Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon eighteen Grade 5 students from Ralph Maybank School under the direction of Ms. Barbara Young. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey).

Also, forty-four Grade 9 students from Isaac Newton School under the direction of Ms. Jane Lower. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).

We also have thirty-eight Grade 9 students from Garden City Collegiate under the direction of Mr. Gordon Cameron. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in the early '90s when the deficit was at a record high level, the government raised taxes through the clawback of some property tax credits, $75 for seniors and another $75 for other homeowners. We have felt that that and the education funding decreases have resulted in very high property taxes in Manitoba. It is an issue we believe has one of the largest concerns for people about tax pressure.

I would like to ask the government: in light of this concern, in their poll that was released over the weekend looking at tax reduction priorities, why did this government not look at property taxes and reduction of property taxes in Manitoba as one of the options for tax relief in this budget?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for his question and note his newfound interest in tax reduction. We did consult with over 1,200 Manitobans during the budget consultation process, and certainly we looked at a variety of advice that was given to us. By far, in those consultations, the most common form of tax reduction that Manitobans were looking for was for the income tax, and we followed that direction and lowered the taxes in this province by three percentage points, from 50 percent to 47 percent, giving us the third lowest income tax rate in Canada.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this government polled the people of Manitoba with public money to look at the elimination of payroll taxes for Manitoba large businesses. Of course I do not know why they would poll when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) promised to eliminate all payroll tax in four years in 1988. [interjection] It is okay, it was only a Tory promise. We did not believe it anyway. Do not worry about it.

Why would this government poll Manitobans with their own money to look at the elimination of payroll taxes for larger Manitoba businesses and not look at the reduction of property taxes for Manitoba homeowners and Manitoba seniors, that they increase taxes by changing the property tax credits?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, besides raising numerous, numerous taxes during the 1980s, the Leader of the Opposition was at the Treasury Board table and the cabinet table when other taxes were created, amongst them the payroll tax. This was a tax on jobs. This was the most difficult tax that Manitobans had to face. We have committed to eliminating it. In fact, we have eliminated the payroll tax on 90 percent of businesses in Manitoba at this time. We are going into a process, with the Lower Tax Commission, to look at other ways and other taxes that can be eliminated and lowered.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: Well, they are still committed to eliminating the tax, I suppose, like their '88 promise, in four years. They just did not tell us which four years–the year 2010? But you will not have a chance, because there will be a little bit of a change in the next period of time.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Doer: I did not say what change.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I know they are sensitive about their four-year commitment in 1988, and we will let them live with it.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): If the government is saying it is going to have this matter before the so-called tax commission, why is this government refusing to put the matter of property taxes before the people in a public consultation process? They have raised property taxes directly with the clawback on the property tax credits, both for seniors and for individual homeowners. Indirectly, there has been a shift from some $200 million to $400 million in the education taxes levied by the school boards since this government has been in office. Why would you not allow the people to have this matter before the tax commission? Why not let people speak on property taxes, along with other taxes?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is factually incorrect. The Lower Tax Commission will be announced in the near future, and I think he will be pleased with the fact that we will be looking at all taxes in Manitoba.

I might just question the member's sincerity on lowering taxes. His member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) indicated that the major tax reduction we announced in this budget was just a cup of coffee. I can imagine the member for Brandon East and the member for Concordia sitting around the cabinet table in the mid-'80s when they raised all these taxes. They could simply say: it is just a cup of coffee; we can raise that tax. Just a second cup of coffee, we can raise another tax. I can tell you, when they were finished in the 1980s, Manitobans were all coffeed out.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice: over a week ago I asked the minister to immediately table in this House the terms of reference for Leonard Doust's review of allegations of criminal wrongdoing in the Conservative vote-rigging scandal. I have now asked five times. I ask the minister: could he possibly explain to Manitobans why he is refusing to table the retainer letter and other communications with Mr. Doust? What is the cover-up this time?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the member, this was a very delicate matter. I did not want it to appear that I was in any way–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1345)

