence when I referred to the fact that many in Manitoba, many of the disadvantaged people I am talking about happen to live in aboriginal communities.  There was one person around the table who took that as being some kind of a racist comment.  I could not help but respond that it is that particular attitude that is going to keep us from doing the things we need to do for many years to come.  As long as we continue to deny on the basis that we are afraid to address it on account of racial considerations, we will continue to have the problems we have had.

 

          That is why so often I have pointed out my frustration in trying to right the wrongs of 127 or so years of paternalism with respect to aboriginal people in this country.  For some reason, we have not worked up enough courage to address those issues.  I keep waiting, I keep trying, I keep working.  I tell the Minister responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), but I tell people like the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) too, and people like the former member for Rupertsland who has now moved over to the Liberal Party and joined up with that group, Elijah Harper.

 

          I ask people like Elijah and people like the member for The Pas to help get involved in the solution, instead of continuing the discussion, debate, argument, finger pointing that has been going on for too many years in this country.  It is time we got behind Ron Irwin in his efforts to put an end to this kind of stuff.  I hope that is what he is attempting to do, because if he is, he has my full support.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, we certainly have an opportunity in this province, through the recommendations in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, to move forward in several areas.  I would hope that the government would finally begin its work in that area.

 

          With respect to the minister's comments, the whole question of the Headstart Program has been one of the themes that I think I have echoed over and over again in this Chamber, both when I was Education critic and presently, as something that I think is long overdue.

 

          In fact, I was a bit despondent because I attended a discussion by Charlie Ferguson.  I was quite impressed.  The only thing that depressed me was that he said‑‑it depressed me, and it did not depress me.  I mean, he said that by the age of two, if we have not gotten to the children, we have already lost them, and I thought that was tragic.  Nonetheless, we certainly would support any initiatives in a Headstart area and any initiatives to move.

 

          I am not going to continue my general line of questioning here because I think the minister has basically answered‑‑the general direction that you are heading is what I would endorse.  So in that regard, we look forward to the report of the group.

 

          My next question in this area is, I note that Supplies and Services‑‑the total expenditure under this category is down roughly $700,000.  I think the bulk of it is from Supplies and Services.  I would assume that most of that is from the Children's Dental Program, is that correct?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Yes, the honourable member is correct.

 

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  I just wanted to go back to a couple of issues that came up yesterday.  One was related to the Bell‑Wade report, that the minister mentioned that it had been contracted out to Ernst & Young, and the total cost of the report was $230,000.

 

          Does he have a breakdown as to what is included in that $230,000?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I do not today; however I will ask my department people to obtain some information for me, so I can share it with the honourable member.

 

Ms. Gray:  Was that a tendered contract or untendered?  Is there an average fee or a certain commission that Ernst & Young would ask in order to co‑ordinate the contracting of, I am assuming, Dr. Wade and Mr. Bell, for that report?

 

Mr. McCrae:  We will take note of the honourable member's question and return with further information.

 

Ms. Gray:  I thank the minister for looking into that.  I also had a question‑‑and I know the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) had asked the other day about chronic fatigue syndrome.  Given that it is May 12 and there is a proclamation today in Winnipeg about chronic fatigue syndrome, and maybe it is more of an appropriate question in the Home Care section, but do we provide services to people who have CFS, and those services will be particularly in the area of Home Care and VON?

 

* (1500)

 

Mr. McCrae:  We are aware of at least one CFS client in Manitoba who is receiving Home Care service.

 

Ms. Gray:  I know there is at least one client who is receiving that.  In fact, one of the clients has written the opposition members letters so that when we get into Home Care, not necessarily today, he has given us permission to ask some questions on his case‑‑Mr. Turner, who lives in Headingley.

 

          But, in general, though, is this something‑‑there is only one situation in the province? [interjection] That we are aware of, okay.  So there may be people who are receiving home care, but we do not necessarily know that the diagnosis is CFS.  It could be other diagnoses or a combination of.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, it could be that the CFS sufferer suffers from other problems that also create a situation that calls for the provision of Home Care services.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, I was interested in the minister's comments about prevention services directed to low‑income families, and he talked about the formative years and even good nutrition and healthy lifestyles.

 

          I am wondering if the minister could tell us what specific services is the department providing or funding other agencies to do that are directly related to health prevention for low‑income families?

 

Mr. McCrae:  In the course of our discussions, Madam Chairperson, we have talked about public health nursing and we have talked about community health centres.  The community health centres have a large target group which is lower income Manitobans.  In the same way, our public health nurses attempt to target and address their services to those areas where the need is most acute.  That target area or group is low‑income Manitobans.  Where the need is, that is where we try to provide the services.  That is very much a focus of our Healthy Child strategy that we are working on.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, how many community health clinics are there in Manitoba?  I know a number of them are in the city of Winnipeg.  Do we have any that are in rural or northern Manitoba?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, it is hard to give a number because many facilities work as a public outreach centre as well as a hospital, as well as a doctor's office and so on.  In the city, though, there are, I think, seven or eight community health centres and I guess it is a question of definition.  I have been to some communities where their total hospital, doctor's office, dentist's office operation looks very much like a community health centre and operates that way.  It operates as a team of people providing services in the community.

 

          It is hard to put a real number on it.  I understand there is one that you could call a community health centre at Gladstone.  I think the one at Lac du Bonnet, Gladstone, Churchill, Hamiota‑‑those places could all be called community health centres.

 

Ms. Gray:  With the community health centres that the Department of Health directly funds, have the resources that are going to those community health centres, at least those portions of the programs that would be considered primary prevention, with the move to community‑based services, have we seen an increase in their budget allocation from last year?

 

Mr. McCrae:  It is not a question of looking at annual budgets and increasing them more for community health centres than for other areas.  It is a question of asking community health centres to take over programs and programs like primary care.  We see growth of community health centres coming as a result of asking them to take over programs as opposed to increasing the number of dollars they get on an automatic basis year after year.

 

Ms. Gray:  Then perhaps the minister can tell me if one way to sometimes increase resources or provide more services is through budgets.  If that has not been done, how have the services been increased?  Transferring a service from one agency to another is not an expansion of a service; it is a transfer of a service.  What kinds of expansion of these community‑based health services have some of these agencies been able to do that they did not do last year as an example?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I want to clear one thing up.  We are talking about transferring to a large extent.  You see, we cannot continue the spiral of spending in health care, so if we can redirect funding that we save when we reduce the number of beds in a hospital that nobody is in anyway, if we can take those dollars and spend them more appropriately in the community, that is the vision we are working on.  Now, it does mean more for one and less for another.  That is true.  But the global budget, we just cannot see those global budgets‑‑[interjection] Yes, and the honourable member is looking for examples.  If she will just hold on one second I will give her some.

 

* (1510)

 

          Madam Chairperson, I will give the honourable member some examples.  For example, we have transferred primary care from Health Sciences to the Health Action clinic; Diabetes Education programming is happening at Youville Clinic and at about 11 other sites in Manitoba.

 

          I think sometimes when we talk about expanding program, it depends where it is being expanded.  It can be in a community health centre or some other kind of centre as well.  We have Women's Health at Youville.  We have Street LINKS expanded at Mount Carmel and we have the POWER demonstration project.  Those are some examples.

 

          The ones I mentioned, I think you will find them all associated in one way or another with a community clinic operation, but there are many, many initiatives happening in rural locations.  We do not always describe them as community health centres.  When you are looking at community options, you have to look at all of the mental health services that are being expanded throughout the province as well.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, the programs that the minister mentions, Street LINKS or Street Station and Primary Care and Diabetes Education are all excellent community‑based programs, but they have been around for a couple of years, so I do not see how that is an expansion.  That is what my question is.

 

          I know the minister talked about Street LINKS and now Street Station the other day, and he talked about how they had expanded the hours so that there is a more comprehensive service, if we consider hours expansion that, and that the volume was not the same.

 

          That is good.  Diabetes education in Youville Clinic and other women's health programs are excellent, but they have all been under the purview of the department or its funded agencies before.  I guess my question is, I do not see any expansion in these kinds of services, either in more services and new community clinics or outreach that is reaching more people.  That is really my question.

 

Mr. McCrae:  I agree with the honourable member that we need to see expansion.  We have seen expansion in the past.  The honourable member is suggesting that we are not seeing expansion.  I think we are having a little problem with definition because we have talked about our antenatal home care program which has provided community service, i.e., service in the home, to the extent that 3,101 patient days have been saved in our hospitals.  That is fairly significant.

 

          The postpartum referral guidelines‑‑now, this is a hospital‑based service, I agree, but it has gone from zero hospitals to five hospitals.  Diabetes education resource program in 1992‑93 served 1,179 new clients.  We have all of those community‑based mental health services.  I do not need to remind the honourable member about Support Services to Seniors.  I could, but I do not think I need to with the honourable member for Crescentwood.

 

          I think though the honourable member's question is directed at, what are you doing in the community health centre sense?  What are you giving them to do?  I have talked about some of those things, and I see more new roles for community health centres in the future.

 

          Here are some initiatives that are underway with respect to community health centres.  New roles for community health centres with respect to‑‑one of these things I do not even understand‑‑[interjection] Okay, it was the acronym.  The Manitoba Association of Community Health Centres has a role document which discusses the future roles of community health centres.

 

          We are looking at an aboriginal health and wellness centre.  We are looking at nurse‑managed care, models for the future in Manitoba working with community health centres in the process.  Nutritional services, community health centres and service consolidation, primary medical care transfer, Street Station, Mount Carmel Clinic are complete, but there are a number of things that we are presently working on in association with Manitoba community health centres.

 

          When we are talking about putting into place community alternatives, you cannot forget things like crisis stabilization units.  There have been 352 admissions.  With respect to mobile crisis units, we have moved from three to 11 staff members, and by the end of '93‑94 there were 1,151 contacts.  With respect to self‑help groups, three groups have increased support from the Department of Health.  Housing and community supports for 140 individuals.

 

          Of course, our Home Care program is growing so fast that we cannot even‑‑the numbers just blur before us as they keep climbing.  We are up to 93 percent new funding for Home Care services in the last six years; that includes adult day clubs.  I think I went over that.  Within the 52 sites that we have in Manitoba, we are increasing the number of spaces significantly.  Provincial respiratory services, 932 respiratory patients.

 

          In terms of dollars, adult day club, increased support for that to the tune of nearly $2 million.  We have talked already about breast cancer screening; prenatal community public health services‑‑that is in the area of nutrition; we talked about that for another $440,000; prostate care.

 

* (1520)

 

          Support Services to Seniors, that keeps coming up.  It keeps coming up because it is so significant.  Maybe in a big city like Winnipeg a new Support Services to Seniors organization does not mean much.  The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) did not even know that there was one in his area.  In a smaller rural setting it is extremely significant, and everybody in the community would know about it.  Of course, we are expanding that quite a bit.  I have the list here which I can refer to again if it is necessary.

