LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, April 29, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Brian Lamirande, Annette Lamirande, Janice Lamirande and others requesting the
Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
J. Kendall, Rose‑Marie Gieni, B.G. Nunn and others urging the government
of
* * *
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Nancy Hilliard, Rob Hilliard, Joanne Swayze and others requesting the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the
Student Social Allowances Program.
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 15 ESL
students. They are from the
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Federal Environmental
Review
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister
(Mr. Filmon).
Mr. Speaker, we have been raising
questions in this Chamber since April of 1991 to the government on the
Assiniboine diversion project. We have
raised questions about the scoping of the proposal, the magnitude of the
proposal and the need for federal‑provincial, basin‑wide reviews.
We felt that the project affects the
federal Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Act and potentially the First
Nations Long Plains, all of which come under federal jurisdiction, based on
precedent from the
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) a question I have asked him in his Estimates and Question Period
before. Will he agree to have a federal‑provincial
environmental assessment to deal with the total basin‑wide concerns of
the proposed
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we have entered into the
provincial process in terms of the Clean Environment Commission review. The member knows full well that the federal
authorities will make a decision based on their criteria whether or not they
believe there needs to be work done that they require for their‑‑any
permitting requirements that they would have.
Mr. Speaker, this is not any
different than a number of other projects that have been undertaken, and it
will be handled by the book.
Legal Opinion
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows, in his
Estimates, I have asked him, on the one hand, how can we have a position about
the downstream impact of Rafferty‑Alameda and not have the same
comparable position for federal‑provincial environmental assessments on
the Assiniboine diversion projects for communities upstream and downstream on
the
I would like to ask the Premier, in
light of the decisions that have been made on the Oldman River‑‑again
a project to divert water from the water system for a few users affecting other
users‑‑in light of the decision that has been made by the federal
courts on Rafferty‑Alameda, will he now tell us whether he has a legal
opinion that will substantiate the proposed way the government is going, and
that is to proceed on a provincial study without a federal‑provincial
assessment?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): It is interesting that this born‑again
environmentalist, who was part of a government that did not conduct a public
environmental assessment review on the biggest project in the history of this
province, the Limestone Generating Station, just absolutely swept it aside with
no public environmental assessment review, is now starting to become an expert
on the requirements for the federal intervention in this.
The federal government has lawyers;
they have a department that is charged with the responsibility of meeting the
requirements of their act. It is the
federal government that must decide whether or not this project meets the
criteria under their act for a federal review.
It is not this government that makes
that decision; it is the federal government.
If he knew anything about environmental assessment, he should at least
understand that.
* (1335)
Mr. Doer: I asked
the Premier a simple question: Does he
have a legal opinion?
We know that the federal
government's inaction on the Rafferty‑Alameda, the Conservative federal
government's inaction on the
I ask the Premier again: Does he have a legal opinion to justify
proceeding on a unilateral basis with the
Mr. Filmon:
The process does not work that we proceed on a unilateral basis. The process works that the project is put out
for review by both levels of government under their acts as to whether or not
it requires a public environmental assessment and review, and we have already
determined that obviously it does under our act and we are giving it that
review.
The federal government has the
responsibility to do the same thing, and the federal government are very fully
aware of the issue of Rafferty‑Alameda, of the
Obviously their lawyers are very
conscious of what their legal responsibilities are, and they have court cases
to ensure that they are documented as to what their requirements are. The federal government will make that
decision as their act calls for, Mr. Speaker.
Information Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A new question to the Premier. Since 1991 there have been biologists talking
about the impact downstream in Selkirk; there have been people in Brandon‑‑in
fact, I believe the City Council of Brandon passed a motion opposing this
proposal.
There are people who have been raising
legitimate concerns on the
The government just made a statement
about unilateral action. Well, the City
of
I would like to ask the Premier
again: Will this material be available
to all interveners and will we have a proper environmental assessment, or are
we going to have unilateral action by the Manitoba Environment department as
cited?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member is misrepresenting the
process. The fact is that information
will be made available in response to the questions. That will be part of the
process.
The concern that the member
continually wants to raise from that side of the House about whether or not
there is some different way or some approach to this review that we have
ignored is totally wrong. We are taking
every precaution. We are cognizant of
any concerns that might be raised around this issue and we will take very great
care to make sure that the commission responds appropriately, and that is the
position I have taken from the start.
Hearing Postponement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we recall the last major sets of
recommendations from the Clean Environment Commission to the government.
I would ask the government again,
that consistent with previous studies on Selkirk by independent biologists, the
city is saying the reduction of these target flows places progressively greater
stress on the pollution‑control efforts of the city and that
acceptability of waste‑water treatment.
I would like to ask the
government: In light of all their
concerns in terms of the deficiency in the study now and the lack of
information, will the government be holding hearings downstream in other
communities, as we have asked before, and will the government halt this hearing
process until all the information is available so that all the basin‑wide
data that is necessary to review this project is available for decision making?
* (1340)
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have said consistently that
the commission made the recommendation for the hearing sites based on the
concerns and the presentations that they had.
The number of concerns and
presentations that were presented from the city of
The member raises the question about
the condition of the water at Selkirk.
He knows full well that we have been the only government that has made
some progress towards cleaning up the rivers going through the city of
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we passed The Environment Act to
take away the City of
This is not going to deal with the
problems raised in the study.
I would like to ask the government
again: In light of the fact that the
city is saying that this will have a significant impact on the flow regimes and
users along the entire river, including the reaches through
Mr. Cummings:
Mr. Speaker, these are all issues that will be on the table in front of
the commission in terms of the request for information. If there is information that is not seen to
be complete, the commission will ask those who are making the request to make
sure that it is answered, or the appropriate licences will not be possible.
The Department of Natural Resources
is working consistently to provide additional information to the requests from
the commission. The proponents have
consistently been brought back to the table to provide additional information
as a result of the request that we have received as a result of the publication
of the guidelines.
Mr. Speaker, this will be a complete
and open hearing process.
Social Assistance
Child Care Subsidies
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I have a constituent of mine who has
just recently been offered a job. She is
receiving social assistance. This
particular individual cannot afford to have a nonsubsidized daycare spot. In an attempt to try to find a spot, she has
been unsuccessful and, unfortunately, it looks like she is going to have to
turn down this particular job.
My question to the minister, Mr.
Speaker, is: How does the government save
money by keeping someone on social assistance as a direct result of cutting
back on subsidized child care spaces?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, we have explained before, the
changes that we have instituted in Child Day Care with this budget, that we
have had to cap the number of subsidized spaces that government can
afford. We had some 10,000 children in
subsidized care within the last year. By
attrition, we are going to move that down to 9,600.
If the individual that the member
represents would need some assistance, I would assure him that we have staff at
the daycare office that would assist in trying to help out.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, I will definitely pass on the name. Again, I would ask the
minister to answer the question in a more direct fashion by saying, how does a
government justify having individuals remain on social assistance because there
are no subsidized daycare spots that are out there in order to help them get
off of social assistance? How can you
put money‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put his question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we
will do everything we can to assist people who have a job offer to leave the
social assistance program. We are
limiting the number of subsidized spaces this year. There is always a graduation process from
daycare as those children move into the public school system.
I would encourage the member, if he
wishes to speak to me privately, we can assign somebody from the daycare office
to assist that person to see if we can facilitate a subsidized spot.
* (1345)
Child Care Centres
Subsidized Spaces—Flexibility
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Will the minister consider adopting
a more flexible approach in the number of daycare spaces available in those
areas where the use of the daycares varies substantially from season to season?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): I would invite the member to perhaps come to
Estimates in the near future where we talk in more detail about the daycare
budget and the daycare system. Again, we
were looking at some additional licensed spaces and, again, I would offer to
act as a conduit. If the member wants to bring me that information, I will put
his constituent in touch with the daycare office to see if we can assist him.
Provincial Court Judge
Justice Department
Review
Ms. Becky Barrett (
When will the Minister of Justice
take action to ensure that this judge will no longer hear these kinds of cases?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, the latest news report setting out the latest case that has been of
some concern compounds my concern about the role that this particular judge is
playing. Obviously, the Department of
Justice disagrees with the findings in this latest case. The Department of Justice is appealing the
matter as well as the other matter. With
regard to the judge himself and the role that he has played, I have instructed
my department that I expect them on Monday to have reviewed transcripts into
these matters and to have placed before me options for where we might go from
here.
Ms. Barrett:
Mr. Speaker, well, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice why he
did not have that kind of immediate timetable of three days after the second
incident. What kind of assurances can
the Minister of Justice give the women and children because these are the
people who are being abused by this provincial court judge? What assurances can he give the women and
children of
Mr. McCrae: I
do not think the honourable member should be preaching to this government, Mr.
Speaker, about a commitment towards the eradication of this kind of behaviour
in our society.
In a comprehensive way, this
government has taken this issue head‑on and we have gone head‑on
with the judiciary and with well‑known media commentators and others in
our defence of the zero tolerance policy of this government towards violence in
our society.
So I do not need to take any lessons
from the honourable member who supports a party that did diddly‑squat in
the number of years that it had to do something about this terrible societal
problem. That being said, other than
supporting that particular kind of political party, I have no criticism for the
honourable member, because of the interest that she has shown in this and
appropriately so.
* (1350)
Ms. Barrett:
Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister of Justice actually start
implementing the recommendations of the Pedlar review dealing with the
education of the judicial body in the
Mr. McCrae:
Mr. Speaker, the reason I am troubled about the latest news is that we
have indeed made significant progress here in
So it is not the honourable member's
intention, it is her tone when she raises her question; this tone of righteous
indignation which is so incorrect. You
cannot describe a New Democrat in those terms because it is not right. They are hypocrites when it comes to this
kind of an issue. So the point‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, in
response to some very straightforward questions, was skating on some very thin
ice in terms of being parliamentary, and I think he just went through the ice
when he referred to this member as being a hypocrite. That appears on both lists, has been ruled as
unparliamentary. The tone I think was very
clear, because the minister tried to politicize what were very nonpolitical
questions asked on behalf of the women and children of
Mr. McCrae:
In my zeal to promote zero tolerance I used language that I should not
use, and I am sorry for that.
Mr. Speaker: I
would like to thank the honourable member for that.
Mr. McCrae:
But I would like to say‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. That is fine. The honourable minister has withdrawn the
comments.
The honourable minister, to finish
his response.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, we view this matter very
seriously and I have told my department that I expect by Monday to have
appropriate options available to me beyond the normal course of the appeal that
we have already stated that we are going to proceed with, and if there are
further options available I will know about it Monday and we will proceed from
there.
St. Boniface Hospital
Bed Closures
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we understand today that a
further 39 surgical beds are to be closed at St. Boniface Hospital, to be
replaced by day surgery beds.
Can the minister confirm whether the
closings of these 39 beds are in addition to the 38 surgical beds which he
announced would be closed on November 18, 1992 at Health Sciences Centre and
St. Boniface, or are these additional beds in addition to the 38 he announced
in November?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the information that I have
received from St. Boniface Hospital indicates that over the past, oh, roughly
12 to 16 months, they have initiated in some of their surgical programs a new
method of patient management wherein it delays or eliminates the need for
admission prior to surgery, and that has reduced the length of stay
significantly. The experience that they
have had over the past 12 to 16 months has led them to the conclusion that they
can maintain their level of surgical activity with fewer beds, and they intend
to announce in the very near future, it is my understanding, the process of
retiring those surgical beds from service.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate and
reinforce that this has been on the basis of some 12 to 15 months of experience
in surgical program that has led them to the conclusion they can offer quality
patient care with fewer surgical beds.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister remains the same as in the
initial question, because I think the minister did not deal with the question.
Are the 39 beds to be retired or to
be closed by St. Boniface Hospital in addition to the 38 surgical beds that the
minister announced would be closed in November between St. Boniface and Health
Sciences Centre? Are they in addition,
or are they part of the beds that the minister announced in the original
November announcement?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, I will clarify this for my honourable friend if my
assumption is incorrect, but I believe that this is another group of surgical
beds as a result of, as my honourable has indicated, not‑for‑admission
surgeries and probably more important, a new process of admission patient
management to lower the length of stay, so that they can offer the same level
of service they have in past years with fewer surgical beds.
* (1355)
Mr. Chomiak:
My final supplementary: I am
wondering why this is taking place now and how this relates, Mr. Speaker, to
the report of the provincial surgery committee which is scheduled to report May
1.
Is this in relation to the surgery
committee? Is it co‑ordinated through
that committee, and why is this taking place prior‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, you know, from time to time, I get troubled where my
honourable friend comes from and from whence his concerns come.
Surely, my honourable friend
recognizes that as more and more surgical procedures are accomplished in not‑for‑admission,
where advances in technology such as laparoscopic surgery become the modus
operandi, so that, for instance, gall bladder surgeries are now very, very
short stays, improving the quality of outcome, improving the quality of the
surgical procedure and the discomfort to the patient‑‑all of these
trends are happening in
Now, Mr. Speaker, as these processes
of change come into play, hospitals will respond accordingly and reduce the
number of‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Sexual Assault
Identity Release
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Justice.
I think all members of this House
have applauded and supported the initiatives that have been taken at provincial
and federal levels which will prevent the release of a convicted criminal when
that person has been convicted of an assault, because what in essence they are
attempting to do is to protect the victim, not the criminal.
Yesterday, we heard of an incident
in which an individual has been convicted of abusing his stepdaughter, has been
given an 18‑month sentence, and the judge has not only refused to divulge
his name but has put a court order on his occupation as well, despite the fact
that the victim believes that this individual's name should be released.
Can the minister tell the House how
it is determined that the protection of a convicted sexual abuser's name and
identity is made?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the honourable member for this question.
I think what usually happens is that
for fear of making public the identity of a victim of sexual abuse or assault,
the name of the accused is often ordered to be withheld. In this particular case, there are certain
factors that come into it that I think are somewhat different from the usual
case where this happens. One of the
newspapers is looking at this with a view to having a review of the judge's
decision on that matter and so is the Crown.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Just prior to recognizing the honourable
member for
A rule that is very rarely used‑‑and
I just think at this point in time I would like to quote it for all honourable
members. It is Beauchesne's 493. It says:
"All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of
personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary . . .
."
I just caution all honourable
members in the phraseology that you might be using.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, that is why I was very careful
not to mention any names. In fact, we
are under a court injunction not to do so.
Public Protection
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): With a supplementary question to the
minister: There certainly is public
knowledge that the individual who has been convicted in this case has as his
normal function a profession which deals with other young people.
Can the minister tell the House what
follow‑up is being done by the Department of Justice to ensure that
future victims are protected?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): I think basically we are dealing with the
same question as previously. Because of
what the honourable member has said about the occupation of this person and the
likelihood of this person coming in contact with young people, that is
precisely the reason that the Crown is looking at the ruling in this case with
a view perhaps to appealing it if that is possible so that no one is going to
be unwittingly in contact with someone who has been found to be a danger.
* (1400)
Reduced Workweek Essential
Services
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, the government is sending out
yet another letter, this time from the Minister responsible for the Civil
Service Commission, in regard to Bill 22, attempting to explain to the many
people in the public sector what will be happening with this bill which, by the
way, has only just been tabled in the Legislature for second reading and has
not been passed and probably will not pass for some time.
One of the questions that is being
asked, and I ask this either to the Minister responsible for the Civil Service
Commission or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) who brought in this bill,
is, it refers once again to the fact that, in this case, institutional,
seasonal and essential positions will not be included under the seven days off
in the summer and three days off without pay in the Christmas period outlined
for other employees.
I would like to ask the minister if
there is a definition yet of exactly what an essential service is.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for
The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I think with respect to seasonal operations of government, I am sure
all members of this House would want this particular program to utilize common
sense. Certainly, in some departments
such as the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture,
Department of Highways, where a very important part of their function is during
the summer period, we have the flexibility in this model to ensure that certain
parts of their operation that are essential in the operations of the government
will operate during this period and the employees affected will take other time
during the year.
I can tell him that I have had
discussions with several of the employee associations that would be affected,
and they are very amenable to this particular process.
Mr. Ashton:
Mr. Speaker, common sense would indicate that if you talk about
essential services, you know what you are talking about. I would like to ask again, because that is the
question, and to either the Minister responsible for the Civil Service
Commission or Minister of Finance who introduced the bill: What is an essential service? What is not going to be affected by this?
We have already seen courts being
dealt with one way, liquor commissions the rest. What is an essential service? When will we know what services are going to
be included in that?
Mr. Praznik:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just separate somewhat the question of the
member for Thompson because there is a difference between seasonal operations
whose operations have to go forward during the summer season particularly with
respect to Natural Resources, Agriculture, Highways, for example, and essential
services. I tell him with respect to
some essential services, for example, in Health, et cetera, that we also have
the model of Easter Monday when the public service is not working and there is
a set of operational rules that apply on Easter Monday, for example, and
various days between Christmas and New Year's.
In each department we are working
out those rules currently and how this will apply in those areas, and I think
if he were to look at those models with respect to essential services, he would
have a good idea of the guideline that is being worked on now.
Mr. Ashton:
Mr. Speaker, the public of
Are conservation officers going to
be considered essential services or not.
Are social workers or are court systems?
When will the minister give us a list of exactly what services will and
will not be available under this provision?
Mr. Praznik:
Mr. Speaker, the member for Thompson‑‑and I say this with
all due respect‑‑I think is somewhat confusing seasonal operations
with essential.
We provide essential services in
government on Easter Monday. We provide
it during the Christmas season, whereas seasonal services‑‑certainly,
I would not think that members opposite would expect that certain seasonal
services in the Departments of Highways, Agriculture, for example, Natural
Resources, not take place in the summer which is their busy time, when those
days can be taken off at other times of the year.
So I just point out to him that he
should separate essential from seasonal, because they are very different.
Education System
Reform Report Release
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, over the past two days, we have
seen the Minister of Education destroy any credibility that she may have had in
this House with her blatant disregard for the facts both in terms of actions
and in terms of her words.
First, it was the letter to Mr.
Hobbs of Flin Flon where she claimed to have funded education above inflation
over the last five years, and then yesterday she was given the opportunity to
clarify precisely when she received the report on education reform and why she
kept it secret for the last number of months. Again, she chose the devious
route in this House.
Now, I ask the minister to be
straightforward in the House today. When
did she first see the report on education reform? When was it sent‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put his question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, let me answer a few of the
questions that the member has raised.
First of all, the letter sent to the
member's constituent was absolutely correct.
The government share of funding for education support to schools has in fact
increased by 36 percent, not the numbers that member used. So that, Mr. Speaker, was correct.
Now, he asks when did I see the
first report, and the member did not ask that question yesterday. I am happy to tell you, I saw the report of
the task force in November and there were a number of issues which had to be
dealt with in the intervening time. I
have a great number of issues that I am happy to speak to him about, and let me
begin by saying that, as I said yesterday, the report was delivered in English,
the report was to be translated, the translation was to be accurate in tone.
There was no difficulty with the
service that we received in the issue of translation by any means. The issue was that the committee members had
to approve that the translation was accurate and was consistent with the
English copy.
Property Taxes
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the minister had another
opportunity to be straightforward and chose not to again.
I am going to give her another
opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Can the
minister explain how she can truthfully write in her letter of April 23 to the
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, first of all,
again, in relation to the report, that this government received the sign off
from the task force finally on March 29, 1993.
From that point then, the report had to go to print. The report was then released as soon as
possible following the printing.
In relation to the issue of
taxation, I think that we have expressed our concerns through Bill 16 to
protect the interests of the taxpayer in this province.
Mr. Plohman:
Missed again, Mr. Speaker, missed again.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this
minister today, and she has another opportunity to be straightforward‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
With your question, please.
Department of Education
and Training
Supplementary Estimates
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Will she tell us, since her Estimates are
only 10 days away or so, precisely when she is going to table the Supplementary
Estimates for the Department of Education, so we can see exactly‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put his question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, I look forward to tabling the
Supplementary Estimates, as I look forward to the Estimates process with my
honourable friend. That will occur as
soon as possible.
Point of Order
Mr. Plohman:
On
a point of order, missed again, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable member does not have a point of order.
Emergency Room
Physicians
Patient Care Monitoring
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
We have been receiving some phone
calls from constituents who are concerned about the strike of the emergency room
physicians at five major hospitals. The
strike has been going on for 48 hours.
Initially, the impact may have been very low, but now that the weekend
is approaching things could get worse.
Can the Minister of Health tell
us: Who is monitoring the patient care
during this time?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable
friend's question because the situation is, to date, quite stable. We, on a daily basis, contact all of our
major urban hospitals in
We are redoubling our efforts
tomorrow at two o'clock to assure that as we approach the weekend, we hope we
can manage as effectively as the facilities have managed over the last two
days.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, one concern was raised that patients are unable to get
proper information about where they have to go and get their treatment.
Can the Minister of Health tell us
who is ultimately responsible to make sure that information is given properly
to the patient? Also, is there some
phone number the patients can get hold of so that they do not have to go twice
to the same hospital?
* (1410)
Mr. Orchard:
Let me deal with my honourable friend's question in two parts.
First of all, we have a substantial
and good working relationship with the
Secondly, in terms of those who will
come on their own, either have a friend or a family member drop them off or
bring them to emergency, the advice has been consistent that they check with
the hospital to assure that they can receive the services there and have that
advice‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Transportation Costs
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): One of the concerns raised by patients is who
is going to be paying for the transfers between these hospitals during this
strike time. Can the minister tell us
who is ultimately responsible to pay those costs?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): We recognize that there may be some
difficulties that emerge, but the standard method of payment now‑‑for
instance, third‑party coverage for ambulance service‑‑will
cover the costs, it is our understanding.
There is the issue of interhospital transfer, which is currently covered
under existing policies.
If there are difficulties that
emerge, we would be sensitive to trying to resolve those, Sir.
Provincial Sales Tax
Impact
Base Broadening
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): On Saturday, May 1, families and children in
this province will become acutely aware of the negative impact of this
government's budget when the 7 percent sales tax will be placed on hundreds of
new items including children's clothing, baby supplies, meals, take‑out
foods and snacks. The newspapers have
already said that their sales will be hurt by this tax when it is applied to
them.
Can the Minister of Finance advise
this House whether he has any studies or information showing to what extent
consumer spending will be reduced by the imposition of the 7 percent sales tax?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I thought the member would rise
and congratulate us for holding the sales tax, which he says is so regressive,
at the second lowest in
I acknowledge that the government
has had to broaden the base somewhat. We
did so because we wanted to collect sales tax on those purchases outside of
So I would think that the member
would be happy as far as his question.
Indeed, if the sales tax extension itself is going to bring forward an additional
$20 million or $25 million, that is then how much, obviously, will be less able
to be spent by the people of the province.
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable member for
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, the people of
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. Question, please.
Revenue Growth
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, what is happening to his retail
sales tax revenues? I am particularly
talking about the first three months of this year, because I note that retail
sales have declined by 1.5 percent in February, and, year to date,
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had given me
some notice. I certainly would like to
provide him with the very latest specific detail on that question.
Certainly, over the last three
months, sales tax revenue growth has maintained the forecast, which is slightly
increased. There is no doubt in the last month that there has been a slight
decrease in the actuals, but over the course of the last several months, we
continue to be on forecast.
Mr. Speaker:
Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I
have a ruling for the House.
On Wednesday, April 21, 1993, during
debate on the second reading of Bill 16, the Acting Speaker took under
advisement a point of order raised by the acting government House leader, the
honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), about language used by
the honourable member for
In reviewing Hansard, I note the
member for
I have taken some time to consider
this incident and to consider the use of the word "lie" in this
Chamber. Thus far this session the word
"lie" has been used on December 7, and I quote: "I can stand anything but someone who is
going to lie and manipulate the facts."
In that case, the word "lie" was used in reference to a
candidate in a provincial by‑election.
On April 7, the phrase "Would TV and the Free Press lie?" was
used. On April 13, the words " . .
. a budget which is couched again in the big lie that this government has
maintained" were spoken. In these
cases, no objections were raised to the use of the word "lie."
On June 4 and again on June 5, 1991,
points of order were raised about the words "the big lie." In both cases, I ruled the phrase was not
unparliamentary because it was not directed to any MLA or group of MLAs in
particular.
I have, however, on other occasions
ruled the word "lie" out of order; December 5, 1988, is one example
where the word "lies" was used in reference to the government and
where I asked that it be withdrawn.
Therefore, in regard to the point of order raised on April 21, I am
ruling based on the context in which they were used that the words used by the
member for
I also wish to remind the House
that, although some words may be unparliamentary one day and not the next,
dependent on context and other factors, the word "lie" and other
words meaning the same thing are always unparliamentary.
* (1420)
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: I
would like to thank the honourable member for
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House
resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House
resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the
Chair for the Department of Family Services; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
FAMILY SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This afternoon this section of the
Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Family Services.
When the committee last sat, it had
been considering item 3.(b)(1) on page 56 of the Estimates book.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before I direct some
questions to the minister, I would like to make a brief statement to the entire
committee and say that since we last met I have had a chance to read Hansard of
Monday, April 26.