Mr. Toews: You know, Madam Speaker, I do not find the situation funny. I do not find what happened in that particular circumstance funny; members opposite may. I can tell you that I am as concerned about that situation as any Manitoban, and I want to ensure that the matter is handled properly. I received a copy of the terms of reference from the deputy minister who provided to me those terms of reference, and I am prepared to provide those to the member opposite.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, for the sixth time, I ask the minister: will he now agree to table immediately the terms of reference, the retainer letter and other communications, because I understand there have been many other communications between his deputy and Mr. Doust, so that Manitobans will know what Mr. Doust was asked to look at and what time frame he was asked to look at it in?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I am certainly prepared to table the appointment of the special counsel terms of reference, and it is here for the members.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister possibly explain why he is failing to table what has been asked of him now seven times, and that is all the communications between his department and Mr. Doust, or is he hiding a request to Mr. Doust that he not provide that report until after an election expected mid to late June?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have tabled the terms of reference that have been provided to me by the Deputy Attorney General. As you are aware, this is not a matter that any elected official or any member of the executive should be involved in. I do not know the extent to which other materials can be released, but if the member would take the trouble to read the terms of reference, the terms of reference in fact deal with issues of public release.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Last year we raised serious questions regarding statements made at the baby Sophia inquiry by supervisors and workers of Child and Family Services that they were handling three times the recommended number of children–child welfare cases. The issue was raised again in the Winnipeg agencies' strategic plan document, but this minister stated that it was up to each agency to address the issue.

I want to ask the minister: given that, after a similar child's death in New Brunswick, the minister there and her department took responsibility and direct action by hiring 11 new child protection workers and reviewing working conditions, will this minister take similar action, and where is this reflected in the budget?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. I do want to indicate that we take the issue of child protection and child welfare very seriously as a government, and that is one of the reasons that we have increased significantly year after year the resources for the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency. I would say that anywhere between $5 million and $7 million per year over the last number of years has been committed to Child and Family Services in Winnipeg because of the issues that they deal with on a day-to-day basis.

The issue of workload is a very serious issue, and we within the department are trying to work with the agency to identify the circumstances and the situations around workload to try to get some accurate description of how many caseworkers have significant caseloads versus those that may not have as great a caseload and try to figure out with them and work with them to try to ensure that the workers are doing the best that they can with the increased resources that we have been providing.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, to the same minister. Can the minister explain why the Child and Family Services reorganization plan specifically states that they are supposed to redeploy 31 workers instead of hiring new workers, and it specifically states they are not to hire new workers? Can she explain why?

* (1350)

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I do want to indicate that Winnipeg Child and Family Services is a mandated agency whose day-to-day operations are not run by the government in the province of Manitoba. I do want to indicate that, if that is a question that my honourable friend has, I think it is a question that she needs to ask the CEO of the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency to get the answer.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask the minister, who is responsible for Child and Family Services, why she is continuing to put children at risk, and when the recommendations from the baby Sophia inquiry will be released and those recommendations will be provided for. Will she make the commitment to provide for those recommendations by removing the freeze on hiring at Child and Family Services?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, my honourable friend is a little off the wall. I did not put any freeze on any hiring at Winnipeg Child and Family Services. If the agency has some directive in place, I will certainly look into it, but I do not make the decisions on the day-to-day operations. All I know is that we have put in excess of $5 million per year of additional money into the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency. They have to run their operations the best they see fit within the resources that they have available. We have increased significantly the money for protection and care of children in our Winnipeg agency.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, in 1996 this government cut $22 million from the post-secondary education institutions in this province, and under Bill 34 it offloaded the municipal taxes onto each institution. This was the equivalent, as we said at the time, of close to a 9 percent cut across the board, and it has been there for each of the last two years.