 

          The Manitoba Mental Health acute care alternatives, $3 million being spent there.  Of course, Winnipeg Mental Health Child and Adolescent and Psychogeriatric Services, another $774,000.  Redirection to community‑based health care services a total of $8,974,000.  This is very significant, and I do not know how you can really make the point that not much is happening in the community, because a lot is happening.  You have never seen growth like this at any period in the past in Manitoba.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, I would imagine that the minister and I would probably agree to disagree on some of these points.  Some of the items he mentioned, such as nurse‑managed centres and the aboriginal centre, my understanding is they are proposals and they have not been implemented, or there are no dollars that have been attached.  As well, some of the service he speaks of, such as child and adolescent, those are very needed services.

 

          I was referring more to primary prevention as opposed to secondary prevention or rehabilitation, but I think we will leave that as it is because I think the minister and I could discuss this at length in terms of what can be done or should be done.

 

          I did want to ask one more question in this area in regard to groups of children, the special needs children, the medically fragile children in the school system.  I know there is a deputy minister's working group that was to look at a report and then provide an implementation plan on sort of what was going to happen in terms of who provides the services to these children in the school system.  It was a joint committee, I believe, with Health, Education and Family Services, and to a question I had asked the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) in the House in this past month, he indicated that there should be something forthcoming by June.

 

          I guess my question to the Minister of Health would be:  I am assuming, then, Health has come to a determination as to what they see as their role in either providing supports or services to these children in the school system.  I am wondering if he could share with us what Health sees as its role for these children.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chair, I think what the honourable Minister of Education and Training was talking about was an exercise in role clarification amongst the various departments, and he, as the member said, said that we might have something to report on in June on the matter.

 

          At this point, we are a partner with Education and with Family Services, and we are very much a part of the process to define and clarify those roles.  It may be at the end of the exercise that Health will play more of a leading role on these special needs children issues.  It certainly has eluded resolution in the past, but perhaps we can make some progress this summer.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, is that the minister's polite, evasive way of telling me that he is not about to give me some specifics on what exactly is going to happen so that we are going to have to stay tuned?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I always try to be polite, but I was not trying to evade anything.  I think that if there is a group of people working on something and they are going to come forward with something in June, then we should all be polite and wait until June and see what we find out at that time.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, I hope we do see that because I know that the families involved with these children and the teachers and administrators in the school system are very much concerned that we reach some resolution because teachers do not feel qualified in a lot of instances to be providing some of these health care needs to these children and yet feel very strongly that children should have an opportunity to be integrated into the classroom.

 

          Just one final question.  When the minister was talking about primary care being moved to‑‑was it the Health Action Centre?  Does the minister have statistics on the number of visits that would occur, that did occur through primary health care and then, are there any updated statistics on now how many people are going through the Health Action Centre?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, there are statistics and we will provide them to the honourable member.

 

Madam Chairperson:  Item 2.(d) Healthy Child Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $721,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $398,300‑‑pass; (3) External Agencies $89,900‑‑pass.

 

          2.(e) Capital Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

 

Ms. Gray:  The member for Kildonan and I have agreed that we will pass through this section and not ask questions until we get to the point where we can actually look at the capital plans of the government.

 

Madam Chairperson:  Item 2.(e) Capital Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $239,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $120,200‑‑pass.

 

          Resolution 21.2:  RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $13,675,900 for Health, Healthy Public Policy Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

 

          3. Continuing Care Programs (a) Administration.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  I just want to indicate to the minister, thank you.  I received the copy of the W5 tape and acknowledge that.

 

          I am just starting off by‑‑this area, I suspect that I and the member for Crescentwood may have a couple of questions in this particular area.  At least in my line of questioning I anticipate we will be jumping around quite a bit.  It will be pretty hard to keep on the (a), (b), (c), (d) line.  I am wondering if the minister has his staff here to deal with the whole area of 3(a)(b)(c) and (d) because I think it is going to be hard to keep on the strict line within this area.  I am asking the minister if he has his staff to deal with that.

 

Madam Chairperson:  Is that the will of the committee? [agreed]

 

Mr. Chomiak:  I thank the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) for his‑‑[interjection] Who had on his desk a report‑‑just kidding. [interjection] It is an old line.

 

          As a result of a constituency request I made to the minister, the minister forwarded to me a document that is called Your Guide to the Continuing Care Program.  It is outlined in red or maroon and contained within our policy guidelines.  Is this the current policy?  Is this the current standards with respect to the Continuing Care Program?

 

* (1530)

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, what I sent to the honourable member is what the program sends to new clients of the Home Care program.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, on page 3 of this booklet, it says under supplies and equipment, and I am quoting:  when someone else is providing your care, the basic supplies needed are made available free of charge.  Walkers, bathing aids, lifts and other equipment can be borrowed from the equipment pool.

 

          Is that currently correct?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, as the honourable member knows, certain low‑cost equipment is not covered under the Home Care program and those kinds of issues are part of the assessment discussion that goes on with new Home Care clients.  So the document that he is talking about is something that is clarified in those face‑to‑face discussions between the program personnel and the clients of the program.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, I suspected that, but actually that was not meant as a trick question.  I actually thought there was maybe something I did not understand.

 

          I guess my next question then is, aside from that particular issue, are there any other issues in this document that require that kind of assessment, that kind of information for the clients?  It is not reflected in this document.  What is different?  It is told to the clients it is not reflected in this particular document since I guess this is the primary information document that goes to patients and clients.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chair, the purpose of the document to which the honourable member refers is to acquaint potential Home Care clients with the kinds of services that are available, to give the potential client a general idea of the kinds of services government provides under the program.  When it comes time to assess the needs of the client, all those matters are discussed with those people who sit down with the client to put together a care plan.

 

          So the document is not a new document.  Some policies of course have changed, and that is the subject of discussion for the care planner, working together with the client.  So that is to give people a general idea of what the Home Care program is all about.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, I assume that the individuals who do the assessing and the individuals who provide the information to those clients or patients have documents or manuals that outline for them what the criteria are.

 

          I wonder if the minister would be prepared, and I appreciate it may not be available today, but would he be prepared to table or provide both the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and me with copies of those manuals of criteria so that we could understand the basis upon which those decisions are made.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chair, policies can change over the years, but the criteria that the program has been operating under has not changed since‑‑oh, I do not know‑‑years and years.  It is the same one that was in effect when our government took office in 1988, and it has not changed.  So I think the honourable member probably has that.  Have we not made that available to him?  I thought we had.  There has been no change in the criteria over the years.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, I do not have that, so I would like a copy if at all possible.  Also, surely there are updates and there is information provided to those people who are doing the assessments that outline what the program is, what is offered, what is not offered, et cetera.  In fact, I know that they have those, and I am wondering if those could be provided.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, we will take under advisement the honourable member's question.  I understand that the staff of the program keep‑‑similar to, I imagine, a Crown attorney's handbook, or a court reporter's manual or whatever it happens to be, it is a great big thing‑‑and we will take under advisement the honourable member's request for information.  It has not changed for many years.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, before the member for Kildonan continues, the minister said he will take under advisement this thick manual.  I think the one piece of the manual that we are the most interested in is the piece‑‑because this deals with continuing care and personal care home applications, et cetera‑‑the piece we are really interested in is the part about assessments and how one receives home support services and home care attendant services, that piece of receiving home care in your home, who is eligible for short‑term care with VON, et cetera.  I think that is the piece that we are most interested in, if that helps the minister make the decision.

 

Mr. McCrae:  I think I know what the honourable member is talking about with regard to criteria, guidelines, eligibility and all of that.  Subject to my having a quick look at it again, I will be making that available to honourable members.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Thank you, Madam Chairperson, I will look forward to receiving those documents and reviewing it.

 

          We might as well get right into the Home Care budget.

 

* (1540)

 

Mr. McCrae:  Great.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  The minister says great.  I look forward to some discussion on that particular budget.  Can the minister break down for me within that budget, firstly, what its component parts are, the $75,973,500, how much of that is self‑managed care, how much of that is allocated to each aspect of the program, and just generally, how much is allocated to the Winnipeg region, how much is allocated outside of Winnipeg, et cetera?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I am very pleased to have finally arrived at this part of the Estimates for the Health department because it is with pleasure that I am able to put on the record the support of this government to the Home Care program over the years.

 

          The honourable members will know the Home Care program began in 1974‑75 without an actual voted allocation.  That year, $1.75 million was spent on home care in Manitoba, Home Care Assistance.  I do not know what Manitobans did before 1974‑75 for‑‑[interjection] I am told by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) that previous to '74‑75, programming for people in their homes was not very good, and I can accept that when I see the level of expenditure that year.

 

          In 1975‑76, there was a voted allocation for Home Care that year of $4.5 million, and the program spent $4.7 million.  That year, there were 12,800 people served under the program, and the average cost per person served was $370.32.

 

          The program has grown significantly over the years and that is because I am satisfied that governments of those earlier days could see that people were able to be cared for at home, and governments between '75 and '87‑88, I am sure, could see the value of contributing to a program like Home Care.

 

          I see in some years there were increases, and actually, in some years at a time when there was very significant growth in the economy, there were actual cuts to the program, but that is history, I suppose.

 

          Madam Chairperson, I began to discuss the level of support for this program in 1975‑76, and over the years between '75 and '76, the program grew.  For example, in 1976‑77, there were 15,911 people served under the program.  In any event, Home Care Assistance since 1988, when this government took office, to today has grown to the tune of some 93 percent in just six short years.  As honourable members know, growth in revenues has not been anywhere near what it was in the '70s and '80s, and I think that is pretty significant to know.

 

          The honourable member asked about Home Care Assistance for the Winnipeg region, I believe it was, and we are projecting for '94‑95, spending in that area in the neighbourhood of $33,800,000, a very significant amount of money in the Winnipeg region.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Can the minister tell us what was spent last year in the Winnipeg region?

 

Mr. McCrae:  That information is going to be made available to me shortly.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, the Home Care Assistance Detail indicates $52,252.7 will be spent on Direct Service Workers this year, that is '94‑95.  Can the minister please give us a breakdown as to where it is anticipated that money will be spent?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, the honourable member refers, I guess, on page 57 of the Supplementary Information, Schedule 8, to a figure for Direct Service Workers.  I think he said $52,000.  I think he meant $52 million to be spent on Direct Service Workers.  Estimates of expenditure from last year were $49,835,000.  All that money is salaries and benefits for Direct Service Workers.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, I am aware that is salaries and benefits.  I wonder if the minister can break it down by category of worker, that is, attendant care and home support services and self‑managed care, if that is where self‑managed care comes out of.

