VOL. XLIV No. 10 - 1:30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1994

Wednesday, December 14, 1994

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, December 14, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Physical Education in Schools

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Goodluck Nwaerondu, D. Edg, George Johanneson and others urging the Minister responsible for Education (Mr. Manness) to consider reinstating physical education as a compulsory core subject area.

Children's Dental Program

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Marilyn Gross, Elie Gross, Reuben Gross and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) consider restoring the Children's Dental Health Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget.

Handi-Transit

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lynn Schneider, Stacie Hagberg, Annette Spinak and others urging the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) to consider working with the City of Winnipeg and the disabled to develop a long-term plan to maintain Handi-Transit service and ensure that disabled Manitobans will continue to have access to Handi-Transit service.

Physical Education in Schools

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of James W. Hoddinott, Donna Moman, Merle Klyne and others urging the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) to consider maintaining physical education as part of the core curriculum from kindergarten to senior high.

Children's Dental Program

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Anna Waldner, Tracy Waldner, Sara Waldner and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget.

Housing Authorities Voluntary Boards

Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Dorothy Noroznick, P. Sudermann, Isabella Wong and others requesting the Minister responsible for Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) to consider cancelling the recent unilateral rent hikes and restoring the voluntary boards of the housing authorities.

Improvement of Highway 391

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Annie Bonner, Russell Bonner, Murdo Bonner and others requesting the government of Manitoba consider reviewing the state of Highway 391 with a view towards improving the condition and safety of the road.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Physical Education in Schools

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

An Honourable Member: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will read.

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

THAT in July 1994, the Minister of Education introduced an action plan entitled Renewing Education: New Directions;

THAT this report will make physical education an optional course in Grades 9 to 12;

THAT the physical education curriculum should be regularly reviewed to ensure that it meets the needs of students;

THAT the government is failing to recognize the benefits of physical education such as improved physical fitness, more active lifestyles, health promotion, self-discipline, skill development, stress reduction, strengthened peer relationships, weight regulation, stronger bones, reduced risk of health diseases and improved self-confidence.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister responsible for Education to consider reinstating physical education as a compulsory core subject area.

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of tabling the Annual Report for the year 1993-94 of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, and, as well, a report of the Agricultural Producers' Organization Certification Agency.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism for the year 1993-94.

* (1335)

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table Manitoba's Perspective on the Federal Government's Proposals on Social Security Renewal.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Manitoba's Perspectives on the Federal Government's Proposals on Social Security Renewal

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I also have a statement for the House.

Mr. Speaker, when the current Government of Canada came into office, it announced that one of its priorities would be to achieve a fundamental redesign of that network of social services that has come to be called Canada's social safety net. The need for fundamental reform is clear both for fiscal and for social reasons. The increasing costs of social services in Canada are simply not sustainable.

Today debt service charges are the largest single annual expenditure of the Government of Canada, and they are growing. Reform is a fiscal necessity, but new approaches to the social services that Canada's governments provide are also a human and a social necessity.

It is clear that in many respects our current social services just do not work very well. In particular, it is clear that in too many instances they trap Canadians in dependency and fail to provide real pathways to independence and opportunity, and so, for both fiscal and social reasons, Manitoba supports reform.

On October 5, 1994, as part of the federal effort to achieve a broad national consensus about social policy reform, the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Human Resources for Canada, released a federal government discussion paper entitled Improving Social Security in Canada. In that paper, the minister says, and I quote: The next generation of social programs must not just share the wealth and protect those who are disadvantaged among us. They must actively create opportunities for Canadians and in so doing help drive economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, the government of Manitoba agrees and we will be responding to the federal discussion paper and taking an active and positive part in what we hope will be a meaningful and realistic national dialogue about the future of our social services. We begin our participation in this dialogue with some firm convictions of our own, convictions that we believe reflect the values Manitobans share. Manitobans believe that government has a responsibility to provide basic supports for the most vulnerable in our society, and we believe that for the vast majority of our citizens the best social security is a job and that the best social services are those that provide opportunities for people to become economically self-sufficient.

We also believe that the new generation of Canadian social services must respond to the specific social reality of each province and each region in Canada, and here we confess to some concern and disappointment at the fact that in the federal discussion paper there was virtually no mention or acknowledgement of the special situation of Canada's aboriginal people.

Manitoba's population includes a higher proportion of aboriginal people than that of any other province and that proportion is growing. Many thousands of aboriginal Manitobans lead secure, healthy and successful lives, but many others do not. The incidence of poverty and all its attendant ills are significantly higher among aboriginal Manitobans than in the community at large. This poses a special set of challenges to our social services.