I would like to ask the minister to tell us whether he is asking Manitobans to believe that the 2 percent increase this year to post-secondary education is equivalent to that cut of $22 million each year.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, overall funding for post-secondary education in this fiscal year is in the neighbourhood of 5 percent. The base budgets are in the neighbourhood of 2 percent, but we are addressing some very critical requirements in post-secondary education, addressing the challenges that fiscal fitness is presenting us with in Manitoba. By fiscal fitness, I refer to the fact that we have come to a point, after some very difficult years in Manitoba, where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer) is able to lay before this Legislature and Manitobans a budget that provides 5 percent for education in Manitoba, provides a 10 percent additional expenditure for health, at the same time reducing taxes in Manitoba. Those reflect the priorities Manitobans told the previous Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) during the pre-budget consultations. I personally took part in one of those consultations, and I know how they work. I know what the people in my community were saying. They were saying: put some money into health and education and do some modest tax reduction. That is exactly what we saw in the budget just last week.

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister, whom I will in fact commend for actually taking responsibility clearly for that $22 million cut each year–and he is the first minister to have done that–confirm that the rapid increase in fees, the reductions in courses, the reductions to the libraries are all issues that Manitoba students and their parents are facing as a result of his government's $22 million cut each year into post-secondary education?

Mr. McCrae: I think that the best measurement of the commitment of a government to any particular pursuit is the percentage of its total budget that it puts toward that particular priority. Compared with the level of funding for education by the Pawley-Doer administration, I am quite happy to stand here and talk about a 19.3 percent total budget commitment on education versus the 17.7 percent left to us by the New Democrats. When they came into office, it was at 21 percent. So I say: who are the hackers and slashers in this place except the Pawley-Doer administration, hacking and slashing education, at the same time putting Manitobans and our grandchildren into debt for the next 30 years. Madam Speaker, go figure.

Ms. Friesen: Well, since the minister wants to talk in percentages, would the minister tell the House whether he has taken the responsible step of speaking to the institutions about the impact of those 9 percent cuts across the board in each of the last few years made specifically by this government? What has been the consequence, and has the minister asked for a report?

* (1355)

Mr. McCrae: In our institutions, we have achieved amongst the lowest, if not the lowest, tuition fees for students at our community colleges, third lowest fees at our universities. That is pretty significant at a time when we are still trying to finance the debt left to us by the previous administration. Honourable members tend to forget about this when they raise their questions in the House.

The honourable member for Wolseley sits right next to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who is telling us, if they had the opportunity, there would be no tax cuts from the New Democrats, contrary to what we hear from the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) who says our tax cuts in our budget are not sufficient. It kind of makes you wonder who is in charge over there.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Whether it is academics, the Provincial Auditor or the Liberal Party, we have called into question the ways in which this government manipulates the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Yesterday in the House the minister indicated, in relation to the fund: "we will be building that up with future revenue that comes into government, and it still remains as our target."

The specific question to the Minister of Finance is: What is this government estimating to be their target for the next budget with respect to the Fiscal Stabilization Fund? What percentage?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): The target remains at 5 percent.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Can the Minister of Finance then indicate whether or not this government is committed to bringing into this Chamber multiyear budgeting, something which former ministers of Finance have advocated for? Is this minister prepared to do that?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): If the member would look into the budget document, there is a medium-term plan which outlines the projections for future years.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Finally, can the Minister of Finance indicate when this government will adhere to the advice that has been given it by the Provincial Auditor, whether it is the Fiscal Stabilization Fund or the pension liability fund?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): We are working very closely with the Provincial Auditor to recognize some of the issues that he has, and I believe we are making good progress in that area.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): My question is for the Acting Minister of Natural Resources. In the tense situation facing residents in the fire zone, clear communications and flexibility are vitally important on behalf of everyone, as government workers, volunteers and firefighters attempt to manage scarce resources. Given these concerns, I want to ask the minister to make a quick public announcement concerning the commitments of the province in covering meals, accommodations and other expenses of people displaced by the fire.

Hon. Harry Enns (Acting Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I can assure the honourable member, from personal experience at having had the privilege of overseeing that department during the disastrous fires of '89, that Manitoba has an enviable record of responding to all the requirements involving many thousands of people, if necessary, to cover those kinds of items that the honourable member mentions. I am sure that when the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) returns from personally viewing the fire fighting situations, which he is doing this morning, he will give a more full and complete report on these items to the honourable member and to the House.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Could the minister tell the House how much equipment and resources have been put into the fires at Manigotagan?