 

Mr. McCrae:  The total amount for self‑managed care for '93‑94 was $2 million.  It comes out of this total expenditures line.  It does not come out of this Direct Service Workers line.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  So the minister said $2 million for self‑managed care in '93‑94.  How much is being budgeted for self‑managed care to '94‑95?

 

* (1550)

 

Mr. McCrae:  I beg your pardon, Madam Chairperson; I beg the honourable member's pardon.  I was incorrect when I said $2 million; $2 million is for '94‑95.  It was half a million for '93‑94.  Manitoba Health has received approval, and we have announced in our throne speech that we want to expand the current pilot project, which involves up to 30 clients in Winnipeg.  We want to expand that to a province‑wide program.

 

          I had the pleasure again today to meet with the advisory committee made up of self‑managers.  It was a very positive and pleasant experience for me this morning, as we look to a future that sees the self‑managed care project grow and expand and provide a greater quality of life and empowerment to people in the province of Manitoba.

 

          We do need to enlist the support of honourable members for this expansion, because the federal government is a partner in the provision of services through the Canada Assistance program.  This is important, because I am going to be asking the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), especially, to help me with‑‑[interjection] Sorry? [interjection] I cannot hear you.  Not just to help me but to help everybody who wants to see this program expanded.

 

          The federal government, certainly at the officials level, at this point, has taken the position that self‑managed care is not necessarily something they can support under the Canada Assistance Plan.  We need their help, because these programs are so very important to us and so very important to the people who want to self‑manage.

 

          So I will be approaching the honourable member for Crescentwood and the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), as well, for their active and written support for self‑managed care because we need that, as I address the issue with Lloyd Axworthy and some of my friends in the Liberal Party, people like Reg Alcock and others that‑‑you know, I think we voted for, Manitobans elected 12 of 14 members of Parliament.

 

An Honourable Member:  Are you saying that you voted for us?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I will tell you someday.  The governing party in Canada, we need their support now on this point.  So I will be asking for written expressions of support from both honourable members and their caucuses so that we can get the federal government onside on this one.

 

          This is an extremely important thing to the people involved.  You would only have to meet with them and talk with them to know what they missed before they got to be part of this program.  The program, as I said, involves up to 30 clients in Winnipeg, and we want to expand that to a province‑wide program.  Initial two‑year projections identified up to 120 clients.  That is an additional 30 in Winnipeg and 60 from outside Winnipeg, at $2 million.

 

          Expansion is subject to confirmation from the federal government.  The cost‑sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan or an acceptable alternative cost‑sharing arrangement will be maintained for eligible program participants.  Existing project participants will have their contracts renewed for 1994‑95, but in order for us to get into contracts with the other 90, we need to have the federal people onside.

 

          I know Reggie Alcock.  I have worked with him on a number of projects over the years.  I just know that he is going to try and help us.  Maybe it is a red‑tape issue, I am sure it is, because I cannot see the federal Liberal caucus being against this program.  I think they will bend every effort to help us, and I look forward to asking them for their support.  I am going to be asking both honourable members, on behalf of their caucuses, to provide written support for self‑management in Manitoba.

 

          The proposal to expand the self‑managed care option within the Home Care program has been the subject, as I said, of reference in the throne speech here for this session.  That came after successful completion of the two‑year pilot project.  That pilot project was carefully analyzed and evaluated, and there was a positive evaluation.

 

          Five of the existing clients are over the age of 65.  The self‑management option should also include clients who are over 65, should they choose to apply and meet the eligibility criteria.  I mean, sometimes we maybe make the observation that people over 65 cannot make their own decisions, and that is a little bit what is wrong with our Home Care program.  One of the things that is wrong with it is that we are just a little bit paternalistic in our approach, that we know what is best for you, your views are not important enough.

 

          I think that might be part of the reason that home care has been the subject of so much public discussion in the last year or so.  The program is not seen to be flexible enough, and we need to do things to make the program more flexible, things like pilot projects.  For example, the Seven Oaks Hospital has entered into a pilot project.  I see the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) nodding his head in agreement, that pilot projects like the We Care project at Seven Oaks is a good idea, because what it does is‑‑I am glad to have his support, because I need the support of people like the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) on projects like that.

 

          So far the clients of that pilot project have made positive comments about service improvements and so on.  If our own government‑run program, for all of our efforts, is not flexible enough, because maybe we have to pay overtime on weekends or whatever it happens to be, we have to look at every option we can imagine, that we can think of, to provide flexible, user‑friendly, patient‑oriented service, not service‑provider oriented but patient‑oriented service, something that puts the customer first.

 

          As I say, I look forward to the evaluation report with respect to that project at Seven Oaks Hospital, and, of course, the support of the member for Burrows is going to be very important as we move forward to perhaps other pilots like that one, which provide the client with more speedy access to quality health alternatives.

 

          It is not good enough‑‑and this may be a problem for the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), because he thinks that lots of people should be in hospitals, even though they should not be.  That may be a bit of a stumbling block for the member for Kildonan, but‑‑

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Just a point of clarification.  I just wonder if the minister can remember what question I asked him on this particular, if he can remember it, because he has gone on for so long, and I cannot even recall what question I asked the minister.  Perhaps he can clarify what question he is answering.

 

* (1600)

 

Mr. McCrae:  I did not hear what the honourable member said.  Would he mind repeating himself?

 

Mr. Chomiak:  I wonder if the minister could just advise me what question he was answering, because, now that I look at my notes, I believe my question was, could you please outline for us what the expenditures of $52 million, et cetera, what the breakdown is between home support workers, attendant care, et cetera?  That was the question that I asked the minister.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Yes, Madam Chairperson, I know what the honourable member asked, and I am going to answer that question.  But I needed to remind him and his colleagues in the House of the value that we place on the Home Care program‑‑the value we place on the self‑managed program‑‑and the importance of making our programming more flexible, because we are not serving ourselves.  We are not serving the bureaucracy.  We are not serving the unions.  We are serving clients, patients, our fellow Manitobans.  I wanted to make sure that I underlined those things for the honourable member.

 

          I am going to be looking for his written support for the self‑managed program so that we can take that and show it to the federal government so that they will know that we are not just out here crying in the wilderness, looking for a special deal or something.  We need the support of the New Democratic Party, we need the support of the Liberal Party, to make sure that our members of Parliament will see their way clear to recommend support for the self‑managed care program.

 

          I wanted also to make sure the record was very clear about the support that we have made available for the overall Home Care Assistance program in Manitoba.  In 1986‑87, the last NDP budget that survived the legislature, the government then budgeted $24,671,800 for Home Care Assistance.  Well, the very next year we increased funding by 35.8 percent that year for the Home Care program, all the way to $33.5 million.  The actual expenditure was even greater than that.

 

          Well, from that time, expenditure for the Home Care Assistance program has grown right up to $69 million this fiscal year.  That is very, very significant expenditure increases, and units of service and number of people served have been growing over the years in Manitoba, and that demonstrates that the shift we keep talking about from acute care to community care is indeed happening despite the leapings and protestations of some of the honourable members opposite to the contrary.  It is just not true what they are saying.

 

          Now, the honourable member asked about home care attendants and home support workers and LPNs and RPNs, and these numbers are approximate because, as you know, you attempt to project what the demand is going to be and so on.  This does not include benefits; this is salaries only, for people on the government payroll.

 

          The home care attendants we expect to be earning $26,966,000 in 1994‑95.  I can hardly believe the magnitude of that, Madam Chairperson.  Can you imagine, nearly $27 million spent on salaries for home care attendants. [interjection] Oh, I am sorry, I understated the amount of money going to home care attendants.  I apologize to you and to all of the members, all 57 members of the House.  Add on to that $26.9 million another $1.67 million for salaries for home care attendants.

 

          For home support workers, $8.95 million; LPNs, $1.288 million and registered nurses $3.044 million.  These are staggering figures, and they reflect a very significant increase in the government's commitment for support services in the community for people so they can have a quality of life, so they can also be spared the necessity of staying in a hospital longer than they need to.

 

          Now, there are some people in this place and in other places in Manitoba who think that we just have to keep that capacity in our hospitals.  We just have to keep beds there even though they want us to spend more in Home Care, which we are doing.  Then they also want us to spend more in hospitals too, even though those hospitals are emptying out because we are able to look after people in Home Care and in Long Term Care.

 

          I may have mentioned this before, Madam Chairperson, but it bears repeating, that when you are putting all of this emphasis on the community and the care provided in the community, then you do create a vacancy, if you like, in the hospitals.

 

          I guess they created so many vacancies in Saskatchewan that they were able to shut down 52 hospitals.  We did not do it that way.  We think there is a quality of life in rural Manitoba that needs to be sustained by virtue of acute services available a little closer to home, and we have not been going around closing hospitals like they have in Saskatchewan.  Indeed, even in the city of Winnipeg we have not shut down hospitals like Shaughnessy Hospital in Vancouver.  The reason we have done this is we have taken a phased approach to reform.

 

          The more you look at these numbers, the more staggering they appear to me.  I do not think some people realize how much increase in spending‑‑from $34 million all the way up to nearly $70 million for Home Care Assistance in Manitoba just in the space of six years.  It is mind boggling, Madam Chairperson.

 

          Now, I think that in the course of this response, I have actually responded to the specifics of the honourable member's question, but I should not really fail to remind him from time to time of the fallacy of adhering to an approach which if followed would positively choke our health care system to death.  We would not have one anymore.

 

          That is not a prospect I am prepared to embrace, like honourable members in the New Democratic Party in Manitoba are.  That is their policy, to consult people and fund the health care system until you cannot fund it anymore, and then you have to just close down hospitals like they have done elsewhere.  Consulting people, in order to be real consultation, cannot just be a monologue disguised as a dialogue.  I wonder how much consultation Michael Decter engaged in when he was shutting down 5,000 beds in Ontario.

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, of what relevance is an individual who is a consultant in another province?  Of what relevance whatsoever is it to my question to the minister to outline the expenditures for 1994‑95 related to the Home Care Assistance?

 

* (1610)

 

          I appreciate the fact that the minister is sensitive on this issue, but that does not justify his thin political skin just because he is sensitive on the issue, of going completely irrelevant and off topic.  Members of this Chamber want this information.  The minister goes off on tangents that are so irrelevant it defies logic how an individual could go off on such a tangent.  I am astounded that the minister would go on and on.

