PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 28--Integrating Services in Our Schools

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that

WHEREAS changes in society have resulted in responsibilities being added to our educational system; and

WHEREAS this has resulted in schools now delivering services which were once the responsibility of other government departments; and

WHEREAS it is increasingly hard for Manitoba schools to find the time and money to meet the many demands being placed on them; and

WHEREAS teachers are being asked to perform health care, justice and social service functions without being offered comprehensive training in these areas; and

WHEREAS asking teachers to perform these functions has resulted in less time available during the working day for teaching traditional subjects; and

WHEREAS better use can be made of school facilities as a community place where services to children and others in the community can be offered; and

WHEREAS duplication and jurisdictional tussles may occur where teachers, social workers, nurses and other government workers have responsibilities for the same child; and

WHEREAS co-ordinating and integrating of health, justice, social services and recreational services to children provided by government departments and agencies will best meet the needs of Manitoba students and will contain costs.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Education to consider integrating into our schools, initially on a pilot project basis, health, justice, recreational and social services provided to children by government department agencies; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge every government department involved in delivering services to children to consider working with the Minister of Education to co-ordinate and reallocate financial and human resources within those departments to our schools.

Motion presented.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I am provided the opportunity to speak to this resolution here this afternoon. It is, in fact, an area or an issue, education being, of course, that which has received a great deal of debate over the years, in particular over the last 18 months, 24 months with this particular government.

To a certain degree, there is a certain amount of disappointment in the sense that this is a government that has been in office now for in excess of seven years, and we really have not seen significant movements forward to try to address some of the issues of the teachers, parents, support staff, administrators and all those other individuals who are concerned about the direction of education in the province of Manitoba.

What in fact is happening at our schools is not being given the attention that it should be given by the current government.

You know, a number of years ago one might have argued that in our schools we see a great deal of teaching being taught to our children and extracurricular activity provided after class hours and, in essence, that made up the day. Some people might have argued that, Madam Speaker, a number of years back. Today it has changed and it has changed quite considerably, even the perception of the public as a whole.

We recognize that more and more we are relying on our educational institutions in order to provide services to our young people. There is in essence nothing wrong with that as long as we provide the resources, whether they be financial, staff, support services that are necessary in order to ensure that we are not taking away from the quality of education that is ultimately being taught to our children. After all, we have to agree in principle that the first priority of our schools and our public education is in fact to teach children and young adults. This is in fact and should be the first priority. That has to prevail. There is no doubt about that.

The government has at least attempted to try to ensure that there is a curriculum that is reflective of the desires, if you like, of the public as a whole in terms of what they feel should be taught in our schools.

In fact, the government came out with the blueprint or an action plan, whatever it is that you might want to call it. We were disappointed in a number of different aspects with respect to that particular blueprint. We were glad to see that the provincial election applied additional pressure on the government and they were able to reverse some of their decisions that were initially made, and we were pleased to see that, Madam Speaker. There is no doubt that there is going to be an ongoing need for change within our schools and in the curricula, but it is one of the areas that has not really had the sort of discussion or debate inside the Chamber that we believe has been lacking and needs to be debated much more and, more importantly, that government needs to take more action.

Madam Speaker, we have suggested in this resolution in the area that I am about to talk about that the government concede that it is necessary, and, in fact, it would entertain having a pilot project that would see the total integration, if you like, of services in a particular school.

If they do it on a pilot project basis, of course they will then be able to have more control over this particular project to ensure that it gets off the ground and that it will ultimately then be implemented province-wide because I do believe, and the Liberal Party believes, that the integration of services is absolutely essential given the make-up of our schools today.

Madam Speaker, if we take a look at our schools--and, you know, I have indicated to many constituents of mine and I know the Liberal Party has taken a fairly strong stand in the past and will continue in the future, and that is that those community schools can serve a purpose and you cannot underestimate the potential. I often make reference, as do no doubt many others, of the community school being the heartbeat of a community and in fact that we do underutilize our schools. There are a number of things that can be done to maximize the benefits of the structure itself.

An Honourable Member: What is the number of the resolution?