Hon. Harry Enns (Acting Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I think, if the honourable member refers to the statement I just made, some 60 pieces of heavy equipment, along with some 200 firefighters, are fighting that particular fire. But, again, I invite the honourable member to await the minister's return tomorrow from the scene, and I am sure he will have an updated report for us.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I would like to table for the House a letter from Mr. Ivan Saber, who is the mayor of Manigotagan Community Council, in which he expresses some concerns. Would the minister contact the Manigotagan Community Council and deal with their concerns as outlined in this letter to my colleague the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) from that council that we received earlier today?

* (1400)

Hon. Harry Enns (Acting Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I will ensure that these matters come to the immediate attention of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) upon his return.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, now that we have received these so-called terms of reference with regard to Mr. Doust's appointment, it is interesting, first of all, how polite the language is, because I will just quote. It says in there: "there are comments with respect to the candor of certain individuals . . . ," which is rather remarkably different from what Mr. Justice Monnin found: "In all my years on the bench I never encountered as many liars in one proceeding as I did during this inquiry."

I ask the minister again. There are references in here to ongoing communications with Mr. Doust. I ask the minister: why is he keeping those communications private and secret? Why is he not tabling these in this House, as we have asked?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): You know, Madam Speaker, it is apparent that the member opposite does not want a full inquiry into exactly what happened. My concern is any decision that the special counsel makes cannot be influenced by either the deputy or by myself. If any such direction is given to the special counsel, that has to be in writing and to be made public. The extent to which materials are available, that is a matter for the special counsel to make, and I will be bound by what the special counsel says. I am very, very concerned, however, that this member may well, with some of his inflammatory remarks, prejudice any future proceedings.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister who, I guess, thinks that Mr. Justice Monnin–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his question now.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can this minister possibly explain to Manitobans why, after I asked that the terms of reference be tabled in this House on April 26, today terms of reference are tabled in this House dated April 30? Why are terms of reference only provided after Manitobans ask for them? There were no terms of reference. What are the nod, nod, wink, wink communications?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, indeed the member answers his own questions. Perhaps the terms of reference were not completed when he asked for them.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain, given that Mr. Doust was appointed on April 12, given that this report says at the end: "To ensure a fully transparent process, and public accountability, these Terms of Reference and any subsequent amendments"–subsequent amendments–"are, and will continue to be, publicly available.", would he tell us what earlier communications are there that he is hiding to make sure that Mr. Doust does not provide his report until after a provincial election? Is it not true that this government made sure that Mr. Doust did not–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, this is truly a member that has no concern about what the document says. He is attempting to use a document for purely partisan political purposes. What the document in fact says is: "Your report on these issues should be provided to me"–and that is the deputy minister speaking–"by or before June 30, 1999." There is nothing preventing the special counsel from handing down a report tomorrow if he has made provision to do it.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to ask some questions to the Attorney General as regards the position of this government with regard to liquor legislation. We are all concerned in this House about drinking and driving. I had a situation in my own community where a classmate, in the same grade at school with my son, Grade 9, was killed tragically by a drunk driver. That is why I am puzzled and wondering if the Attorney General was consulted with some of the recent changes to liquor legislation in this province that have dramatically increased the numbers of licensed spaces, including provisions, for example, that removed the 300-seat limit in beverage facilities. I would like to ask the minister whether he was involved in that decision?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): This government, I believe, has a very good record in terms of our concern about social responsibility in terms of drinking, and we have brought in the strongest and the toughest laws against drinking and driving. I can tell the member opposite also that the MLCC has taken social responsibility as one of its major activities that it does. However, the member refers to a change which occurred which was not a legislative change. He was quite wrong. In fact, it was a policy change, and it does not surprise me at all that he has raised it because he is always against any kind of investment in Manitoba by anyone. In fact, he even went so far as to do his own news release that says how the NDP is against any kind of expansion. It is the same kind of story that we get from the NDP over and over again against all kinds of development, all kinds of business.