At this time I would like to offer
an unqualified withdrawal of my remarks that appear on page 2067 of Hansard,
the reason being that there is an unwritten convention here that we do not put
on the record conversations that we have with individual members which are
considered of a private nature.
Since I had a chance to read in
print what I actually said here, I have reconsidered, and I am accepting the
minister's invitation to withdraw those remarks.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for that
statement.
We are dealing with 3.(b) Income
Maintenance Programs (1) Social Allowances $236,802.
Mr. Martindale: I believe it was the last time we were here
that I was asking questions of the minister about a brief, and it is quite
possible that the minister has not seen this brief since I have had a chance to
look it up. It was originally addressed
to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
I am referring to An Action Plan for Food Security for Manitobans by the
Nutrition and Food Security Network of
I would like to give the minister a
copy of this brief just in case he or his staff do not have one. I would like to ask a few questions on some
of their recommendations and then give the minister a copy of this brief.
He also asked who were the authors
of the brief, and there are some organizations that are listed: the Manitoba Association of Registered
Dietitians; the
I would just like to ask questions
on a few of their recommendations because there are many, many recommendations,
the first one of page 4, having to do with policy and legislation. They
recommend that "a common method of calculating social allowance rates at
both the provincial and municipal levels that reflects the true cost of basic
needs" be implemented.
Now I wonder if this is not already
happening in that we have a standardization of social assistance rates. So I guess that would be my first
question. Is this already the case that
there is just one method of calculating the rates since the province is only
paying standardized rates to both municipalities and to provincial recipients?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): That was the intent of the legislation, and
we are certainly moving in that direction.
Mr. Martindale: The next recommendation is to "increase
provincial social allowance rates to meet actual feeding costs for
infants." I would like to ask the
minister if he and his staff will review the considerable data that was
provided by this coalition and see if there cannot be improvements to the rates
by the provincial government for the cost of feeding infants.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Staff in our department are always eager to
review any reputable data that comes forward.
Mr. Martindale: Then I would like to give the minister a copy
of the brief just in case he does not have one.
Next, I have a copy of a letter
addressed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) from the Rural
I think the basic point they are making
is that these people have been previously considered unemployable. All of a sudden they are being terminated
from the provincial system and handed over to the Rural Municipality of
Thompson, who are saying that they do not have the resources to help these
people to become employable. So I would
like to share this letter with the minister as well, and he could respond now
or at some later time.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, as the member is aware, the province is
responsible for the unemployable caseload and the municipal tier of government
in
*
(1430)
Occasionally there is a discussion
between our government and municipal governments as to where a client should
access services, and there is a review process that takes place, and there is a
paneling procedure that takes place. I
can assure you that we, in our relationship with rural municipalities and other
municipalities, try to be as fair as possible.
I think that the member probably would understand that in the employable
category, there may be various levels of employability in terms of the talents
that people bring forward.
We do have an opportunity to have
discussions on that topic, and there is a mechanism to resolve those. The difficulty sometimes occurs when there is
a disagreement on the final determination.
As a result, there is a way to adjudicate that and the process, by and
large, works. If rural municipalities
communicate to my office, we always would review those cases.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if there is any
change in the use of vouchers by rural municipalities, and municipalities in
general? Is the rate of use of vouchers
relatively constant over the last few years, or is there any increase or
decrease in their use?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are not aware of any changes there. I would be interested in knowing the member's
thoughts on the use of vouchers, though.
Mr. Martindale: I think my thoughts are limited to my
understanding of the rules, that normally they are used where people are deemed
to be incapable of using cash responsibly, although I suspect, although I have
very little evidence, that some people in rural areas find it objectionable to
be put on vouchers because then it means that their friends and neighbours and
storekeepers know that they are on social assistance. I guess that is part of my concern, that if
municipalities are using vouchers regularly, then the fact that people are on
assistance is no longer confidential, given what happens in the small rural communities.
Mr. Gilleshammer: But the member would certainly understand the
importance of someone accessing that voucher to provide food for their
family. It would be important that the
basic needs of the family are met, rather than having the more fluid form of
assistance perhaps be used for other less desirable products.
Mr. Martindale: I have no objection to them being used if
someone thinks that there is a reason that vouchers should be used in place of
a cheque. My only concern would be if it
is a policy of some municipalities to use vouchers routinely which could be
seen as punitive or even identifying people who are on social assistance,
therefore making it less desirable and possibly even encouraging them to leave
the municipality and move to
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I do not think that is a common
outcome. I know that we do not really
recommend the municipalities one way or the other, whether they use the cheque
from the municipality as opposed to vouchers, and often I think they are
probably in the best position to make those determinations. I would point out that in emergencies we
often will have a voucher system used at that government level and sometimes in
remote areas as well. So I guess it is
an issue that we have not taken a position on either way and allowed the
municipalities who are responsible for that tier of social allowances to
determine what is in the best interest at that time.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if it is correct
that pregnant women in the third trimester are eligible for an extra food
allowance?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the answer to that is yes.
Mr. Martindale: Has any consideration been given to giving
extra food allowance for pregnant women in the first and second trimesters?
Mr. Gilleshammer: What the member is saying is that we should
have higher rates at that time, and the rates apparently are adjusted at a
particular time in the person's pregnancy.
It appears that has been an adequate way of dealing with this. I am further informed that if a doctor
prescribes some special diet, we will meet the costs.
Mr. Martindale: Numerous groups that lobby us would like to
see provincial recipients be eligible for a telephone. I would like to ask the minister if any
costing of this has been done. It is
usually groups in
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we do have an estimate, but it would be
of considerable cost to the system. It
is an issue that has been brought forward by the three lobby groups that I have
met with on a regular basis: the Social
Allowance Coalition of Manitoba, WORD and the MAPO organization.
The estimates are estimates because
a fair percentage of the recipients now have telephones. If we were to pick up that cost, it would be
somewhere around $3.5 million. In
talking with the advocacy groups they do have a list of what the next item
would be, and occasionally we get requests that say that all recipients should
have a deepfreeze. There could be strong
arguments made about that in terms of long‑range planning and preserving
frozen foods and so on and so forth.
Others come forward with other ideas.
So telephones is one of the items on that list.
Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that currently some
recipients are eligible for a telephone if they meet certain criteria or
certain situations. One of those is if a
woman is being harassed or abused or threatened. I have been told that the onus seems to be on
the client to prove that they have been threatened before they can get a
telephone or even that they have to prove that they had already been abused. I would like to ask the minister if he could
clarify the policy, please.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I might point out, on our particular
caseload of some 27,000 cases we have approximately 18,000 of those cases that
have a telephone number listed on their file. We do provide phones for three
different reasons. One of them is
safety. Certainly, there is a discussion
that takes place about the particulars of the case before that request is
acceded to.
Mr. Martindale: I have been talking to a number of employees
in the City of
* (1440)
However, the rules changed on April
1. My understanding of this problem is
that the result was that those who went immediately for their cashback got more
money than those who waited because the rules changed on April 1. I think that was a most unfortunate situation
for the workers, but particularly for the clients. I am wondering if the minister could tell us
when the decision was made around the changes and what the rationale was for
changing at April 1.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Budgetary decisions are part of a budgetary
process that started for us back in August, and those decisions are made during
discussions between the department and central government in terms of the
decision making. Of course, the
decisions are announced when the Finance minister (Mr. Manness) tables the
budget.
Mr. Martindale: Was the provincial government or were
provincial ministers, like yourself, consulted by the federal government prior
to their recent budget regarding the change of four GST rebates a year to two
rebates a year?
I believe this is going to
negatively impact particularly people on social assistance since they depend on
that income‑‑not income, but reimbursement‑‑and
secondly, because the timing has been changed from four to two, the months in
which the cheques arrive will be less timely for them. Previously, they might have had help with
Christmas bills and also with back‑to‑school supplies, but those
two rebate cheques will no longer be arriving.
The money will arrive with the other two cheques, but was this minister
consulted on that change?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The answer to that is no, but I can see that
the member is now a firm proponent that money should be doled out on an even
basis, perhaps a monthly basis like the tax credits in
Mr. Martindale: I regret that I used the word
"timely," because that was the word that the minister used in the
previous debate on another topic. He is
transferring it to this debate, and it is not relevant.
I would like to ask the minister if you
have communicated with the federal Minister of Finance and objected to this
change since it is going to adversely affect many people on the social
assistance who are your responsibility.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have not personally communicated to him
anything related to the budget, but our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and our Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) will be involved in discussions at that level and will
be conveying the thoughts of our government.
Mr. Martindale: I have a copy of a letter from the Income
Security division in Dauphin dated April 20, addressed to Tarty's Taxi at
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am not aware of that correspondence, but if
the member would like to table it, we will have a look at it. The fact of the
matter is, we do provide transportation from certain communities to other
centres where medical needs, dental needs, other professional needs to do with
health are looked after. It is a very expensive
proposition, and government historically, I think, has been very generous in
supporting that type of transportation.
I would be pleased to look at the correspondence the member is tabling,
and I would also suggest to him that I would be in favour of any manner in
which we could economize on the transportation side if we can at the same time
accommodate the health needs of those people who access the system.
What I think we would like to move
towards is determining whether that transportation for those health needs is
for emergencies or whether they could be categorized as nonemergencies. If there can be some savings to government by
transporting nonemergency cases to that type of professional assistance on
certain days of the week, I would certainly think that we would be in favour of
that. So we have to make a distinction
there on the needs of the individuals, but I can tell you that in the past the
department, I think, has been very accommodating and very generous in having
those people transported for those specific professional services.
Mr. Martindale: As a result of being asked to help a family
who moved into
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do have a policy on people who are
arriving within the community, and the department's responsibility is to
analyze their situation and see how we can best serve them. There are times
when the department will advise that perhaps a furnished apartment should be
taken. There are other times when it
appears that this is a permanent move, a long‑term move, and because of
the needs of the family, part of the special needs could be for
furnishings. So it comes down to a bit
of a judgment call as to how those clients are served.
I might just give you a hypothetical
situation, that if a family moves to
* (1450)
Mr. Martindale: I am sorry I do not have Hansard here from a
Question Period, but I believe that in response to one of my questions the
minister said, there is no firm policy in writing, it is up to the individual
worker, which would correspond with what you are saying today.
On the other hand, when we were
trying to advocate on behalf of an individual, one of the senior staff in
Income Maintenance said that the province will not pay until the person has
been a resident for two or three months.
Can you tell me which is the actual
policy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, again, the staff, the district office,
need to make some determination on what the plans of that family really
are. If there are long‑term plans
to remain in Manitoba to set up a permanent housing arrangement here, that is
one thing.
If the history of that particular
family is such that they have frequently moved and that furnishings have been
bought in the past, and then they get sold and they move back to another
province, and then six months later, they are back here, the department is a
little more wary about just what it is going to provide.
There are some general guidelines,
but workers can use individual discretion on a case‑by‑case
basis. Many of our experienced workers,
I think, because of their experience, have some feel for what the appropriate
decision in that particular case might be.
So there is discretion that the case worker has.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if there was a
saving to the province as the result of standardization in the areas of CRISP
and 55 Plus?
It is my understanding that city social
assistance is cost shared with the province.
So, if the city drops programs, is there a saving to the provincial
government?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There would appear to be an indirect savings
in that if people do access the CRISP program, then it is deducted from their
social allowances. So, if there was a
jurisdiction that was paying the full social allowance plus the CRISP and that
recipient discontinued the CRISP to receive the full funding from that municipality,
there would be a savings to CRISP.
Mr. Martindale: My understanding is that the result of
standardization for the City of
Mr. Gilleshammer: The program of standardized rates started a
few weeks ago, and the figure that the member is using is the city's
estimate. We will not have firm figures
on that, of course, till we get looking at the month‑end figures in the
coming months.
Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that city social
assistance pays 20 cents on the dollar of their expenses, and the other 80
cents on the dollar would be cost shared 50‑50 by the provincial and
federal governments. So, if a program is
discontinued, can you not figure out the cost or the saving to the province?
Mr. Gilleshammer: You are right in that the city is responsible
for a small portion of the social allowance, because it is cost shared by the
province and by the federal government.
That cost sharing is a little bit more complicated in that there is a
different cost sharing with some municipalities depending on the balanced
assessment that exists, but, by and large, municipalities are responsible for
about 20 percent of the dollar spent in social allowances.
What I am saying to the member is
that if a family is accessing CRISP, and let me point out that the CRISP
program was brought in and put in place for the group of people that we refer
to as the working poor, this municipality chose to flow the CRISP or have
people who are accessing CRISP not have it deducted from their social
allowances. So we have an adjustment
period that is going to take place here, that if these people continue to
access the CRISP program, then it will be deducted from their social
allowances.
Mr. Martindale: I have a copy of the single‑parent
families report, which was prepared by the Manitoba Advisory Council on the
Status of Women. It is dated November
1990; the covering letter or news release is dated April 22, 1991. My colleague the member for
Since the government has had this
report for over two years, I wonder if the minister could tell us which
recommendations have been implemented and which ones have not and what progress
is being made. Are there some
recommendations that are going to be implemented in the short term and others
in the long term, and if so, which are they?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We would have to get to the specific
recommendations that the member is referring to, but, as I said, in answer to
an earlier question, the department readily accepts reports and documents that
come forward from whatever source. That is part of the analysis that the
department will use in determining rates and program changes.
I can tell you one of the program
changes that came about as a result of reports like that is the fact we are
allowing single parents, who are on the provincial social allowance roll, to
maintain their health card as they move to employment. This has been an innovation in
As I told the member the other day,
my colleague in
Mr. Martindale: I would be appreciative if the minister could
reply to me in the future, hopefully the near future, on which recommendations
the government plans to implement, which ones you are not going to implement,
and what the rationale is for the ones you are not going to implement.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The ones we have already implemented the
member will have knowledge of, and it is always difficult and risky to announce
new initiatives until they have been approved. I guess I would have to ask the
member to be patient and wait for our opportunity to officially announce them.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if, as the result
of this budget, there are any changes to the SOSAR program? My understanding is that SOSAR is for single
parent women who are unable to go to university. I cannot remember what the acronym stands
for.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That was a special opportunities program that
is part of the Department of Education.
I guess the question would more appropriately be asked in those
Estimates.
Mr. Martindale: Is that one of the programs that has been
transferred from Family Services to Education?
* (1500)
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, that has been part of their programming
before, and they take the lead on that program.
Mr. Martindale: I have a copy of correspondence sent to the
minister by the Manitoba InterFaith Immigration Council and also some newspaper
articles by Marty Dolin, the executive director. I am wondering if this is an
appropriate place to ask questions about funding to shelters.
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is really under the Family Dispute line
and we would have appropriate staff here.
I might just comment that I do recall seeing the correspondence from
that individual.
Mr. Martindale: My next question is a general one about
social assistance. If there is a greater
demand for social assistance than this minister and Treasury Board have
budgeted, where does that money come from?
Do you have to take it out of other parts of your budget or do you go
back to Treasury Board for more funds?
Mr. Gilleshammer: This is the one program that we have the
statutory obligation to offer and, as a result, if we go over budget then that
funding has to be provided, contrary to other jurisdictions, of course, that
budget so much money and when the money runs out the program ends. We make some projections about the increase
in the volume that we are going to anticipate and try to live within those
targets, but if we do not we still have to find that additional money.
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has
indicated that there will not be supplementary budgeting. Is it correct to say that that does not apply
to social assistance due to the reasons that the minister just gave?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We will have to obviously flow money to
people who need to access that safety net.
That is an issue that we have always had to face at that particular time
of the budget year. I can say we will
meet our obligations.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): I apologize if this is somewhat repetitious,
but unfortunately I had a school that I had to be at.
Is there a clear set of guidelines
between municipalities and the province as to who gets municipal assistance and
who gets provincial assistance?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, there is.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is that information available to all
municipalities?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, it is.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can that information be made available to the
critics?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we can provide that the next day we
meet.
Mrs. Carstairs: There is obviously some areas in which there
is a dispute between the provincial government and municipalities as to which
should be responsible. I understand that
the letter from Brian Schwartz was already tabled today indicating with respect
to the appeal situation.
Can the minister outline the major
areas of disagreement between the two levels of government as to which level of
government should, in fact, be paying the social assistance costs?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The lines are generally pretty clear that the
disabled community and individuals who need to access the system in that area,
the single mothers, are our responsibility.
Any employables are the responsibility of municipal government.
I think where we sometimes get into
cases that need to be adjudicated are where there has been a change in the
circumstances of perhaps someone's health to determine whether there has been
improvement and they are now employable, or they were on the employable category
and they now would fall onto the provincial roll. There is a medical panel that reviews those
and adjudicates those. So that has not
been a big area of dispute.
Possibly more of a dispute area is
the long‑term employables who cannot find the training and who cannot
find the employment. I know at the last UMM council a motion was passed whereby
one municipality brought forward a motion that said: If someone had been employed for 90 days,
they should revert from the municipal roll to the provincial roll. That is something we will discuss with them,
but at the present time if the individual is deemed employable, then it is our
position that they remain on the municipal roll.
There is no question that, while in
the past there had been a turnover rate probably every six months or so in
which individuals who were employable would find work and then perhaps it would
be full‑time work or perhaps they would go on to UIC but perhaps not come
back to that system for some time, if ever again, in today's world it appears
that the clients on the municipal level are staying for longer periods of time.
It is an issue that we have had some
very preliminary discussions with UMM and MAUM when they come in and the City
of
Mrs. Carstairs: When someone is terminated from provincial
assistance, they do have a right of appeal, but presumably in the case that Mr.
Schwartz is addressing they go then on municipal welfare. Has the government considered the possibility
of keeping them on provincial assistance until such time as their appeal has
been determined?
* (1510)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, generally we
do see that people do not sort of fall through the cracks on that short‑term
basis, and municipalities generally do the same thing. The appeal process is fairly short. It has to take place within 15 days, and
generally those determinations are made pretty quickly. I think it was the other day the critic for
the opposition had indicated that perhaps we should have a longer period, and
maybe one of the downsides of that is that you do not get the determination as
quickly as possible. It is, as he
indicates, kind of a gray area. We know
that some municipalities will take those responsibilities, and there are times
when the province does that depending on the specific case.
Mrs. Carstairs: I happen to think the 15 days is a legitimate
period of time and that it should be done as quickly as possible. I also wonder about the cost of the paper
chase. If somebody is terminated from
provincial assistance and has the right to make an appeal, then goes on
municipal assistance, then wins the appeal, then goes back onto provincial
assistance, is that not an awful lot of duplication of administrative expenses
that could be eliminated by just saying you have 15 days to appeal and during
that 15 days you will remain on provincial assistance and the final
determination is the final determination?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told we do that in a number of
cases. You are raising the question of
sort of bureaucracy, and it is an area that we need to do more work in, in
terms of the amount of paper that does flow.
It perhaps leads into the question, too, of whether we should have two
levels of government involved in social allowances. Only
Mrs. Carstairs: I have certainly used figures, you have
certainly used figures, with respect to the number of social assistance
recipients who live in the city of
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we have that information. If you just give me a minute, I can provide
it for you.
I will maybe start with the
provincial distribution. On what is
called the mothers allowance, we have 11,611 cases: 3,700 in rural
On the municipal side, the caseload
in
So we have a municipal caseload of
just over 20,000, and that has been the growing caseload. Our provincial caseload grows maybe at 3
percent, in that area. The employables,
not unlike other provinces, is growing rapidly.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Item 3.(b)(1) Social Allowances $236,802,000‑‑pass;
(2) Health Services $14,727,400‑‑pass; (3) Municipal Assistance
$111,055,600‑‑pass; (4) Income Assistance for the Disabled
$9,410,000‑‑pass.
Item 3.(c) Income Supplement
Programs (1) Salaries $700,700.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me exactly how many are
now covered by 55 Plus, and how that figure has been declining?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The 55 Plus, of course, has a senior component
and a junior component, and the total of those projected for 1993‑94 is
22,295. That is an increase from last
year's estimate of 21,000, the actual in '91‑92 of 21,000; the actual in
'90‑91 of 22,000.
So there has been a decline from a
high in 1987‑88 of 26,000 down to around 21,000, and now, we are sort of
projecting maybe about an increase of 500 there for next year.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is the reason for that projection based on
the fact that there seems to be an awful lot of people in that 55‑65 age
group who have become unemployed during the recession?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The decline certainly has taken place mostly
in the senior component‑‑that will be the 65 and over‑‑from
a high of about 20,000 in '87‑88 to around 14,000 the last three years and
into next year.
The junior component throughout '87
right into about '92 has remained fairly stable at around 6,500. The projection for the completion of this
past budget year is that it would be up about 300, and we are projecting it
would go up another 300. So that would
be one of the possible factors.
Mrs. Carstairs: Does the minister have a breakdown as to how
many of these are women?
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is not information that we have. We, I am told, can, on the junior component,
compile some information on that.
* (1520)
Mrs. Carstairs: I was just interested in the demography of it
quite frankly, so I do not want staff to be busily counting up numbers. I just thought if that information was
available I would get it, but I certainly do not want to assign a whole new
task for somebody over there.
In terms of the ability to now
collect CPP at age 60, has that been reflected at all in the numbers that are
collecting 55 Plus?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our feeling, and what staff have told me over
the last three years, is the benefits from CPP, the benefits from other
pensions that have given that particular age group, more income is the reason
that those numbers have been coming down.
I guess it was not that many years ago where poverty amongst the elderly
in society was a really focused issue.
It seems in many ways, because of the pension plans plus CPP that have
been coming on stream, that those numbers reflect that.
Mrs. Carstairs: It is interesting, because the most recent
poverty profile which I received, which was an update for 1991, does not
reflect that. I would have been of the
same belief obviously as your staff that we should have been seeing that coming
down. I was quite shocked when I saw
this, that that was not the case, that it seems to be going the other way,
which leads me to the question of, when was the last time the 55 Plus was
actually increased?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The last increase there was in the year 1990‑91.
Mrs. Carstairs: Does the minister or staff have available the
cost‑of‑living increase since that time?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the cost of living that we used this
last year in determining the allowances was 1.2 percent; the previous year, I
believe, it was just over 3 percent.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am sorry, Mr. Minister, I was trying to do
something else.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The figure we used this last budget year was
1.2 percent, and the previous year was just over 3 percent.
Mrs. Carstairs: So in other words, since 1990, the people who
are receiving 55 Plus have seen a decrease in their benefit package from 55
Plus of 4.2 percent. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The rates‑‑I believe, what the
member is saying‑‑yes, the rates have not changed since '90‑91.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister indicate why it was
determined that this supplement would not be increased, even though similar
increases have been given for social allowances?
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is the view of the department that the
social allowances is the program of last resort and the only income for those
individuals, while the 55 Plus is regarded as an income supplement.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Item 3.(c) Income Supplement Programs (1)
Salaries $700,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $277,200‑‑pass;
(3) Financial Assistance $14,102,700‑‑pass.
Item 3.(d) Regional Operations (1)
Salaries $20,073,100‑‑
Mr. Martindale: If it is appropriate, I would like to ask
some questions about the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities Inc.?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The more appropriate place for that would be
under the next group of lines, Rehabilitation, Community Living.
Mr. Martindale: Okay.
Well, let us talk about child care then.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, that is part of Resolution 9.4, under
Community Living and Day Care. So if we
pass Regional Operations, we can go to that right away.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Item 3.(d) Regional Operations (1) Salaries
$20,073,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,741,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 9.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $414,658,000 for Family Services for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Item 4. Rehabilitation, Community
Living and Day Care. Provides co‑ordination, direction and support for a
range of services to mentally disabled adults, day care facilities and families
eligible for financial assistance using day care services.
Community Living and Vocational
Rehabilitation Programs: Provide services for the care, accommodation and
assistance of adults with a mental disability; provide vocational
rehabilitation programs for adults who are physically, psychiatrically and
mentally disabled; and provide support services for children with mental and
physical disabilities and their families.
Child Day Care: Licenses and provides program support to day
care facilities and eligible families.
4.(a) Administration (1) Salaries
$614,300.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like
to start with some recommendations from the Provincial Auditor for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 1992, regarding the Society for Manitobans with
Disabilities. There are a number of
recommendations and status of action, and for most of them the recommendation
is implemented.
I wonder if the minister could
update me on the recommendations that were in the process of being implemented
when this report was published as found on pages 150 and 151.
Mr. Gilleshammer: As I have indicated before, we do take advice
from a number of organizations and, certainly, the Provincial Auditor brings
forward information that we work with our external agencies to
incorporate. Perhaps, if the member
wanted to refer to specific recommendations, we could do it on that basis. I might be able to give you some information
here of how we are making out.
* (1530)
There were some observations and
recommendations that I can comment on.
One was that the department should
co‑ordinate funding, and funding from the Department of Family Services
has been centralized within the Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care
division. This was facilitated by the
transfer of the Children's Special Services branch to the division from the
Child and Family Services division.