Mr. Lamoureux: Resolution 28.

Madam Speaker, dealing with the integration of services, I had an interview or a discussion with one local principal. The principal indicated to me that with this one particular child, they have 10 different people, whether they are a social worker, health care professional, a resource teacher, the teacher, the principal--ten different individuals, who are trying to take a look at one child, from different agencies.

In many cases, if we really want to get to the crux of the issue, we are to assume that you will have children that come not only from dysfunctional or nonfunctional families, you will have children that will come from the elite of society that have problems that involve different agencies, if you like, of government. Ultimately, it would be much more cost efficient--I know the government likes the two words of cost efficiency--if you had a more co-ordinated approach in dealing with the development of a child.

* (1610)

Madam Speaker, I believe that you can virtually go into many schools throughout the province, and administrators within those schools can point out students where they know that there are going to be potential problems as the years go on. So if a principal or an administrator or a teacher can recognize something of this nature, if we have the support services put into place, in particular within the schools, we will be able to prevent a lot of long-term costs that we are going to have to incur in time as a direct result.

You know, Madam Speaker, I do not think that any of the things I have said is new information. I would assume that not only this Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) but other ministers have heard the same thing, and I am a bit concerned in terms of why government has not acted on this.

In essence, what we are talking about is, particularly, the roles of the Department of Health, Department of Justice, Department of Family Services, and to bring in some component of recreational services. These are the types of groups or agencies that we believe should be sitting at a table trying to come up with ideas on how a child can best be served.

The idea of having a pilot project, I think, is a positive one in the sense that we are not saying to the government, look, we expect you to implement this into the hundreds of schools throughout the province overnight. In fact, this is an idea in which I believe that you will find vast support amongst the many different experts that are out there, and not only the experts, but also the average person that has a child going to school or even if they do not have children going to school.

The idea is in fact fairly simple, difficult no doubt to put into place, but the concept is not that difficult to understand. That is the reason why, with the pilot project, the government can really make this thing work.

We hope to see that that is what will happen, that the government will take the initiative sometime in the not too distant future and recognize this. There are certain things no doubt that they can do now, such as establishing the communication links that are necessary from within the different departments, working together to a certain degree. That is already in place when one sits around a cabinet table, that there is a certain amount of consultation that occurs. There might be some ad hoc discussions between different departments dealing with this particular issue.

It would be nice to see a more formal process that would assist in expediting the issue of integration of services in our schools because ultimately, Madam Speaker, children and young adults in the province of Manitoba would benefit tremendously by this concept, and if they benefit by this concept, society as a whole, in particular in the province of Manitoba, will reap the rewards because ultimately what we are talking about is providing a better atmosphere for our children and young adults in our school settings.

When we do that, we are building self-confidence. We are building upon the education that is currently there, and by taking a multifaceted approach in dealing with our children's education, hopefully, and I believe, what will happen is that we will address the issue of dropouts. The number of dropouts that we have in the province of Manitoba is in fact unacceptable. This is one of the ways in which we can actually deal with the issue.

Earlier today we talked about Bill 6, and we have heard many different proposals from the government in terms of what it believes about education and the way in which it wants to deal with education, but they have never really addressed the issue of dropouts. In fact, the fundamental flaw, I would argue, of the whole education reform package that this government has is that it does not address the needs of all children in our public school system, in particular, the gifted and the special needs or those with learning disabilities. That is somewhat tragic.

Here we tried to provide a resolution that will provide hope for many, and it is a resolution, Madam Speaker, that I trust that the government will speak to. [interjection] The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) asks if I am speaking with conviction. Well, I like to believe, much like when the Minister of Agriculture stands up when he speaks, I trust that he is speaking with conviction and he believes in what it is that he is saying. I, too, believe, and he no doubt doubts.

Madam Speaker, I only have two minutes left, but to try to assure individuals that I do not have to consume the 15 minutes, I will take this opportunity to say thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to present this resolution to the Chamber.