 

          I ask you to call the minister to order to answer the questions and not deal with completely irrelevant issues.  He is wasting your time, the committee's time, by doing that, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr. McCrae:  I am trying not to be irrelevant.  The honourable member is asking about Home Care and Home Care Assistance.  It is extremely important to us in Manitoba that there be a continuum of care.  When you remember that according to Quality Health for Manitobans:  The Action Plan‑‑that is the one that every sector has favoured in terms of an approach for health reform, when you consider that that book sets out that the cost per patient day of a bed in the Health Sciences Centre at the time it was printed was‑‑[interjection] Yes, I am addressing the point of order, Madam Chairperson.

 

          The issue is relevance.  That is the issue of the point of order being raised, and the honourable member wants to know what the relevance is.  I am trying to tell the honourable member what the relevance is and tell the Chair and everybody else who will listen. [interjection] Okay, the relevance is‑‑[interjection]

 

Madam Chairperson:  Order, please.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Now, you are getting me distracted again.

 

          The relevance of all of this, Madam Chairperson, is that we need to demonstrate for the honourable member that there is a shift going on, a shift that is happening in a phased and planned way, a way that provides appropriate care for people in the community as we are able to make capacity available in the hospitals, capacity for people who should be in the hospital.  Even then, there is gong to be excess capacity, which will result in closure of beds in hospitals, but the opening up of new services in the community.  That is the plan.  It is a plan with which we have unanimous agreement.

 

          The only thing I wonder about is, how can you agree with the plan and then be so very disagreeable every step that you take on your way to the achievement of that plan?  That is what I have to ask the honourable member, and this is what the relevance is.  That is what the plan is about.  I mean, we ought to get with the plan here, and the honourable member should get with the plan, but all he ever does is get up and raise a point of order about relevance.

 

          Now, I think the point of order ought to be resolved in my favour on this occasion, Madam Chairperson.  I lose a fair amount of them, I agree, but on this particular occasion, I have amply demonstrated in my humble submission that I have been relevant in my responses.

 

Madam Chairperson:  I thank all honourable members for their advice, and I would encourage all members to continue to be as relevant as possible.

 

* * *

 

Mr. McCrae:  I will attempt to be relevant, as maybe I have not succeeded in my attempts in the past, but I will keep on trying.

 

          The honourable member asked a question.  I gave an answer.  I embellished it a little bit, I agree, to try to make the point that the shift we keep talking about is happening.  It is happening safely, and it is happening in a way that respects the dignity and the needs of our fellow Manitobans.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, a long, long time ago, when the minister started giving me these figures, he indicated $26,966,000, and then he said, add to that, one million point something else.  Can he give me that figure again?  That is for attendant care.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Home care attendants in '94‑95, the total is $28,636,000.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  I wonder if the minister could give us the corresponding figures for last year?

 

Mr. McCrae:  As I said, the $28,636,000 is approximate.  We do not have the actual for last year.  We will tabulate it and give it to him at the next occasion.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Just for clarification now, the $2 million that is going to go to self‑managed care does not come out of the line Direct Service Workers, rather it comes out of the total appropriation of $75,973 for Home Care.

 

Mr. McCrae:  It is true, Madam Chair, that it does not come from the Direct Service Workers; it comes from the total.  The reason is that the self‑manager does not have to be told who is going to provide the service.

 

          You see, that is one of the things that may be wrong with our Home Care program.  I have heard complaints from clients that they do not get along very well with their care provider.  In some cases I think our care providers, because of the nature of their work, have to be trained to be very patient and understanding of people in their circumstances.

 

          But under the self‑managed care model, that is exactly what it is.  You manage your care, you decide who comes to look after you and you make your arrangements with that person.  You can pay union rates or not pay union rates.  It is up to you as the client of the service, the person who receives the service.  You make the decision about who comes to help you and when.

 

          I think that is very important too.  We need, as a Home Care program, to try to be as flexible as we can.  I think that we are in the process of making improvements to make our service more flexible, but self‑managed care provides, perhaps, us, our own program, an opportunity to learn from the self‑managed side of it.  We are provided with an opportunity to learn, and maybe we can learn something from the We Care service provision at Seven Oaks.  I think there might be some things we can learn there in terms of what we have been doing in the past and what we could do better.

 

          I think the best way to improve service is to acknowledge that it needs improving.  Just by giving it more money is not enough.  I am satisfied of that because we have certainly put enough money into home care, well, into health care generally.  If you look at the total budget for health care of $1.85 billion, you see how that has grown over the years.  All I hear in this House is how terrible our health care system is from honourable members in the New Democratic Party, and I say to myself, well, I guess if I threw more money at it, I could make it even more terrible.

 

* (1620)

 

          We have sort of changed our approach, because we know that if things are as bad as the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) would have us believe, if we could find another few billion dollars, we could make it so much worse for our fellow Manitobans.  Well, that is a twisted, perverted kind of thinking that I will not associate myself with, because we have found that throwing money at problems‑‑all that does is create more programs for the member for Kildonan to pick apart and to be critical of.

 

          So we are learning to spend smarter.  We think that is the only approach that is going to leave us with an affordable and sustainable health care system in the future.

 

          Even so, in home care, because of changes in hospitals, because of changing technology in terms of operative procedures, length of stay is much shorter and we can use the services of home care more, and we are.  Even in the home care system, though, technology changes as well, and we can find efficiencies even in the Home Care program.  We should do that and make those changes because every dollar spent ought to be the smartest dollar that we can find, because if we are going to keep spending the way we have in past decades in this country, our health system is going to be in danger indeed.

 

          Except for the election of this government in 1988, the health system in Manitoba was in very bad danger of coming under the same knife as has been so mercilessly used in other New Democratic provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and B.C., especially Saskatchewan because Saskatchewan is so much like our own province in so many ways.  We did not have as many hospitals as they did, I recognize that, but to close down 52 of them all at once‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  How many?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Fifty‑two hospitals, not beds, full hospitals.

 

          When you think things are looking a little rough in Saskatchewan, try Michael Decter's Ontario, where 5,000 acute beds have been closed.  Do you know how many people it takes?‑‑5,000.  All the while, Michael Decter is earning $140,000 a year and pulling in expenses to the tune of $102,000 over the space of 22 months.  There is a fair amount of hypocrisy going on, Madam Chairperson, and it needs to be exposed for what it is.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Can the minister outline how many attendant persons we are talking about, how many support workers, how many LPNs and how many RNs both this fiscal year that we are dealing with and the last one?

 

Mr. McCrae:  While our staff investigate this question, I would like to get the honourable member's support for a couple of other things while I am at it.  I am pleased that the honourable member supports the self‑managed care program, and I look forward to his support in my dealings with the federal authority, because that is support that we are going to need.

 

          I also want to know if the honourable member is supportive of the following:  When a home care attendant arrives to provide service to a Home Care recipient and there is some other need apparent, would it be the honourable member's position that the home care attendant, should there be time available, provide that service while he or she is there anyway?

 

* (1630)

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. McCrae:  On a point of order, Madam Chairperson, I do not know about anybody else, what they are all doing, but I am waiting for the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) to answer my question. [interjection] Yes, I asked him a question and I am waiting for him to answer.

 

* * *

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, I will just take this opportunity to jump in.

 

          I am sorry, I was a little confused on the minister's answer, and it is probably because I was not listening, but could he be patient and for my benefit tell me again where the dollars for the self‑managed care project‑‑which line it is coming out of?

 

Mr. McCrae:  If the honourable member looks on page 57 of the Supplementary Information, Schedule 8 Supplies and Services, '94‑95, $14,522,700, it is from that number that the $2 million will come for the self‑managed care program.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, if that amount of money has increased from $.5 million to $2 million, then there must be a decrease in other areas of Supplies and Services.  Could the minister tell us what that is in?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, I think some further elucidation is required here for the honourable member.  I know she might not have heard my last answer, because she was not listening; that happens from time to time.  I have a tendency sometimes to‑‑I can put a whole hall to sleep in five minutes flat, if I put my mind to it, and I can empty a hall in two minutes flat sometimes, depending on the circumstances.

 

          I think the best way to respond is by saying that Home Care services take a number of forms, and a number of services are provided.  For us to get into this numbers game is going to be problematic for everybody.  I think if you look at the bottom line, you will see that year over year we have significantly increased funding for home care.  Last year, even though we increased funding by a million dollars for home care and took money out from the cleaning and laundry aspect, honourable members tried to make the point that there was a cut in home care.

 

          There was a cut here, and there were increases there, Madam Chairperson.  Look at the bottom line.  The case is there, the case is made, and the case is made in these estimates too, that you will see differences in levels of spending in this area or that area, depending on the needs of the clients.  We are putting the clients first and foremost, and we are asking for support from all honourable members to do the same thing.

 

          You will see changes and shifts in service requirements, and therefore you will see changes and shifts in service delivery.  You will see, I hope, staff of the Home Care program putting in the whole hour, when there is an hour block of time to spend with Mrs. Jones or Mr. Jones.  That whole hour gets spent there in delivering service.  I have heard stories from the Mrs. Joneses of Winnipeg and the Mr. Joneses of Winnipeg that Home Care staff come to provide services to them and they provide the service in a short period of time, and they are gone and no one knows where they have gone to.

 

          I do not know who that was or anything like that, but I have also heard stories that in one apartment building in the city of Winnipeg, there are some 23 providers of home care to about, now let me get this right, a large number of providers for a relatively large number of recipients in one block.  The fact is, why do we have so many people coming and going?  That is a co‑ordination issue that needs to be addressed.  One woman asks me:  I live in Transcona; why does my care provider come from Charleswood and charge for the mileage?  So you might see a cut in the budget for mileage somewhere along the line, I do not know, but you might as well try to co‑ordinate these things and spend the dollars more wisely.

 

          I am not going to get into that kind of a discussion with either honourable member here, because in a budget where you see an increase in spending for home care, what you see is an increase in spending for home care; you are going to see an increase in service, and you are going to see more appropriate services.  You are going to see the people receiving services so they do not have to stay in hospitals so long.  That is one point.

 

          You are going to see elderly people who will enjoy a better quality of life because of home care.  When I think of a 93 percent increase over six years, all I see there is commitment.

 

Ms. Gray:  I am making the assumption that the Minister of Health misinterpreted what my question was.  When we go back to the last year's Estimates, and I have my rough copies in front of me, not the Hansard, but the former Minister of Health was able to actually provide us with a lot of information as to the services that were provided through Home Care.  He broke that down for '92‑93 and '93‑94 into the various categories of care, home support workers, home care attendants, overnight/daily, registered nurses and LPNs.  He told us the number of persons per month that were serviced.  There were some decreases, and he was able to show us why there were those decreases or why there were increases in some cases, as there were with home care attendants.

 

          That is the kind of information that I would find useful today.  I am not sure if that really is my next question and, again, I would ask the minister, in Supplies and Services, if he could break down for us what constitutes the categories under Supplies and Services and what would the breakdown of amounts be?