Secondly, the department should
undertake a critical analysis of SMD's financial situation, and a review team
with representation from Agency Relations, Program Budgeting and Reporting,
Children's Special Services and divisional administration was struck to develop
a format to enhance the reporting mechanisms utilized by SMD in order to
undertake a critical analysis of SMD's financial situation to ensure that
funding matched need. The working format
was presented to SMD officials, and they are working on completing the required
information.
Thirdly, the department should
review its funding approval process to ensure funding decisions are
communicated on a timely basis. Funding
decisions are communicated as soon as possible within the constraints of the
annual Estimates.
Fourthly, the department should
strive to improve communications with SMD.
Improved communications with all agencies is a priority within the
department. The process of entering into
service and funding agreements with external agencies will foster
communication. The assistant deputy
minister of Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care meets regularly with
the executive director of SMD.
Fifthly, the department should
implement a system to provide for the ongoing review and assessment of the
management practices of funded agencies.
I would say that schedules to the service and funding agreement define
management and financial information reporting requirements. This, in turn, provides for enhanced
monitoring of both financial and management practices. The department has issued to all agencies a
board development guide‑‑I think I gave members copies of that‑‑concerning
the roles, responsibilities and functions of a board which will serve to
enhance agency management accountability.
The sixth item: The department should develop analytical
review procedures and apply on a timely basis.
The department has adopted analytical review procedures and is undertaking
these reviews on a timely basis.
The seventh one: The department should implement a service
delivery agreement with SMD. I would say
negotiations are continuing with SMD on a service and funding agreement.
So that covers those seven
observations and recommendations made by the Provincial Auditor.
Mr. Martindale: Did any of these recommendations have an
impact on the budgeting decisions this year that had such a great effect on the
Society for Manitobans with Disabilities?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The items there that refer to process we are
still proceeding with. We have continued
to work with them on some of those items, and we think that the Auditor has
really pinpointed some crucial areas.
Negotiations on the service and funding agreement, which are certainly
impacted by budget decisions, are ongoing.
Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that with a 10 percent
budget reduction they lost $800,000. Is
that correct?
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, perhaps this
would be easier if we could have from the department the payments to external
agencies for all income security and regional operations.
Mr. Gilleshammer: You are referring to our grants listing?
Mrs. Carstairs: Yes.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.
We do not have it here today, but we can make copies available for you
next day.
Mr. Martindale: Was the minister able to confirm that this
was $800,000 from their budget?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are just calculating it because we fund
them in a number of different ways, a number of different areas. The 10 percent
is correct. You can either proceed with
another question, or if you want to wait a few a minutes, we will have a number
for you.
Mr. Martindale: Obviously, this organization is very
concerned; as a result of this budget cut, they laid off 14 staff. I would like to refer to correspondence that
they wrote to the minister on March 29, which I have a copy of. If the minister would like to have it in
front of him, I could‑‑well, I was going to use it to ask my
questions. I will just ask the
questions. I am sure the minister is
quite capable of answering these questions without the letter in front of him.
On the second page, they say that
cuts in grants to such organizations as SMD, CNIB and CPA, which receive
federal cost sharing under CAP and VRDP, ignore the fact that the province has
cut 50 cents of revenue for every dollar of expenditure reduction.
I am wondering if the minister and
his department considered the effects of reducing funding to an organization
where that funding is cost shared with the federal government so that the
effect, I think they are saying, is that federal revenue which comes to
Manitoba that hires staff and provides programs and services is being lost to
this organization and to the Province of Manitoba.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I will start by answering your further
question about what the 10 percent meant.
It is $420,000. In all of our
deliberations on budget, we have to take into consideration, of course, the
money that flows out of provincial coffers in its entirety and also consider
that there is cost sharing under CAP and VRDP.
However, that is only part of the equation in making budget
determinations. If we were to say that
we would never reduce money flowing to agencies because it is matched dollar
for dollar with the federal government, then we would always be escalating
those figures because we are spending 50‑cent dollars. By the same token, we would, if you use the
same logic, then be reluctant to approve any spending where it is 100‑percent
dollars.
In answer to the question, we are
certainly aware of programs that are cost sharable. You know it is, again, as your Leader has
frequently said, very, very difficult decisions. I know the member is aware, through the
discussions that we have had, of the tough decisions that other provinces have
to make as well, even to the point where it is drawing comment from colleagues
within certain parties who are not recognizing, as they are in opposition, how
difficult it is to make those decisions.
I know it must be very difficult.
The Prime Minister indicated in the House yesterday how difficult it is
for party structures to remain in tact when federal members are being critical
of provincial leaders, and, again, because they are in opposition, maybe not
recognizing what it is to have to make those decisions and how that is quite a
different role than being in a critic's role.
* (1540)
Having said that, we certainly take
into consideration the revenue sources that we are able to access and know that
boards of these external agencies have other sources of income. They have, in some cases, surpluses in
properties and so forth. So their
budgeting is not simple either, because we know that they do not just depend on
provincial funds, but where we fund them, probably 50 percent, if not more, of
their funding, that is enough to make an impact and require them to make some
very serious decisions.
Mr. Martindale: I will ignore the lecture that the minister
just gave me and go on to the next point that the Society for Manitobans with
Disabilities make, and that is, they say the juxtaposition of these grant
reductions against significant growth in some departmental expenditures raises
additional questions about the department's priorities and the value of
services provided by the voluntary sector.
Now, they are referring to departmental expenditure increases between
'89‑90 and '91‑92 which are not very relevant to this budget for
'93‑94 when we see departmental expenditures declining except for the
increase in social assistance.
However, the point that they go on
to make is that they believe that client services provided directly by
community‑based agencies operating with lower salary levels and funding
from a variety of other sources is a better way to spend money. They say a 5 percent increase in personnel
services paralleled by a 1.5 percent decrease in grants transfer payments does
not support the principle of leadership by example and only serves to create an
impression that government looks after its own first. But I think that refers back to previous
years budget figures. I think the point
that they are making is that because their salaries are lower and because they
are a nongovernment organization, they can provide services more cheaply than
similar services delivered directly by government. I wonder what the minister's response is to
that argument that they are putting forward.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, that is something I am very interested
in, and I am pleased that the member recognizes that there are agencies out
there that perhaps government could purchase service from or contract out to as
opposed to government having to do those things. I think the member is on to something here
that perhaps it is something we should do more of in looking at having agencies
outside government deliver services, and we do sometimes get a chance to do
those comparisons. As the member knows,
in a number of areas within Family Services, we have outside agencies that are
the front line delivery method, and in some areas of the province, the
department staff do it.
I do not know whether we have ever
done a real thorough comparison of the cost of service, but, you know, the
member makes a good point, and I think it is something that we should pursue
through our Policy and Planning branch to see if we can free up some funding in
some areas, because we have lots of places to spend it, as the member well
knows. So if we can provide services
cheaper in some way by contracting out, then maybe we should do more of that.
Mr. Martindale: Their next comment is that attention should be
paid to reducing duplication between services provided directly by government
and those provided by the voluntary sector with the intent of shifting more
services from government to the voluntary sector.
Is this something that the minister
is also in favour of, and is it something that his department is examining?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think we have to be careful if we are
shifting services to the voluntary sector.
We talked about Winnipeg Harvest the other day being the voluntary
sector in terms of providing food. I do
not subscribe to the fact that government can just walk away from its
responsibilities to provide that basic safety net and depend on the volunteer
community.
Mr. Martindale: I guess I would make a distinction between
organizations that operate almost entirely by volunteers, such as Winnipeg
Harvest, and organizations like the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities
who are operating with paid staff. So I am not sure what they mean by voluntary
sector. Perhaps they mean nongovernment
sector.
They go on to say that
rehabilitation agencies play an important role in preventing
institutionalization. I think what they
are saying is that, if money flows to their organization for prevention and
rehabilitation, they can save money because it may keep people out of
institutions and out of hospitals and save money in the health care system.
I think that is quite a good
argument. They seem to feel that by your
government's reduction in its grant and reduction in rehabilitation services
that is inconsistent with decreasing future costs to government.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I guess that was a comment rather than
a question, but I will engage in that.
For sure, the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities provides some
extremely valuable services to individuals across this province.
I am sure all of us are aware of
individual cases where intervention by SMD has provided a quality of life that
was very, very important. I can
certainly think of specific cases in my own community where they have been just
extremely supportive of a number of families.
We are going to pursue, in our
service and funding agreement, a continuing relationship with SMD.
I think, through the Auditor's
Report, we have had a reminder that agencies and organizations like that, from
time to time, have to examine the services that they provide and how they do
business and find those areas of duplication that exist, whether it is
duplication with government or duplication with other agencies and
organizations. We will be pleased to
continue our relationship with them to assist them in becoming the most
effective organization that they can be.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Objectives
and Expected Results of the subappropriation, it stated that one of the
expected results is the "development of program plans and policies which
are responsive to changing client needs."
One would presume from that that one would have to have some knowledge
of the client's needs.
In the area of child care, I am
going to ask this minister the same question that I have asked him twice
before. Is this perhaps the branch that
would have done some analysis of the client needs and told the minister that
there was in fact a capacity for those receiving subsidies to go from a dollar
a day to $2.40 a day?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, within this branch is housed our daycare
staff. We rely on the input of the staff
within that branch to bring forward the statistics, the information and the
recommendations of how we can accommodate the needs of the daycare community
and do that within the budget allocations that we have.
The member's question is one that
has been raised before. I had the
opportunity two nights ago to meet with a group of daycare parents in a certain
area of the city where we talked at length about subsidies and the various
kinds of daycares and the number of spaces available.
There is some concern in the
community that we are reducing the number of subsidized spaces that government
was able to accommodate in the last budget year. I have assured those parents with issues and
concerns, and certainly have assured the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) today
that the daycare staff will be working with individuals as changes take place
within the system.
* (1550)
I suppose there are different ways
of managing these changes. For instance,
our subsidy is based on an income test, and the change that we made is not
income tested, other than if you are on subsidy that you are being asked to
contribute more.
The feeling was within the
department that the people who are accessing daycare have the ability to make
that additional contribution.
Mrs. Carstairs: The minister indicated, which I already knew,
of course, that the subsidy was income tested and the amount of subsidy that is
provided is based on the amount of income that the individual has.
Can the minister tell us then if the
department had new information which would indicate that people had additional
income that would enable them to pick up an extra $1.40 a day per child and, in
some cases, an additional $2.40 per day per child since they were not paying
the original $1 a day per child?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the
Chair)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am not aware of any of the centres that
were not charging the original $1 that have now decided to charge that $1 plus
the $1.40, but perhaps there are, and we will ask for that information from the
department.
The grid which has been worked out
to determine subsidies certainly has clientele within that subsidy framework at
a variety of levels of income.
The department and the information
brought forward by this branch was such, when we had our discussions in making
this decision, that the people who were accessing the full subsidy and those
that were accessing the partial subsidy would be able to accommodate another
$1.40 a day. There were obviously
alternatives that we have discussed. We
felt that this was a small amount that the client would have to contribute.
Government, for the majority of the subsidized clients, is providing, if not
the total amount in the past, nearly all of that amount. It was felt that parents with children in
child care could make that small contribution.
Mrs. Carstairs: I think we have a slight semantics problem
here. The daycares that I have spoken to
indeed charged $1 a day. The point was,
they did not get it. They could not get
the $1 a day from the client, so they were in fact writing it off, if you will,
as a bad debt at the end of their fiscal year.
So those are the ones that I am saying, if they found that these people
could not pay the $1 a day, now they are being asked to pay $2.40 a day, in
essence $1.40 per day increase per child, what kind of analysis‑‑the
minister said that this branch did in fact provide statistics‑‑what
kind of statistics did this branch provide to the minister about the number of
child care spaces for which there was not $1 a day paid that would give him a
sense that there was a capacity for them now to pay $2.40 a day?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, that information that the member is
looking for is lodged within the various daycare centres. Some of the centre boards have made decisions
passed onto me through the MCCA not to charge the $1 a day. Some centres made a decision to include that
as part of the charge, and some centres did both. They in their own estimation did some incomes
testing, and some of their clients were paying the $1 a day and some were not
being charged that $1 a day.
It was the feeling and the
conclusion arrived at within our department in discussing this with the staff
from the daycare office, looking at information that we had, that this was an
amount that parents could contribute to the child care that they were accessing.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell the committee the
amount of income that a family would earn that would entitle them to a full
subsidy?
* (1600)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Perhaps before I start I will just introduce
the staff that have joined me: Tannis
Mindell, is the Assistant Deputy Minister; Kim Sharman with her staff, and
Gisela Rempel from the Daycare office.
The net family income to qualify for
subsidies if, and it depends on the composition of the family‑‑a
single parent with one child at an income of $13,787 would get a full subsidy
and would get a partial subsidy up to $24,369.
A single parent with two children would get a full subsidy at $16,341
and a partial subsidy up to $37,505. A
single parent with three children would get a full subsidy at $18,895 and a
partial subsidy up to $50,641. Two
parents, one child, full subsidy at $16,341, a partial subsidy up to
$26,923. Two parents, two children, full
subsidy up to $18,895 and a partial subsidy up to $40,059. One final example, two parents, three
children, a full subsidy at $21,449, and a partial subsidy up to $53,195. In all cases that is net family income, total
after‑tax family income less UI, CPP premiums and other mandatory
deductions.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the figure that the
minister gave me for a single parent with two children was an income of
$16,341. As a result of this change,
according to my calculations and I stand to be corrected, that would be $1.40 a
day for two children at 52 weeks a year would be $676‑‑$676 out of
a total income of $16,341 in additional costs.
Can the minister explain to me how this person could do this?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I point out to the member, and I do not have
my calculator in front of me, but government's contribution to the daycare of
those two children would be in excess of $30 a day for 52 weeks of the year, so
we as government through this particular branch are providing a considerable
amount of subsidy for the care of those children, and the feeling, in looking
at the changes that we had to make in subsidies, I am told that would be a
contribution on the part of government of $8,320.
Because of the demands on the
system, and I point out that we have licensed some 3,000 more spaces in the
last few years, we have doubled the amount of funding that we have put into
daycare over the last five or six budgets, that there are various ways of doing
this to try and remain within a budget that I think the print this year is some
$47 million. We could have rechanged the
subsidy to take a considerable number of parents off subsidy to not have this
additional charge, but we felt to maintain the system of between 19,000 and
20,000 licensed spaces and to still have some 9,600 children being subsidized,
that we would make the changes that led us to ask for a contribution of $1.40 a
day.
Mrs. Carstairs: Nobody is denying that these individuals are
already getting large sums of money from the government. I simply asked how a single parent on $16,341
a year, raising two children, can afford to pay an additional $676 a year? I just want to know how the minister thinks
they can do that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I point out to the member that $16,000
that she references is net income, that there is other income that flows to
that family through various tax credits and other government programming. Again, every family has decisions to make and
we realize that they are difficult decisions.
I think what the member is saying is yes, you could live within the
budget, but take the money from somewhere else, and certainly those were
options we looked at.
Mr. Martindale: I wonder if we could go back to another part
of the department if it is okay with the minister. I have a newsletter from the Ability Network
from November 1992, and they talk about graduates from high school with
developmental disabilities. They refer
to the fact that some 70 graduates throughout Manitoba completed high school in
1992.
Apparently there are no statistics
on what happens to these students after high school because there is no
tracking mechanism in place. I would
like to ask the minister if he thinks this would be something worthwhile doing,
finding out if these students went on to post‑secondary education or into
employment.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, yes, I would agree with the member that
a tracking system to follow these graduates would be very important. We do some transitional planning with
individuals as they come out of the public school system at age 21, but this is
an area of our department which we have many of the toughest decisions to make
in terms of providing programming.
This is the area where in fact we
have waiting lists of people to get into appropriate housing and day
programming and on‑the‑job training and jobs where there are full‑time
coaches and staff available, and we do have some statistics to show what
happens to these individuals in the years immediately following their leaving
the training institution that they were involved with and do this transitional
planning, but as far as long‑term statistics, it is an area where we
could improve.
Mr. Martindale: I have had the opportunity to talk with quite
a few externally funded agencies, and some I have been able to tour. One that I saw earlier this year was Brandon
Community Options. I was in one of their
group homes, in one of their workshops, and asked them how the budget was going
to affect their operation. They
explained how they planned to alter their budget due to a two percent cut to
fundings for per diems, and I believe they lost three percent on other rates.
I guess one of their biggest
problems is that their staff are unionized, and they have already in place a
collective agreement that requires a two percent wage increase in October. So they are faced with some very difficult
budget decisions. I think they will find
a way to survive this year. They have
to. They have no other choice unless
they shut down their group homes, and they do not intend to do that, but they
are concerned about next year as well as this year. I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) has already announced a 1 percent budget reduction in all departments
for next year.
Is there any ability for this
minister or his department to indicate to externally funded agencies and organizations
what may be coming down the road for next year so that they can do some
budgeting in advance that hopefully they will not have to redo after the
provincial budget is tabled? It seems to
me that this is a particular problem when budgets are going down rather than
up, but that they would appreciate being able to do some long‑term
budgeting rather than have to go through a crisis, particularly the kind of
crisis they went through this year when they had finished their budget process
and then found out they had much less money to operate but had increased
expenses like a collective agreement that they had agreed to with a two percent
salary increase.
So I wonder if the minister can give
some indication of what changes he might be able to make for organizations for
their budgeting process next year.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly these
community organizations have very, very difficult decisions to make as their
boards of directors grapple with budgets.
The member referenced, I think he said, a union that they belong to, and
I am very interested in what Premier Rae is talking about in terms of social
contracts and to see if perhaps some of the unions would take a little less to
maintain staffing and programming and be able to leave intact basically the
programming that is there. The message
is certainly out there that this government, as well as all governments, is
going to have a difficult time accessing more funds in the coming year.
I am not sure what comment the
member is referring to that the Finance minister has made, but I know last year
we sent out cautionary letters in the month of November, I believe it was, to
indicate to groups that access funding from our department and many
departments, that they should not expect that their funding would remain as it
was last year. I think the environment
is out there now where organizations realize that accessing additional funding
in the 1990s from government is going to be very difficult.
* (1610)
We will work with the various boards
of these organizations to assist them in helping make any transition that they
have to make and make any adjustments that they have to make to recognize the
realities that are in place. The
programming for individuals in the various training programs that are offered,
not only in Brandon but also in Winnipeg and other parts of the province,
basically are going on without a lot of changes from last year. The easiest
place to make those adjustments is on the wage side, and I think that the
member will find that these workers will be co‑operative with their
boards as they too recognize the situation that faces them.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to ask
some questions about child care now.
First of all, referring to the comments that the minister made earlier
saying that no centre is charging the dollar a day plus the $1.40 a day, I
would like to‑‑[interjection] Okay.
The minister says he did not say that so we will wait and see what is
recorded in Hansard and revisit that on Monday if necessary.
I believe that the problem with
centres who are not charging the new $1.40 a day is that it is putting downward
pressure on their salaries, that either because they feel their parents cannot
afford it, which is true in many, many cases, or because the parents are unable
to find the money or in fact pay that money when it is due to their child care
centre, that child care centres find other ways of making up for that shortfall
in funds. I do not know where they are
going to take that money from. I do not
suppose child care centres know yet whether it is going to come out of
equipment or supplies or food, but certainly it is going to put pressure on
salaries. Either they are going to ask
their staff to make sacrifices in terms of wages or they are not going to give
them increases. I think that is probably
one of the worst effects of the increase in fees to parents.
We know already that child care
workers are underpaid compared to people doing similar jobs, such as nursery
school teachers. We know that the child
care community would like to see wages increased even if it is over a matter of
time, but the result of this government's policies are that those salary
increases which are deserved and which have been something they have been campaigning
for for several years are not going to happen now as quickly as they could have
or should have.
I would like to ask the minister,
first of all, if he took this into consideration when they decided to implement
a new and additional fee to parents.
Mr. Gilleshammer: What I had said earlier, and I would clarify
for the member that in the previous budgeting and accessing of funds for child
care, centres had the ability to charge an extra dollar a day. Many of them did; some of them did not. Some of them charged some of their clients
that dollar, and others did not because of the fact they felt that it was not
possible to do so.
What I said to the Leader of the
Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) is that I was not aware of any centre that was
not collecting the dollar before that is now collecting $2.40, but that I would
check with my staff to see if there were cases where those centres were not
collecting before but were now collecting the full amount.
To get to the member's question, I
think he is focused very clearly on the issue in daycare as one of salaries,
that when I have met with the various daycare organizations and individual
daycares, salaries have certainly been a topic that we have wanted to discuss
and that they have wanted to discuss.
The salaries are dependent on, of
course, the amount of money that a daycare centre can access, and they
basically have just a very few places where they can access those funds. They get a government grant, they get subsidies
and they charge parent fees. As well,
they have been accessing money through Community Places organizations and the
Community Services Council, plus they get donations and they do
fundraising. So all of that income goes
into the crafting of a budget for that centre.
Then within the centre, of course,
they have to determine their staff ratios, and this is encompassed in
legislation, but a number of those centres determine that they want to have
staffing ratios that are enhanced, and of course, that comes at a cost. They
also have a basic minimum of what staffing complement, as far as training goes,
has to meet certain standards.
So all of those variables are in
there. Of course, the other figure that
comes into their budgeting is the fact that a number of them have surpluses
from money that has flowed through in previous years. We, again, over the last six budgets now,
have put many, many millions of dollars into the Child Day Care line here in
Manitoba which flows through subsidies, through grants, to the centres and
eventually becomes part of their staff salaries, because that is the big
expense. There is no question, when you
look at the budgets that centres have, that salaries are the major, major
component of that.
I know on the education side, school
divisions often say that 80 percent of their funding goes to salaries. I suspect in daycares maybe that would not be
far out. Those salaries do take a large
chunk out of the disposable income that board has.
Manitoba has a lot to be proud
of. We have the highest standards in the
world for child care, and those standards and those regulations have not been
changed. In fact, it led Carol Draper to
say recently, on March 7 of this year, that Manitoba has one of the best
systems in Canada and we need to be proud of it. She does compare Manitoba daycares to those
in other jurisdictions.
When I was at the conference in
Brandon, last fall I believe it was, a group had been contracted to do a study
of daycares across Canada. It is called
Caring for a Living. This was
information that they shared with the assembled daycare providers that were in
attendance during that conference. They
did a comparison of salaries and programs across Canada. Manitoba fares very, very well in that
comparison.
I know the member has told me before
that we should not be comparing wages from one jurisdiction to another, but‑‑[interjection]
Well, I am sorry if I misinterpreted that from the member. I know that in doing negotiating‑‑and
perhaps he has colleagues that have done negotiations‑‑one of the
measuring sticks that you use is interprovincial comparisons. For instance, if
you look at hourly wages across all positions the national average is
$9.60. In Manitoba that average is
$9.85. I believe only the province of
Ontario is higher than Manitoba.
If you look at the average wages by
position, for instance for assistant teachers, on an hourly basis the national
average is $8.29. In Manitoba that is
$8.60. Again, Ontario is higher.
* (1620)
If you look at the teacher directors‑‑and
I will maybe move to annual wages. The
national average for annual wages for teacher directors is $20,498. In Manitoba it is nearly $24,000. So again it
is substantially higher than you would find across this country.
Finally if you look at the
administrative directors who hold these positions across the country, the
annual wage nationally is $25,804. In
Manitoba the administrative director annually gets an average of $30,031. That is the highest in the country as far as
the provinces go.
While I do recognize and am aware
that wage is an issue, and I would say it is an issue largely in the centres in
Winnipeg, because I know I had the opportunity and I know the member for
Wellington (Ms. Barrett) had the opportunity to visit some of the centres
outside of Winnipeg.
In the last year I was in a centre
in Ste. Rose and another one in Russell, Manitoba, and wages are not as
contentious an issue there as they are here in the city, because they recognize
that their wages are higher than many people working in what they would deem
similar positions on Main Street in rural Manitoba are getting. So that is an issue, but it is mainly an
issue in certain parts of the province.
The other factor that came out of
this conference in Brandon and this study is the turnover rate, which is also
indicative of whether, I suppose, the daycare is dealing with the service
appropriately and whether staff in fact are satisfied with their jobs. The national turnover rate was listed as 26
percent, and in Manitoba that was 22 percent.
This study that was done for the daycare community does indicate that
there are issues, but it also indicates that Manitoba comparatively is
reasonably well served.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me the year of the
study to which he refers?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes. It
says the data collected was June, 1991, and that was a year when I could maybe
give you our budget figure for 1991. I
know this past year our budget in Manitoba was $46 million, and we have
overexpended it by $5 million. We are
print over print this year indicating that the budget will be a little over $47
million. In 1990‑91, the budget
was 42.9 and of course compares favourably with later in the '80s when it was
down around $28 million.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us what has happened
to average salaries in 1992 and 1993 in
Mr. Gilleshammer: This is the most recent comparative data that
we have, and I am not sure whether we have more information or not. This was from the fall of 1992.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me if the increases
in the budget were due to the Salary Enhancement Grant, or what was the major
reason for the increase? Was it more
children in child care or some other reason?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The increase in
Mr. Martindale: I would like to go back to some of my
questions in Question Period and some of the minister's statements. In response to a question from the member for
The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) on April 15 of this year, the minister said that the
number of subsidized spaces was being reduced from 10,000 spaces to 9,600
spaces, some 400 spaces.
