LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, April 12, 1994

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

PRAYERS

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

PRESENTING PETITIONS

 

APM Incorporated Remuneration and

Pharmacare and Home Care Reinstatement

 

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of George Stevenson, K. Barnwell, J. Lowies and others requesting the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to personally step in and order the repayment of the $4 million paid to Connie Curran and her firm APM Incorporated and consider cancelling the recent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.

 

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of D. Fundytus, C. Fundytus, Patricia Lucas and others requesting the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier to personally step in and order the repayment of the $4 million paid to Connie Curran and her firm APM Incorporated and consider cancelling the recent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.

 

TABLING OF REPORTS

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, pursuant to The Regulations Act, a copy of each regulation registered with the Registrar of Regulations since the regulations were tabled in this House in December of 1992.

 

          Also, I am pleased to table the Annual Report 1992‑93 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; the Annual Report 1992‑93 of the Seizure and Impoundment Registry; and the 1992 Annual Report of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

 

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 Linwood School, forty Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Brent Hume.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).

 

          Also this afternoon, from the Churchill High School, we have twenty‑five Grade 9 students under the direction of Mrs. Terri Gartner.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick).

 

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

 

* (1335)

 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

 

Community‑Based Health Care

Government Commitment

 

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

 

          Last year, we saw under the government's policies reduction in services to patients in hospitals and reductions in services in the home care field in Manitoba.  Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Chamber when answering questions to the concerns we had on home care, the Minister of Health indicated that his government was in favour of enhancing services to people in the communities and the preventative services in the communities.

 

          We have learned that there has in fact been a reduction in support to community clinics and I would like to ask the Premier:  What is the actual reduction?  Why is the reduction taking place in our community health clinics, and what is the impact on patient care?

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, the activities of the government in the area of health care have been indeed to enhance services to our fellow Manitobans throughout Manitoba in the community.  The honourable member need only look at the acceleration in the rate of the organization of support services to seniors organizations throughout Manitoba to see that people are being provided services at home so they can have a quality of life that goes beyond that which you can receive when the only option you have available is acute care.

 

          The honourable member will also note the construction or the ongoing construction or already constructed over 500 units of personal care in the province of Manitoba.  The honourable member will no doubt refer in his comments to something other than an enhancement when what you see is an enhancement of services in the community happening in Manitoba.  None of the questions so far have dealt with the shift of mental health services from institutional services to services in the community, as well as other services.

 

Mr. Doer:  The minister did not answer the question.  He did not answer our questions on Monday.  He did not answer the questions on Friday on hospital care.

 

          I asked the minister:  Why did they reduce the support for community‑based health clinics, and what is the impact on patient care?  I would like to ask the minister a specific question:  What will be the impact on counsellors working in community clinics that are providing preventative health services, AIDS education, and what will be the impact on people, for example, working with HIV patients and AIDS patients in our community‑based clinics?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Mr. Speaker, as we deal with the budget which is going to be coming down soon, we will have lots of opportunity to discuss the various services provided in the community or by the government in the community as well as services provided in institutions by the government.  The honourable member will see that, unlike what was about to happen, had there not been a change in the way we deliver health services, the honourable member, if we stayed with what he is suggesting and his colleagues, that is to go back to the way we once had it and ask the people what to do next, we would be behind some five years.

 

          What we have done is we have consulted over 13,000 Manitobans with respect to what they want in health care.  Those are the people who deliver health care services and those are the people who receive them.  Those are the people we have already consulted so there is no point going out promising to consult, because that has been done and is still being done.  So the honourable member will have ample opportunity to raise questions about the individual programs of government and in the community at the appropriate time.

 

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, we used to get denials of cutbacks from the former minister, but at least he knew what was going on in his department.  This minister has not answered one question in three days.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) this question:  Why did the former minister maintain zero funding to the community clinics and why has this minister already notified the community health clinics in Manitoba that they are going to get a reduction in support from the provincial government, and what will be the impact to patients that go from community clinics and doctors on salary to walk‑in clinics and into the hospitals?  What will be the impact of your policies?

 

Mr. McCrae:  The honourable member should remember that the Manitoba Nurses' Union voluntarily took a 2 percent rollback in wages, voluntarily we have entered into with the medical profession in this province a five‑year agreement which takes large amounts of money out of the amounts of money accruing to medical practitioners in the province.