I look forward to seeing a continual debate and ultimately it would be wonderful to see a vote on this particular resolution because, after all, it is a responsible resolution, and picking up from a speech that was very well delivered from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), at times, it does not hurt for us to do something beneficial in private members' hour. I would suggest that he read this resolution and recommend to his colleagues that we allow it to a vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to address this particular resolution of the honourable member for Inkster.

Let me say from the outset, I certainly appreciate the thrust of the particular resolution that the member has brought to the floor of the House. I gather from his remarks and from the resolution itself, what he is attempting to do is to propose that government better co-ordinate the delivery of services to children and families and to use the school system ultimately as the vehicle for that delivery. That in itself is a very valid proposal. It is one that many have argued for over the years. It is one in which in some ways, I would suggest, many have argued we have done or successive governments have done over the years already to a significant degree.

Madam Speaker, the other point that he makes which I would say is certainly a very valid one is the need for government agencies and departments and service providers, both government and nongovernment, to be able to better co-ordinate or co-ordinate to the greatest degree possible the delivery of services to their constituent groups.

I would suggest in fact that he has hit upon in this resolution in making that point one of the great tragedies of the last number of years, certainly in the years in which the New Democrats were in power in this province, but a great tragedy of our society that over the last 20 or so years we have come to so fragment the delivery of services or to meet the needs of individuals.

The result has been that we have hosts of agencies dealing with individuals each with their own piece of that individual and at the end of the day maybe the overall result being far from satisfactory, in fact maybe not doing anything at all. The member for Inkster has hit upon I think that major issue facing governments everywhere, that is, how do you deal with the whole person on a one-to-one basis and all their needs that government has some responsibility for or has taken some interest in as opposed to this fragmented approach?

* (1620)

In fact, Madam Speaker, I remember in some of the discussions that we have had over the years as government, and we look at Child and Family Services agencies, and I am going from recollection, but I believe at one time there were more files held by various caregiving agencies in total than there were children in the city of Winnipeg simply because you had so many providers of care, each with their own piece. If we go back some years ago, again my recollection may not serve me well, but I seem to recall a particular family in southeast Winnipeg where there was a murder-suicide or a number of deaths, and there had been nine, 10 or 12 agencies dealing with that family. Obviously, they had all failed collectively to help that family to avert a tragedy.

One looks back a little farther, maybe 25-30 years ago, when we had far less caregiving agencies in total, far less people providing care, but a much more direct approach where Child and Family Services or social workers had a family or individual need, had one person to which they were assigned that they dealt with for the complete basket of services. Some would argue, some have argued to us, that is a far more effective and personable way to deal than the great periphery of service providers that we now have. So the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), in fairness to him, has hit upon, through this resolution, a great issue that we as a government and the social service ministers have to address and want to address and are struggling to address.

Madam Speaker, the other side of the coin to this member's resolution, which I think is one that makes it a little bit difficult for members on this side of the House to support, is that the member for Inkster has chosen as the vehicle, or recommends to this House that the vehicle for the delivery of this programming be the school system. Although the member, I think, has hit upon a fundamental problem and puts forward--and I must admire his coming forward with this resolution, because he puts forward a proposal onto the floor of this House for us to debate that issue.

I want him to know that I fully recognize this, members of this House recognize it, but the question with the vehicle of the school system is that there are many who would argue that today we have used the school system far too much already as a means of delivering health and social services to young people. In fact, in the recent election campaign in dealing with school boards in my constituency and talking to teachers in my constituency, they continually have made the point to me that we are asking our school system to do a huge amount of noneducational things with our young people, services to our young people, and that is unfair to the system, that is unfair to educators and that the school system really is not the vehicle to do that.

So the dilemma that we have with this resolution, quite frankly, is that it attempts to suggest and put on the floor for debate the need to re-evaluate the way services are delivered, to focus on the needs of a child with, for lack of a better term, one-stop shopping, but it recommends a vehicle that we, I do not think at this particular time, are prepared to accept as the best vehicle or the appropriate vehicle with which to do that.

So I want to say very clearly to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I appreciate the opportunity to contribute. Other members of this House may have commentary that they wish to put on the record in dealing with this because it is an issue that our ministers who are in the social services, the members of Human Services Committee of cabinet which I have served on for a number of years have been struggling to deal with.