I have asked the minister similar
questions about the effects of capping, and once we had letters that have gone
out from the Child Day Care office, I asked the minister what the difference
was between 400 spaces and 400 cases and never really received a satisfactory
answer. We have these letters now, so the
situation is much clearer.
I would like the minister to finally
admit that what I was asking was correct, that in the past where two or three
parents were sharing one space, that will no longer be the case because, to
quote a letter of April 8, 1993, and this letter is signed by Doug Ritchot,
Assistant Director of Finance and Administration. It says in the first
paragraph, and I quote: Each subsidized
case at your facility refers to one child, whether that child is enrolled on a
full‑time, part‑time or extended‑hour basis.
So could the minister confirm that
indeed there is a difference between reducing 400 spaces and 400 cases?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Perhaps it would be clearer if I said that
last year we provided subsidy for 10,000 children, and this year we will be
providing subsidy for 9,600 children.
Mr. Martindale: Let me ask a slightly different
question. If, in the past, those 400
spaces were shared, in some cases two or even three children sharing one space,
and now the policy is that each subsidized case refers to one child, is it not possible
that far more than 400 children will be affected, that those 400 spaces could
be shared and therefore could be more children than 400?
Mr. Gilleshammer: My staff confirm that it will be 400
children.
Mr. Martindale: I guess I am going to have to go back to the
child care community because that is not the way they are explaining it to me.
Perhaps the minister could try to
clarify because I think there is some confusion about the difference between
spaces and cases. Perhaps the minister
knows where this confusion is coming from.
Mr. Gilleshammer: If there is any confusion with daycare
centres, I know they know that they can pick up the phone and call our Day Care
office to clarify that for them, and I think maybe I have clarified it for the
member. Last year, we had 10,000
subsidized children, and this year's budget we will be able to accommodate
9,600 children. We, I am sure it is safe
to say, have individuals and centres calling our Day Care office on a regular
basis, and if they want their individual circumstances clarified for them, they
can pick up the phone and call our staff and get those answers.
Mr. Martindale: I think there are probably three issues that
the child care community is primarily concerned about, all of them the result
of funding and policy changes. We have
already dealt with two of them, the increase in fees and the capping of spaces
or cases, whichever may be more accurate.
The third one is the reduction in the number of weeks of subsidized care
for a job search. I probably had as many
or more phone calls on this than almost any other change in the child care
system.
Repeatedly what people are saying is
that two weeks is not enough to search for employment and that if they are not
successful in finding employment, there will be no subsidized child care for
their children, then if subsequently they do get a job or go back to
university, that there will not be child care available, and therefore they may
not be able to accept a job or go back to school.
* (1630)
Just as the member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux) has had individual constituents phoning him, I have had many
constituents and nonconstituents phone me.
For example, a single parent, who was on social assistance with two
children, went back to school, went to the adolescent parent centre operated by
Winnipeg School Division No. 1, was on the Student Social Allowances Program,
another program eliminated by this minister.
She graduated, and then she took a computer course. She was employed‑‑I have her
resume here‑‑and unfortunately she lost her job. She was laid off. She now has two weeks to find
employment. She believes that she is
going to be unsuccessful. She will then
have no alternative but to turn to social assistance.
This is an individual who wants to
work, who is willing to work, and I would say that all of the people who have
phoned me have emphasized that they want to work, that they are willing to work
and that they are diligently looking for employment. This individual, as many others, believes
that the two‑week rule is very unrealistic.
In fact, probably the most
interesting conversation I had was with an individual who has been following
the advice that their child care centres have been giving, and that is to phone
the minister's office, to phone the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) office, to phone
their MLA and to phone the opposition critics.
We have been getting lots of phone calls. One of my constituents phoned the Premier's
office and would not allow one of his staff to take a message, insisted on
speaking to the Premier. Much to her
surprise, the Premier phoned her about ten o'clock at night from his car. I think she was shocked but also very
pleased, and so they had a very interesting conversation which she related to
me.
An Honourable Member: It happens all the time.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I am pleased to see that even the
Premier and ministers return calls to individuals. I am surprised if you have time to do
that. I think it is good if you do go to
the trouble of returning some of those individual calls.
My constituent said that‑‑she
related this same message that I am giving now and which you have heard over
and over again, I am sure, that two weeks is not a realistic period in which to
find employment in a very tight job market.
The Premier said, well, he was sure that there were jobs there. She assured him that there were not. She had been to Canada Employment and could
not find employment, and the Premier suggested that she try the newspaper. This individual thought that the Premier was
really out of touch with reality in terms of seeking employment.
I would like to ask the minister how
he can justify this policy. I would like
to know what kind of research was done in making the change in policy from
eight weeks to two weeks. Did you
contact Canada Employment Centres? Did
you look at the kind of employment that many parents are in who make use of
subsidized child care for their children, many of whom are women, many of whom
are single parents, many of whom are probably in traditional kinds of
employment for women, such as retail trade or retail work, the retail service
industry?
I would like to know if an analysis
was done before the policy was changed?
Did your staff, for example, contact Canada Employment Centres and ask them
what is the average time that people spend looking for employment from the time
that they register to the time that they get a job? If the minister can justify this, I would be
happy to pass this on to the people who are phoning me.
I would like to know what kind of
analysis was done before the policy was changed.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member has raised many, many issues there
regarding people losing their jobs, people on social allowances and people
needing and accessing daycare. On
Tuesday night, one of my colleagues and I spent some time discussing these
issues with a group of parents at one of the daycares in the city.
There were varying opinions amongst
those parents about people's ability to pay for daycare, people's ability to
access training, people's ability to access jobs. Some of them certainly reflected what the
member has just said, that it is no surprise that the job market is difficult
out there, particularly with university students and soon high school students
coming into the job market as well.
What we were finding was that the 16
weeks that the Manitoba daycare program allowed was certainly more generous
than other jurisdictions, some of whom have no provision for subsidized daycare
if in fact they were unemployed. So we
realize that this is a difficult change that has been made in the provision of
seeking employment for people wanting daycare, and the difficulty is there
because of the fear that the subsidized space may not be there when they feel
they required it.
For many taking training programs,
of course, they do not begin looking for work the day of their graduation. They have, in fact, been looking for work
perhaps for the last few months as they come to the end of their program. This we recognize is a reduction in a service
that was there before but is one of those really difficult decisions that
government has had to make to live within the budget.
We have reviewed all the other
options, I think, in previous days of increasing taxes and finding the money
elsewhere, taking it from other programs.
The daycare program in Manitoba is still a very generous one. I will not go into the comparisons with the
one in the province of Saskatchewan, but Manitoba's program compares very
favourably with what is offered anywhere in Canada. There is an adjustment period here as we move
from a very generous benefit to one that is not as generous. There will be some people that will find some
difficulty with this.
Again, as I indicated to the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) today, we, through the daycare office, will help
assist in whatever way we can to try and ensure that people access spaces and
subsidies if they require them.
As the school year comes to an end
and another school year starts in September, we do have a turnover of spaces
and of subsidies. So there will be
another window of opportunity at that time for people who perhaps‑‑students
go back to school, more employment becomes available.
Mr. Martindale: I am very disappointed in that answer from
the minister. I did not ask the minister
what opinions did people have about the situation. I asked the minister what analysis did he or
his staff do before making this major policy change. Did they even phone one Canada Employment
Centre? The minister has not answered that
question. I would like to have that
question answered.
The minister said that the policy in
Manitoba is more generous than other provinces.
It almost implies that being more generous is a disadvantage or an
excuse for making the program less generous.
It reminds me of the response that
this minister repeatedly gave when we asked why the Student Social Allowances
Program was eliminated. The minister
repeatedly said that the Student Social Allowances Program was the only one of
its kind in Canada, as if, when you have a good program that is some sort of
justification for eliminating it, that it was the only one of all the
provinces.
* (1640)
I am very disappointed in the answer
that the minister has given me. I would
like to ask him again, what kind of analysis or research did you do in terms of
the average number of weeks it takes people to find employment?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am sorry, because I did not mean to
disappoint the member. I can try
again. Sometimes when I get a lengthy
rambling question I tend to give the same kind of answer.
The department, of course, gathers a
lot of data, a lot of statistics on caseload, on subsidies, on grants, on
surpluses, on budgets, and brings forward the information that does the
analysis and comparison with other jurisdictions. It does a fair amount of analysis of what the
trends are, which I think is what the member is asking, what the trends are in
terms of people completing courses and moving into the workforce and analyzing
who our client base really is in daycare.
All of that information is available to the minister and senior staff in
looking at the various components of our budget.
I just want to assure the member
that the daycare branch of our department does a tremendous amount of work in
providing the information that is required to make these decisions. I would take some exception to the comment
that because we have more generous programs that this is some sort of
disadvantage.
Again, in difficult economic times
where governments across this country are making those tough decisions to close
major hospitals, or close pretty well all the rural hospitals in the province,
or to enter into the social contract to downscale wages in the provinces, the
fact that major political personalities within the member's party are now
publicly bickering about how is the best way to bring costs into line should be
evidence for the member to know that these are very, very tough decisions.
If we do have a program that is one
that is not offered in any other jurisdiction, we have to ask ourselves, is
that a program that is absolutely necessary?
Is it a program that has a higher priority when the program does not
exist anywhere else?
So, for sure, there are programs
that are offered during good times.
During the '70s and '80s when the government of the day was accessing
income at double‑digit amounts, they, of course, regrettably did not save
money and did not pay off the debt and reduce their deficit. They simply spent more.
Well, we do not have that luxury anymore. I mean, nobody has displayed it more
eloquently by his actions than Premier Romanow or the comments made by Premier
Rae that these are difficult decisions.
I know your leader has said many times that governments face these
difficult decisions on programming expenditures and revenue.
We have clearly decided here not to
raise the sales tax. We are not raising
the personal income tax or the corporate income tax. In fact, we are reducing the tax,
particularly the tax on jobs. This will
help to stimulate the economy and we believe by leaving that money in the hands
of people that there will be more job creation.
So we did have to look at some
downsizing of programs within this department and make those difficult
decisions that your leader has alluded to.
Again, we do not take any delight in reducing some of these
programs. At the same time, we did not
want to have our sales tax go up to 9 percent or 11 percent, as you see in
other provinces where it has had a tremendous impact on the ability of citizens
there to purchase goods and services.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I am sure that the minister's staff has
done a lot of analysis, that they know a lot about their clients and they know
a lot about people moving into employment and training. I am sure that, as the minister says, they
have done a tremendous amount of work, and I am sure that they are a hard‑working
staff.
But I think in his answers that the
minister is stonewalling. The minister
has not answered whether or not the staff did an analysis of how long it takes
to seek employment, on the average, and make the decision on that basis.
I think the minister should just
defend the policy change and say it was done for monetary reasons, was not
based on an analysis of how long it takes to seek employment and admit that
that was the reason he made the decision and defend that decision instead of
talking about a whole lot of other things that are irrelevant and extraneous to
the answer.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I at no time have denied
that decisions that go into the design of a budget are anything but budget
decisions.
As far as the seeking employment, we
used to have within our branch programming that helped to create employment for
people who had been out of the workforce for some time. The programming has now been transferred to
the Department of Education, and a lot of the statistics that the member
perhaps would want to discuss in more detail will now be logged within the
Department of Education where there has been a combining of training and
education programs that were once in Family Services and Labour and now are
part of a more focused Department of Education and Training.
We do have, across government,
information on those who seek employment and how long they are out of the
workforce and know about the difficulties.
What we need to do is focus more and more on the types of training in
the 1990s that are going to get people back into a very much restructured
economy. If the member will look at the
statistics that have come out recently with the increased number of full‑time
jobs in Manitoba and the unemployment in Manitoba, he will see that this
program is working very well.
Mr. Martindale: I would suggest that this government's policy
of reducing taxes to put more money in the hands of consumers to spend money
and stimulate the economy has been an abysmal failure. We are deeper into the recession than ever,
and I think this government shares at least some of the responsibility for
that.
I would like to move on to some
specific questions having to do with the Lakeview Children's Centre. I see they met with the minister on January
21, 1993, and I have not had a chance to update myself on what has been
happening there in the last couple of months, so this is a good opportunity to
do that. They were requesting full
funding for 28 spaces and they requested that they be informed of decision
regarding funding before the end of February to facilitate the implementation
of their 1993‑94 budget.
I am just wondering if the minster
can begin by telling us the current funding status of Lakeview Children's
Centre.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I can certainly do that, and I am
pleased that the member has put on the record that he is against reducing
taxes, because that makes him very much consistent with what his fellow
travellers are doing in B.C. and
In terms of accessing more money it
is a decision that we definitely made, to leave that money in the hands of the
consumer who is spending it and who can spend it better than government. The
message to Manitobans is very clear, that if the honourable critic was in
government, increasing taxes would be one of the first priorities to access
that money to enhance programs and perhaps create another Jobs Fund.
We talked about that the other day,
the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent on those green signs across
the province, that not one permanent, sustainable job was created. I do not know whether the member has had the
opportunity to read the comments of his leader, who was, I believe, the head of
the MGEA at the time and who criticized the Pawley government for sending
people out to erect signs and to paint fences and to count flowers. That is the type of job stimulation that
members of the New Democrats would, at least in the past, recommend.
* (1650)
I cannot help but note again the
tremendous philosophical rift that has broken out in Ontario about what
government should do. You have the federal
New Democrats who, of course, are in opposition demanding that government spend
more and tax more and have more programming.
Then you have the reality of New Democrats in government who are there
hiking sales taxes, hiking personal income tax, closing hospitals, closing
schools, cutting out the GRIP program in Saskatchewan. That is the reality that they are
facing. So there is quite a dichotomy of
thinking that exists between New Democrats in opposition and New Democrats in
government, and I am pleased again that the member has put on the record that
he is opposed to reducing taxes.
Now, I believe he was asking about
the Lakeview Children's Centre in Langruth.
Yes, I did have the opportunity to meet with the director and a number
of board members. Of course, Lakeview
has been a model of a daycare centre in a very small rural community that is
able to provide daycare services to an extended community at extended
hours. We are pleased at the way they
have developed and provided the service, I think, for some 42 children in that
area, I believe was the number they used when we met a few months ago.
They have demonstrated that if there
is a will to put a centre together and provide that service in a small
community, they can do it. In fact,
other organizations such as the Women's Institute and the Department of
Agriculture, as well as our department, have monitored the development of the
centre and looked at it as a possible model for other areas. Again, other areas make their own decisions
and realize that in many cases, the home daycare is the best level of service
to offer to farm families.
We have also entered into a bit of a
pilot project with the Women's Institute and the Department of Agriculture as
well as the Department of Family Services to set up the child minder system.
An Honourable Member: A babysitting register.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, and I presume the member is supportive
of that. Perhaps he is not, and he will
get a chance to put his thoughts on the record if he is opposed to the child
minder system. It has worked well in
Alberta, and it appears, in the communities where it has started here, that it
is working reasonably well and has gained some favour with farm families who
need to access that service, particularly at seeding time and at harvest time.
So given the fact that in some areas
of the farm community the need for child care is seasonal, the member would
appreciate that setting up a centre that operates 12 months of the year
sometimes is not the most practical way to go.
But, of course, the diversified agriculture that exists in the Langruth
area with a lot of mixed farming and people who have off‑farm income, it
appears to work in that area.
Having said that, the member has
asked about the status of Lakeview Children's Centre. I can tell him that it is a full‑time
daycare centre and that it operates two daycare programs. The preschool program is licensed for 18
children from 12 weeks to 12 years, while the school‑age program is
licensed for 10 children from five years to 12 years.
Following the restructuring of child
care services funding in July of 1991, the preschool program of Lakeview
Children's Centre began receiving financial support from the government of
Manitoba in the form of a partial grant funding and subsidies for
families. The school‑age program
opened in September 1992 and receives no grant funding, however receives
subsidies for families. Lakeview is on
the provincial waiting list for full funding for both programs.
At the present time, that is the status
with them. The Lakeview Centre, of
course, has been operated very well, and as of March 31, just a few weeks ago,
had a surplus which can be taken into consideration when they do their planning
for the coming year. So the status then
is that there is partial grant funding, partial subsidies, and they are on a
waiting list for full funding for both of those programs.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to respond very briefly to the
minister's long and rambling lecture and say that I am not opposed to reducing
taxes. What I did say was that I was
opposed to the economic policies of his government which are a failure.
Going back to the Lakeview
Children's Centre, I am not sure I know what being on a waiting list
means. Does it mean that they have not
been approved as a permanent licensed centre or that their funding is approved
year to year or month to month? Perhaps the minister could explain what being
on a waiting list for funding means.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am pleased the member clarified his stand on
taxes, that he would like to see taxes go down because that is certainly in
line with what people on our side of the House think. I can see that the member, by the time we get
voting on later budget items, may be fully in favour of the budget.
The meaning of the partial funding
is, it is fully licensed. The licensing is approved. It is the funding that is partial. They get
approval for partial funding, partial grants and partial subsidies.
[interjection] Five o'clock.
Mr. Martindale: The minister agrees with me that we should
call it five o'clock.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to call it
five o'clock?
The time being 5 p.m., time for
private members' hour. Committee rise.
HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION
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 of the Department of Highways and
Transportation.
We are on item 7.(d) Taxicab Board,
page 92 in the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please
enter the Chamber.
7.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $87,100.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Chairperson, when last we met to
discuss Estimates for the minister's department, the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) had indicated he was going to move forward on the policy section and,
of course, decided to be very, very brief in his comments and in fact skipped a
great portion of the debate that I think is necessary to find out the policy of
this government on various transportation issues.
We had discussed at the beginning of
the Estimates for the minister's department the possibility of moving about
various sections, but to accommodate the minister and his staff we had agreed
that it might be easier for the minister if we could do it section by
section. Since the member for St. James
decided that transportation policy was irrelevant in his own position as
critic, it is not irrelevant for our party here, and I would like to ask the
minister some questions concerning that aspect while his staff is still here,
if he is agreeable to that.
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Madam
Chairperson, first of all, I cannot dictate the way that my critics operate in
terms of‑‑I try to be very flexible in terms of how I allow these
things to move forward.
We have moved forward to the point
where we have one item left under Boards and Committees which is the Taxicab
Board. Other than that, we have Capital left.
I have geared my staff accordingly,
because the last time we met, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and the
critic, the member for Transcona, indicated that under Capital they would want
to have very specific information.
It is for that reason that I have
with me here today Doug Struthers as well as my Planning and Design individual,
Andy Horosko.
I am a little at a loss as to
whether the member is now suggesting that we go back to policy. What have we got there in that area? I assumed that once the member gave up the right
to speak on that and left and dealt with the other critic, and subsequently we
passed that and actually passed all of DDVL and Boards and Committees right up
to the Taxicab Board. So I have some
difficulty, if we want to redo the whole thing.
Like I have said, we have not
necessarily gone under the line‑by‑line basis. I have allowed as much flexibility as by and
large the members wanted, but to go back now and redo it, the difficulty I have
with that is that the critics, with all due respect, know for example where we
are at with this thing.
I took, with a fair amount of
patience, and rediscussed the transference of 2,000 roads to municipalities,
and I rediscussed the airline industry, which we had covered already once
before, so I think that as the minister responsible I have been relatively
flexible and tried to be very patient in terms of trying to give as much
information as possible. But I have some
difficulty going back, because the member had indicated at one point that he
wanted to discuss the issues under the Motor Transport Board, but when we
passed through that area [interjection] DDVL? [interjection] Pardon me.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. May I ask the co‑operation of the
committee members to be individually recognized through the Chair to assist
Hansard with the recording?
Mr. Reid: Just for
clarification for the minister's purpose, I recognize and appreciate what he is
saying here. It was my understanding, as
a member of the official opposition, I was showing some leniency, I suppose‑‑maybe
it is not the right term‑‑to give the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) the opportunity to come in and ask some questions while I still had
many questions on that section.
Maybe I should not have shown that
understanding for the individual, and next time I can probably say that I would
not show that understanding, looking at what has happened here.
The minister had indicated as well,
when we were on the Transportation Policy section, that he would answer
questions that I had with respect to carrier authorities. He would rather answer that under the DDVL
section of his departmental Estimates.
Since that did not occur, and he indicated that it would, and that he
would bring forward information with respect to that, questions that I had
posed to him in an earlier section‑‑he has not answered the
questions that he said that he would under that section.
Now I know it is somewhat
inconvenient for the minister with respect to his staff, but those changes that
happened were both beyond the minister's control and mine and were directly in
the hands of the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) who chose to ignore
Transportation Policy issues.
So I ask the minister‑‑he
has a choice here, and I am trying to be flexible and convenient for him‑‑to
make it as comfortable as possible for him when his staff is here and can
assist him in answering the questions, or I can ask the same questions under
Minister's Salary which becomes much more difficult for him.
I am not trying to create a
difficult situation. We both, I think,
want to co‑operate and make sure that I have the opportunity to ask
questions as the critic of the official opposition and he has staff available
to assist him in answering those questions.
I think it is a reasonable compromise.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I do not want to give the impression that I am
prepared to go back all the way through this thing and start from the beginning
again or certain spots where the member felt maybe that he now wants to raise
new issues again under certain sections.
If he can be more specific as to what area he wants to get information
on, I will give it consideration, but I need to have him be more specific as to‑‑if
he is talking about the specific issue of the bills of lading, where the owner‑operators
had some information that basically was related to the Motor Transport Board,
you know, we took that as notice, I think.
We are trying to get information on that or probably have the
information on that, but I want the member to be a little bit more specific as
to which area that we have basically passed already that he wants to get back
into, and then I will see whether we can accommodate or not.
Mr. Reid: Okay,
that is reasonable. We had not had the
opportunity. I have had a chance to
review Hansard for the last sitting of the minister's Estimates; we did not
have the opportunity to talk at any length concerning VIA Rail or railways in
general in the province. We did not have
the opportunity to talk about the impact of the WGTA decision by the federal
government branch line rationalization.
I did not have a chance to receive an answer with respect to the owner‑operators
and companies impersonating carriers, for which I had written to the minister's
office, and also the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the impact
that these decisions may have upon the province of Manitoba. I am interested in the minister's viewpoints
on those areas.
* (1430)
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, when last we sat and, you know, by confusion or not
being organized properly between the two critics, when we moved forward with
this thing that my director of Transportation and Policy‑‑when we
finally moved on from this‑‑I have the staff that I thought would
be impacted today. I do not have Mr.
Schaefer here today. Had the member
possibly mentioned on Tuesday night that he was not happy with the way things
had gone and that he would like to bring back some of this, then I could have
probably made accommodations. Mr.
Schaefer is not available at the present time. I am prepared to take and talk‑‑I
am trying to be reasonable as well without taking away and spending extra time
on it.
The member raised a series of
transportation issues. Because of the
importance, to my mind, of the railway issue, we can take and maybe have some
discussion on that or we can do it under the Minister's Salary. I am prepared to because I think I have a
relatively good feel for it and probably could answer the questions without
staff being available at the time. The
other thing, maybe to help the member, if there are specific areas that he
feels have been passed by because of the confusion on the other side, I am
prepared to take and have him then maybe submit those questions to me in
writing somewhere along the line and we will take and respond.
Madam Chairperson, I have always
tried to be very forthright in terms of giving information, and I do not want
to take and withhold information or try and cut the member off. [interjection]
Fair enough, but just to maybe not‑‑once
the item has been passed, I am prepared to discuss this. I am not trying to withhold information, but
we can go back into the transportation policy issue again for all afternoon in
the area of the rail industry itself, which was the one area which we did not
cover. I would be prepared to go into that, but he listed about five or six
issues there. I am a little sensitive
because, there, I would need somebody like Dennis Schaefer to come and assist
me with that. [interjection]
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Reid: I
realize that this possibly puts the minister at a slight disadvantage, but I
think he has a reasonable amount of experience and knowledge of his department,
at least I assume that. If there is
anything that the minister receives by way of questions from myself that he
feels he is unable to answer fully, I have no problem with his taking that as
notice and coming back at another time, in writing, if necessary, at some later
date when he can answer those questions more fully.
I am not attempting to pin him down
to something that he feels uncomfortable with here, just give an indication at
the time that he can fully answer that later and just give me a general
overview of what his impressions are at this time. That is what I am looking for.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, to try and help the member as well, because I brought
my people here related to Capital and got the impression there were going to be
detailed questions asked on my Capital program, I have those people here.
Might I suggest to the member that
we maybe would want to, because I cannot take and stonewall on this thing,
because ultimately the Minister's Salary comes up‑‑would the member
be inclined to take and proceed on the basis of what we have here? Do my
Capital, and then I am prepared to try and see whether we can move back to
certain areas under the Transportation Policy and discuss that, because I have
this staff here at the present time. I
know some of the member's colleagues raised with me that they wanted specific
answers on certain projects at this time, at this sitting of the afternoon, and
that is why I have my people here.