 

* (1340)

 

Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Works Agreement

Northern Manitoba

 

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  Mr. Speaker, northerners were extremely concerned when the first announcements were made last week in terms of infrastructure.  Northern communities received only three out of 131 projects for a total of 0.4 percent of the initial allocation.

 

          They are even more concerned now following comments made by the First Minister that, quite frankly, are nothing more than a throwback from the 1950s.

 

          I would like to ask the First Minister:  When will he recognize the fact that he as First Minister has an obligation to fairness to all areas of the province?  When will the First Minister take action to ensure that northerners are not ignored in the remaining intakes for the infrastructure program?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, the member for‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  The whole province.

 

Mr. Filmon:  If the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) would like to answer the question, he can answer it.  Do you have an answer, Oscar?

 

          Mr. Speaker, the member began to answer his own question in his preamble when he talked about initial allocation.  This is a program that does involve some $205 million of spending by the three levels of government in Manitoba; the announcements covered some $131 million of spending.

 

          In addition to that, of course, we, as a province, chose to have involved representatives of communities throughout Manitoba, and so we chose to have a tripartite exercise, a true partnership that involved representation from the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities and the Union of Manitoba Municipalities.  On that committee representation was in fact the councillor for Thompson who represented the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities.

 

          So the input received was one of through all levels of government and a true partnership exercise.

 

          If the member opposite is suggesting that we somehow should overrule the good legitimate advice and politically interfere with the process, then he is wrong.  He is absolutely wrong, Mr. Speaker.

 

          That is not the way to do it.  This is a better process and a process that we believe will result in allocations that will satisfy needs throughout this province.  As I said earlier, all the allocations have not yet been made, and I just invite him to participate in a positive way instead of talking about political interference with a trilevel process.

 

Mr. Ashton:  Mr. Speaker, the Premier cannot have it both ways.  He says one thing blaming northern M.P.s, MLAs and municipalities for not lobbying, and today he turns around and says a totally different thing.

 

          I would like to table some letters, Mr. Speaker.  I have a letter to the Minister of Finance‑‑

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Filmon:  On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything different today than I said in the article in the paper.  I would continue to be critical of the fact that nobody has heard from the Liberal member, federal member on this issue‑‑[interjection] And MLAs, Mr. Speaker.  They did not get involved in terms of letting their municipal representatives know about the urgent priority‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable First Minister does not have a point of order.  It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):  Mr. Speaker, if the First Minister would simply check with his ministers, he would know that what he just said was completely false‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member for sure does not have a point of order.  Again, it is a dispute over the facts.

 

                                                                                         * * *

 

Mr. Ashton:  Mr. Speaker, I would like to table some letters.  I have a letter to the Minister of Finance, a copy which also was sent to the federal minister Lloyd Axworthy supporting the Burntwood trailer park.  It was written this year.

 

          I also have a letter that was sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Elijah Harper, M.P. for Churchill and Lloyd Axworthy, supporting the inclusion of Northern Affairs communities for infrastructure.  I even have a response, an acknowledgement of the letter I sent to the Minister of Northern Affairs that was sent to me on March 25.

 

          My question is:  When will the Premier stop playing this kind of politics and ensure that northern communities are not subjected to 1950s pork barrel politics and the real infrastructure needs in those communities are met under the infrastructure program?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, the only people who are playing politics with this issue are sitting in the NDP benches in this Legislature.

 

          The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that I have been advised today that there were only two applications from NACC communities for this particular infrastructure program.  There have been hundreds of applications from communities throughout Manitoba. [interjection] You have your facts wrong.

 

Mr. Ashton:  Mr. Speaker, when will the First Minister talk to his own minister who told our members that the existing capital applications in Northern Affairs communities would be included for consideration for infrastructure?

 

Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Works Agreement

Northern Manitoba

 

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  I will ask the minister one final question since the minister is concerned about contact.

 

          Perhaps in terms of doing one's jobs, will the minister ensure that the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), who was phoned by the mayor of the city of Thompson, the third largest city in Manitoba, last Wednesday, finally gets a response to his phone call?  Is that the way this government treats northerners, Mr. Speaker‑‑

 

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

 

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Northern Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, the member for Thompson should put away the self‑righteous indignation because we have gone through a first round.  There were two applications specifically for the program from NACC communities.  The municipalities in northern Manitoba had a representative, the president of the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities on that committee.  The member should talk to that individual as we did today.