 

Mr. McCrae:  The member referred to last year and the helpful information made available by my predecessor.  I will look at the format of the way that was done last year, ask my staff to do so too, and we will consider whether we will proceed that way this year or not.  I will discuss this further with the honourable member, no doubt.

 

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

 

          The point that I wanted to make is that, as I made yesterday, in dealing with the issue of the so‑called $100 million being taken out of hospital budgets over the next three years, that is a misleading approach that was taken by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party yesterday, a speculative approach.

 

          It is something that they did when they were in government and we are doing when we are in government.  That is looking at multi‑‑well, maybe they did not.  Maybe they did not do multiyear budgeting, but we certainly are looking at the opportunities for efficiency that can be made, and to start putting numbers on it like the members did yesterday for the clear purpose only of scaring people, I am not going to get into that.

 

          I will consider how best to put this information before the honourable member.  I want to answer her questions and give her all the information that she feels she needs.

 

          I am more interested, however, in the mail that I get and how a number of home care issues get resolved on a week‑in, week‑out basis by Home Care co‑ordinators and the work that they do and resource co‑ordinators and the work that they do.  They try very hard to match services to the needs of clients.  They try to work with the clients.  They do their best.  Sometimes even that is not enough to alleviate the pain that a client might be suffering or to solve a difference of opinion.  In order to solve differences of opinion, we need to provide clients with some form of comfort with respect to an independent party having a look at their circumstances.  I am speaking of our plans to put into operation an appeal panel to deal with client complaints with respect to Home Care service delivery.

 

          I am interested in some of the complaints that I get and, frankly, some of the expectations people have for a Home Care program which did not exist 20 years ago and today is being funded to the tune of $69 million.  I know that we have many, many dedicated home care attendants, home support workers, licensed practical nurses and registered nurses working in the government‑run program.  I also know that we are trying to build as much flexibility as we can for those clients of Home Care services.

 

          Sometimes disputes arise.  I think sometimes it does not wear very well with the public when members like the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) take a simple and honest difference of opinion between a client and the program and make that into some kind of a cause celèbre that points in certain directions.  That approach, I am grateful, is not the approach used by the Liberal Party in this place, because I think they quit trying to scare people years and years ago when they realized the reality of government and the reality of honestly delivering service.

 

* (1640)

 

          Some of these nicer comments never, never applied to New Democrats.  I was talking about this to my daughter last night and talking about New Democrats and trying very hard to leave my daughter to make her own decisions, but I know my bias showed when I was talking about these matters with my daughter.  I just cannot help myself.  It is hard for me to be unbiased when it comes to a discussion on New Democratic political morality and stuff like that.

 

          It is really hard for me.  My colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), the dean of the Legislature, the one best able to give advice about these matters, suggests I should try harder, and I will continue to do that.  Advice coming from a person like that ought to be listened to, and I will try harder to understand what it is that makes New Democrats tick, but I think what it is, it is a problem in their make‑up that says the whole world owes me a living.  I think that is what it is with New Democrats that I do not have to put anything in, I can just take out all my life.  It is Robin Hood gone amuck; that is what it is, Mr. Acting Chairperson.  There is a problem with the New Democrats, and the reason that they have not solved their problem is they have never acknowledged that they have problems and therein lies the problem.

 

          I have recognized we have problems in our health system, and by making that recognition and that acknowledgement, then I will be able to do something to fix some of the shortcomings of our health system.  It is a health system that is changing, and obviously Home Care program is going to have growing pains.  When you see the kind of growth that it has had, no doubt there are going to be problems associated with it.  We have a good team of people working for the Home Care program, and they are trying their best to satisfy the demands of the clients of the program.  I am going to continue to work with them and try to provide them with the supports they need to make sure that our clients can enjoy a higher quality of life than they would enjoy if we followed NDP policy, which would be to destroy the Home Care program.  I refuse to play that game with honourable members of the New Democratic Party.

 

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am still asking the question under Supplies and Services, what the various breakdown is of dollars, which I am sure the minister must have.  When I look at last year's Estimates, my notes tell me that Supplies and Services includes VON and hospital co‑ordinated supplies.  I do not know if that has changed or not or if the minister can really break down the figures.

 

          Surely the Minister of Health has faith in me that, when we look at these numbers and put them into context, we are not doing this to find technical decreases where we can stand up and rant and rave and say the program is falling apart.  For me, particularly because I was involved in the program, it gives me a better sense of where we are going with home care.

 

Mr. McCrae:  I have asked staff to provide me with a further breakdown of these numbers, and I will share with the honourable member information that I can share with her about a further breakdown of these numbers.

 

Ms. Gray:  Some of the other figures that we discussed in last year's Estimates included just in simple numbers of where we were with staff:  who were direct service workers numbers‑‑even though they are casual staff, we certainly know how many are on the payroll; the number of LPNs and number of RNs, and a bit of a breakdown of that compared to rural and urban.

 

          I would ask the Minister of Health, and I do not know if he has this information in this section or not, but in terms of the overall Continuing Care Program, how many hospital co‑ordinators do we currently have?  Have there been any changes in that in terms of the number of home care hospital co‑ordinators that we have?  And have there been any changes to that program activity?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I am almost like one question behind all the time here.  I have an answer to the honourable member's previous question, and then maybe we will catch up here yet.

 

          With respect to the Home Care program, direct service workers employed in the program as of April 1994:  within the Winnipeg Region, there are 934 Home Care assistants, 552 home support workers, 45 registered nurses, and 27 licensed practical nurses.

 

          In the Westman area there are 287 home care attendants, 75 home support workers, 54 registered nurses, and 16 licensed practical nurses.

 

          In the Eastman area there are 251 home care attendants, nine home support workers, 29 registered nurses, and two licensed practical nurses.

 

          In Central there are 347 home care attendants, eight home support workers, 58 registered nurses, and 32 licensed practical nurses.

 

          In Interlake there are 249 home care attendants, 41 home support workers, 46 registered nurses, and four licensed practical nurses.

 

          In Parklands there are 189 home care attendants, 41 home support workers, 24 registered nurses, and 13 licensed practical nurses.

 

          In Norman there are 81 home care attendants, 12 registered nurses, and nine licensed practical nurses.

 

          In Thompson there are 23 home care attendants, 37 home support workers, three registered nurses, and six licensed practical nurses.

 

          With respect to home care co‑ordinators at hospitals, we think there are 23 or 24; we will get an exact number for the honourable member.

 

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Acting Chairperson, it is interesting to note, as the minister is going through the figures, that when you look at the Central region, the number of home support workers, it is eight‑‑virtually nil.  I am making the assumption‑‑and perhaps the minister can confirm or clarify that‑‑is there a more sophisticated or more extensive Support Services to Seniors in the Central?  It is interesting that the number of home support workers are very, very few‑‑eight workers to cover an entire region.  One would assume that a lot of those kinds of needs are being delivered elsewhere, whereas you even look at Westman, which has fewer home care attendants than Central but 75 home support workers.

 

Mr. McCrae:  In the Central area we have 38 Support Services to Seniors projects‑‑the honourable member does not want me today, I take it, to go through the list of all 38‑‑compared with 25 in Eastman, 27 in Interlake, 14 in Parklands, 38 in Westman, 38 in Winnipeg.  Actually, that is on the higher end of the scale when it comes to the number of Support Services to Seniors projects.  In the Central region there is a total of 38 and that may account for the smaller number of home support workers.

 

Ms. Gray:  Just out of curiosity, if the minister knows, with only eight home support workers in Central, are they at an apartment block in the town of Portage, are they scattered throughout, or do we know?  It just seems like a small number.

 

* (1650)

 

Mr. McCrae:  We would have to check to get clarity to that.  I think there is some action happening.  You will recall the question that I asked the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) to answer and he would not answer.  That had to do with asking home care attendants to do a greater variety of services.  A lot of those are because the home support worker traditionally, if there is such a thing with this program, did a lot of those things, and home care attendants can do them, so that has been happening.  I think that may account for larger numbers representing the home care attendants and the smaller numbers representing the home support workers.

 

Ms. Gray:  So are we moving towards then using home care attendants to do some of the housekeeping tasks that traditionally you might have sent in a different person to do?  Is that sort of a change in direction?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Yes, in a word.  We want clients to have some continuity of service.  We see that if the home care attendant is able to do these various functions, then that ought to happen so there is a higher level of quality and perceived quality on the part of the client and fewer people frankly coming through a client's home.

 

          I think that makes sense, and I support that.  It was that area I was asking the member for Kildonan to answer, and it does not surprise me that he did not want to answer.

 

Ms. Gray:  In terms of that movement, because the home care attendants and home support workers are unionized, has there been any difficulties with the unions in terms of changing those kinds of duties?

 

Mr. McCrae:  This is not a union issue.  There has not been any problems that I am aware of.  This is not a union concern apparently.

 

(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)

 

Ms. Gray:  I am sorry I am jumping from subject to subject, but that reminds me of another question.  Perhaps the minister can answer in regard to the self‑managed care project.  Some of the individuals who are interested in, not necessarily being on the self‑managed care, but advocates‑‑Evan Burns, I am sure the minister is aware of that young man who has been very involved in the Manitoba Home Care Coalition.

 

          I heard someone say he was a former Tory.  I think maybe he is apolitical, but I think the one thing about Evan, I would hope that the minister would agree, he seems to be very much interested in working with the government and all political parties for the good of individuals out there.  I give him credit for that.  But he had indicated to me, in a meeting with Peter Olfert, that he felt that the MGEU had real concerns about the self‑managed care and were not supportive.  I am wondering if the minister has been made aware of concerns that the union has about a self‑managed care project being expanded?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I am very acquainted with Evan Burns, and I appreciate what the honourable member said about him because I think she is probably right.  I do not know if he is a Tory or what he is.  He seems to be very genuine, and he is very genuine in his concern for people in Manitoba who could benefit from self‑managed care.

 

          I do have the expression from the member for Kildonan.  He says he supports self‑managed care and then wants to change the subject very quickly.  I met with Peter Olfert on this and other topics, and I remember discussing this.  I do not recall Peter making his views clear on whether he is a big advocate of this kind of higher quality and empowerment.  He did not say one way or another.  Maybe we should be asking him more directly than I have.

 

          I kind of said a few things about it and sort of just waited to hear what his response was.  I could not divine from anything he said that he was enthusiastic in his support for self‑managed care or supportive at all.  So it would be interesting to know if Peter Olfert is indeed supportive of self‑managed care.

 

          I think it is nice to know that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is so supportive of that, and the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), of course, is very clearly in favour of widespread expansion of the concept and the practice of self‑managed care.