Madam Speaker, in summary, the changes which occurred by policy simply brought Manitoba in line with other provinces–which said, according to the policy changes, that the capacity level will be determined by zoning or building and fire codes and health regulations.

Mr. Ashton: I want to ask the Minister of Justice again–not the minister for expanding dramatically the numbers of spaces, something which I believe does raise questions in this province when it comes to drinking and driving–whether he was involved in the discussions, by the way, with these regulations that were brought in without any legislation and in fact by a minister who has not even called the standing committee to deal with liquor legislation in two years. I want to ask the Minister of Justice what his position is–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mrs. Vodrey: The member continues in every question he asks to show he does not listen, he does not understand. He started with laws; he has now moved to regulation. This is neither, as I have told him. This is a matter of policy, the matter of policy that concerns expansion which is based upon zoning regulations, building codes, health and fire regulations, which he objects to, as always, because he objects to all business, all business investment in this province, in Manitoba.

The expansion and the ability to have capacity increases does not deal with in any way the amount of drinking that an individual does. In fact, all the previous information has shown that people are drinking less. In terms of the field manual, there have been additions to the field manual to all the licensees, which make it clear what their responsibilities are, and the MLCC is working to ensure that social responsibility is absolutely adhered to across the province, but the member opposite objects to any investment in Manitoba.

* (1410)

Mr. Ashton: I am wondering if this minister who has made this decision without any public consultation, a decision, by the way, that was not even supported in this case, in the case of raising the 300-seat limit, by the Manitoba Hotel Association–it seems perhaps to have been conveniently sought by some well-connected Tory supporters in the hotel business. I wonder how she would like to explain to the family of the young person I talked about, Grade 9, who was the victim of drinking and driving, the fact that she thinks there is no connection between a dramatic expansion in the numbers of licensed spaces and the question of drinking and driving. If she does not see the connection, Madam Speaker, she should not be the minister responsible for the Liquor Commission.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I am going to tell the member again. First of all, our province has the toughest drinking and driving regulations. Our government has shown a sensitivity and an action never shown by the other side in terms of how we view drinking and driving. I do not accept any of what the member across the way has said about our government's or, in particular, my concern about drinking and driving and the lives of families.

However, he seemed to allude that there was not support for this. Well, I have two documents; one from the Manitoba Restaurant News, one from the Western Hotelier, both of which indicate support. The Manitoba Liquor Control Commission is continuing to take proactive moves in the province, says the Western Hotelier.

First of all, a big thank you goes out to the MLCC and the board of commissioners for showing a desire to modernize our liquor regulations, according to the Manitoba Restaurant. This brings Manitoba's ability, according to the Fire Commissioner, building zones, health and other regulations– brings us in line with other provinces across the country.

Let me make it clear to the members opposite, this does not include an increase in drinking in individuals. Social responsibility remains a major point of action for the MLCC.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, last week the Urban Shared Services Corporation released a press release which indicated that they had lost $2.5 million, far from saving $7.5 million, which they said they would do initially. It has been shaved down to a minus $2.5, including a $1.3-million overrun on food costs.

Would the minister responsible simply table the financial statement instead of allowing the corporation to put out a press release that really does not tell us very much about the staggering losses that are going on inside this corporation? Will he table the financial statement now?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I remind the member for Crescentwood that the Urban Shared Services Corporation is a corporation created by the nine urban hospitals here in the city of Winnipeg. They put out some information last week about their first year's performance, and they did acknowledge that they had some first-time costs and some transition costs in terms of the establishment of the new food services system and that two facilities are going to be longer in terms of coming on stream, both Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface Hospital. That led to some additional costs in their first year of operation. They indicated very clearly this is a 20-year operation.

Certainly, in terms of the savings in capital costs, the savings in operating costs and continuing to focus on providing quality and nutritional food are the priorities of the Urban Shared Services Corporation.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.