 

          I would also point out to these very self‑righteous members that it was this government that put electricity into the last community in Manitoba in Herb Lake Landing this year.  I have to ask members opposite who are so, so concerned why we had a community in Manitoba that had no electricity until this year.  Where was their concern through all the years they were on the government side of the House?

 

* (1345)

 

Shoal Lake Watershed Committee

Co‑management Agreement

 

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

 

          This morning I was visited by two senior officials from the Ontario government, who had just come from a meeting with senior officials with the minister's department, and they briefed me on a Shoal Lake Watershed Committee agreement that is, they think, perhaps going to be ratified by the five First Nations and the Province of Ontario even in the next six weeks.

 

          That agreement sets up a committee between the five bands and the Province of Ontario to control and to develop a co‑management scheme for the entire watershed area.  Fifty percent of the watershed is in the province of Manitoba.  In addition, I was advised that in fact the Province of Manitoba had been briefed all through this process.

 

          My question to the minister:  Why is Manitoba not represented on this all‑inclusive committee which is being set up to co‑manage the entire Shoal Lake watershed?  Has the minister dropped the ball again?  Why are we not on this committee?

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member was at the same briefing that our officials were at or not, or if he was getting a different phone call than what I have been receiving, because Ontario explicitly excluded Manitoba from these discussions until they had developed a better understanding with their First Nations people.  I must admit that it was to some disappointment and frustration on my part that we were not involved from the beginning.

 

          I can tell you unequivocally that it was Ontario's desire and their action that we not be included at the early stages of these discussions because they wanted to establish a relationship with their First Nations people.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, that completely contradicts the information which has come from the Province of Ontario.

 

          Mr. Speaker, let me table a draft version of that agreement supplied to me by the Province of Ontario which states in part that this agreement will commit the parties to negotiating co‑management and watershed management arrangements for the Ontario portion of the watershed or preferably for the entire watershed with the involvement of Manitoba.

 

          Why did the Province of Manitoba not insist on doing what the parties themselves wanted to do, which was to make this an all‑inclusive agreement with the Province of Manitoba?

 

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, either the Leader of the Second Opposition totally misunderstands the statements that were coming from Ontario, or Ontario was deliberately misleading me.  It cannot be both ways.

 

          The Ontario government wanted to establish a relationship with their First Nations people.  They received a couple of phone calls from the minister.  We have been in touch with them directly.  But the insistence of Ontario was that they would continue with their discussions independently with their people.

 

* (1350)

 

          Interestingly enough, I believe the genesis of this approach goes back to a meeting that I asked for, and met with the leaders in Ontario, then Minister of Environment Ruth Grier, to talk about the fact that we needed a basin‑wide management plan which was first initiated by our two Premiers meeting and saying that was what they wanted to do, establish a basin‑wide plan based on the principles of sustainable development.

 

          Mr. Speaker, they chose to start by reaching an understanding with their own First Nations people, and Manitoba will become involved as quickly as they will allow us.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, the agreement itself says that it was preferable for both parties to have included the Province of Manitoba.

 

          Will the minister table a letter, anything, proving that in fact he did put it to the Ontario minister that we wanted to be a part of that?  Can he table something in this House indicating, proving that in fact he did want and insist to be a part of this committee which is going to govern the entire watershed, 50 percent of which is in this province?  Of course, the entire city of Winnipeg takes its drinking water from that very watershed.

 

Mr. Cummings:  A draft management plan was developed by the Manitoba Department of Environment in conjunction with the Ontario environmental authority, and it was put on the back burner by the Ontario government. [interjection]

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable Leader of the second opposition party, you have already had your opportunity.

 

Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Works Agreement

Northern Manitoba

 

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):  Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

 

          We are witnessing once again how this Premier is once again ignoring parts of the province in order to practice his politics.  This is totally unacceptable and is certainly not in the best interests of this province.

 

          All northern MLAs did their job, contrary to what the Premier is saying, working with local organizations, with community councils, town councils to lay out priorities for the infrastructure program.  Is the Premier not aware of the rate of unemployment that exists up north?

 

          My question is:  Why is this Premier not doing his job and lobbying the federal government to put areas with the most need highest on the priority list, and why is this Premier ignoring the North, anyway?

 

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Northern Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, this government has not ignored the North.  As I told members opposite earlier, there are many projects.  We have done a lot of work in the North.