 

          To the extent that we can do that, we are going to move in that direction, but we do need the support of all parties in this House as we deal with the federal authorities, and I have said already that I will be looking for the honourable member's support.  I know that her influence amongst some of these people is probably a little greater than my own, and I would ask for her help because I genuinely feel, like Evan Burns, that this is an area where we should move and should move in a totally nonpartisan way.

 

Ms. Gray:  Madam Chairperson, I am glad the minister reminded me about the self‑managed care and some of the current negotiations with the federal government and looking at the Canada Assistance Plan, because I did make a note of talking to my federal colleagues to see where that is at or what the position is.  I would hope, as the minister indicated, that it may be something that is related to red tape that could be eliminated so that we can move something through the bureaucracy for the good of a project and for Manitobans.  We should all be working towards that goal.

 

          One of the issues that was brought forward last year in the Estimates was a concern obviously from a number of‑‑particularly home support workers, about reduction of hours.  I know, and I recognize as do they, that most of them are employed on a casual basis so there is not a guarantee of hours, but oftentimes in the past there was a lot of work for people, almost could be full‑time work.

 

          I am wondering if the department has any statistics on average number of hours for home support workers and home care attendants and if there has been any shift in that in the last couple of years.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, I think the information the honourable member is looking for on this one is a little bit difficult to put together in terms of the search we would have to do through records.  I do not think there are very many fewer people involved, but I understand that some have fewer hours.  I would think that some will have more hours.

 

          What has been happening, I think, with defining need and matching it to service delivery, is that some people are getting more service than they used to get, some are getting less, and some that are getting less is based on the fact that they are getting better, or they have been reassessed and their condition is such that they do not need the level of service they have been getting.  That happens.  Now some people will take that and use that as an example of all the terrible problems that we have.  I will readily acknowledge that those who need more care, get more care; those who need less care, will get less care.  There is the odd time a dispute will arise about that, but in terms of the number of hours of each different kind of care provider, that information is not so readily available.

 

Madam Chairperson:  Order, please.  The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, committee rise.

 

          Call in the Speaker.

 


IN SESSION

 

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

 

Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise Dacquay):  The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.

 

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

 

Res. 7‑‑North American Commission for Environmental Co‑operation O ffice

 

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek):  Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that

 

          WHEREAS the North American agreement on environmental co‑operation calls for an environmental centre to be established in Canada; and

 

          WHEREAS Manitoba led the way to design and support the NAFTA environmental side agreement; and

 

          WHEREAS Winnipeg has been Canada's sustainable development leader since 1988, having the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the Manitoba Remote Sensing Center, the Center for Earth Observations, and the Canadian Technology Advancement Corporation located here; and

 

          WHEREAS the federal Liberal government awarded the North American Commission for Environmental Co‑operation to Montreal over the obvious choice of Winnipeg; and

 

          WHEREAS the federal Liberal government promised an open, independent, transparent assessment process with respect to the awarding of NACE; and

 

          WHEREAS the federal Liberal Environment minister said the decision on the awarding of NACE was both personal and political.

 

          THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly call upon elected Liberals across Canada to apologize to the people of Manitoba and that the federal Environment minister resign for her blatant manipulation of the assessment process.

 

Motion presented.

 

Mr. McAlpine:  Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise today to speak on this bill with considerable remorse in the fact that the federal Liberals have taken the stand that they did with this office.  Manitoba was an active and a positive contributor to the process with respect to the NAFTA environmental side agreement.  Manitoba initiated the concept of the federal‑provincial implementation agreement and was a lead contributor of its drafting.

 

          There was an abuse of the process in the determination of the site.  The federal Environment minister, Sheila Copps, has readily admitted that we are a political party that makes political decisions.  She said that in March of 1994, and an honest declaration of the decision at the outset would have been better understood and received than the sort of manipulation that occurred.  Copps stated that we want to implement a process which is open, Madam Deputy Speaker, transparent, public and objective and one which can be subjected to scrutiny.  She said that in the House of Commons on the 24th of January 1994.

 

          Manitoba spent considerable time and effort and money in an honest attempt to compete in what was to be an independent assessment process, having taken the federal Liberal Environment minister at her word.  Unfortunately, it clearly was a mistake for us to do that because of the effort and the money that was put forward on that, because I sincerely believe that the decision was made long before the decision became public.  I wonder sometimes as I sit in the House here whether or not our federal members across the way maybe had some prior knowledge of that as well.

 

          Montreal is not an environmentally conscious city, Madam Deputy Speaker.  It dumps 30 percent of its raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River and the city refuses to help to start a grassroots program to clean up the St. Lawrence River.  The program would have been aimed at getting industry, along with government and the public involved through a $20,000 grant.  That was published in the Montreal Gazette, Tuesday, March 29, 1994.

 

          What did our local Liberals have to say about setting this office up in Montreal?  Well, the honourable member for I guess, is it Winnipeg South, the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy:  There is not much we can do about it.  That was his remark to the placement of this office and that is all that was said.  Our own member, the honourable member for St. James, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards), said the federal government has to look after more than just Winnipeg.

 

          The honourable member who used to sit in this House, the honourable member who used to be for Osborne, what did he have to say?  Now, I hope he chooses his eating habits a little better than what he is talking about here.  I hope that he watches what he eats.  I do not know whether he is that conscious of it‑‑and I hope he never goes fishing in the St. Lawrence River‑‑because he said we have to have bigger fish to fry.  I hope that he watches the fish if he is going fishing in the St. Lawrence River that he makes sure that he is going to be frying fish.  But that is his remark, and that is what we can expect from the Liberals.

 

          None of these elected Liberals seem to care about the potential of the 30 jobs that this office had to offer to Winnipeg and the budget of $15 million.  Here is $15 million that could have been invested in the province of Manitoba, and it certainly would have had an impact like anything that money of that magnitude would have.  The economic spin‑off, in addition to that, is unmeasurable.

 

* (1710)

 

          The awarding of this office to Montreal, is the federal government offering goodies to Quebec to boost provincial Liberals and Liberal fortunes in the final crucial months before an election?  Is that what they are trying to do?  Maybe they have to think about the fact that we also have an election coming up within the next year here in Manitoba.  Maybe they are writing Manitoba off, I do not know.  They do not seem to have too much confidence in our Liberal friends across the way here, and maybe that is the reason for doing that.

 

          The Liberal training deal is worth‑‑in the area of supporting Quebec‑‑$140 million to keep Collège militaire royale in Saint‑Jean open, money for one‑stop government service centre, and an agreement to turn the other cheek if Johnson goes on the attack against Ottawa during the provincial election campaign.

 

          The awarding of this office to Montreal is all part of the Liberal government's patronage package, and what do our Liberal politicians say when they should be standing up for Manitoba?  The Leader, and I say this again, the Leader in the Legislature says it is only going to be 10 jobs, the federal government has to look after more than Winnipeg, and cannot see that the Liberals in Winnipeg are not standing up for Manitobans.  I think that has to be said to all Manitobans, and all Manitobans have to understand that and hear it clearly.

 

          Madam Deputy Speaker, I am getting some signs from across the way there, and I do not know whether I am dealing with this in a complete manner, but as far as my remarks are concerned, I would certainly bow to other members here and give the opportunity for all members to have an opportunity to speak.  Thank you.

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  I have raised this issue with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in his Estimates.  Very rarely do we agree with members opposite, but we agree fully that the leadership position taken by Manitoba on the environment and the international community, the Brundtland Commission Report which we co‑chaired, the International Centre for Sustainable Development which is here in Manitoba‑‑Manitoba is the only place for the NACE environmental centre.  We believe that all parties should work together and pass this resolution so that everybody in Ottawa will know that they cannot neglect the merit of this province and neglect the merit of proposals coming for our province.  We believe in the NAFTA centre being located here, and just as we condemned, altogether condemned the awarding of CF‑18 to the Province of Quebec, we should also condemn, by all parties, the awarding of this contract to Montreal without any merit whatsoever.  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have seen inside the Chamber in the last 10, 15 minutes, once again, the New Democratic Party of this Chamber along with the Conservative Party of this Chamber joining hands together in solidarity.  Let me tell you in terms of how ironic it is.  The Leader of the New Democratic Party was just preaching how wonderful the New Democratic government was on environmental issues, and what was happening?  The Conservatives were applauding that.  That is an absolute disgrace.  The Conservatives should not be applauding the poor effort on the environment that the New Democrats have been in the number of years that they were in government in the province of Manitoba.

 

          I am going to anticipate that the Minister of Environment is going to put it very clearly on the record and clarify some of the allegations that were put on the record from the current Leader of the Opposition dealing with the environment of the province of Manitoba.  How can we say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Manitoba is leading the pack?  How can we possibly say that when we were No. 10 in 1988?  You do not have to ask me that question, in terms of were we No. 10, because you know what‑‑at one time the government acknowledged that the then administration of the New Democratic Party was an absolute failure.  The New Democratic Party has not, in fact, been a saviour for the environment in the province of Manitoba.  All one needs to do is to look at the record.

 

          Madam Deputy Speaker, the resolution, in the format that the member for Sturgeon Creek‑‑

 

Points of Order

 

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert):  Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, there is a little bit of relevancy that concerns me here.  Somewhere within here I read that it was asking the Liberals to apologize.  And here is a Liberal hammering away at what has been positive about Manitoba.  Have him stand up and say what is good about this province and stop being so negative.

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader):  Madam Deputy Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe that the member for St. Norbert is wasting very valuable time by standing up on a point of order, knowing full well that he does not have a point of order.

 

          In fact, I would like to indicate to you that I was being very relevant in terms of the resolution that I am talking about.  The resolution is talking about the agreement or the location of the office in the province of Quebec.  The Leader of the New Democratic Party was talking in terms of why it is that we deserve to have that office located in the province of Manitoba, as the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) was doing likewise.

 

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Order, please.

 

          Is the honourable member for Inkster still speaking on the point of order?

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Yes, I am, Madam Deputy Speaker.  I am trying to demonstrate‑‑[interjection]

 

Madam Deputy Speaker:   Order, please.

 

          The honourable member for Inkster has indeed put his comments on the record relative to the point of order.  I thank all honourable members for their advice, and I would remind all honourable members that indeed the debate is supposed to be relevant to the matter that is being dealt with.

 

* * *

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  On a new point of order, I am seeking clarification on your first ruling.  Did the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) have a point of order or did he not?  I did not believe he did, and that is the reason why I was standing up trying to explain that as the member for St. Norbert said that I was not being relevant, in fact I was being very relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker.

 

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Order, please.  I apologize.  I neglected to draw attention to the fact that neither the member for St. Norbert nor the member for Inkster did indeed have points of order.

 

* * *

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I only have a little bit of time to be able to speak on this particular resolution, and I trust that the member for St. Norbert nor anyone else will want to interrupt debate.