* (1340)

Today in Manitoba half of our social assistance caseload and about two-thirds of all the children in care are aboriginal. The Government of Canada has a special constitutional responsibility with respect to aboriginal people, and the way it discharges those responsibilities has staggering fiscal and social implications for the province and for the people of Manitoba. So we will be asking that services to aboriginal people and the federal government's constitutional fiduciary responsibility for these services be a central part of the generation of social services that we build together.

We also believe that it is important that as we proceed to renew our social services, we look at the entire network of services in the light of the needs of our communities. This cannot simply be a matter of changing a few federal programs or reducing federal expenditures, because the system of social services that Canadians rely on is an interlinked system. Changes in one program or one government's level of involvement inevitably affects other programs and other levels of government. So we must look at the total resources available and at the needs of our citizens, and we must identify the best ways to use those resources to achieve our goals of independence and financial self-sufficiency for the greatest possible number of Canadians.

We cannot focus on the reform of single programs, no matter how badly some of those programs may need reform. I can think of no better illustration, Mr. Speaker, than the fact of unemployment insurance. Its cost to Manitobans far outweigh its benefits. Each year, we pay $170 million more in unemployment insurance premiums than Manitobans receive in unemployment insurance benefits or payments.

We support the general directions of the changes proposed in the federal discussion paper which would see total unemployment insurance costs lowered and a greater share of the total UI spending dedicated to training so that unemployed people can become employable, but increased training for people on UI is of no benefit to people who cannot qualify to receive UI benefits.

In particular, many aboriginal people and many other people from disadvantaged groups have not had the opportunity to qualify for unemployment insurance, and so they are effectively excluded from the opportunities these new training initiatives aim to achieve. But at the same time that the federal government is planning to increase spending on training for people on UI, we are seeing a steady erosion in the levels of federal support for other training activities. That works to further disadvantage an already disadvantaged group in our society.

We have real difficulties with the federal proposals for post-secondary education. Manitobans believe that the access to quality education is the key to our future prosperity. We are concerned that the federal proposals involving, as they do, a massive reduction in federal support for post-secondary education and dramatic increases in the levels of student debt would undermine both the access and the quality, so we will be encouraging Ottawa to join us in exploring alternative approaches.

Manitoba already has one of the most highly developed child care systems in Canada, and I think we are proud of the commitment that successive governments in this province have made to this social service. We welcome additional federal support, and we would anticipate that the additional support will be provided on a fair basis to permit us to continue the development of an increasingly flexible system of child care that will provide Manitoba parents a range of options.

In the area of social assistance, we support the general direction of the federal proposals, building in more flexibility and designing services that will encourage and facilitate independence, but we have some special concerns. We are already working in co-operation with Ottawa to develop social services that provide effective pathways to financial independence. The Taking Charge! pilot program for single parents in Winnipeg aims to provide the skills, the supports and the opportunities needed to become financially self-sufficient. We are optimistic that Taking Charge! will provide a model that can be applied elsewhere in Manitoba and right across Canada. We believe that we can learn to spend the money more effectively and to achieve better outcomes for people. But we are concerned at any suggestion that the federal government should lower the levels of support for social services that Manitoba currently receives under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Since 1991 Manitoba taxpayers have had to absorb some $60 million in costs because the federal government is abandoning its responsibilities for child welfare and social assistance for Status Indians living off reserve. The federal discussion paper identifies the reduction of child poverty as one of its central goals. In Manitoba about one-half of aboriginal children living off reserve live in low-income families. The response to that reality cannot be a further reduction in the federal government's support for social services to aboriginal people in particular.

At the present time the federal government is in the process of dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs and changing the basis of its support for Status Indians on reserve. Those changes will have an as yet unknown effect on our ability to provide appropriate services for all Manitobans. We understand the fiscal crisis that the federal government is facing, but under our Constitution the federal government has a special responsibility for aboriginal people. Surely, discharging that responsibility prudently, creatively and effectively must be an integral part of any true renewal of Canada's system on social security.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this statement I have made today will help to clarify the main concerns that Manitoba brings to this national dialogue about the next generation of social services for Canada. We need to ensure fairness for Manitobans and we need to work in full partnership with the federal government in reshaping our social security system. Thank you.

* (1345)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to respond to the statement of the minister released--how should I say it?--in a long overdue fashion in the Chamber here today.

Members will recall on a number of occasions last spring and into the summer of the year that we have asked a number of questions about what are the proposals of the provincial government to deal with the changes that the federal government had announced in the early part of 1994.

Mr. Speaker, rather than responding to the proposals of the federal government, we had asked the provincial government to take an aggressive approach with the federal government before the document was released, and we are quite disappointed that this document is now being released to the public of Manitoba two weeks before January 1, at a time when the federal government committee is wrapping up its work, at a time when the federal government in early 1995 is drafting the legislation that they will incorporate in the budget in February of 1995.