 

          If you look at the initiatives that this government has taken, my predecessor, the Deputy Premier, the work in settling outstanding issues on Northern Flood, on treaty land entitlement, we have moved farther on many of these than any government before in the history of the province of Manitoba.

 

Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Works Agreement

Northern Manitoba

 

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):  Mr. Speaker, I remember the Minister of Northern Affairs after the last provincial election telling this Chamber about how the North did not know how to vote.  I am reminded of that same thing this afternoon.

 

          Mr. Speaker, my second question is again directed to the First Minister.

 

          Why was it a priority of this Premier to spend $40 million on paving one road in Winnipeg and less than $1 million in northern Manitoba, when many communities in the North have high unemployment, no sewer and water, and they have roads and highways that are in dire need of repair?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, the member has a very short memory or else really is deliberately attempting to not put forward the accurate picture.

 

          This government has not only settled with a number of the communities on the Northern Flood Agreement‑‑and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars‑‑this government is the first government to settle a treaty land entitlement with the Island Lake group of communities, a considerable investment in the North.  This government has put into construction for $117 million, the North Central Transmission Line to service seven communities in the North.  This government has put $55 million into the new zinc pressure leach facility at Flin Flon to ensure the viability of that community.

 

          Mr. Speaker, this government has done more in six years than we had done in 16 years under New Democratic administration in the North.  That group was all talk and no action, and that is exactly what they represent even to this day as they stand up piously and try and take credit for things that they never did in the North.

 

Mr. Lathlin:  Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier one more question?

 

Mr. Speaker:  You sure could.

 

Mr. Lathlin:  That question is:  For the remainder of the program, will the First Minister tell the House what priority he is prepared to give or place on those projects that will be submitted from northern communities?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, the member has already been told that there were only two NACC community projects that were put in.  In addition to that, the member has been told that there is a process that involves representation from MAUM, including the president of MAUM who is a councillor from Thompson.  That is a person from the North who is part of the decision‑making process.  That process will prevail.

 

* (1355)

 

Grain Transportation Proposal

Method of Payment

 

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

 

          Since the topic of changing the method of payment to pay the producer was introduced, farmers have many concerns.  They raised these concerns with the government about what the cost would be to them.  The previous Minister of Agriculture, even though studies said that this would be an expense to Manitobans, supported the change to the method of payment.

 

          I want to ask this new Minister of Agriculture what his position is.  Does he support pay the producer, even though the interim report indicates that Manitoba stands to lose millions of dollars in this method?

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  Madam Speaker, the issue that‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I am just having trouble in this politically correct world.  You know, sometimes your chair is occupied by somebody else.

 

          Mr. Speaker, the issue that the honourable member for Swan River raises is one that occupied some time at the recently convened Ministers of Agriculture meeting in Regina two weeks ago on Monday.

 

          There is a divergence of opinion with respect to how that payment should be made.  If she is asking for a position that I favour, I in fact favour that the payments should be made direct to the producer acknowledging that there are problems particularly within Manitoba on the overall pooling question.

 

          But, Mr. Speaker, my biggest concern is that while we in the grain industry continue debating this point, that long established support for the movement of grain known as the Crow benefit is in fact disappearing.  It was started by the previous administration, which I acknowledge, and in the last budget brought down by the Honourable Paul Martin.  He took another $36 million out of that agriculture support program.  So it is with some urgency that I urge my colleagues as I did on Monday that we should resolve the issue and make sure that some of the benefit that we enjoyed as grain producers be in fact in the hands of the grain producers that grow the grain.

 

Ms. Wowchuk:  It is unfortunate that the federal Liberals chose to continue to dismantle the Crow benefit even though they promised not to.  But I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), does he support changing to pay the producer even though it is going to cost Manitoba millions of dollars, it is going to hurt the Manitoba economy?

 

          I ask him, does he support the change to pay the producer or is he proposing that it stay as it is and keep that money where it is‑‑

 

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

 

* (1400)

 

Mr. Enns:  I appreciate that the word "change" drives fear into the hearts of honourable members opposite, particularly on the New Democratic Party benches.  Let me assure her of something:  change there will be.

 

          This program has been identified with some legitimacy as being unfair in terms of our growing major trading partner, namely the American market, and Mr. Goodale has acknowledged that he will make changes to this program.  I am only urging him to make them in the interest of all producers, and I cannot see quite frankly any other way as we sort out some of the other problems that the bulk of those monies be put in the hands of the producers who will be faced with higher transportation costs in getting their feed grains, principally barley, to market.