If we go back to discussing the
policy end of it for all afternoon, and then we talk about the next sitting
that I have these people here again, would the member be amenable? I am trying to help him to maybe go through
the Capital, and then we will revert back to the transportation end of it.
I will try to see if I can possibly
get Mr. Schaefer to come and attend after we have gone through Capital, if the
member gives me some idea when this is going to take place, because I have
pretty high‑priced help, and I do not want to necessarily jerk them
around, saying, you know, we have changed our mind and we are going back to
Transportation. You guys get out. I will get Mr. Schaefer back in.
Can we maybe deal with the Capital
end of it, and if the member gives me some indication what time he feels we
would be up to finishing the Capital, I will try and have Mr. Schaefer come
back and then we deal with it on that basis?
Mr. Reid: In an
effort to assist the minister, trying to be as accommodating as possible, would
it be possible then‑‑I throw this out as a suggestion‑‑that
I can ask my questions now under the Boards and Committees section of the
Estimates? Because the minister has
indicated that he has some staff here that would facilitate discussion on
Capital, we could then move into the Capital section. Myself and my colleagues could have the
opportunity to ask questions of the minister on Capital, and then if we do not
conclude the Estimates at this time, for this sitting, the next sitting we
could bring back persons that the minister's department has who have experience
in Transportation Policy, so that we can conclude our policy discussion at that
time.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I just want a clarification, because I can get Mr.
Schaefer back here later on during the course of today, if he would want to
deal with it. But I do not want to take
and jack around with my staff here.
On Boards and Committees, we
basically have one item left to pass, then we can pass that resolution, and
then go on to Capital, we will do that.
If the member gives me any time, feels that at what time‑‑within
reason, I would like half an hour to get Mr. Schaefer down here‑‑can
give me an indication of when he wants him here, then we will make the effort
to have Mr. Schaefer come back to deal with the transportation issue.
Mr. Reid: Just one
clarification question for the minister then, because we are under Boards and
Committees still, he says there is only one area left which, reviewing Hansard,
indicates that the taxicab section was being discussed at that time.
Does the minister have staff here to
advise him on the Boards and Committees section of his Estimates at this present
time?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I do not have my chairman of each committee here, but
I am the minister who is responsible‑‑myself and the deputy‑‑so
I am prepared to answer questions on that area.
That comes under my jurisdiction.
Mr. Reid: Okay, I
think we have an understanding then that we will go through the Boards and
Committees and I will ask my questions on that of the minister. If there are any areas that he thinks that he
might need more information on, I have no problem with him providing that at a
later date, in writing, for me.
Since he has staff available to
discuss the Capital portions, we can move into that section, and then my
colleagues can ask their questions.
Then, if time permits, we will go back to the policy issues where the
minister's staff would be available to assist him.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to remind all members of the
committee that the correct procedure for considering items is line by
line. Once an item has been passed, the
only means by which we can revert back to a specific item is by unanimous
consent of the committee.
At this point, we have considered
and passed up to item 7.(d)(2) Other Expenditures. Everything up to and including that item has
duly been passed by said committee.
What is the will of the committee?
* (1440)
Mr. Reid: I agree
with you, Madam Chairperson, I have no problem with that. The sections have been passed indeed. My questions are‑‑yes,
inadvertently passed, for conditions beyond my control.
I am not attempting to open up any
discussion about the monetary issues within the department, Madam Chairperson,
for those sections that have been passed.
This is just purely policy that is discussed, and I have asked the
minister if he would be willing to do that in an open discussion under a
section here, or do it under Minister's Salary, the choice is his. I just tried to accommodate him because he
does have staff available when we are not on Minister's Salary.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, my question to the member is: When he says
"questions," does he mean under Boards and Committees? Are the questions that he has now under
Boards and Committees?
Madam Chairperson: What is the will of the committee? We need unanimous consent of the committee to
revert back, as I indicated, to any item under Boards and Committees. We have previously already passed‑‑with
all due respect to all committee members, due process was followed. We have passed Motor Transport Board, Highway
Traffic Board, Licence Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review, and we have
passed (d)(1) Salaries under Taxicab Board.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Chairperson, why the request to revert
back to some of this question is being made‑‑I am sorry, I was not
in committee when the pertinent items were discussed. I am wondering, whether the member that is
now requesting to revert back to some of these items was not in the House at
the time this was discussed and debated or whether he inadvertently passed this
by, I believe that the normal procedure in committee is once the items have
been approved, that they are then beyond discussion, and that we should proceed
with the remaining items as with normal procedure.
Madam Chairperson: As I indicated earlier, the only means by
which we can revert back to rediscuss any items previously passed is by
unanimous consent of the committee. I
have posed the question three times now as to what the will of the committee
is.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Madam Chairperson, on the question, we have
of course gone through this type of debate many, many times in Estimates over
the past number of years, as the member for
My suggestion is that in order to
accommodate what was a mistake‑‑let us put the best face on it‑‑my
colleague believed that the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) was going to be
carrying on with the line of questioning which he abandoned very quickly after
my colleague disappeared for a moment.
Several sections were passed inadvertently. My colleague would like to go back and ask
some questions.
The legislative time is going to be
used. We can either use it debating a
senseless point of order, or we can agree to let it go back and the minister
can continue with the Estimates process.
Mr. Driedger:
We are wasting pretty valuable time here. Might I suggest that we proceed with the
Taxicab Board thing. We can pass
that. Then we go to Capital because I
have my staff here. Then when we get to the Minister's Salary, I will try and
answer what I can at that time what the member has missed. I do not want to set a precedent here by
reopening this, because this will happen at other committees. So we will proceed on this basis, and what I
cannot answer at the time when my staff is not here under Minister's Salary, I
am prepared to take it under advisement and get that information for the member
as I always have in the past. So that
way we can get around this bottleneck here.
I think it is probably just a bit of
an indication for all members of the House as they have the responsibility that‑‑it
is not my mistake that happened, and I am going to try and accommodate
that. So if we can proceed on this
basis, whatever else is left we will then deal with under Minister's Salary. If I cannot answer without staff, then I will
get that information. So we can proceed without setting a dangerous precedent.
Madam Chairperson: Shall item 7.(d)(2) pass?
Mr. Reid: I thank
the minister for agreeing to proceed in this direction. I think we are interested in trying to move
this forward as quickly as possible, and from my side at least I am trying to
be as accommodating as I can for the minister, provided that he has his staff
here to assist him in that. I am not in
any way attempting to blindside him or catch him off guard on this.
The Taxicab Board, of course, has
been in the news as of late over the course of the last year and a half for
various issues. Even prior to my election in 1990, the Taxicab Board issues
were important when we saw many hundreds of members of the taxicab industry storming
the front entrance of the Legislative Building.
The issues and the way they are dealt with, with respect to the taxicab
industry, of course, are important to them, and they have had serious concerns
over the years. Now we see that the
minister has brought forward legislation with respect to the taxicab industry,
and it causes concerns for them again.
The minister says, one of his comments was that it was in an effort to
recapture or recover the cost of the administration of the Taxicab Board.
Can the minister give me an
indication of what those costs of operation are for the Taxicab Board so we can
have a better understanding of those real costs? Does he have any historical costs as well
that we might have a comparison?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, on page 105, the member will see the breakdown as to
the amount of SYs that we have involved in that, the board members, the
compensation, the total salaries that are there which works out to, in this
coming year, we have a budget for $245,000.
That is the salaries for the total component of the board and staff.
Under Other Expenditures, we have
the Transportation. We have the
Communications, Supplies and Services.
There again, that 18.5 which was raised by the other critic the other day
is the rent basically for the office space.
So the total budget last year was $335,000. It is $332,000. By the fee structure that is in place at the
present time, about half of that money is recovered. Because there are only two areas under
regulations that the board could properly charge extra increases, it was felt
that that would put those fees out of reach really or make them unrealistic.
In terms of some of the inspections
that would take place, what we are looking at, we would have to have
legislation to broaden the scope to be able to take and cost recover for
certain services that are being provided.
That basically is what triggered the legislation to come forward,
because it is the objective to fully cost recover the operations of the Taxicab
Board.
In conjunction with that, there was
a few other things that we are bringing forward at the same time. So we thought we have this bill, which I did
not consider an onerous bill. The last
time I think the bill itself was passed was in 1935, so it is time that there
were some adjustments made. Now in the
bill, as well, there is provision that where the additional costs are going to
be levied, there is going to be provision by the board to take and increase the
fees, to offset that so there will not be a financial hardship on the taxicab
industry. By increasing the taxicab
fees, I am talking the fees to the customers, to accommodate the total cost
recovery here, it would still put us in the middle of the pack in terms of our
taxicab fares across the country. So
that was the objective.
Now from the time that I introduced
the bill, and I realized this about the time when I talked to my chairman of
the Taxicab Board to bring forward the bill that this was going to start the
hue and cry again. I am a little disappointed
with the reaction that it set off for the simple reason that if somebody goes
through the bill extensively‑‑and I am having some of my
colleagues, together with some of the industry, going through some of the
portions of the bill. They will be bringing
back to me certain views and recommendations that I will take under
consideration and have further consultation with the industry before we take
and get into committee with this thing if there are areas of concern.
But, generally, it was my perception
that bringing that bill forward, that aside from the monetary things involved,
there were some positive things for the industry as well which they had raised
concerns over a period of time. So the
misconception that was created just because you brought forward a bill under
the Taxicab Board, that this was to create a problem with the industry is
erroneous. I am a little disappointed in
that respect because I know the impact on the industry.
* (1450)
The member, and all members, should
realize that the taxicab industry is a regulated industry where we have 400
cabs. It has been that way for 20, 30
years. We have never changed from the
400 cabs in this city in spite of the increasing population.
We either have the choice of taking
and regulating and doing it as best we can to give the best service for the
customers, as well as helping the industry, or else the other option, I
suppose, is deregulating the whole thing.
If you want to do it comparatively what happens, I think Edmonton has
something like 1,400 cabs versus the 400 we have here. So if we want to have a regulated industry,
it should be done in a fair and equitable way for both service to the customer
as well as the providers of the service, and that is what we are trying to do.
I just want to mention to the member
that, subject to the instant criticism and concerns that were raised when I
gave second reading to the bill, that I have‑‑like I say, some of
my colleagues are working together with the industry just to have a feel and
see whether they can‑‑you know, where they have
recommendations. I said that once we
have that coming forward, I will review it.
I have not made a commitment to change necessarily, but I am certainly
going to look at what their concerns are and whether they can be addressed.
That was basically what I was trying
to accomplish with bringing in the legislation, knowing that it again, you
know, creates consternation out there and we are trying to allay that.
Mr. Reid: The
minister had said‑‑and I recall in correspondence from the
minister's department last summer, when the minister had increased the fees on
the operators and owners of taxicabs, he indicated at that time it was to go
towards cost recovery.
Can the minister explain to me, are
other sections, under the boards and committees, for instance, the Motor
Transport Board, the Highway Traffic Board, the Suspension Appeal Board and
Medical Review Committee, are they all cost recovery 100 percent?
Mr. Driedger: Madam
Chairperson, not 100 percent, but we are moving forward in many cases. Like even we do with the Manitoba Safety
Council, which we have been paying grants and we have cut the grant back, we
say that the user‑pay concept should apply. Why should the average
taxpayer pay for those people that are not good drivers, and we have been doing
that?
So these are the things that we are
looking at with the other boards and committees as well. Some do not lend themselves totally to doing
that, but in this particular case, and some of the other ones, we can move in
that direction. I think it is only
reasonable to do that.
Well, I will repeat again that I
think that only in Manitoba and in B.C. where the province is responsible for
the taxicab industry, and I think Vancouver and Winnipeg are the only places
where the province adjudicates that.
Other than that it is always‑‑you know, invariably even
Brandon itself has their own jurisdiction over the taxicab industry.
I make no bones about it that
ultimately we intend to get into discussions with the City of Winnipeg to see
whether they would ultimately want to take over the taxicab responsibilities
which rightfully should be theirs and are in most other jurisdictions with the
exception of Winnipeg and Vancouver.
I cannot take and enter into
negotiations with the City of Winnipeg if I have the Taxicab Board being
subsidized. The city I do not think
would be very excited about entering into negotiations if there had to be money
put in. That is one of the reasons why
in this industry we are looking at moving to total cost recovery without
creating hardship for the providers of this service and without putting an
extreme hardship on the users of the industry.
So we think we can do that by
addressing it under the system we have set up in the bill.
Mr. Reid: Does the
minister have any comparable data for the other boards and committees with
respect to the cost recovery section that he could provide for viewing so that
we might see what breakdown there is on the costs for operations of those other
boards and committees versus the fees that would be charged towards that cost
recovery, and what percentage that would represent with respect to the full
cost recovery like the minister indicates that he is moving towards? Does he have that information?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I do not have that information here. In talking with staff here, they have given
me an indication we can try, on the boards and committees, and give comparative
figures as to how much we recover and where we are at with it. I am prepared to provide that information
later on.
Mr. Reid: I thank
the minister for that. Does the minister
anticipate, where there is not full cost recovery in those other boards and
committees now, since he is moving forward in a full cost recovery direction
with Taxicab Board, when would the users of the other services on the boards
and committees expect to see their fees increase as well?
Last summer after we finished the
Estimates we were made aware of the new fee increase structure for the taxicab
industry? It seemed a bit unusual, maybe
it is not. It is just maybe my
experience in not being aware of it. Can
the minister indicate when he might expect to move towards that cost recovery
for the other boards and committees?
Mr. Driedger:
What the member sees in the Supplementary Information, there are no
further increases contemplated for this year.
We are under review in terms of the total operations of our boards and
committees every year, but after we get through with this process here, it is
my intention to again go through the whole process of my boards and committees
to see whether we are getting the maximum bang for the buck, whether they are
functioning to the satisfaction of myself and my department. So then we will be looking at that aspect of
it.
Here, at the present time, even in
the taxicab industry right now, this is what we have budgeted, but when the act
gets passed it will make provision for us to implement different rates
there. I do not have any other acts that
I am bringing forward that would address changes in the financial setup of the
other boards or whether I do it by regulation.
What you see is what you have got right now, except for the Taxicab Board.
Mr. Reid: Is there
a reason why we have started with the Taxicab Board to move in that
direction? Is it the most difficult one
to deal with and you are getting that out of the way first? Or is it the easiest one that you are dealing
with? Is there a reason why we have
chosen the Taxicab Board to move towards that full cost recovery and leaving
the other ones aside for now?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, no. I thought
I had explained to the member that part of the reason why, in the taxicab
industry, we are looking to full cost recovery is because once we have reached
that point and because of the regulations of it, the old legislation is so
complex in terms of doing fair increases in some of the areas, we have to
change the legislation. That does not
mean that we are not looking at the others as well. But in this particular case why I have
targeted the taxicab industry is because we want to bring it to full cost
recovery at which time I hope that, together with my colleague the Minister of
Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), we will be entering in dialogue with the city to see
whether they would want to take over the industry.
Mr. Reid: So
then the minister's department will be moving in the direction of consultations
with the city to have them assume responsibility for the taxicab industry. Do I understand the minister correctly there?
Mr. Driedger:
Well, Madam Chairperson, normally I would not even put this on the
record because I do not want to take and raise all kinds of expectations and
stuff like that. That is the long‑range
plan, but it will take us two years before we finally get it to full cost
recovery. We are looking tentatively at
January 1, 1994, before we get to that stage.
So I possibly have put more on the record than I should have already in
terms of that, because I do not want to raise any fears, expectations the wrong
way. That is why we are moving in this
process, and that is why the legislation is basically there and obviously will
come out during the debate on that as well.
Mr. Reid: When the fee structure changed for the cab
industry, there was‑‑I do not know if it is a practice or not or if
it is just a matter of putting it on the counter at the Taxicab Board and
whoever walks in the door gets a copy of it.
Is it possible to, where there are any fee changes for the boards and
committees, any of the structures that are there, for members that are acting
as critics for this department to be notified of any of those changes and
receive a copy of that change?
Mr. Driedger:
Is the member referring to all boards and committees or anything within
my department?‑‑because it is an ongoing process that we go through
in the budgetary process where we review our fees. All the fees are being reviewed, and very
often during the process, at least in the five years that I have been there,
Treasury Board makes certain directives from time to time and feel that certain
ones should be adjusted for financial reasons.
I mean, this is an ongoing thing and invariably‑‑I do not
know.
* (1500)
Madam Chairperson, these increases are
invariably all gazetted. There is a
process. We cannot just sneak through
and do the increases. There is a process
that we have to comply with in terms of letting the public know that these
things are happening. So the member is
probably‑‑I do not know whether he gets the Gazette or whether
anybody within his caucus, their researchers, look at these things and would
make him aware of the things that are going on in an almost year‑round
basis.
From time to time, as certain fee
structures come up, let us say their cycle, then some adjustments are
made. So I would suggest that the member
possibly, and I alert him to that, that maybe somebody from his research people
should be looking at the Gazette, because there are lot of things that
governments do, not only my department, other departments as well, that have to
be gazetted and properly advertised and notified. He will probably get a lot of the
information.
I do not want to give the
undertaking that every time, under regulations and stuff like that, there is a
change in the fees, I would take and let the members know, for the simple
reason that I would have to have somebody constantly doing that. Besides, I do not think that I would be that
excited about doing it for political reasons.
Every time I send you a notice saying, listen, we have increased the
trucking rates by $3 or whatever on weights and dimensions and things of that
nature, then we get into a match every time.
I like our relationship much better this way, that the member can dig
out what he needs really under the system that is in place, and then we can
debate it when the time comes.
Mr. Reid: I
noticed that, you know, when I asked for information from the minister about
the
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I cannot necessarily see the critics getting a warm
and fuzzy feeling with me when we increase rates somewhere along the
lines. I could see that more like committing
hari‑kari by doing that.
So I repeat again, the provisions
are there to get the increases as they come forward. I have clarified why we are doing certain
things with the Taxicab Board, what the end objective is. That provisions in the bill, and I am
prepared‑‑I know the member has not spoken on the bill yet. I would suggest that he maybe consult with
the industry, not on an individual basis but with the industry generally. Certainly, the people that I have working on
this to some degree are going to broaden out the participation so that before
he speaks maybe he can have some idea as to what exactly is happening with the
bill, because he has been raising questions about the bill and why we are doing
it.
I would have explained that. Once we get this revised and get down to
passing the bill on to committee stage, at that time, we should all have a very
good understanding of what we are doing and what is offensive and what is not
offensive. I think that would probably
assist both the member, the critics and myself certainly.
Mr. Reid: Well,
the taxicab industry was quite concerned that when this legislation was
introduced they made us aware they had not been consulted on this
legislation. That seemed highly
unusual. You would think if there was a
piece of legislation coming forward, and the minister said it was innocuous, it
was not going to create a problem, why he would not consult with the industry
and make them aware of it so that they might have some input into the process,
maybe provide some insight that may be not readily at the minister's disposal,
you know, knowing that the industry has a great deal of experience.
Why would the minister not consult
with the industry prior to the bringing forward of this legislation, as they
have indicated to us?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I would show the same patience and tolerance with
this member as I did for the opposition critic when he raised questions that we
had debated extensively between the official critic and myself. I had put on the record here from the Taxicab
Board that there were 40 board meetings; there were 19 public meetings; there
were 12 in‑camera meetings; there were show‑cause hearings‑‑I
think, 29 dockets where they were dealt with‑‑special meetings,
seven. That is just in the last year.
There has been extensive
consultation. You know, from 1988 on,
there has been ongoing activity where they‑‑and the legislation
that we brought forward. You know,
everybody says, no consultation. It is
for five years that we have been working with the industry that this ultimately
culminated in terms of bringing forward some of the legislation where we are
addressing some of the concerns they have been bringing forward to the taxicab
industry all the time.
In conjunction with that, the fact
that we did not want to impose higher fees and regulations on certain aspects
of it, we brought forward the legislation so we can expand that to take and
address and maybe cost‑recover from certain of the less efficient
operations where we have to have safety inspections, et cetera, like the ones
we have to reinspect, that those people bear part of the costs. You know, it is not half as onerous as
everybody is making it out to be. The
consultation process, I would want to again and I lift up and show the member a
report and recommendations in 1990. It
is a document extensive‑‑I do not even know how many pages we have
here.
It says Winnipeg taxicab service and
regulation. This is all in the process
of the last five years that basically‑‑and we come in with something
that is not an onerous bill so, you know, I again repeat that if the member
wants to talk with the industry and with the group that is starting to sort of
review this a little bit somewhere along the line, that by the time he speaks
to the bill, and by the time we get it into committee, that everybody should
have an understanding of what we are trying to do. That does not mean that I will necessarily be
able to accept or want to accept all the changes that are being recommended,
but I am certainly prepared to review them.
Mr. Reid: The industry also raised concerns, and I know
I questioned the minister on this last Estimates, I believe. The study that was done on the taxicab
industry indicated and came back with certain recommendations relating to the
industry itself and how certain actions could be done by the minister's
department to improve the overall industry.
I know it has been challenged in
court a couple of times. There have been ongoing disputes between the Taxicab
Board and the industry members and representatives. The judge had ruled on this matter and on the
study itself back in 1991 and had made a recommendation, and the judge
says: It was only when it became obvious
that we could not implement the complete decision did it come back with the
severance tack in July '91. To say now
that the issue of compensation is of little importance and is not part of the
public convenience, the necessity review process leaves me somewhat
incredulous. The compensation fund was
clearly a significant component‑‑I stress the words
"significant component"‑‑of the complete decision, and it
would be unfair to allow the board now to sever its decision and proceed only
with the increasing of quotas without having to implement at the same time its
compensation recommendations.
Now, I questioned the minister, I
think I even did it in writing, why we would go from a level where licences to
operate or authorities to operate for taxicabs, the market rate was I think at
that time $38,000, and the minister came and said he could not legally charge
any more than $100. Yet we have a
judge's decision here that says, we should be charging the market rate which is
the $38,000 to allow for the establishment of a compensation fund, in other
words a benefit package for those that are employed in the industry.
What were the criteria? What were the reasons why we would not accept
the judge's recommendations here, a very learned person, and move forward with
some kind of a compensation package for those employed in the taxicab industry?
* (1510)
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, unfortunately I do not have my chairman of the
Taxicab Board here, but I would suggest the member is getting into the whole
process of what has happened in the last five years in terms of whether there
should be necessity to expand beyond the 400 cabs, whether there was a need to
get into sort of an elite category in there.
The need for it or not need for it is something that was dealt with in
the hearings all the time. That is where
a lot of the misunderstanding and controversy derived from.
I want to suggest again that ever
since we started the process that the industry has done a tremendous job in
terms of improving their service, the kind of vehicles we have out there. I
think it has been positive already, but the whole purpose of the hearings and
process was to see whether there was a need for it. We have, and I repeat again, a regulated
industry. We have had 400 cabs in this
city for the last 30 years or something like that. There has never been a change, and I think if
we want to have a regulated industry that there has to be from time to time
some adjustments made, and that is basically what is being done.
I would suggest to the member we can
debate this forever, but I would prefer to maybe have this when we get into the
committee stage on the bill itself, we will then have a chairman there as well
who can answer questions directly. He
does not even have to answer to the minister because, at least my process has
been in the past that if I have people there, instead of my trying to give a
second‑hand answer, I would ask the chairman himself to give the answer
directly to the member when we get into the committee stage.
I am not trying to avoid the issue
now. We can debate the pros and cons of
it, but I feel a lot more comfortable when I have my chairman, basically who
has undertaken all these activities and has the rationale for it, to give the
member the answer directly.
Mr. Reid: Well,
what we are dealing with here, Madam Chairperson, is a study that was done by
the department on recommendations that were brought forward by the Taxicab
Board study. I hope that the minister
was made aware, or possibly had the opportunity to read the recommendations.
I hope the minister is not
suggesting for a minute that the members of the taxicab industry would not be
favourable to having a compensation plan for those new members coming into the
industry, because they are now faced with new competition in the industry
taking away some of their passenger traffic, people that they transport, at a
higher fare than what they are presently capable of earning themselves. Now the minister appears to say that they
would not be in favour of having a compensation plan or a benefit plan to
assist them to improve their quality of life.
I am not sure why the minister would
make those kinds of comments. That
$38,000 fee that could have been charged to those new vehicles that are put on
the road for the luxury cabs and any other licence authorities that the
minister may wish to issue in the future I am sure could have gone at least
partway towards a benefit plan for these employees.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I am prepared to talk about this for a long time,
whether the price should be $60,000 for a cab when actually the licence is
$100. That is something that the
industry has created itself by having a regulated industry. It is like having
value on quota. That is basically what
has happened, and ultimately the pressures of the system itself raised the
price to that, whether it was $60,000, $50,000, or $35,000 or $25,000. Really the licence is so minute. It is the industry itself that has created
the value as to what they thought it was worth.
Many of these people who have
basically bought into this system as high as $60,000 just for a cab licence,
you consider that their retirement plan.
Any deviation from that all of a sudden becomes me attacking their
system. Well, that is not necessarily
the case. You cannot have it both
ways. You cannot have a regulated system
and then have it all your own way.