 

          Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, the member for Sturgeon Creek brings in a resolution, and I do not necessarily want to impute motives, but I do believe that it is very important that the member for Sturgeon Creek knows what it is that he is saying.  I do not believe that the member for Sturgeon Creek is aware of some of the facts on this particular issue.  If I were to ask, for example, when did the province actually solicit from the Premier's Office to have this particular office located?  Was it in fact prior to that particular‑‑the city of Montreal or the province?

 

* (1720)

 

          I, like everyone inside this Chamber I believe, would have loved to have seen not only that office but every office that is created located in the city of Winnipeg.  Would that not be wonderful if we could get every office located into the province of Manitoba?  But let me tell you something, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that if you take a look at what has been going on, let us say, in the last nine months and you compare it to what damage someone like the former Deputy Prime Minister did, Don Mazankowski, I would argue that there is absolutely no comparison in terms of the things that were taken away from the province of Manitoba under the previous administration.  Absolutely no comparison.  You know, this government tries to say that this same issue is similar to the CF‑18.  How far can this government be from trying to stretch the truth by making a statement of that nature?  The CF‑18, there was a strong recommendation that the CF‑18 contract come to the city of Winnipeg.  That was not the case for the environmental office.

 

An Honourable Member:  Yes, it was.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  The Leader of the New Democratic Party says:  Yes, it was.

 

          No, it was not.  There were 24, I believe, it could have been 26 cities that made application to be able to have that particular office, throughout Canada.  Madam Deputy Speaker, from what I understand, there was correspondence that indicated that there were some benefits of Toronto and Montreal that Winnipeg did not have, for example, embassy offices that were located from Mexico, located in the cities.

 

          I personally do not have the detailed list of all of the explanations.  Nor do I believe the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) has because if he did have that, I believe he would have, at the very least, as a courteous member, as I know he likes to be, would have provided that in making presentation for his argument.  So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to ask the question, why did the member for Sturgeon Creek introduce this particular resolution?

 

          In prior years, whether it has been Conservative government or whether it has been NDP administration, they have this terminology that is used:  fed‑bashing.  I know that I created a word in the dictionary, I am told, by using the word "funky" in referring to the Minister of Education earlier today.  Well, fed‑bashing is, in fact, I believe, something in which everyone in this Chamber is quite aware of in terms of the meaning of fed‑bashing.  The member for Sturgeon Creek gives new meaning to the word "fed‑bashing."  He likes to be able to exaggerate, to a certain degree, in terms of what actually has occurred.  All one has to do is read his throne speech.

 

          I do not know what happened between the last session and this session, but the member for Sturgeon Creek sure has been ignited to say a few more words on the record and to take a much more active role against the government in Ottawa, Madam Deputy Speaker.  I wish he would have been as strong as an advocate when the Conservatives were in government.  I am talking with respect to the member for Sturgeon Creek, the member that never stood up, in comparison to the number of times he has stood up here.

 

          One has to question, because I like to believe that I will be consistent, that if in fact this was a CF‑18, if you like, or if the member for Sturgeon Creek was to be able to draw the comparisons of the CF‑18 to the environmental office and say, this is in fact how they are the same, then he might have a bit more of a valid resolution in terms of bringing it in.  Then the then‑Conservatives, not all of them because most of them were quiet, but the official line was to criticize the CF‑18 contract and for a good reason.  We all came down with that particular decision.

 

          Well, I would have liked to have heard some sort of report from the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in terms of what was the difference.  Does he believe that there is any difference between the CF‑18 and the environmental office?  I believe that the member for Sturgeon Creek does know that there was a significant difference between the CF‑18 and the current environmental office, and I believe that the Leader of the New Democratic Party also knew that there is a significant difference.  But what are both the Conservatives and the NDP party trying to accomplish?  They are trying to accomplish, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  The truth.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Not the truth.  What they are trying to do is they are trying to‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  Stand up for Manitoba.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  ‑‑say it is Quebec versus the rest of Canada.

 

          Madam Deputy Speaker, if it were just a question of standing up for Manitoba, the provincial Liberal Party needs no lesson from the NDP and the Tories on how to stand up for Manitoba.  I can assure you that, as regards the issues facing the province of Manitoba, the provincial Liberal Party is, in fact, very proactive in assuring that our interests are being protected.  The Conservatives and the NDP can say whatever it is that they want, but ultimately they are going to have to realize that the federal Liberal Party will likely do a lot more for the province of Manitoba than the previous administration in its nine years.

 

          I do not believe that there is anyone‑‑[interjection] The Leader of the NDP says that he would vote for a resolution of that nature.  He said that he might.  Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel a whole lot more comfortable in believing that the federal Liberal Party will, in fact, do a lot more for the province of Manitoba than the Conservatives ever did.

 

          All we have to do is to look at individuals like the former Deputy Prime Minister Don Mazankowski and the jobs he took away from the province of Manitoba, jobs within the CN area, jobs within the Immigration department, that took those jobs out of the province of Manitoba and relocated them into the province of Alberta.

 

          Those are the types of things in which there has to be some concern, if there are not valid arguments that are brought forward to be able to defend, and, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not hear any of those arguments.

 

          I had understood from the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), at least I believe I had heard‑‑he can correct me if I am wrong‑‑I believe he keeps up to date on what is going on his riding, was it the search and rescue team that has now been relocated to the city of Winnipeg?  It was done before; I believe that is fairly recent.  I think that is a wonderful asset.  I used to work in Edmonton.  I was in the military, in the air force, and I used to work within the search and rescue area.

 

          There are a number of things that Winnipeg is in fact going to be getting, and we will be lobbying, just like the government will be lobbying, no doubt just like the New Democratic Party will attempt to lobby.  We also, as a caucus, will continue to lobby, to ensure that Manitoba is in fact getting its fair share.

 

          I believe, as I say, ultimately that Manitoba will get its fair share.  I look at some of the individuals.  In the province of Manitoba we have 12 of the 14 members of Parliament‑‑

 

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member's time has expired.

 

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):  Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise on this resolution presented.

 

          Listening to my Tory friends in St. Boniface when this came out, in reply to the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) when he was on television and compared it to CF‑18, their first reaction was, there is no reason to do that, because it is not the same thing, none whatsoever.

 

An Honourable Member:  A principle.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  A principle, okay. [interjection] Yes, she is a good person like every other colleague in the Legislature here.  I will not attack anybody, because I think it is not my‑‑I do not have to apologize for anything.

 

          We will stand for Manitoba, and tomorrow if the members want I will bring in letters that I have written to the Royal Bank in French and in English supporting the Royal Bank here in Manitoba.  I do not know whether the Tories have done the same thing, but I have done it.  I have taken the initiative the day it appeared in the newspaper.

 

          When I listen here to the comments being made‑‑they say it should stay relevant to it and they talk about Manitoba Day and it is a great day here in Manitoba with the announcement this morning.

 

          Now they talk that my colleague invented a word in the dictionary.  Well, I have to pass on another word that was invented by the Tories.  I have a letter that I wrote.  I want an explanation what rateable impairment meant.

 

An Honourable Member:  What did it mean?

 

* (1730)

 

Mr. Gaudry:  I have not received a letter.  I got a call from the minister's office.  They said, well, we do not know.  I said, look in the dictionary to see what the word rateble means.  They do not know.  I have looked in the dictionary.  It is not there but I am still waiting for a reply.  That is part of the‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  Why did the Liberals put it in Montreal?

 

Mr. Gaudry:  Well, there is nothing wrong with putting something in Montreal.  They get their fair share. [interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not here for a debate. What is so wrong about giving it to Montreal?  Because they want to separate maybe?  I do not know.  I hope they do not, because I think we want a unified country.  I think it was said this morning in the Legislature from our Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), we want a united country.  It will remain a united country I think if we were‑‑instead of having all this heckling all the time in this Legislature like we do.

 

          I had four friends yesterday that came to the Legislature during Question Period for the first time.  They were from the constituency of Lakeside.  They were disappointed to see how grownups reacted here in the Legislature during those 40 minutes. [interjection] I would be ashamed to see them. [interjection]

 

          I would not apologize.  I have nothing to apologize for, because I think Manitoba will, in the long run, get its fair share and we will continue to do that.

 

An Honourable Member:  We have to wait for the Conservatives again.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  The Conservatives were there for nine years.

 

          The Premier from here says all he has to do is pick up the phone.  He has never picked up the damn phone.  I am sorry, I apologize. [interjection]

 

          No, he will do the same thing as I do.  He will stand up for Manitoba.  I will stand up for Manitoba at any time. [interjection] No, it is not. [interjection]

 

          Well, it is like the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) says.  They are the only party in Manitoba that runs 58 candidates.  They run two in St. Boniface.  They run me and he says they run the Conservative.

 

An Honourable Member:  Neil, come and join us.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  No, I would not do that.  I will be faithful to my Leader and to my party.  No, I would not do like you, Darren.  The honourable member for Lac du Bonnet used to be a Liberal; now he is a Conservative.  He will probably be with the NDP on the next run.

 

An Honourable Member:  The Liberals never treated the province well.  That is why I left the Liberal Party.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  Well, and then you have the Tories that were in the‑‑[interjection] The member for Lac du Bonnet was an assistant to the member for‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  Provencher.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  And what did he get us here in Manitoba?  Nothing.

 

An Honourable Member:  Cornelius, just vote for this resolution.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  No, my conscience would not let me.

 

An Honourable Member:  Stand up for Manitoba.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  I will stand up for Manitoba, but my conscience would not‑‑[interjection]

 

          Well, that is what I am doing.  I am standing up right now and I will stand up for Manitoba.

 

An Honourable Member:  Ask yourself how Louis Riel would have voted on this.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  Louis Riel would have voted for Manitoba.  It is a good day to speak about Louis Riel today.  In 1990 the Liberals were the first ones in their policies in Ottawa to introduce a resolution to recognize Louis Riel, and it was passed unanimously.  Ten days later, the Conservatives phoned my office and they said, we like your motion better than ours, and that was done from Ottawa when they phoned me.

 

          Also, we wanted to recognize Louis Riel as a Father of Confederation.  We asked for Louis Riel to be rehabilitated because he deserves his rights.

 

An Honourable Member:  He was a Conservative member of Parliament.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  It does not matter, but he was a good man.  He was not a Conservative.  He was not allowed by the Tories to sit in his seat in Provencher in the House of Commons.

 

          In 1985, I personified Louis Riel in the House of Commons for the 100th anniversary, but again they would not allow me to sit in the House of Commons.  They wanted me to come in the House of Commons.  They said, no.  That was the Tories again.  I was going to say hypocrisy, but it is not a nice word, and I will not use it, because my friend from Assiniboia would not like if I said things like that, and I will not.  All my members are nice people.