 

Compensation Package

 

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Manitoba proposal put forward by the advisory committee of this government speaks of compensation to the producers in eastern provinces.  How is this minister proposing to compensate farmers for increased costs, and how is he proposing to compensate rural communities who will lose jobs and lose branch lines?  What is the proposal of‑‑

 

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

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, one should always look at every challenge to change as an opportunity, and there are in fact the opportunity of thousands of jobs to be created in the expansion of the livestock industry if we concentrate.  Instead of putting our energies to trying to export something that is worth three and a half or four cents a pound, let us concentrate our efforts in exporting something that is worth a dollar or $2 a pound in the area of pork or in beef.

 

Transcona‑Springfield School Division

Layoffs‑‑Teaching Positions

 

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Speaker, in the last session of the Legislature the previous Minister of Education stated that her department would review the funding shortage for the Transcona‑Springfield School Division since the division essentially had no reserve.  Now we have learned that the division is going to cut some 30 jobs, including teaching positions.  It will be announced later today.

 

          My question is for the Minister of Education.

 

          Can the Minister of Education explain what action he has taken to help the Transcona‑Springfield School Division, considering the promises that the previous minister made, and what options, either verbal or written, has this minister given to division No. 12?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of promises that a previous minister has made.

 

          Let me say, with respect to the announced funding that came forward in late January, the impact of 2.6 percent reduction was shared by way of equalization formula and indeed funding formula across all the divisions and districts across this province.  This government has chosen not to rush in with ad hoc measures like the former government did to drive basically every division off the formula, and instead has tried to practice the purity around the funding formula.

 

          Naturally, Mr. Speaker, by coincidence some of the divisions, who of course had done very well under the formula over the first two years, find themselves maybe below the average now with some negative impact.  That is the very nature of the law of averages.

 

          Beyond that, we are trying to look at which divisions are going to be impacted most severely, and we are trying to find a way, if possible, to deal with one or two of those divisions.

 

Mr. Reid:  Mr. Speaker, this was the same promise that was made last year, and still to this point nothing has happened.

 

          Can the Minister of Education explain how the loss of these teaching positions is going to improve or help the education of the children of the Transcona‑Springfield communities?

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Speaker, I do not need to stand here to answer that question, because if the member is saying that the provincial government should take over the responsibility then of all school divisions to make these types of decisions and therefore be answerable to that type of question, I would say that would not be in keeping with what the people of Manitoba want.

 

          We provide funding to the tune of $750 million across the province of Manitoba.  It is allocated under a funding formula, relatively fairly, across all the divisions.  Some divisions over the course of the last three or four years have chosen not to listen to the words of my predecessors who indicated what was coming and now find themselves in some difficulty.

 

          We are trying though, with respect to one or two of them, to find some area of relief.

 

Mr. Reid:  Mr. Speaker, since there are going to be less teachers in classrooms, can this Minister of Education explain to the people of Transcona how it is fair to give a 7 percent increase to the private elite schools of this province while at the same time cutting back nearly 5 percent in funding to the public education system in our province?  How is that fair to my community and the other communities of the province?  How is this going‑‑

 

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

 

Mr. Manness:  Mr. Speaker, the last person in the world that should stand and ask a question about fairness in policy is somebody from the NDP party.

 

          With respect to increased funding to the independent schools, as I indicated on a number of occasions, enrollments are increasing within the independent school side.  Indeed, as we fund only two‑thirds of the per‑pupil cost in the independent school system as compared to the public school system, and because there is a higher call for places in the independent school system, we naturally as a government have to provide an increase in funding to take into account that increased demand.

 

Manitoba Lotteries Corporation

Lease Agreement

 

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) raised a question in the House with regard to a lease that the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation in fact had entered into.  I indicated yesterday that I would look into this matter.  I can tell him that the lease is a commercial document and will not be tabled in the House.  I can however provide some information respecting that lease.

 

          With respect to that document, the space was first leased in 1985 by the Western Canada Lottery Corporation.  Subsequent to that, additional space was taken on in 1987 in two different sizes, one by the Western Canada Lottery Corporation, one by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.  In 1991, by agreement between the partners of the Western Canada Lottery Corporation, all activities of Western Canada Lottery Corporation housed in that space were then taken over by Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, and the space is leased until July of 2001.