The whole purpose of having a
taxicab industry is to provide a service for the users, and if I play it
totally by the way the industry wants to have it played, I am not doing the
responsible thing by looking after the users of the industry. So when we want to start debating whether the
value should be $38,000 or whether the value should be $60,000, or whether
there should be any value, that is why we have a Taxicab Board and that is why
they have had extensive hearings. That
is why they have been in court. That is
why they have endless relationships with the industry and with the user and
people involved. This has all happened
out there.
In fact, I do not know whether I can
get that documentation of all the hearings and the process it has gone
through. If the member wants to go
through that and acquaint himself with the process that we have gone through or
whether we want to do it here on an ad hoc basis or whether we want to do it
committee when we have the chairman there.
To me it is immaterial. I do not
think we are serving anybody's time appropriately by trying to debate what
already has gone through a process and court cases for a long period of time.
As we move forward with the bill‑‑I
mean, it is very seldom in the Estimates process that you extensively debate
the bill. I can get the bill back here
and we can start doing that, but the normal process we have in this province is
that in committee stage, after the philosophical debate has taken place in
second reading, we get into the committee on a line‑by‑line basis
where every one of these issues can be addressed extensively on a very personal
basis in terms of the information. That
is why I raised the question.
My chairman is not here. He certainly will be in committee, I can
assure you of that. The last detail that
the member wants we will address at that time.
Mr. Reid: The
comments that I am making here are not directly related to the bill. If the minister has that impression, I will
correct that right now. This was a
general discussion. I had moved away
from discussion on the bill some time ago.
I was talking with respect to a judgment that was brought down by one of
the Manitoba judges.
One of the issues that has been
before us was the Tuxedo Taxi fiasco.
The things that happened in there cause one to wonder what is happening
and who is in control and who is making decisions with respect to this
industry. I had concerns here about some
of the leniency that was shown by the Taxicab Board towards Mr. Goldberg, who
was the owner of Tuxedo Taxi.
Looking at the original licence
application, it indicated that Tuxedo's licences should not be conveyed, leased
or capitalized in any manner. Yet, the
decision by the Taxicab Board, where they were going to allow others to come in
and Mr. Goldberg to retain only 10 percent of his original licence with the
company, seemed to fly in direct contravention of this legislation or this by‑law
of the board. Why would the Taxicab
Board have allowed that to happen?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, when the Taxicab Board started the hearing process a
number of years ago to see whether there was a need, because of the pressures
coming from the user perspective, from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, from
generally the airport industry, pressure was put to see whether the service
could be improved. The process was
started with public hearings.
Ultimately, after much input and controversy, et cetera, the board
ultimately, within their jurisdiction, made a decision based on the response
that was there that there was a need for an elite cab system which would be
regulated by the board as well, which would have a higher rate structure so it
would not necessarily create any problems for the existing 400 licence holders.
They went through this process and
ultimately took and asked for applications.
Those applications were open to the existing industry, to new people
wanting to come onstream‑‑asked for proposals. Ultimately, they had a raft of these things
to consider and made a decision of the organization, in this particular case
Tuxedo Taxi, that they had the best business plan, the best proposal to put
forward. They made a decision to proceed
with that.
*
(1520)
That decision was challenged, went
to court, came back out again, was challenged again in court with the processes
taking virtually two years. That has
been in and out.
In the meantime, Tuxedo taxicab had
started a training process with people and charging them certain fees. The Taxicab Board, at that time, felt that
there were some complaints about that.
We addressed it, put a certain amount of pressures and conditions on the
owner of Tuxedo cab, ultimately asked him to do certain things based on the
business plan that he had originally submitted.
He failed to comply in that.
Notice was served. He was allowed
to make certain provisions, because he had some capital already invested in
this thing, to try and be fair and to allow new players to assist him in the
proposal.
Ultimately they still went broke,
and they have been notified by way of letter that their application has been
revoked. It is my understanding from the
Taxicab Board that they are now proceeding again to try and look for new
proposals in terms of dealing with an elite system. The recommendation was basically that there
should be 40 units and I think six or eight handivan licences issued. So that process is going back to the board,
and they will deal with it again.
Again this is wide open, the
existing, whether it is Duffy's, Unicity or Spring Taxi, are at liberty to make
application under the same thing, submit a business plan, have the board
consider it, and ultimately they make a decision as to who should be getting
those licences. That process will start
again. I repeat again that it was a
series of court actions brought against the board, challenging their right to
do that. Ultimately we have overcome
those challenges, and it has been at a tremendous cost to government as well as
to the industry in terms of fighting this.
The Taxicab Board has their
authority and their jurisdictions under which they operate as a board and have
certain rights and decisions that they can make, and they did that.
Mr. Reid: Well, there are still a lot of unanswered
questions why the board, looking at the original licence proposal‑‑and
there was a financing arrangement that was supposed to have been in place that
the board had agreed to. Then we find
out that Tuxedo Taxi was attempting to finance their operations on the backs of
their potential employees, or the ones they had hired and actually never drove
a day for the company because no cars had been purchased, or no cars were
operating on the streets of Winnipeg for that company.
Tuxedo Taxi, it has been reported,
were charging their 17 people $3,700 for training. Where was the Taxicab Board in all of this
when this was going on? Why were we not
investigating or inspecting or making some inquiry into the operations? Do we just accept at face value the
application of a company and say, okay, you are free to go and do whatever you
choose? If there is a problem, we will
come and inspect, and if there is no problem and you get away with whatever,
you are free to do it.
Mr. Driedger: I
would instantly dismiss every one of my Taxicab Board members if I found that
they were running around looking to see whether they could create some problems
or looking for trouble.
The purpose of it is that they are
there to hear complaints. By and large, when they made the decision based on
the business plan that Tuxedo Taxi submitted, they felt that was the best
proposal, set out the conditions of the business plan. When they finally realized what was going on
there, they served notice, they acted on it, and they have revoked that
licence.
The member is saying, well, you
know, do they not care, do they not know what is going on. The moment the complaints came forward, they
were dealt with.
But if my Taxicab Board is going to
start running around and asking each driver, hey, listen, do you have a complaint
somewhere along the line, if you do not have one, maybe we can help you think
up one, I would be some unhappy with that.
They respond to the complaints, and
that is what it is there for. I have put
on the record exactly how many complaints, how many hearings I have had. I do not know what the member wants.
Mr. Reid: Well,
then what the minister is telling me here is that the only role that the
Taxicab Board plays is an administrative function. That is their sole purpose for being, to hear
any complaints that may come to them. Is
there anyone within the minister's department then who would ensure‑‑[interjection]
I can see the minister is getting
somewhat excited about the line of questioning here. I am just looking to try and get some answers
here for those who were adversely affected by some of the decisions that were
made, and there does not seem to be a mechanism in place to prevent this from
happening again.
If the purpose of the Taxicab Board
is only to act as a quasi‑judicial body in there, to hear complaints that
may or may not be brought to their attention, who is out there to protect the
members of the taxicab industry if the Taxicab Board does not have that
function or role?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I am getting frustrated because I am trying to
explain the role of the Taxicab Board.
If there was a problem when the Taxicab Board made a decision, the
industry itself hired lawyers and challenged them in court. There is provision
for these kinds of things.
The member is acting as if the
taxicab industry is hanging out there by itself, and here this Taxicab Board is
making controversial decisions, and they do not have a say in the matter‑‑foolish. The system is set up to make provision that
they can appeal the decisions of the Taxicab Board. There is provision for them to have hearings,
show‑cause hearings. The system is
in place there.
If the member is not happy with
that, let him go and read the court cases that brought all these issues
forward.
Mr. Reid: Well,
for the minister's information, in case he has not been advised of this, the
challenges that were in the courts with respect to the Tuxedo Taxi licences
never once prohibited or challenged the right of Tuxedo to put the cars on the
road. So they could have, from the moment
their licence was issued by the Taxicab Board, put those vehicles on the road
and had them operating.
Mr. Driedger:
And because it was challenged, that is why the Taxicab Board would not
allow them to do that. That was their
responsibility, making sure that they were protecting the decisions that they
had made. It was challenged in court,
and they would not allow them to operate.
Mr. Reid: So maybe
the minister can tell me then, which part of his department will be there to
ensure that a "Tuxedogate" will not happen again that will have a
negative impact upon the members of the industry. Who is going to be there to prevent that from
happening again?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I should read back into the record the five people
that consist of the board, that basically make that decision, with police
representation on there, city representation on there, user representation on
there and the chairman.
The chairman of the Taxicab Board
reports to the minister. I do not have
another hierarchy or bureaucracy that is going to run around checking
that. If there is a problem out there,
it is a quasi‑judicial board that is entitled to make decisions. If I do not like the decisions that they make
as minister, I replace the board. They
basically have their authority that they can operate under. If I do not like the decisions that they
make, I go to my colleagues in government and recommend that we remove those
people from the board. I have the
confidence that the people who are on that board make conscientious decisions
which are good for the industry, both the supplier of the service as well as
the user of the service.
Mr. Reid: Madam
Chairperson, I am disappointed in the minister's answer. I thought something would have been in place
to prevent this from happening.
The Taxicab Board had made many
rulings dealing with this, and in the end they attempted to go back and have a
show‑cause hearing. What was the
intended purpose of that show‑cause hearing that the Taxicab Board was
going to have on the Tuxedo Taxi prior to their relinquishing their rights to
operate?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, the Tuxedo taxicab did not relinquish their
authority. It was taken away. It was cancelled by the Taxicab Board because
of the fact that they had not complied with the business plan. The member asks why was there a show‑cause
hearing‑‑for that simple reason, and their licence was cancelled.
Mr. Reid: I am not
sure if the minister had more on that point.
What would the minister expect to be
a normal period of time after the issuing of licences or authorities to operate
these luxury vehicles? What would be
considered to be a normal period of time before one in his department would
expect that those vehicles would hit the streets and begin their operations?
* (1530)
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, when the proposals come forward business plans have
to be submitted at that time. If the
business plan says that within two months the individual is going to have 40 or
20 or 10 whatever kind of units on the road and there is no further
complications with them, it has been adopted‑‑what happened when
that decision was made to allow Tuxedo taxicab to go ahead, there was a time as
to when they would start implementing their units on the road. Training was supposed to be taking
place. It was part of the plan.
Ultimately when that decision was made, the legal process started where the
decision was challenged in court. As a
result of that, they were not allowed to proceed until it had been resolved.
Mr. Reid: So 11
months after the licence was approved, Tuxedo still had the cars on the road,
and as long as it was being challenged they would never have the cars on the
road. Is that what the minister is
saying?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, Tuxedo cab never had the
cars on the road. Could the member
clarify that? He says 11 months after
they were issued the licence they still had cars on the road. They never had cars on the road. The reason they did not have the cars on the
road is because there was a legal challenge to it. We went through the legal challenge
twice. The process in the courts is a
long, slow process, and that is why the Taxicab Board would not allow them to
proceed until the issue had been dealt with.
Mr. Reid: Using
that logic that the minister puts forward here then, any challenge that would
have come along in the courts for anything minor even would have prevented
them. They would have continued to use
that as an excuse for not putting the cars on the road. The industry representatives that had put up
a court challenge to other aspects of the issuance of those authorities had
nothing to do with Tuxedo Taxi itself.
So if they had come forward with even a minor court challenge, is the
minister saying that Tuxedo would withhold purchasing of cars and never put
cars on the road? Is that what you are
saying here?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, the member says I am getting frustrated. I am getting frustrated. I have my Capital people here. We have been going on this thing, and I have
offered to the member that as we get through and move forward with the bill,
all of these issues are going to be dealt with in committee as well when they
have the chairman here who can clarify these things better.
I do not know what the member is
trying to achieve. I have put all the
information that I as the minister responsible have, knowing that the Taxicab
Board being a quasi‑judicial board has their authority to make certain
decisions. If I ultimately do not like
the decisions, do not have the confidence in the board, I can remove them. I mean, we can debate this here for‑‑just
like the court case‑‑11 months, I guess, but we are not
accomplishing anything.
I have the confidence in my board,
in the Taxicab Board, that they are acting responsibly, and I am not going to
sit there and look over their shoulder all the time, as the member is
suggesting, to have another hierarchy that is going to look‑‑what
are they doing now, what are they doing now‑‑I do not have time for
that. If I do not have the confidence in
their operations, I will change it. But
when I do have the confidence then I am not going out there every time to check
and watch every one of my boards.
Mr. Reid: I
know. I do not disagree that the minister
does have confidence in his board.
Otherwise, I am sure he would have found other ways to put new people
into those jobs, but he is ultimately responsible for the decisions that they
make. He has to be. He is the minister responsible. If you are not going to answer the questions
on this, the minister knows full well that when we get into debate on Bill 24
and I, as the critic responsible for that bill, attempt to ask questions on
Tuxedo Taxi, I am going to be ruled out of order, because it is not relating to
the specific issue at hand. So there is
no opportunity in there for me to ask questions about Tuxedo Taxi. That is why
I am asking them here today.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I have answered them.
Mr. Reid: The
minister is wrong again. He is skating
around the issue, not answering why the Taxicab Board made the decision that it
did to issue these licences to Mr. Goldberg and Tuxedo Taxi. Now we see that
they have given 30 days, I believe it is, for others to come forward with a
proposal. It seems to me that is a
fairly short period of time to allow other proposals to come forward. Was the intent of that to allow those who had
already made application to the board prior to the acceptance of Tuxedo, to
give them because they already have their proposals prepared, to come forward
and have them accept it instead of maybe some new proposals coming forward from
within the industry itself or others?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, on the first remark first of all, proposals are being
asked for. A business plan has to be
submitted. Based on that, the Taxicab
Board makes a decision. When they feel that 30 days is adequate, I have the
confidence and accept the fact that 30 days is adequate. I have had nobody phone me and say 30 days is
not adequate. In the member's mind, the
30 days is not adequate. That is his
problem. I feel comfortable, until
somebody complains, that the 30 days is adequate.
Mr. Reid: Was it
the Department of Education and the supervisor, the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) or others that would supervise and be directly responsible for
Monagovkey [phonetic] have brought forward complaints to the Taxicab Board that
initiated this review process of Tuxedo by the Taxicab Board?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I ask the member to repeat that question, please.
Mr. Reid: Since
the minister says someone has to come forward with a complaint before they
would have any hearings as a quasi‑judicial body, who initiated the
complaints of Tuxedo Taxi that would cause the board to hold hearings to review
the licence that was issued to Tuxedo Taxi?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I do not know.
I read into the record exactly how many hearings, how many complaints
they had. I am trying to find that page again, and I will repeat it and put it
on the record for the third time. I do
not know who makes all these complaints.
I do not care who makes these complaints, because if there is a
complaint the board has the authority and jurisdiction to deal with it.
Here, I will say it again. They had 40 board meetings. They had 19 public meetings. They had 12 in‑camera meetings. They had a show‑cause hearing, 29
dockets. They had special meetings,
seven of them. I do not know who made
all the complaints. I will repeat, I do
not care, because they have their job to do. If they are not going to do it,
then I will deal with the board.
Mr. Reid: I never
thought I would see the day where I heard the minister say he did not
care. He does not strike me as that type
of an individual.
The Taxicab Board was reviewing
Tuxedo's licence after this was raised by an I‑Team report. Of course, it was through the media. We have seen this in the papers as well. There were some employees of Tuxedo Taxi that
had given their own financial resources, some thousands of dollars, for
training programs within the Tuxedo Taxi company itself.
What has the Taxicab Board done to
allow these employees to recoup the monies that they put forward that were used
by Mr. Goldberg to finance his operation?
What protection did the Taxicab Board put in place to protect those
employees to ensure that they recoup their monies?
* (1540)
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, in my discussions with the chairman of the Taxicab
Board, the board dealt with the area that was within their legal jurisdiction
to deal with in terms of protecting the employees. I do not believe they had the authority to
deal with the total repayment of the whole‑‑you know, with the
total end of it. What was within their
decision‑making jurisdiction to take and deal with the trainees, that, I
have the assurance from the chairman of the Taxicab Board, has been done.
Mr. Reid: It is my
understanding, Madam Chairperson, that these employees have not recouped their
money. They are still out funds that
they put forward for a company that has now folded.
What actions is the minister's
department taking, if any, to assist these employees? Has the minister had any discussions with the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)? Is
this matter being pursued through the courts?
What action is the minister taking?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I mentioned to the member, what is within the
jurisdiction of the Taxicab Board to do to try and alleviate the impact on the
trainees, that has been done. If they
have not totally recovered, there are other avenues that can be done, but from
the taxicab perspective, everything that could be done has been done for the
trainees.
Mr. Reid:
The
minister says that there are other avenues available. Since it appears that he is unaware that
these employees have not recovered all of their monies, what other avenues are
available to them? What assistance will
his department provide?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I will not provide any. I mean, there are legal ways of recovering if
you have made a mistake. The portion
that is the responsibility of the Taxicab Board has been done. I am not going to go out there and compensate
from my department the individuals who made investments, whether good, bad or
otherwise.
The legal responsibility of the
board has been dealt with the way they should, and I am comfortable with that.
Mr. Reid: I will
remind the minister again, and I am not doing this to get his blood pressure up
because it appears that that is happening here, but this is very serious for
those employees that wanted to have these jobs.
They put their good faith forward and displayed a loyalty to the company
even before they had cars on the road.
Now the minister appears here that
he says he is not concerned that his Taxicab Board, who made the ruling that
initially gave authorities for this company to start its operations, is washing
their hands of the whole mess.
The Taxicab Board gave the authority
to Frank Goldberg and Tuxedo Taxi to put luxury cabs on the road. They have a responsibility to ensure that
that happens, and they did not fulfill their mandate there. We are doing nothing now to assist these
employees who have lost that job opportunity and instead lost as a result of
their good faith.
The minister, he washes his hands of
the whole mess, or he says his Taxicab Board is not responsible for what
happens; they are only a quasi‑judicial body. Well, who is there to help them? The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) has been
sitting on this now. Has he come forward
with any kind of a report saying that the Justice department is taking steps to
recover the monies on behalf of the employees, or are we going to leave these
people out there that are unemployed, have no financial means at their disposal
to try and recover these monies on their own?
You cannot tell me that this a
caring, concerned government if you are not going to take steps to protect
those people that have been taken advantage of by an unscrupulous business
person. [interjection] Well, he is definitely not displaying it here today.
What consultation has the Minister
of Highways had with his colleague the Minister of Justice? What action is being pursued through the
courts, or does he not care about that as well?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, it is not my responsibility to do that. The Taxicab Board is my responsibility. They have done what they had to do, what they
could do, including yanking the licence from the individual. There are other courses of action that the
individuals can take, but certainly it is not my jurisdiction to get out there
and start taking up issues that could be a labour issue or a justice issue.
That is why we have different
departments. I am not responsible for
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) if something goes wrong in his
department. I am responsible for what
happens in my department. If there is
something wrong that the Taxicab Board is not doing, I will deal with it.
They have assured me that they have
dealt with it to the furthest extent possible within their jurisdiction with
that issue. I can repeat that all
day. It is not going to change anything,
so the member can keep asking that question.
Mr. Reid: Well, I
can say, Madam Chairperson, with all honesty, that I have never in my short
time here, my two and a half or three years here, ever seen this minister take
that type of an attitude about any portion of his department. Quite frankly, that concerns me. That shocks me that he would take that type
of an attitude and have that position.
He needs, I think, to look at the
reality of what is happening to these people.
You would think that he would have some concern, some compassion, some
understanding for the plight of these people, and he is totally ignoring
that. I do not know‑‑I mean,
I have looked at the decisions that were made by the Taxicab Board through
their hearings, looking at copies of their minutes. In some cases, I am very shocked at the
decisions that they have made. Then they
go and they have their secret meetings and work out secret deals behind closed
doors that no other member or the public has the opportunity to take part in.
It leads one to wonder what purpose or what role or what actions the Taxicab
Board was attempting to accomplish and whose mandate they were attempting to
fill.
Is it because maybe Mr. Goldberg may
have been friends of the Premier that he chose to move in this direction? Is the minister getting heat from his own
Premier?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I just want the record to show that the member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid) has just accused the chief police constable of the police
force of the City of Winnipeg, who is on that board, for pulling secret deals,
that he is not acting in the proper interests‑‑you know, under that
responsibility‑‑that the member of the City Council of Winnipeg is
also a member on that council, that they are all irresponsible, that they are
making secret deals, that Mr. Michael Hill is making secret deals, that the
chairman, Mr. Don Norquay is making secret deals, and the member from the
industry, Mr. Surinder Sanan, is making secret deals. I want that on the record, that that member
has accused all of these people of dealing secretly behind the backs to try and
show favouritism.
Mr. Reid: Indeed,
the member is playing politics now, the minister is. It is obvious that the minister is very
sensitive about this. He obviously relied
quite heavily on the Taxicab Board in looking at the decisions that were
made. The minister obviously feels
sensitive about those decisions and is attempting to put the best face on a bad
situation here.
The minister, he says that I have
accused people of doing secret deals behind closed doors. The minister says that members of the City
Council sit on these boards, and yet I have a copy of a letter in my possession
saying that members of City Council do not attend those boards. There is some concern that they do not attend
these boards, and they have asked them to attend. So there is no way that I am accusing members
of City Council for doing secret deals behind closed doors.
Now, can the minister explain why
members of his Taxicab Board would, on this issue in particular because we are
talking about it here, go behind closed doors to discuss how they are going to
work out the arrangements for Tuxedo?
Madam Chairperson: Shall item 7.(d)(2) Other Expenditures pass?
Mr. Reid: I did
ask the minister a question. Maybe he
was not listening to what was taking place.
Maybe he was being distracted by his colleague the minister for Seniors
(Mr. Ducharme). That is unfortunate he
would be distracted by that.
Point of Order
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government
Services): Now that I have the floor, can I keep the
floor for awhile? No one is baiting the
member. The member is not pleased with
maybe some of the answers that the minister is giving him, but he has given him
very clear, concise answers. He seems to
be upset, so do not try to bring someone else into the discussion.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Government
Services does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
* (1550)
Madam Chairperson: Shall item 7.(d)(2) Other Expenditures pass?
Mr. Reid: Can the
minister indicate the number of inspections? Does he have statistics on the
number of inspections and complaints that are brought forward to the Taxicab
Board?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I want to sort of try and get more information on the
thing because the member says I am not putting enough on there, so I will do
that now. Taxicab driver training
courses, day courses, three days each; we had three of those. We had evening courses‑‑this is
driver training courses‑‑six evenings each; we had three of
those. We had day courses that last four
days; we had five of those. Business
licences issued 766. Standard taxicab
business licences at 454; that includes the additional ones and the handicap
vans. Standard taxicab seasonal business licences, 51. That is, I think, the extra cabs that are
allowed to be put on during the Christmas season, holiday season.
Handicap van business licences is
83. Limousine business licences, we have
37. Booking office licences, 141. Taxicab driver licences issued is 1,682. Taxicab driver licences issued, new
applicants, 96. Taxicab inspections,
semiannual vehicle and meter inspections, 1,022. Inspection while on patrol, 1,203.
Inspections carried out at the office is 457.
Complaints, we have had 198 complaints‑‑incidentally, this
is all on the record already, but we will put it on again. Resolved were 54 of the complaints; under
investigation are 15; insufficient information to proceed is 11; turned over to
the Winnipeg Police is 11; and verbal only where no written follow‑up was
required was 107.
Does that answer the question, Madam
Chairperson?
Mr. Reid: Yes,
that does answer the question. I thank
the minister for that information.
When discipline procedures are
necessary or required after inspections, what procedure is followed by the
department by the Taxicab Board with respect to discipline procedures? Do they have an open hearing of the board
itself, or is there some other face‑to‑face type of meeting that
takes place between members of the industry and Taxicab Board?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, the Taxicab Board has a show‑cause hearing and
they have the authority to suspend, to cancel and to fine in certain areas.
Mr. Reid: I
thank the minister for that information, but where there are inspections by the
inspectors of the Taxicab Board either by complaints that are brought to their
attention or by the inspectors finding problems that will not be rectified by
members operating the vehicles, by people that own the vehicles or operate
them, do we have to have a show‑cause hearing for that type of infraction
or is it some more informal process that takes place?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, where there is a complaint coming in, the board has
authority to take and pull a vehicle off the road. They can suspend a vehicle. They can suspend drivers. We have talked about this before in terms of
where under the legislation there are going to be some changes made there that
will allow where they can take and suspend the driver, because sometimes you
have three or four drivers that are involved, so if you suspend the vehicle, it
is a pretty harsh judgment in many cases.
So our legislation that is coming forward will address some portion of
that so that you do not necessarily put a whole bunch of people financially at
a disadvantage while you are trying to deal with some individual who has
probably not complied.
Mr. Reid: It is my
understanding that the cab board has an advisory subcommittee, if I can call it
that. Can the minister tell me what role
and function the subcommittee is supposed to perform? What is its mandate? Is it to advise the Taxicab Board members or
do they have some other role?