 

          I will not apologize, because we will continue to fight for Manitoba at all times, and we will stand up for Manitoba.  We are standing up for Manitoba, and we will continue to stand up for Manitoba.  I say, we will stand for Manitoba, and we will work with the federal government, and they will listen to Manitoba better than the Tories listened in 1984 to '93.  Thank you very much.

 

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples):  My honourable colleague tells me I should talk about Louis Riel, but I do not have the expertise that this man has.

 

An Honourable Member:  Well, then sit down and we will vote.

 

Mr. Kowalski:  No, I do not think I will sit down.  I missed my opportunity the other day to speak so I will take full advantage of it today.

 

          The environment is very important to all young people, and I have been asked a number of times what my position is on the Young Offenders Act.

 

          (Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

 

          We have been asked, and we have been pointed at in Question Period.  When we have an opportunity to question the minister, the minister has pointed her finger and asked, what does the Liberal Party believe in‑‑position on the Young Offenders Act?  What I want to say about our position on the Young Offenders Act is that we support the federal government's position to review the Young Offenders Act.  We support that. [interjection] As my colleague says, that is standing for Manitobans.

 

          This resolution by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine):  WHEREAS the North American Agreement on environmental co‑operation calls for an environmental centre to be established in Canada‑‑we all agree that this is a noble event.  I think the people of Canada are looking for a higher level of integrity and conduct in politics, and I think that as such we should not be looking at just what is politically expedient and we should not be using decisions‑‑[interjection] My honourable member refers to Sheila Copps, who will be here next week, and I hope he has an opportunity to meet her.  Now, this decision of where to put this, the minister responsible, Sheila Copps, even though her own riding was in contention, showed no favouritism in putting it into her riding.  Instead there was a criteria to make this decision, and based on the criteria a location was chosen.

 

          Yes, we agree, we would have all loved to see the decision to be made for Manitoba.  We continue to work with our Liberal caucus colleagues in Ottawa, and we will continue, but in every decision these regional considerations are difficult to deal with.  Where it says, the federal Liberal Environment minister said the decision on the awarding was both personal and political, all decisions made by politicians are political.  To consider the criteria personally and come to the best decision is a personal matter.

 

* (1740)

 

          The decision based on that criteria I am concerned about, as all Manitobans should be concerned about.  But if we want decisions based on the best information, and we want free trade amongst the provinces, as the ministers have recently met and discussed.

 

An Honourable Member:  We want fairness from our imperial masters in Ottawa.

 

Mr. Kowalski:  We do not have masters in Ottawa.  We have colleagues in Ottawa.  Over the years I watched Ray Hnatyshyn steal things from Winnipeg and take them to Edmonton.  Over the years, a number of positions, when the Conservative government‑‑[interjection] I find it very ironic that the Conservative caucus is concerned about this decision being made based on criteria.

 

          This resolution saying the obvious choice was Winnipeg, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this choice may seem obvious to us from our perspective, but all decisions as whether to place some program for student employment in rural areas or urban areas is a difficult decision to be made sometimes.  It is made with a certain criteria in mind, where it says Winnipeg has been Canada's sustainable development leader since 1988, having an international institute for sustainable development.  We were quite proud of the accomplishments of our Manitobans, just as they are proud in each province of the accomplishments of the people from their province.

 

          The federal government, Chretien and his Liberal government in Ottawa, have been receiving wide public recognition for the higher level of debate, for the integrity made in decisions and it will continue.  This type of government will continue.

 

An Honourable Member:  And they will work with the Manitoba government.  It does not matter who they are in power.

 

Mr. Kowalski:  That is right, as they have worked with the Manitoba government in getting the infrastructure program in place in this province.

 

          This province is benefiting from the federal Liberal government in Ottawa, and having the Human Resources minister coming from this province has been a great asset to this province and will continue.  Just as we get the benefit, we also have to expect fairness from the Liberal government in Ottawa.  Having such a large Liberal caucus coming from Manitoba, we expect fairness, as every region in Canada will expect fairness.

 

          Yes, our Liberal cabinet ministers, our Liberal members of Parliament are busy people because they are doing a fine job in Ottawa.  The polls have indicated well the fact that traditionally after an election the government usually falls in the polls, but the Liberal government continues to be popular and respected because of such decisions based on criteria.  Although I have no ambition to continue on at another level of government, I have respect for the people from Manitoba who now serve Manitoba.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), an amendment‑‑seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)‑‑

 

 

Points of Order

 

Mr. Doer:  When the member for The Maples moved his amendment, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was not in his seat.  Therefore, that first motion of amendment was out of order.  Beauchesne is clear.

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):  The honourable member does have a point order unless‑‑

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  On the same point of order, Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that it is a fairly dangerous precedent to say that if in fact you are not sitting in your seat, and I know that the rules say that you have to be in there, but I believe that individuals have been standing up beside their seat before and I was standing up right beside my seat.

 

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  Let us deal with two points of order here, the first one being the one of the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer).  His point of order was very clear.  The honourable member for Inkster was not in his seat.  Rules are very clear in this House.  The honourable member must be in his seat.  Therefore the honourable member did have a point of order.

 

          The honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) in the meantime chose the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), who was in his seat.  So that finishes that point of order.

 

          Now, the point of order raised by the honourable member for Inkster, the honourable member definitely does not have a point of order.  The rules are quite clear, sir, that the honourable member, the seconder, the mover of a motion must be at their seat.

 

          That is very clear.  That is not a dangerous precedent.  That is a precedent and a rule of this House.

 

* * *

 

Mr. Kowalski:  I will start from the beginning again, Mr. Speaker.

 

          I move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), an amendment by deleting all the words after the first WHEREAS and substituting the following:

 

          More information is needed respecting the NAFTA environmental office.

 

          THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Legislative Assembly request the government of Manitoba bring forward factual information on what Manitoba did to try and get the NAFTA environmental office located in Manitoba.

 

* (1750)

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  I have to remind all honourable members again, indeed this happened yesterday and is happening again today.  When honourable members want to move an amendment such as the honourable member for The Maples has, we need five copies, sir, to facilitate the working of the House.  We need one, Hansard needs one, the table needs one and one for each of the critics.  I would ask all honourable members, next time you want to try such a procedure, bring forward five copies, please.  Now we will have to wait for a few minutes.

 

Motion presented.

 

Mr. Speaker:  It is in order.  It is an alternative proposition.

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, out of frustration I expressed a word that is not acceptable for inside the Chamber.  I do not know if Hansard picked it up or not, but I do apologize for using the word that I had used, as a number of individuals in the Chamber had heard it.  Whether or not you heard it is irrelevant.  I do regret saying it.

 

Mr. Speaker:  I thank the honourable member for Inkster for that.  He does not have a point of order, because I did not hear it.

 

* * *

 

Mr. Speaker:  Is the House ready for the question?

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the amendment that has been put forward from the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski).

 

          The primary reason, Mr. Speaker, that I felt it was necessary to support the member for The Maples for introducing this particular amendment is because we would like to see what the government has done to accumulate some information to deal with why it is that the decision was made in the fashion that it was, in particular to bring in this resolution, because it will be interesting to see if in fact we will be now seeing information coming forward and then that the debate around this whole issue will be all that much better in the sense that individuals will have the facts in front of them.  That is what the resolution is asking for.

 

          We believe that there is a need for the government to look into getting some of the factual information on why Manitoba did not try as hard as we would have liked to have gotten the office.  Mr. Speaker, maybe they did try harder‑‑they could have tried harder.  We do not know in terms of what their efforts were.

 

          I would have liked to have seen the government bring forward more information in terms of what it is they did in order to bring the office to the city of Winnipeg.  Equally, I would liked to have seen them bring information as to why it would have been allocated out to the city of Montreal, because as I indicated earlier, I was not 100 percent certain.  I did understand that the two cities of Toronto and Montreal were given extra consideration because, from what I understand, they had offices from both the States and Mexico located in those two major metropolitan centres.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very, very clear to all Manitobans, as I am sure they know, that the provincial Liberal Party has and will continue to stand up for the province of Manitoba.  The province is, in fact, our first priority, and if at some point in time the provincial Liberal caucus does feel that we are not getting a fair share from the Government of Canada.  Whether it is through equalization payments, whether it is through job transfers or the capital investments such as the infrastructure program and so forth, I am sure that you will hear the provincial Liberal Party speaking on those and addressing our federal counterparts in Ottawa, as we are just as concerned as the government of the day in Manitoba or the official opposition.

 

          I do have a lot more faith in the 12 members of Parliament that are representing the Liberal Party‑‑

 

Mr. Doer:  They are representing Manitoba.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  ‑‑and the constituencies that they represent, all Manitobans.

 

Mr. Doer:  There are 14 M.P.s.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Out of the 14, 12 of the 14, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party points out, as a start.  That is for sure, a good start.  It is a wonderful start, 12 of the 14.

 

          But there are some very high expectations that are there for all 12 of the 14 Liberal members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and over time we will see whether or not they are able to live up to those expectations.  Hopefully, eventually what will happen is, through time, of course, we will see whether or not the federal government has treated Manitoba fairly.  I am optimistic.  I believe that in the long run as in the short run too, Manitoba will get its fair share.  I would like to give that benefit of the doubt at this point in time to the Government of Canada.

 

          No doubt, Mr. Speaker, there are decisions that are going to be made and have been made that will be called into question, and that is fine.  That is the way that politics works, and I would anticipate that there are some things in which we will agree with on some of those decisions and some of the things that we will not agree with.  There have already been cases of both in terms of what the federal caucus has done and some controversial issues also, where we have not necessarily been in sync with our federal counterpart, much like the provincial Conservatives who were not in sync with everything that the federal Conservatives had done.  I would even hazard a guess that there are some things that the current government supports the federal Liberals in doing.

 

          We see, for example, the infrastructure program which, in fact, is a major aspect of the budget.  One would like to believe with this particular program, if you will, Manitoba is going to again receive their fair share.

 

          If the government was able to put the facts on the table and say this is the reason why Montreal received it and Winnipeg has all of those assets, those facilities, and we have legitimate reason to call into question, in a very strong way, the actual decision given that it should have gone to Winnipeg, then fine.  But let us hear that, Mr. Speaker.  We have not been hearing that from the government.  All we have been hearing is that this is no different than the CF‑18.

 

          What information that I have seen, there is a significant difference.  That is not to say that I do not personally believe that the decision ended up seeing this facility go in the city of my choice.  My choice of a city, sure it would be Winnipeg.  I would love to see everything located in the province of Manitoba and to see Winnipeg be a major benefactor of all the different programs and initiatives that the federal government might take upon itself to implement.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Inkster will have eight minutes remaining.

 

          The hour being 6 p.m. then, the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).