 

Youth Crime

Prevention Programs

 

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time in this Assembly to ask a question of the Minister of Education.

 

          I recently asked young Manitobans for their input into how we can cut down on youth crime.  Over the weekend I held a forum where about 60 young people, including several young offenders, attended.  The message I received was that this government is putting too much emphasis on punishment and not doing enough to attack the root causes of youth crime.  Education cuts were specifically singled out as one of the causes.  They told me that the large class sizes and a decrease in extracurricular activities lead to a sense of isolation.  That is one reason why they join gangs.

 

          Given the direct link between youth crime and education, will the Minister of Education reconsider his 2.6 percent cut to public school funding?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the member for The Maples and his representation on educational issues over the course of the session.

 

          I am not aware of all of the contributions that were made by those in attendance at the forum held by the member opposite, but certainly I can think of an article that was in the Free Press, I believe it was yesterday or at least on the weekend, and there were some young people who were calling for much greater discipline in order and structure within the classroom.  I do not know if they were the same people who were in attendance at the event hosted by the member or not, but let me say if funding is the issue, I do not know of a community, I do not know of a nation on the face of the earth that spends more on education than Canada.  Within that context, I do not know of a province, other than maybe two, that spend more on a per capita basis than the province of Manitoba.  That has been the case for I dare say the best part of 20 years.  So if we have a violence problem, it is not because of a lack of funding in the public school.  The member should understand that and, indeed, members opposite should understand that.

 

          I say, Mr. Speaker, as the community calls forward with respect to education reform, all the representation made to me with respect to violence in the classroom is not in any way associated with the issue of funding.

 

Mr. Kowalski:  Well, I think the students who are in the classroom know better than anyone else what is happening in the classroom.

 

* (1410)

 

Prevention Programs

 

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, cutbacks in the departments of Health, Family Services and Education have added an enormous burden to our justice system.  The elimination of Student Social Allowance is only one example of a cutback which has an impact on youth crime.

 

          My question is for the Minister of Justice.  Will this government provide funding to these departments to address the root causes of youth crime?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, in six budgets this government has put an extra $500 million, one‑half billion dollars into Health.  We put an additional several hundred million dollars into Family Services.  Into Education, we put an additional $250 million in the course of six budgets.  Nobody, nobody can attack this government for not putting enough funding within all the areas mentioned by the member for The Maples.  This is not a funding issue that we are talking about.

 

Youth Crime

Prevention Programs‑‑Co‑ordination

 

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples):  We could talk about dollar amounts or percentages which is more real.  Mr. Speaker, addressing the real causes of youth crime will only come about co‑ordinating delivery of services to some people.  Some of the young people I spoke with on the weekend felt that they were lost in a maze of government departments, each one having a different responsibility.

 

          My question is for the First Minister:  Has the First Minister asked his Ministers of Health, Education, Justice and Family Services to co‑ordinate the delivery of services to our young people so that the needs of Manitoba's young people can be met more efficiently and at a lesser cost to Manitoba taxpayers?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker‑‑[interjection]

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable First Minister has the floor.

 

Mr. Filmon:  The question of co‑ordination is one that is an ongoing issue that we are looking at to ensure that we have better co‑ordination, and Human Services Committee of Cabinet will address that issue as we proceed through the course of this coming year.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I just want the member for The Maples to understand that in all areas of the social safety net there has been not only increases in total dollars being spent, but an increase in the percentage of budget that is allocated to that area.  For instance, in the area of Family Services it has gone from 10 percent to over 12 percent of our entire provincial budget.  In Education, it has gone from 17.2 percent to 18.7 percent of the entire provincial budget.  In Health, it has gone from 31.6 to 33.9 percent of the entire provincial budget.  This government has not only allocated more total dollars, but made it a greater priority of all of our provincial spending in every one of those areas.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I would say that the member opposite ought to come to this House wanting to ensure that we do more with the dollars that we are spending and giving creative ways of doing that.  As a result of simply going into his community meetings and talking about cutbacks, which is not factual, which is not accurate, then he should correct them. [interjection] Oh, yes.  No, that is not helpful to go and preach cutbacks when none exist.

 

Education System

Consultations‑‑Youth

 

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Mr. Speaker, it is the students of Manitoba and specifically the Transcona‑Springfield School Division that are experiencing the direct result of the cutbacks and the dismantling of education from this government, and it is their learning and their skills that are being jeopardized.