Mr. Driedger:
Basically to offer advice and make recommendations to the board who
ultimately, the Taxicab Board, still makes the final decisions on that, but to
get a perspective from the industry itself
So that is the role that they are playing.
Mr. Reid: Does the
minister have any information on the make‑up of the Advisory Committee,
the members that are there? Are they the
members of the Taxicab Board? Is it
members of the industry or the taxicab companies? Who are the members of that subcommittee?
Mr. Driedger:
My understanding, Madam Chairperson, is that they are from the industry
as well as from the users. I do not have
the names here of the people who are on there, but the intention was to have
the users as well as the suppliers of the service to be represented on there.
Mr. Reid: Does the
minister have any idea when the last time was that subcommittee met to provide
recommendations or advice to the Taxicab Board?
Mr. Driedger:
No, Madam Chairperson, I do not.
I do not know when they met.
Mr. Reid: It is my
understanding, and I have no way of confirming this, that is why I am asking
the minister, that subcommittee has not met for some time, and that if they are
supposed to act in an advisory capacity, one would think that they should meet
with the Taxicab Board and provide advice in some direction. Is it possible for the minister to consult with
his chair of the Taxicab Board to find out if indeed they have not met for a
long time, why they have not met, and when we can anticipate that the
subcommittee would meet to involve all of the participants on the subcommittee?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I will raise those questions with the chairman of the
Taxicab Board.
Mr. Reid: I thank
the minister for that. Just one last
question on the minister's legislation.
I know I would have the opportunity later to ask it, for the sake of
time saving on the committee.
The legislation itself, has there
been‑‑because there is some concern there that this type of
legislation will prevent in the future any court challenges to any of the
decisions. I know the minister gets
upset when I ask that, but that is one of the concerns that is out in the
industry there now. If there is
something that the minister can do to allay those fears by members of the
industry that this will not prevent challenges on any of the‑‑not
the ruling so much, because if the board is allowed to do it by law or by
jurisdiction that the minister provides through legislation, then it cannot be
challenged.
If there are sanctions that are
imposed that may be deemed to be unfair by members of the industry, what appeal
mechanism is there other than the courts that will allow those types of
sanctions or rulings of sanctions to be appealed against? Who would then be the appeal level? Would it be the minister himself, since the
courts could possibly be ruled out?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, when I brought forward the legislation, I had the
spreadsheets in there, which basically were supposed to take and address the
concerns and, basically, it should indicate in there that we are not taking
away the right to appeal to the courts.
There is a dual application, which always takes time, and we are saying
we are alleviating some of that to take and save the industry money.
They still have the right to appeal
to the courts on any decision. That is
not being removed.
Mr. Reid: Then if they have the right to appeal to the
courts, does that right to appeal to the courts include any sanctions or
penalties that the Taxicab Board may impose upon members or owners within the
taxicab industry? Does that give them
that right as well?
* (1600)
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I do not have my bill or the spreadsheets here. I will undertake to get the answer to that
question and I will provide it later on.
You know, I do not have that information right here in terms of the
technicality, in terms of how that works, so I will get that information to the
member.
Mr. Reid: Just a
couple of last questions on this section.
I believe there was a change in the chief inspectors for the Taxicab
Board. The original inspector I think
was Mr. Ford, if I am correct, has been replaced. Can the minister tell me who has taken Mr.
Ford's place and the reason for the change?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, no, I do not have the names of that. Whether it is the taxicab inspectors or
whether it is my compliance officers in the field, I have all kinds of
people. I do not know all of the people
I have there. If there is a concern
about who the inspectors are, I will undertake to get that information. I do not have that here.
Mr. Reid: I
thank the minister for that. That
concludes my questions on this section.
Madam Chairperson: Item 7.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $87,100‑‑pass.
Resolution 15.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,590,300 for Highways and Transportation, Boards and
Committees for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1994‑‑pass.
8. Expenditures Related to Capital
(a) Construction and Upgrading of Provincial Trunk Highways, Provincial Roads
and Related Projects.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Chairperson, I would just like to ask a
few questions of the minister with response to some of the roads and highways
within my constituency. I know that
since I have been elected, the minister has‑‑and I must say has co‑operated
with me on some of the problems that we have been facing on many of our roads
in the Interlake, and there are problems in other rural areas that I have
travelled over the past two and a half years.
Certainly the Interlake is not the only area that we see roads losing
any sort of expansion or maintenance or construction.
First of all, I would just like to
make a comment, Madam Chairperson, with regard to the minister's response and
my colleague's support in dealing with the Riverton Boat Works. I know this is not under this section. I just want to make a comment to the
minister, that reading through Hansard, I appreciate his responses to the questions.
An Honourable Member: You are saying he is a good minister.
Mr. Clif Evans: I am saying that he possibly could be a very
good minister if he would listen to some of us here. I do want to say that I appreciate that and
thank my colleague for asking the questions as I was in my constituency at the
time. We are dealing with the federal
people. I would like to ask the minister
if I could, if he has at any time‑‑this is the only question I will
ask about it‑‑talked to the Member of Parliament David Bjornson
with regard to the Riverton Boat Works.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, in all honesty, not lately. Early on there were some
discussions but I cannot recall when the last conversation was with him on that
matter. It has basically been my
department that has been dealing with the issue and will continue to do
so. If we can get the assistance of some
of the federal members I am certainly going to do it.
Mr. Clif Evans: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have spoken to him just within weeks and I
would like to sit down with you on a one‑to‑one and discuss what we
discussed and what our plans are for Riverton Boat Works in the very near
future.
First, on my list of concerns, some
two years ago we came to the minister with regard to the intersection of
Highway 6 and Highway 239 for expansion and construction of turning lanes. The minister had indicated by letter that
something was going to be put into the '92‑93, I believe, budget. I would like to know where that is at.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I just want to ask the indulgence of the member that
when we get to specifics, you know, questions of that nature, it will take us
just a little bit of time to try and get the full answer. We have so many roads and issues out there,
and I have my staff here.
Madam Chairperson, the highway that
the member makes reference to I believe is the Steep Rock turnoff, and it is
part of the considerations that I am going through at the present time.
Maybe I should inform the member‑‑maybe
he was not here when we started off when I said that the program for this year,
we have not finalized it in terms of getting approval from my colleagues. Basically, the program that we will be giving
approval to this spring is going to be mostly construction for next year.
I think the project is ready to
go. It could be pretty well ready to
go. It is one of the many projects that
we are looking at in terms of whether we give final approval to the job itself.
That decision has not been made at this time yet.
Mr. Clif Evans: I am aware that the programs have not been
made available in talking to my colleague in regard to this. The problem I have with that is I am getting
quite a few calls from within my constituency from constituents and councils as
to what is on the program and where are we at with a lot of the roads that we
have been requesting. I hope it does
come out very soon so we can deal with some of these things.
* (1610)
I do hope that part of construction
is going to be on the program. As the
minister may or may not be aware, the Steep Rock beach development has been in full
swing, and the traffic there is increasing on a steady basis. He is aware‑‑I know I have made
him aware and the same with my colleague from Transcona who has made the
minister aware of the situation at that intersection, as I will use for all the
situations in my constituency, that it becomes a big safety factor when you are
talking about the type of traffic that is travelling down that road.
I can indicate to the minister, in
the last two weeks alone, I have been up to the Gypsumville area three or four
times and passed that intersection, and with truck traffic down Highway 6 and
the people trying to get off and onto that road, someone I hope is not going to
get hurt on that intersection, and I would hope that the minister's plans for
this intersection are on the program and that they deal with it accordingly.
Another, I suppose, situation that I
have within the Interlake is the construction request for construction of a
new, I believe it is, 10 miles. I know
the minister and I have discussed this, too, another 325 from Highway 17 across
and meeting with 233‑‑sorry, Highway 325, a new portion of Highway
325 from Highway 17 just south of Hodgson, north of Fisher Branch and across to
Highway 325.
Mr. Driedger:
That is a distance of 16.4 kilometres.
We had that in for acquisition of right‑of‑way for last
year, and we have not completed the acquisition of right‑of‑way.
Mr. Clif Evans: If the minister could just explain, is there
a problem for the acquisition of right‑of‑way with landowners or is
it a matter of timing, is it a matter of finances?
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mr. Driedger:
Not that I am aware of. Let me
just explain to the member that when we prioritize a project, the first thing
of course that we do is the survey design to see exactly the type of road that
we make and how many requirements we will have for land.
Once we have done that, then we make
an application for an environmental licence which we have to do now in every
one of our projects virtually. Then the next
step is the acquisition of right‑of‑way, and once you have approval
in here‑‑but we have an awful lot of projects where we do have
acquisition of right‑of‑way.
Once we have the right‑of‑way, then basically the project is
then ready to be tendered subject to the funding available.
You know I do not like this to
happen‑‑let us say 20 or 30 landowners along a strip of where we
require a right‑of‑way‑‑when Land Acquisition, which is
under the jurisdiction of my colleague from Government Services, goes out to do
the acquisition, the majority of the people invariably settle because, you
know, I think Land Acquisition by and large tries to be relatively fair in
establishing fair prices, but invariably it does happen that you always have
one or two who feel that their land is worth more than the neighbours, and if
negotiations fail to complete it at that time, then we take and proceed with
expropriation.
There is a reason why I am
explaining this to the member because people feel sometimes very offended when we
do expropriation. If we cannot come to
an agreement, it gives us the right to enter then. It does not mean that the person is forced
for any settlement.
Many of them then have the recourse
and feel they will take the government to court and fight it in court. They then go and hire a lawyer‑‑and
this is no reflection to the individual sitting in front of you, but
invariably, by the time the smoke clears, those kinds of people probably are
the big benefactors and not necessarily the landowners.
I would like to put on record and
make a recommendation that in cases where we have expropriated, where people
have not been able to accept what the Government Services Land Acquisition
people have offered, they should make an application to the Land Value Appraisal
Commission, which is a board that has been appointed under Government
Services. They are basically lay people
who then do an adjudication.
Invariably, regardless of what
Government Services or what the Land Acquisition people say, they usually come up
with a pretty reasonable kind of solution.
The individuals make application, can appear before them, plead their
case, and it is a lot less costly than trying to do it with a lawyer in front
of a judge.
So I promote very strongly the idea of
people, where we have expropriated, making application to the Land Value
Appraisal Commission to have their dispute resolved there. Failing that, once the Land Value Appraisal
Commission makes a decision, it is binding on government, but it is still not
that binding on the individual who has made the application. That individual still has the right then to
go to court after the Land Value Appraisal Commission has dealt with it and
they are still not happy. I suggest this
kind of course of action, which I think in many cases would probably be more
beneficial to the landowner whose land we have expropriated. We keep some of the fat‑cat lawyers
from gaining that additional funding there which basically should accrue to the
landowner.
Further to that, I just have
additional information. We are just
waiting for the environmental licence on the new alignment on there, on the
325. Invariably, I want to again explain
that the process has slowed down dramatically for the Department of Highways
and Transportation in terms of road construction, because we had to go through
the environmental process especially under new alignments.
If it is just basically
reconstruction, it is not that dramatic.
But when we do any changes at all, there might be a crocus patch or
there might be a bird's nest or something like that that we would be affecting,
so we have to be very sensitive about that, and it takes a certain amount of
time. We want to address those things,
so that very often takes a lot more time.
Mr. Clif Evans: We do not want to upset certain ministers
that we have here who are very, very touchy when it comes to nests and crocus
plants, when it comes to construction of roads.
If the minister could just then‑‑I
have listened to what he said, and I appreciate that‑‑what I would
like to hear from him is that 325, this new construction whenever it is to be,
is in the works and it is a go on it totally.
There is not going to be anything that is going to stop this once the
environmental licence is through, and you will be moving with it.
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I just wanted to make sure that I got the
question right from the member.
Construction will not take place on 325 this year. It is for the simple reason, as I mentioned
before‑‑we are talking 325‑‑we still have not got the
environmental licence. It has been on
for acquisition of right‑of‑way for a number of years. Once we have the environmental clearance on
that, and have the land bought, then it is ready for construction.
Mr. Clif Evans: I did not say if it is going to be this
year. I said, is it a go once the whole
process has been completed, and when do you expect it to be a go?
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, staff tell me that right now we are proposing
construction for the year of 1995, in that year, subject to the money coming
into place, but that is sort of the target date for having everything into
place. The member must also understand
that, by and large, what we have proved this year‑‑and I repeat
again‑‑is next year's construction.
So we are actually always two years behind. Ultimately, if everything unfolds as it
should environmentally, and acquisition it right away, then the member can come
and pressure myself or whoever is going to be having the responsibility to try and
move that forward.
Mr. Clif Evans: I would just like to pass the microphone on
to my colleague from Thompson for a question, but just on what the minister
said, I hope that and it certainly would be nice if by the time 325 was
completed that I would have the pleasure of being there to cut the ribbon.
I would appreciate if the honourable
member for Thompson has a question for the minister if it is okay.
* (1620)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Acting Chairperson, in fact, I do have to
leave shortly to go to Thompson, not this time by road actually. I came down by road last weekend, and I will
be coming down on Monday by road, so I am sure I will be able to update the
minister on the condition of Highway 6 when I next come back, perhaps even for
Estimates on Monday. But I am not asking
about Highway 6. Currently, there are
some stretches that certainly do need some major overhaul. That is a standard thing on Highway 6 that
has been accepted, I think, over the years because of the permafrost, particularly
in the northern stretches leading into Ponton and from Ponton to Wabowden.
There are a couple of issues I want
to raise. If I could, I would like to
just raise them and I may have to read the minister's comments in Hansard. I mean no disrespect by that, but I have a
couple of issues that I would just like to raise.
One is in terms of communities in my
constituency that do not have any roads, period, just winter roads, all of
which except one of the four communities are on the bayline which may be impacted
by some of the changes going on in terms of the recommendations of the rail
service, recommendations that were brought down just recently, changes in the
federal budget, the VIA Rail cutbacks, the situation at the Port of Churchill.
Needless to say, the people in Ilford, Thicket Portage and Pikwitonei are
concerned. On the one hand, they do not
have an all‑weather road. On the
other hand, they may lose their all‑weather contact, the rail service.
So one of the questions that I would
like to ask, and if the minister could respond afterwards, is what plans, if
any, there are to put all‑weather roads into those communities. I have raised this matter before in the case
of Thicket Portage and Pikwitonei. Repap
has been active in the area and has brought roads much closer into the
communities. I would like to ask what
the plans are in terms of that, and pointing out that, for example, line power
will be going into those communities fairly shortly in the case of Thicket
Portage and Pikwitonei. So there are
going to be some developments of that nature, and all‑weather road access
is another concern.
York Landing, while not on the
bayline, also does not have an all‑weather road. York Landing is in a situation where it has
only scheduled air service, the ferry during the summer or the winter road
during the winter. One of the ongoing
concerns, again, in that community‑‑and I was just in on the winter
road just over a couple of months ago‑‑is as to whether there are
any plans for all‑weather road access into that community and given the
proximity of Ilford, obviously, the question would arise as to whether there
would the tying of both communities, of any plan for an all‑weather road
in the future.
Another issue I wanted to raise, and
I have raised it before, and I am sure I will be raising it again, and it is in
regard to 391 north of Thompson, the stretch to Nelson House in
particular. I travel that road on a
regular basis as well. I know some work
has been done south of Leaf Rapids.
One of the concerns that has
developed is with the boreas [phonetic] project. The minister suggests that this is the reason
there might not be construction or other activities on that section of the
highway. I would point out that the
boreas project just wrote to the local newspaper just a matter of a couple of
weeks ago indicating that they feel very unfortunate that they might be
standing in the way of having that highway paved. They pointed out that there was a suggestion
that their activities would not on an ongoing basis prevent construction,
particularly the more southerly stretches.
I would just like to point out to
the minister, in the case of both this and the Gillam road, as I still refer to
it, even in areas where there has been construction, grading, et cetera, there
are problems. Last year, for example,
one weekend five cars went in the ditch on one particular stretch of 391 just
north of the turnoff for Gillam. I have
seen the condition of that road, and it was upgraded a number of years ago, but
the problem is, because of the type of terrain, the weather conditions we face
and also the fact that it gets probably more traffic than people realize in
that particular area, including some fairly heavy traffic, it often is a
difficult situation, particularly this time of year.
In fact, if the minister, and I know
the minister has offered to come up on that highway, if he wants to come up I
would suggest one of these weekends I will drive him up and we will go in over
the next couple of months.
An Honourable Member: Leave him up there.
Mr. Ashton: The Liberal critic says, leave him up
there. I know some of my constituents
would love to tour him around the northern highways, but what I would suggest
is that the concerns are very legitimate.
I know the people at Nelson House in
particular are very concerned about the condition of the highway, and I know
the minister has raised this concern to the boreas project. They have said themselves that their major
concern is health and safety through the road access, although they are
obviously dealing with boreas project as well.
What I am asking for is some sort of
long‑term sense from the minister‑‑I will not say long‑term‑‑if
it is not the next few months, I am talking sometime in the future, in the near
future, some commitment that there is going to be some significant improvement
of that stretch of the highway.
I have said before, the minister and
the department has done work on various stretches of 391 and has done work this
year south of Leaf Rapids, but I must admit I was a bit disappointed when the
departmental budget was cut, part of which was taking the money that was coming
from the federal‑provincial agreement for the major highways in southern
Manitoba, that that was not used as I suggested and I think as the member for
The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) suggested, to put it into northern roads, because I think
there are some significant needs.
So what I am asking for just briefly
then is the situation in terms of those communities without all‑weather
roads and also if there is any long‑term planning in terms of Highway 391
itself and also the Gillam road‑‑I can never remember the new
numbering system on it; most people in the North still call it the Gillam
road. Usually you cannot see the sign
anyway with all the mud from the road itself.
So I would appreciate whatever
information the minister could give on those particular roads.
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, first of all, the member put a variety of things
on the record here. I want to address
the VIA Rail aspect first, realizing that there has been a $50‑million
deduction in the subsidy to VIA Rail and knowing the scrutiny that VIA will
come under in terms of providing transportation services to outlying
communities, we are monitoring it very extensively. We want to find out exactly what impact it
will have, realizing that, as the member stated, certain communities are very
dependent on that.
The member made reference to a
variety of roads. I think actually we have
extensive work that is being undertaken on 391. We have 36 kilometres that
basically will be asphalted in the coming year.
The contract has been let at the present time. My understanding is Smook Brothers from
Thompson are the ones that have that contract on 391, the 36 kilometres.
The other thing is on Highway 39,
which is from Ponten going west, we have a grade and gravel job. That is probably one of the worst stretches
of highway that we have out in the North because of the variations in there. I personally have not driven it with a
camper. I nearly lost my wife and camper
one year going down there because of the fluctuations there so we have a major
grading job in there.
We try and distribute our work
throughout the province in such a way that all our districts have a certain
amount of work, and we try and distribute it as well between grading and
paving, et cetera. So, as we have done
in the past, we will continue to work on stages on the highway.
The member says he will probably
read on the record what my comments are.
Well, we had a delegation in from Chief Alan Ross from Norway House and
some of his people. He said that Highway
6 was just one beautiful highway. Unless
everybody always talks negatively‑‑but he was comparing it to
373. I take comfort in that he says No.
6 is a very good highway. I want to take
comfort in that respect.
Funds, of course, play one portion
of the decision‑making role. The
other is the condition of the road. We
will be doing some road work on 373 at Jenpeg where we are reconstructing a
portion to move it off the dike for safety reasons.
* (1630)
The member for the Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans) made reference to safety on the intersection of Nos. 6 and 39. That, of course, is the biggest priority, the
safety factor, in many of our decisions.
Staff is very conscientious in terms of we monitor the accidents very
closely. Where we have bad
intersections, we try and address that.
Where we have bad roads, we try and address that. So as we make the decisions in terms of which
road shall we prioritize, that plays a big factor into it.
Mr. Clif Evans: When the minister talks about safety and the
roads that are in need and whatnot, he has had resolutions, petitions, letters
requesting that his department do something about Highway 234 from Beaver Creek
to Matheson Island for many, many years.
I want to say to the minister that I
know he is aware of that road. I was up
to Matheson Island‑Pine Dock just less than a month ago. I want to tell that the amount of traffic
that is on that road, not only through the summer, from the Matheson Island‑Pine
Dock communities and the Bloodvein communities, but during the winter when the
winter road is in across the lake, that it is disgraceful. I find it very disgraceful to have to travel
on a highway in Manitoba at 30 kilometres an hour because of the hazardous
conditions and the rocks sticking out of the road, the curves in the road, the
nonmaintenance of the road.
The minister must be made aware of
this to the point that the people who come to my community in Riverton, who are
daily visitors coming through, every time these people from Pine Dock, Matheson
Island, Bloodvein come to Riverton they are screaming. It does not matter what
time of the year. They are screaming
about the condition of 234. It has been
for years. They have requested meetings.
I have been with Pine Dock and
Matheson Island. They are putting
together another resolution. They are
putting together another request to meet with the minister. I am putting on record now, when the letters
do come to me I will be requesting the minister to meet with this group and
myself included. I would want the
minister to take this road, along with others, but this road and all the roads
very, very seriously. This is a serious
condition, seriously depleted condition road in the last five or six
years. It has to be addressed. What is the minister going to do about it?
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am well aware of the road that the member is
talking about, 234 towards Beaver Creek, Calders Dock. In fact, this is part of our winter road
system where we come back at Dock Crossing‑‑major semis drifting
down there.
I have on occasion, for personal
reasons, been down in that area from time to time, being an outdoorsman. I have no qualms about admitting it is
definitely a problem highway that we have, and safety is a matter of concern
with the curves that are on there. We
are moving ahead, maybe not as fast as certainly I would like to do.
To bring the member up to date, the
whole distance is a matter of 53 kilometres which is a substantial distance,
for 25.6 kilometres of the distance and the acquisition of right‑of‑way‑‑which
we basically are buying the right‑of‑way for 25.6 kilometres of
that.
An Honourable Member: How many years have you been buying it so
far?
Mr. Driedger: I
do not know. This is in my most recent
green book here.
For the 27.4 kilometres we are doing
the survey and design. If the member says that the people from the area want to
come and see my office and discuss it, I have no problems doing that. Anytime,
if they phone we will try and set up a meeting so that it suits them and
ourselves. I realize the importance of
the road. I realize the condition of the
road, and we would take and proceed on it as best we can.
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Mr. Acting Chairperson, I just have a short
question. It is on two particular
areas. One is the 405 that has been
under discussion for a considerable length of time, mainly with the municipalities,
the people of the area and so on that the department has been holding
discussions with.
What I would like to know is the status of
405. What is happening with it right
now? On top of that I would like to also
know the status indeed of the lights that were noted to be coming I believe
this summer at Deacon's Corner and possibly a few words on No. 1 Highway as to
what is going to be happening in that area.
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson,
for the member for La Verendrye, he raised a question of Highway 405 which is
the one going through Ile des Chenes to Lorette, and just for the record, I
want to indicate that initially a plan had been designed which was then not
acceptable to the people in the area. As
a result, staff have gone back, and we have raised it with our regional office
to have the location plan put in place.
From staff my understanding is that that has not been completed.
I want to assure the member that we
will put every effort into it to see the location plan being completed. My understanding is that the regional office
will be meeting with both Lorette and Ile des Chenes in the next little while‑‑I
understand they had met with Lorette and they would be meeting with Ile des
Chenes. So once we have some of the
technical difficulties and location plan finalized to the satisfaction of the
people, we will immediately proceed with the acquisition of right‑of‑way
so that we can get that program forward.
I used to represent that area, I
have personal feelings about getting that‑‑I think I made a
commitment years ago that it would be done, so I understand the member's
concern, and we will move forward with it as fast as we can.
The other question that the member
raised as to the signalization on the No. 1 Highway and 207, this was approved
last year. My understanding is that the
work will be undertaken this summer, that we have the necessary equipment, it
has been purchased, and that it should be a go situation. In conjunction with the signalization of that
corner, we also have some turning improvements at that time. So that is all slated to happen.
* (1640)
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I just
wanted to complete my answer on what is happening on the Trans‑Canada
East, and I want to clarify for all members that at the time when we anticipated
that a National Highways Program would be announced on December 2 by the
Minister of Finance federally, this did not happen. As a result of that, extensive negotiations
have taken place between the province and the federal government. Ultimately, on the 31st of December myself
and the federal minister, Jake Epp, had made an announcement that we would have
a cost‑share program of $70 million‑‑$35 million feds, $35
million province‑‑and had identified certain specific projects
which the federal government maintained that they wanted the authority to
decide which projects.
Many questions have been raised by
the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and others as to why, under the cost‑shared
arrangement, certain roads were not included.
What we did, we submitted the approximately $250 million worth of
projects to the federal government to look at because they wanted to choose
which ones were going to be undertaken jointly.
Ultimately, it was narrowed down to
$70 million worth of projects. All of the
projects we have announced, in the press release that we put out, deal with
what we classify or consider the National Highways Program, basically No. 1, 75
and 16, plus the northeast Perimeter.