Let me make a few points about the paper. First of all, there seems to be a tale of two cities in dealing with social programs and finances in Canada today. On the one hand, people are hearing stories about banks making billion-dollar profits in our country, and on the other hand, we are hearing more and more about how the most vulnerable people are the ones that must be victimized by changes that are being made by the federal government in terms of social policy review.

Yes, social policies must be reviewed in this country, but we have to put everything on the table. We have to put the revenue issues on the table, and we have to look at the programs and review and innovate those programs, because all Canadians would agree to have one program, Unemployment Insurance, being run by the federal government and to have another program being administered by the provinces and the municipalities and social services and welfare is not applicable to the late 1990s moving into the 21st Century.

We would be the first to agree that we need a national program that looks at the floor of benefits rather than having franchises province by province by province and this kind of cheque-book federalism that we see contained partly in the response made by the provincial government here today.

This government will have no credibility with the federal government when it talks about building bridges for people, because in a number of areas they talk about dealing with the most vulnerable to give them the opportunities for the future. This is a government that has cut New Careers. This is a government that has cut ACCESS, along with the federal government, and this is a government that has cut student social allowance.

This is a government that has made it more difficult for foster children and foster care for aboriginal families, so the first point of this debate must be intellectual consistency. You cannot ask somebody to do what you have done the opposite, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is very, very important.

We think the federal government is making a major error in post-secondary training and education. Whether it is community colleges, apprenticeship programs, universities, we are going to a system now that is changing Canada. We are breaking the kind of intergenerational support that we have seen in this country for decade after decade, where people who are working and are paying taxes support people to get an education through the universities and post-secondary community colleges. They, in turn, get jobs, get opportunity, pay taxes and support both a health care system and an educational system.

This proposal that will have students paying $50,000 to $60,000 has to be a concern, because when these people go through universities, how can we expect them to support other generations in terms of health care and in terms of the value system of sharing and co-operation, which has been a tradition of Canada, which is being broken down by the federal Liberals, and I say, shame on them. I say, shame on them.

We have to have a different vision, and this is going to be particularly difficult in rural and northern Manitoba. All of us have met with students in high school now. The university students may be protesting to some degree or another, but it is the high school students right now--the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) was at Sisler this week; I was there last week--just do not know where to turn.

* (1350)

They do not know where they are going to get any opportunity to get a post-secondary education. They are asking why they will not get an opportunity in the future and why their group has been chosen to be sacrificed in the so-called exercise of dealing with our financial situation.

Mr. Speaker, we think the whole issue of social policy review is important to the province of Manitoba. Every time the new federal government acts like the old federal government and cuts $1 billion out of the UI program, it represents a $30-million cost, we believe, in our calculations, to the social assistance program here in Manitoba, and therefore, when the federal government is going to cut off thousands of seasonal workers and move them from unemployment to welfare, it is going to make a very big difference in our communities and in our quality of life and the dignity of work that we see throughout Manitoba. So we will work with the provincial government to have a much more integrated approach of welfare and unemployment insurance.

In our alternative speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, we suggested that we have to get business and labour together to start banning the numbers of hours that people have in overtime. We believe that is absolutely essential, and I am pleased to see today that the advisory committee of the federal government is leaking out that it may be recommending to the federal government that proposal. That should have been on the table with the policy paper that the federal minister released a couple of months ago, and that is why the NDP, in our alternatives, had proposed an idea like that.

It does not make sense for our young people to be laid off because they have no seniority in some of these plants, including some of the aerospace operations, and on the other hand, you have large numbers of people getting massive overtime. That does not make any common sense in our economy, and we have to come to grips with that.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that we must have a partnership with First Nations people. We have asked those questions in the House. We cannot say this is your responsibility, federal government, and this is our responsibility, provincial government. They are all Manitobans. Aboriginal people and everybody are all Manitobans, and we have to come to the same table on children's health, on justice issues, on child welfare issues. We have to work together. We have an opportunity with the framework agreement. We do not want to point fingers at each other. We want to work together to solve these problems, so that we can deal with the aboriginal population of Manitoba and the challenges that we all have, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with all of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just close on the issue of poverty. Manitoba, Alberta and Newfoundland have the highest child poverty rates in Canada. How do you justify, in provinces with the wealth of Manitoba and the wealth of Alberta and even Newfoundland, these numbers of 62,000 children living in poverty?

I read yesterday or the day before a document that indicated that Harvest alone, the number of kids who require food from a food bank, has gone up from 1,900 a year ago in October to over 3,400 kids in one year. That is an issue we all have to come to grips with, and, Mr. Speaker, in a country with such great wealth, we have to do everything we can to eliminate this tremendous poverty.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, having listened to the minister, one understands why it took seven pages to get across some kind of a position on this, because the government--and I see and hear as the minister reads her statement--is torn.