 

          I ask the Minister of Education, why is he ignoring youth?  Why is he not including young people as partners in education, along with their parents, in his consultation process that he has initiated for this session?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, I am not excluding students.  I think that was the essence of the question.  I have met with a number of young people, both formally and informally, but ultimately those of us who were elected in positions to make policy and government decisions, whether indeed provincially elected or elected locally as trustees to boards, are forced under the restraints and constraints that are in place to make certain decisions.

 

          I find it unfortunate that obviously the local school division senses that it has no alternative but to arm members opposite to try and make this a political spectacle by trying to force out more funding through questioning in this House.

 

          I have tried to find a solution to a very real problem with respect to School Division No. 12, and I will continue to try and find one, but it has to be in keeping with the same formula that applies to all the 195,000 students in the public school system, because be darned if this government is going to end up in a situation like the government opposite.

 

          Mr. Speaker, when we came to government, there was a funding formula in place and there were two school divisions left on it‑‑two.  Everybody else had been grandfathered.  Everybody else had more money thrown at them when they had a little problem.  If you have got a little problem, we will shovel a little bit more money at you.  That is not a fairness and a purity that this government embraces.  Maybe the members opposite want that type of government, but this government does not.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Time for Oral Questions has expired.

 

* * *

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Second Opposition (Mr. Edwards) challenged me to table my phone calls.  I would like to table a letter as a result of a phone call last summer.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Does the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) have leave to table said document in response to a question?  Do the members want it?  They want it.  Yes, you can just table the document.

 

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

 

New Year Celebration, Laotian,       Cambodian, Sri Lankan and Tamil Communities

 

Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa):  Do I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?

 

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

 

Mr. Reimer:  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to draw the attention of the members of this House to the forthcoming celebration of the New Year in the Laotian, the Cambodian, the Sri Lankan and the Tamil communities.

 

          It is a time of great pride for these Manitobans as they mark the continuation of their ancient and honourable cultures.

 

          Manitobans deeply respect the rights of all cultures to maintain and observe their customs and their traditions.  This respect has strengthened our communities, raised our self‑esteem and created an unshakeable foundation for our diverse multicultural society.

 

          While each ethnocultural community may have its own unique or customary method of inaugurating a new year, we do find many similarities.  Perhaps the most common theme between these observances is the wish for peace, health and harmony in our coming months.

 

          As we look at our current world events, these aspirations take on a very poignant meaning for Manitobans of all origins.  Manitobans of Laotian, Cambodian, Sri Lankan and Tamil heritage can understand the sorrow and the pain associated with living in nations which do not cherish the concepts of freedom and multiculturalism as Canadians do.  This understanding adds an extra strength and spirit of joy to our celebrations in this community.

 

          As the Laotian, Cambodian, Sri Lankan and Tamil communities begin their festivities, I ask the members of this House to join with me in wishing them a very prosperous and a very happy new year.

 

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

 

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I would like to share as well our congratulations to the Laotian, Cambodian, Sri Lankan and Tamil residents in the province of Manitoba as they celebrate their new years.

 

          As the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) stated, these individuals are indeed fortunate, I am sure they would all agree, to be in a country where they are free to celebrate their holidays without fear of repercussion or repression.

 

          I again congratulate them and wish them well in their new years and hope that there continues to be, in the province of Manitoba and the nation of Canada, the understanding and acceptance of all ethnic groups, all cultures and all people from throughout the world so we can continue to be a haven for the people who come to us for health and prosperity.  Thank you.

 

75th Anniversary, Opening of

Shoal Lake Aqueduct

 

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

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  I want to make a nonpolitical statement with respect to this being the 75th anniversary of the opening of the aqueduct to Shoal Lake, and I say this from a perspective of an engineer.

 

          As an engineer, I remember learning in my classes about this project as being one that was touted in engineering journals throughout our country and North America for the kind of visionary understanding it had at the time of its establishment.

 

          Here was a city, Winnipeg, which had plenty of water within close proximity to it.  The decision‑makers of the day chose to go a hundred miles away and build an aqueduct to take a source of water a distance of a hundred miles to the new and developing city of Winnipeg, which at the time was about 175,000 to 180,000 people.