The Highway No. 1 East, the repaving of those both lanes, which have
been deteriorating quite extensively, is taking place this summer. That is one of the first ones.
Now we need to‑‑in fact
the tender is closed today, and I can inform the member that I think Borland
Construction was the successful bidder.
So that is a massive undertaking, and I am pleased that we can proceed
with that.
Part of the problem that we face is
that where we have the joint programs with the federal government that we need
not only provincial environmental approval but also federal.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): I think he is filibustering his own Estimates
here.
Mr. Driedger:
No, I have been trying to move them as fast as I can, but we spent
almost two hours on the taxicab business in order to reason why‑‑
Mr. Sveinson:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would just like to thank the minister and his
department for the fast and efficient work, and indeed, it does happen, or has
happened in my constituency and I am very appreciative. Thank you.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Finally, somebody can say thank you in this
House.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I just want to make a
point to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that I, too, have shown my
appreciation to the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) this afternoon. So let us get that straight.
I would like to continue with
234. I believe in discussing this road
with the two communities out there‑‑the minister is saying about
acquisition of property, acquisition of land.
Can the minister indicate to me whether‑‑most of that land
is Crown land, so what is the problem to acquire Crown land? Are we going to be bucking the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)? Are we
going to be dealing with the Minister of Natural Resources on this? Do we have to go to battle with the Minister
of Natural Resources also on this? [interjection] Yes, we have already got 2,200 of it, what do
we need more for?
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the member says, well, how difficult is it to
get land from the Department of Natural Resources, Crown lands? We still have to file the plan, get the
environmental permits. I mean, it is
part of the process. Just because the
government owns it does not mean that we still do not have to acquire that as
part of the highway system, and in some cases it is faster, in some cases it is
slower.
I mean, we are moving along in the
various stages on this road, and the member should feel encouraged that we have
it to the point where we are doing acquisition and doing design on the balance
of it. When we talk of acquisition, that
means we have already done the survey design.
We know what we need. So that is
the first stage of it. I can tell the
member that there is not going to be 53 kilometres of road built at one
crack. It will be done in stages,
obviously, and once we have the right‑of‑way, then we are in a
position to start doing the grading.
I know that the people out there,
once we start on it, that it is a commitment for ongoing construction, that it
will be done maybe not quite as fast as they would have liked to see. But I expressed my concern about the safety
end of it, having driven on that road, knowing the many complaints they get
from the guys who are coming down there with semis on the winter roads and know
the concern that is out there. So we are
moving in that direction as fast as we can.
An Honourable Member: You are going too fast though. Brian wants you to slow down.
Mr. Driedger:
Oh, I got that wrong.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Acting Chair, no, I am not saying for you
to slow anything down or do whatever. I
am saying that this situation, this road, has been a problem long before I
became a member for the area. I am
talking from the '87‑88 era. Now, on
234, the problem also that I indicated to the minister was the condition,
especially from Calders Dock north to Matheson Island.
* (1650)
Now, I can appreciate what the
minister is trying to explain here about doing it in stages, but what about
maintaining the condition of that road, not only during the spring and summer
but during the wintertime? The condition
is absolutely ridiculous‑‑like I said, 30 kilometres an hour to go
to Pine Dock, Matheson Island, because I could not travel any faster because of
the holes and the boulders, the boulders sticking out or the holes that were
down.
At least, if he is going to make
some sort of an attempt, if the minister says he is attempting to correct the
problem with the road, maintain it until we can get to that part. At least maintain it. Get rid of the problems now.
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I at this time want to take the liberty to table
the Capital Program for Highways and Transportation Capital Construction
starting in the year 1978‑79 to the current year.
The reason I am going to do that is
that the member is getting critical in terms of why we have not moved faster on
it, but I want to tell him that in 1981‑82, that year when the
Conservative government got defeated, the Capital Program for construction was
$100 million for that year, in 1981.
From then on, it started plummeting down to the point where it finally
hit $83 million in '86‑87 and, ultimately, when we got back into
government, we took over a shot sort of budget again and brought it up the
first year up to $95 million. If the
member looks at the figures, he can see exactly what has happened.
So lest he get too critical, look at
where it says $100 million, the fifth item on that page, and then look for the
years that it was under the previous administration when, if they would not
have allowed that to deteriorate to that point, roads like this would have
probably already been reconstructed.
I just caution the member. I realize there are many roads that have to
be done. We are trying to prioritize
them, but let him not get too carried away with being too critical. I know the problems that are out there. I am trying to do as best I can and, from my
perspective as the Minister of Highways and Transportation, responsible for construction
of roads, I would like to see that figure at $130 million to $140 million if we
had just increased at the normal rate of inflation since 1981.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Clif Evans: The minister should know already, the last
two and a half years, that I really, really care less what has gone on in the
past when it comes to spending, okay? I
am talking about a situation where I was a constituent, a resident of the area
going up there. That is what I am
indicating. I do not care about his
numbers and who was government and who was minister. I really do not care.
I am talking about right now, today,
Mr. Minister, not yesterday, today. So
let us move on it today. You are the
minister today, and I appreciate, and I have told you, I appreciate what you
have attempted to do within my area, and I have sat with you many times and
discussed this. So I do not need any
politics from you, sir.
Madam Chairperson, when it comes to
234 again, I have indicated to the minister through conversation that there is
I believe a Mr. Johnson who is wanting to put in a fly‑in resort near
Pine Dock, I guess a base. He has also
talked to me about 234 and the concern, because we are talking about a fairly
substantial‑‑[interjection] float planes, and overnight
accommodations just on a lodge basis and so that he can take from that Pine
Dock area to his out‑camps in the different lakes.
He said to me that the concern of
234 is going to increase when it comes to trying to attract tourist industry, that
industry up to his lodge. So you are
taking people from Winnipeg, driving them up to the Pine Dock area and then
overnight accommodations. Not only must
I say to the minister with regard to the safety but also to the future economic
development of that area that this is going to bring tourists.
Now, if you do not have a road, if
they are going to use their own vehicles or if they are going to be transported
by bus, they are certainly not going to come back when they have to travel over
a road with that type of condition. So I
want to make the minister aware that there is that aspect of it too.
An Honourable Member: That is right, tourism.
Mr. Clif Evans: Tourism, and really I guess a greater concern
is just the safety of that whole road, and it is deplorable.
I would like
to ask, on a few other roads, I would like to go to Highway 233
[interjection]. Yes, does the minister
want to answer or respond to my statement?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, no. I have no
argument with the requests that the member is making. I know that it is a very marginal road at
best and that we are moving it into the stages to ultimately start putting it
under construction. So I appreciate his
comments, and I am prepared to discuss it with the people from the community
when they come out‑‑or Mr. Johnston [phonetic] as well, to give him
an idea of what we can do.
Mr. Clif Evans: To finish up with 234, my comments were that
I would appreciate the upgrading maintenance, better maintenance. I would like
the minister to indicate to me and this House today and to the constituents
that the maintenance, the upkeep of that highway, of that road will be a
priority until he can continue with the construction.
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, I have my key people here. They have heard the
remarks and the request, and I will ask that they relay the message to my
maintenance people in the area to see that we try and maintain it as reasonable
as possible.
Mr. Clif Evans: I thank the minister for that.
A small portion of 233 has been
through resolution, through council‑‑R.M. of Bifrost and some
concerned citizens have brought it to the minister's attention, we have
discussed it. I believe it is a matter
of four to five miles of Highway 233 from the junction of 329 going north.
Again, that portion is not
paved. On that portion that is not paved
there are quite a few residents that must put up with the dust every year. They have requested that the minister
complete the paving of that road so that it will not be such a burden on the
people living on that highway. [interjection] Highway 233 north from 329. I wish I had a map.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the preliminary work has
been done on that stretch of road, the design has been done, acquisition has
been done. Anyway, it is virtually ready
to go so it is one of the projects that is going to be getting
consideration. We are ready to basically
move the next step which is basically the base and AST. The reconstruction has taken place, and we
are ready to basically do the base and AST which is the oil and chips.
Mr. Clif Evans: Now the minister is indicating that the north‑south
part of 233, not any portion of the east‑west part but the north‑south. If you are looking on the map, go down 329
from Riverton up to 233 coming from 68, the request has been for that portion,
until the road makes a turn to the west, to be paved. It has been through resolution.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the grade and gravel has
been completed. That was approved in
'87. We have done the work. It is ready to basically receive base and
AST, and it is going to be one of the projects that is going to be in the mix
for consideration at the present time.
Whether it gets on for this year's approval or not is one of the things
that I consider it being lobbied by the member and will take it under
consideration in terms of making it a priority.
Mr. Clif Evans: Can the minister indicate in the short period
of time that we have here, or begin to, just exactly what is his department
doing with 233 west of Fisher Branch, the north‑south portion? What is he doing with that portion of 233?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, the member is aware that we did the base and AST from
Fisher Branch going west until the point where the highway turns north, and we
have that portion up to 325 on for acquisition of right‑of‑way. We are proposing that for consideration for
inclusion in this year's program.
* (1700)
Mr. Clif Evans: I want to deal with 329 and 233 again, but I
want to ask about 329. As I indicated to
him yesterday in the House, I would like to know if the minister did notify
staff today about the condition of those three miles, and is something going to
be done about it as quickly as possible?
Mr. Driedger:
Yes, Madam Chairperson, the member raised it with me yesterday, and
other individuals have phoned the department and have raised the concern that
there is a three‑mile stretch where basically we have frost boils coming
out and trucks are getting stuck in there.
What has happened is that actually
we have had some pretty busy activity of hauling of heavier loads through
there, even during the course of the night, and as a result the road has gone
to pot. This is no reflection on the
people who haul necessarily. It is a
matter of it being a bad stretch of road where the frost boils are coming out,
and staff have been made aware of it.
They are going to try and address it as soon as they can, and hopefully
they will be able to stabilize it so that they can at least drive within reason
on that road. Remember, it was snowing
on that road as well, so it does not help the situation. There are certain times when these conditions
combine, and we have all kinds of problems with that.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mr. Ben Sveinson (Acting Chairperson of
Committees): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Committee of Supply
has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave
to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND
READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The Child
and Family Services Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), (Bill 200, The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la
famille), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans) and also standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the
proposed motion of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202
(The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location
a usage d'habitation), standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I am very pleased and proud to be able to
stand today and speak on Bill 202, as the private member's bill that has been
put forward by my colleague, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), amending
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we all in this
House have a background in a range of occupations and areas of expertise before
we come to this House which provides for a richness and diversity of
interchange and exchange between members of the House, and I think it is an
excellent thing.
It is however not often that a
member's background enables them to be able to bring forward legislation that
shows very clearly the expertise and experience that they have had. Bill 202, The Residential Tenancies Amendment
Act, as put forward by the member for Burrows, is such an example.
The member for Burrows was before
his election to the Legislature a prime mover and shaker in the housing reform
movement, if you will, in the province of Manitoba. He was one of the architects of The
Residential Tenancies Act that was proclaimed by this Legislature in 1990 and
has put on record comments about that act and the appreciation that he has for
the current government for having instituted that act, which I believe was
passed unanimously by this House.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, no piece
of legislation is perfect. In
particular, I think we find, after a piece of landmark legislation has been in
place for a while, the cracks begin to show and the need for amendment comes
forward. That precisely is why in our
common‑law system we have provisions for amendments to legislation being
made. That is the brief background to
the introduction of Bill 202, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, as put
forward by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
There are two main components to
this amendment act that, if passed by this House, will be alleviated. The two main elements of Bill 202 are, No. 1,
the right for tenants to organize is protected, and the second element is that
harassment of tenants is prohibited. So
on the one hand there is a positive right that is being enshrined and explained
and extended, and on the other hand there is a prohibition against actions
toward tenants that are being prohibited‑‑two very important
elements that need to be addressed in The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, by definition,
in many cases the act of renting accommodation is an act that implies power,
the power of the renter to establish the conditions under which the building or
the apartment or the home is being rented and the power of the tenant to choose
to remain in that housing or to leave.
Now the issues that are before us in
Bill 202 relate to circumstances, particularly in the city of Winnipeg, where
there is a power differential, where the powers and the responsibilities and
the rights of the landlord and the tenant are very unequal. In the majority of the cases that have led to
the introduction of Bill 202, the tenants have very little power and the
landlords have a great deal of power.
That is because there is a very high incidence of substandard housing in
the city of Winnipeg and there is a very high incidence of people on social
assistance and very low incomes in the city of Winnipeg.
We on this side of the House have
discussed at great length about the causes of those elements in the city of
Winnipeg's housing stock happening, and I think it would be inappropriate to go
into much detail on those kinds of things at this point but, suffice it to say,
there is an enormous potential problem in the city of Winnipeg and to a lesser
extent in other parts of the province of Manitoba when it comes to rental
housing. The elements of Bill 202 are
designed to alleviate those problems.
The landlord in many cases in the
city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba in rental housing, particularly
low‑income rental housing, has an enormous amount of power. No. 1, the landlord has much more of a
financial backing than do the tenants in these low‑income housing units,
because the landlord, by definition, has a certain amount of financial
wherewithal or he or she would not be a landlord. Now many landlords, I am sure, Madam Deputy
Speaker, would take some exception to that because they would say that their
overheads are such and their profit margins are very narrow, et cetera. Be that as it may, landlords have access to
financial resources that low‑income tenants do not have. So there is a financial power imbalance in
these relationships.
There is also a legal power
imbalance in these relationships, because by the fact that landlords have a
landlords association, they have access to financial resources, they can take
advantage of the legal system more efficiently and effectively than tenants
can. Most low‑income tenants in
public and private housing in the province of Manitoba are not organized,
particularly in the private housing market in Manitoba. They do not have tenants associations. They do not have the ability to come together
and show strength through unity. One of
the elements of this bill is designed to make that easier to occur and that is
that the tenants' right to organize is protected.
* (1710)
The other power differential, if you
will, in the landlord‑and‑tenant relationship in the private
housing market in the province of Manitoba is that of the degree of choice that
people have. I am stating, perhaps, the
obvious‑‑certainly, to us on this side of the House it is obvious‑‑when
I say that the more access to income or revenue or financial elements you have,
the more choice you have. By that
definition, low‑income individuals who rent private housing in the
province of Manitoba have probably less choice than any other group in the
province. Certainly a great deal less choice than the landlords do.
So these are some of the
inequalities that have been built into the system as far as the landlord and
tenant relationships that are being discussed in Bill 202.
The member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), in his speech when he discussed Bill 202, recently had a very
striking example of where tenants were being intimidated by landlords and where
they were being harassed by landlords.
Mr. Martindale, the member for Burrows, in his canvassing in his
constituency has come across blocks that are clearly substandard in their
provision of the basic necessities for housing for their tenants.
In knocking on various doors he
found that in some cases the tenants wanted to be able to appeal to something,
some agency or some group to be able to get some satisfaction against the
landlord who was refusing to make the needed repairs.
When the member for Burrows
attempted to do that on behalf of his constituents, which is one of the basic
responsibilities of a good member of the Legislative Assembly, the landlord
proceeded to send a notice to all of the tenants intimidating them and saying
they should not talk to the member for Burrows.
This is the very crude and overt
form of harassment and intimidation that is perpetrated upon low‑income
tenants in Manitoba by landlords. There
are many other instances that perhaps are not as obvious of cases where
landlords have used their financial and legal clout to harass and intimidate
tenants.
The ability of tenants to organize
cannot in this context be overstated.
This element of the legislation would allow tenants in a single building
or a group of buildings to get together, to band together, to discuss their
issues of common concern and to, as a group, make presentation for a recourse
for assistance.
We all know, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that in whatever endeavour we are involved with, groups of people have more
clout and more influence than individuals working on their own, by and large.
So this is a very important aspect of this piece of legislation and one that
must be protected. Not only protected,
but I would suggest preserved and enhanced.
Not only should the right of tenants
to organize be protected, which is sort of a reactive kind of statement, but it
should be facilitated. However, we will
take it one step at a time.
The second element is that tenants
should not be harassed by their landlords particularly when they are making
demands and requests of their landlords that are ultimately reasonable. There
should be no discussion on the part of any member of this House that the rules
and regulations of The Landlord and Tenant Act, the rules and regulations of
the City of Winnipeg or the province of Manitoba, when it comes to basic human
habitation, must be followed.
One would think that would be just a
statement that was incredibly obvious and why would you need to put it in
legislation? Well, we certainly on this
side of the House know many examples where this has not been followed, where
landlords have been able through their harassment and intimidation, to keep
tenants from what is rightfully theirs, which is habitable, affordable,
standard housing.
Finally, one of the things that we
would suggest be done to facilitate the increase of standard housing is that
the Province of Manitoba, either through the social assistance and income
security divisions, or in conjunction with the residential tenancies branch of
the government, work together to ensure that individuals and families who are
on income security are being provided with the best possible housing. At the very least, the government of Manitoba
should not knowingly and willingly participate in the provision of substandard
housing to any of its constituents.
Currently the situation is that the
Province of Manitoba puts into the City of Winnipeg social assistance housing
some $60 million every year, and a great percentage of that revenue, Madam
Deputy Speaker, to landlords, and expenditures on the part of the people of
Manitoba is for very severely substandard housing. The government must ensure that the money
that it expends on behalf of its citizens goes toward standard, basic, healthy
accommodation. So we would ask very much
that the government look towards implementing that kind of co‑operative
venture, so that all of its citizens and certainly those citizens who have
their housing needs met by the province have standardized housing accessible to
themselves.
Also, another element we would like
to see in place or put back in, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a program called
CARUMP, which was part of the Core Area Initiative and the City of Winnipeg,
which was an inspection program. That
program is no longer in existence because the Core Area Initiative is no longer
in existence, and we only hope on this side of the House that the government
will be successful in its so‑far pitiful attempts to renegotiate a Core
Area III. In the meantime, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is incumbent upon this government to make sure that complaints are
heard, are listened to, and are acted upon.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing we
feel that there is good and sufficient reason for the government of Manitoba to
sponsor and support co‑operatively The Residential Tenancies Amendment
Act, Bill 202, and we look forward to the government's response to this very
important and simple piece of legislation.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a welcome
opportunity to rise on the hard work of the member for Burrows in putting forth
this very important bill dealing with housing and the rights and protection of
the rights of those who are tenants in the city and in the province of
Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of
the constituency that I have the honour of representing, and it is a mix of
both single‑dwelling houses, multiple‑dwelling houses and many,
many apartment blocks. In fact, I think
apartment blocks and residential rental units constitute about a quarter of the
residences in my constituency. So it is
appropriate that I have an opportunity of speaking to a bill that deals with
the tenants' rights as reflected in the bill put forward by the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and our party.
* (1720)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have also
had personal experience in the facets of both tenants' rights and the rights of
landlords, having served in both capacities.
As both a tenant for many years and as a landlord for many years, I have
had the opportunity of being on both sides, as it were, of both the ledger and
both sides of the issue from that of a tenant and that of a landlord and,
indeed, in terms of my own profession prior to entering this Chamber, had the
opportunity of representing both sides, as well, in disputes and in matters
dealing with residential tenancies.
I believe this is in fact an
important bill because it provides an opportunity for those who are tenants in
a facility to exercise a right that we take for granted in every other facet of
life. That is the right to organize and
to be protected from harassment in that right to organize.
This bill, as I read it, does not
convey any substantive rights to an individual or individuals who seek to
organize. It simply provides them with
the opportunity to organize to take advantage of the rights that accrue to
them, the rights that are provided to them in this particular bill, the rights
that accrue to them delegated from us and the laws as promulgated by the
members of this Chamber on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba. So it does not
provide a substantive right at all; rather it provides them with an opportunity
to organize, which is something that is substantial in itself, but does not
provide a substantive right, at least from my readings of the bill.
I think it is something that all
members of this House will agree is important in terms of our society and in
terms of where we are evolving to in the province of Manitoba.
Housing, as the member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale), who takes the lead often in this issue because of his
background and experience, is a fundamental issue of concern to members on this
side of the House, and I am sure to all members in this House, with respect to
what basic housing provides for our way of life and for families and for
individuals in our society.
It is something that is fundamental
to our existence and fundamental to our way of life and fundamental to the way
that we perceive our society. Certainly,
none of us can rest until we have provided‑‑until all citizens in
our society have been provided with adequate and proper housing and
accommodation. So in the sense, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that is a human and basic right for all of us and we all must
and should strive to provide that.
Part of the responsibility for that
rests with those, not only who are owners and lessors and landlords with
respect to tenancies and respect to residential tenancies specifically, but also
those who occupy and lease and rent those facilities. By providing the tenants or renters with the
opportunity to organize, we are simply enhancing their ability to provide for
themselves and to provide for the improvement of conditions with respect to
their housing and with respect to their accommodation, in essence, as I
indicated earlier, which flows from my comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, their
basic human rights.
So I think that all members in this
House will agree that this bill seeks to further enhance the rights, and I use
the word not necessarily in a legal sense but in more of a universal
sense. It seeks to enhance the rights of
all Manitobans and improve quality of life for all Manitobans by providing
tenants with the opportunity to organize.
Organization is fundamental, Madam
Deputy Speaker, to progress and to moving forward as a society and as a people
in Manitoba because it provides an opportunity for an exchange of
information. It provides an opportunity
to convey and communicate. It provides
an opportunity for protection in instances where, and we know it happens,
landlords do not live up to their responsibilities under this act.
It provides an opportunity to
prevent harassment and discouragement of tenants from securing information and
understanding and exercising their rights under this act. I do not see how anyone could be
opposed. In fact, both in principle and
in fact, I do not know why anyone would be opposed to an amendment of this kind
that simply serves to enhance the process under The Residential Tenancies Act
by providing more information, by providing better communication, by providing
information to individuals and tenants, by enhancing those rights, by
strengthening those rights through this organization. We are improving the
climate, I argue.
I think both philosophically and
factually correctly, we are improving the operations of this act. We are allowing for tenants. We are allowing for those involved on a day‑to‑day
basis with Housing and with residential tenancies to have an opportunity to get
together to discuss, to convey information, to organize and to take advantage
of the rights that are given to them statutorily by the members of this
Chamber, to take advantage of the rights that have been given to them through
the legislation, through this Legislature.
It is very difficult for me to
imagine how an argument could be mounted, how even a philosophical argument
could be mounted against the provision of an amendment of this kind or from the
actual passage of an amendment of this kind that would seek to enhance the
functioning of The Residential Tenancies Act and to improve the operations of
this act and improve the way of life for all Manitobans, not just tenants,
Madam Deputy Speaker, but landlords and all those involved in the functioning
of this act.
So I certainly join with members of
our party, and I am sure the third party, as well as the government, whom I am
sure would have no opposition to an amendment of this kind which strives to
improve the climate and relationships of people involved in tenancies in the
province of Manitoba, and which seeks to enhance the operation of The
Residential Tenancies Act.
Surely members opposite know the
importance of organization, the importance of bringing people together on
behalf of all citizens to allow them an opportunity to speak their minds and to
convey information. We have seen many
examples recently, in fact at this Legislature, where people, who have felt
their rights have been infringed, have come to the steps of this Legislature
and implored and brought their voices together in one voice in opposition to
some of the government's plans to strip away their rights and to strip away the
opportunities of many Manitobans.
* (1730)
We have seen that on a daily basis occur
in this very building, in the constituency represented by the member for
Broadway (Mr. Santos), who has seen on a regular basis hundreds and indeed
thousands of Manitobans who have paraded and come to express their minds to
this Chamber and to this Legislature to try to convince this government of the
error of its ways. That is an example of
organization, that is an example of people coming together and expressing a
viewpoint and conveying an opinion to the Legislature, which is their right and
which is an opportunity held by all Manitobans.
Certainly, it seems to me, I would
be very, very surprised if the government could in any way be in opposition to
an amendment of this kind that only seeks to enhance the role of citizens, to
convey information and to communicate, to exercise their rights as entailed, as
outlined, as indicated in The Residential Tenancies Act itself.
I am sure that all members of this
House will join us in the speedy passage of this act because of the nature,
both of the substance of the act and the philosophy behind it, because it
certainly is very‑‑
An Honourable Member: You really have not convinced us yet, Dave.
Mr. Chomiak:
Pardon me, Jim? It is quite
clear. The member for Arthur (Mr.
Downey) indicates that he has not been convinced. I thought that no convincing was necessary in
a bill that is obviously in the best interests of all Manitobans, even those
who might perhaps be proceeding to take on other occupations or otherwise.
Certainly, if the member for Arthur
thinks I have not convinced him, I do not even believe that it is the kind of
argument that requires me to put forth any great logic or any great political
persuasion, because on the very‑‑
An Honourable Member: We do not think you could.
Mr. Chomiak:
Even if I could, the member mentions.
Well, perhaps he is right. I note
there is a flashing of my light, and I will conclude my comments with
anticipation, as I speak of it, that all members will see the good sense in
terms of this particular bill and the substantive merits behind it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Barrett:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to ask if it is the will of the
House to call it six o'clock.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed]
As previously agreed, this bill will
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Portage la Prairie
(Mr. Pallister).
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).