On the one hand, they feel they want to co-operate because I think they are relieved that there is finally a government in this country that is looking at some changes to the system which are long overdue. [interjection] Well, you know, listen. I mean, you were here; I was here. We heard the Speech from the Throne. But for the Winnipeg agreement they are anticipating, the Infrastructure program, the Taking Charge! program, what was there in that Speech from the Throne?

They stand up and say, well, this is good, but they are kind of concerned because they do not want to get too friendly; they do not want to get too co-operative. No, no, they have to keep their powder dry. They are getting into an election, and they play politics every single day in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and you see it. They are sitting there looking for any political advantage, any political point, and what is the progress?

* (1355)

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, it is a lot of hypocrisy on the part of this government as they continually play a political game in this Chamber. No one in this country should object to change in our social safety net across this country. These programs only the NDP apparently object to change. Change is not an option. These programs are 30 years old, and they were put in place by Liberal governments and they need to be reformed to serve the next 30 years. Only the NDP do not seem to understand that. The reality is that they are not meeting their original purpose as they were intended to.

Do you know that of every person on unemployment insurance in this country, less than 10 percent ever receive any job counselling, any discussion at all about whether or not they can fit back into the workforce, in what capacity, in what way? And these people say that we do not need to change; we do not need to look at these things. No one should fear the debate which is occurring in this country over the next year to change these programs, to ensure that they are here for the next 30 years.

It is a good thing that somebody in this country has dragged this provincial government into doing something to prepare this province and this country for the 21st Century. This government says--[interjection]

Well, coattails--who was it who flew down at government expense for Kim Campbell's inauguration for five months, Mr. Speaker? For heaven's sake, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) should understand the political history.

Mr. Speaker, this government says that they want nothing to do, they want no responsibility for aboriginal peoples who leave their reserves. That is their official position from this document and from all of their actions in the past seven years. The truth is that they will not see progress unless they are prepared to accept that these people are Canadians, they are Manitobans and they deserve all of our attention and they deserve all of our best efforts on their behalf. All levels of government must commit themselves to every citizen of this province and stop playing games between provinces.

Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for an Urban Native Strategy. Remember that? Was it five years ago we had that commitment from this government? Where is it? In fact, two months ago you saw the announcement in the Brighter Futures program of a federal Urban Native Strategy. This government has totally abdicated at the provincial level any responsibility for First Nations or aboriginal peoples who have left reserves.

Post secondary education, this provincial government gives $1 to post-secondary education for every four that the federal government gives in this province, one for every four. Mr. Speaker, 20 percent of post-secondary education funding comes from this provincial government. Over a five-year average in this country that is the second lowest of any province next to British Columbia. In '91-92 it was the worst. Only B.C. has a lower percentage of contribution to post-secondary education.

They are not in a position to take the moral self-righteous high road that they do in all of their discussions and documents. If they want a partnership they have to be prepared to go to the table with some integrity.

They sit here and say, in this Chamber, do not cut a buck out of the post-secondary education because it is going to hurt the quality of that education and access. As soon as someone else says we can do more with less, what do they say? Oh, the quality of education access is going to crumble--the hypocrisy again of this government saying year after year that it is okay to cut and then when anyone else asks to tighten the belt they shift their tune and they say no, you cannot do it, only we can do it.

This government does not walk like they talk, never has. They are playing politics every single day in this Chamber, and anybody who has been in this Chamber and is not a member of the other two parties knows that. The political game that is going on in this Chamber is a political game of convenience, which is to say, we kind of want to change, we kind of know that it is the right thing to do. The reality is they do not want to co-operate, they do not want to go to the table with integrity and with co-operation to have progress occur in this province.

Mr. Speaker, finally in response to the minister, let me say again and repeat again that this country must be prepared to review every single program that we offer, provincially and federally, to ensure that it is the highest priority for our dollars, it is meeting the need that it is intended to and it is a proper role of government. No one should be afraid of that review on an ongoing basis. It has been far too long in this country, in this province that we have avoided that debate and that discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome all members of this Chamber to that debate in a constructive fashion in this country for all of our citizens, urban, nonurban, aboriginal, nonaboriginal. There is no difference. We are in this together in this country, and we must move forward together. Thank you.

* (1400)

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 218--The Plain Language Act

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 218, The Plain Language Act; Loi sur la langue courante, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to correct the imbalance of power that is too often perpetuated by the written language in legal relationships and between citizens and their government. The legislation will get the gobbledegook out of consumer contracts, government documents, statutes, to bring down language barriers. It will help to make sure that legal and bureaucratic language is understandable to all and that all Manitobans will have real access to information about their rights and duties.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Windsor School fifty Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Joy Smith and Mr. Charlie Siegel. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render).

From the Red River Community College, we have thirty-eight English language students under the direction of Miss Shelley Bates and Miss Lorna Hiebert. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

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