 

* (1420)

 

          They found a source of water that was so ideal for the application of municipal water that it did not need any treatment in any respect.  In fact, up until many years later, it did not even require anything such as chlorination or, eventually, fluoridation which it today receives.  It is not softened in any way.  It falls within the range of ideal softness of water supply that you want in a municipal system.  It did not require any major chemical treatment or analysis.  All it required was just a course screening, and the water flew by gravity so it did not require any energy in order to transmit that water 100 miles to the city, the then burgeoning growing city of Winnipeg which was, of course, the Chicago of the North.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I think it is well that we have marked this occasion by recognizing the visionary leadership that people in public life brought to the formation of our city in making decisions such as this.  I am happy to stand up on a nonpolitical basis and make mention of that today.

 

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

 

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join the Premier on this auspicious occasion and mark the 75th anniversary of the construction of the aqueduct.  I want to acknowledge the importance of that decision some 75 years ago.  It was a good and a thoughtful and a farsighted decision on behalf of the citizens of this city and, obviously, it has been good not only for individuals, but for our community collectively.

 

          I think we recognize that the engineering feat behind this is followed and modelled on something that the Romans did 2,000 years ago.  So I do not think that the engineering‑‑and I know that the Premier referenced his own profession‑‑it is not the engineering that I think we should be commending so much as the willingness of a community to do something of that scale that was that farsighted, that was going to serve us for so many years.

 

          It strikes me as something that is more and more difficult for governments to do, Mr. Speaker, to do projects of that scale that have that long‑reaching a significance, and we should remind ourselves continually that there is a method to that madness, that we should never shy away from doing the project that needs to be done regardless of the circumstances, how difficult it may seem, how expensive, if we know in the long run it is going to serve us.

 

          Mr. Speaker, we on this side join with other members of the House.  We want to congratulate those visionaries, those people who were prepared, perhaps put their political careers on the line to make a decision that was in the interests of the long‑term benefit.  We need to do that more and more with more limited resources at our disposal.  Hopefully, we will have the foresight that our forefathers did.

 

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

 

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (River Heights):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the First Minister and the member for Flin Flon in paying tribute to those who 75 years ago had the foresight to build a project which in those days must have been considered to be somewhat of a fool's paradise.

 

          It is interesting as we look through historical activities in provinces and in our nation, and look back on what turns out to be some very positive things for our society and know that those positive decisions were, at that time, quite controversial in nature.  When we first decided, for example, to build Canadian parks or to in fact describe land that should be Canadian park lands in a nation which was so vast and so underdeveloped, those who tried to do that kind of development were looked at with, quite frankly, strange concepts.  The questions that were asked of the day were, why in a nation like Canada would you want to designate vast land tracks to be used for park land?  What foolishness!  The whole nation is a vast land track which has been barely developed, so there seems little or no point in designating some of it park land.

 

          Yet, today we know that had we not designated that land for parks the parks would not exist.  Now with great difficulty we are trying to expand our park land.  We are trying to expand that park land because we are under pressure from development which has already taken place, activities which have already taken place.

 

          The same is true for those who said 75 years ago we should bring our water to the city of Winnipeg into this community from so very far away.  The vision that it must have taken to recognize that this community 75 years ago was to become a community of 600,000 people is really quite mind boggling.

 

          What is very interesting of course is to go back and read studies of the city of Winnipeg and realize that real estate prices at the turn of the century in Winnipeg were in some parts of the city more valuable than they are today, because that was where the impetus had come for Winnipeg becoming the giant of cities.  We often forget that in terms of Canada, until World War II, this was Canada's fourth largest city.  It is no longer.  For a short period of time it was in fact Canada's third largest city.

 

          We have a situation in which those who had such vision 75 years ago to realize that this would be a great and exciting city, and the city would require the construction of this aqueduct, and this province would benefit from such a clean source of water is something that we should not forget.

 

          We should indeed challenge everyone in this room and all those who hold political office at all levels of this nation, and at the municipal level as well, to be visionary, to say every now and then take a leap of faith, justify to yourself, to your great‑grandchildren or your great‑great‑grandchildren that the idea you are fermenting and you are debating and you are discussing is not for now.  It is for the future.  That is what these individuals should receive tribute for.

 

          Thank you for being there 75 years ago so that we today benefit from what you have accomplished.

 

Introduction of Guests

 

Mr. Speaker:  Just prior to Orders of the Day, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the gallery to my left where we are graced with the presence this afternoon of Earl Backman who is the Clerk for the City of Brandon.

 

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