What I can tell the member for Inkster in raising this point, one of the initiatives that this government took and it came out of the discussions much similar to this and that he has brought to the floor of the House at the Human Services Committee of cabinet, and that was the need for the creation of some sort of body, and again this was the struggle. You create more bureaucracy in essence to deal with too much bureaucracy, but we created our Children and Youth Secretariat, and the idea there was to do in some ways what the member was suggesting, to be able to bring together the various departments who have those pieces of the service delivery.

I know the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) would love to get to a bingo game in British Columbia, but the member for St. James talks about committees arguing, and, yes, that does occur and it occurs, Madam Speaker, obviously because there are a lot of people protecting or coming from turf or points of view. It comes back to that fundamental issue, the fundamental issue that the member for Inkster has raised, that the need to cut back, ultimately, on the bureaucracy and pigeon-holing and cadre of whether you want to call them experts or specific deliverers of service and get much more focused on that one-stop shopping in essence to the individual involved.

Now, I find it a little ironical that the New Democratic Party would be suggesting that simply because a good deal of the growth and the fragmentation in our social service delivery occurred while their party was on this side of the House. It occurred to a large degree because they came into power in the 1970s and again in the 1980s with the belief that government could meet all these variety of needs of individuals, that somehow a bureaucracy, that somehow social service providers were the best method of dealing with basic human problems. Ultimately, their efforts created much of the fragmentation and huge bureaucracy that we have today. So I find it somewhat ironical that they would now be calling for what we have to deal with.

My colleague the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), who is an experienced member of this House, who has served the people of Lakeside constituency and the people of Manitoba for many years now and has studied human nature from the unique vantage point of this Chamber, if one were to seek his wisdom, and I hope he will participate in this debate as we go forward, he, I am sure, would tell this House about that growth in fragmentation and how we lost the perspective of providing that kind of basic, what could often be rather simple need and making it far more complex than it has to be.

So comments he makes in support of the principle reaffirms to me that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is certainly trying to come to grips and getting for discussion a very, very serious issue. Again, what we would have difficulty accepting, particularly at this point, and I know in discussions that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) has had with myself and others, is to make the school system in itself the only vehicle.

In fact, if you look at over the number of years, and I defer to the wisdom and experience of the members like the member for Lakeside, every time there was a need we went to the school system and we layered on the requirements to deal with social issues and health issues and used the school system, and dental issues, special needs.

I can tell members opposite, in my own constituency, a particular special needs case, a medical case, the frustration of that parent having to deal with the school division to provide service and care or treatment to a young individual with a severe physical handicap, because the school system was the delivery, when really the treatment that was needed is a health issue. It should have been dealt with as a health matter.

I brought that to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae). He recognized that, and we are struggling to see how we deal with it because it is not just one individual, but it is many who are in that position. [interjection] The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) asks if the problem is resolved. There has been some temporary resolution to it, but it raises a lot of larger questions.

I guess the concern that we have with the member's resolution is that by making the school system the vehicle for the delivery of this fragmented and multitude of services that we ultimately place on it a greater responsibility, a greater role than it is suitable to carry out. I think the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) would appreciate that that is a valid concern that is being raised and that the school system itself probably is not in a position to be able to deal with that.

As Minister of Labour, I can tell the House as well that on a number of occasions we had representatives of employees in the school systems come in who were concerned about Workplace Safety and Health issues because they were dealing with students who required medical attention that was far beyond their ability. In fact, it sometimes put them at risk. So I would suggest to the House that that is the difficulty that this side has with the resolution as it now stands in trying to achieve that focus.

* (1630)

Nonetheless, the issue that the member brings to this House, I want to say very clearly, he has touched upon, is a very supportable issue, and it is one that he has touched upon that is deserving of a thorough debate and a lot of exchange of ideas. At this point in time, I cannot say, nor any of my colleagues, that there is some model out there that everyone, that, you know, we are prepared to say is the be-all and end-all and absolute solution to this. We do not know yet. We are trying to work this out, but we do know, as does the member for Inkster in bringing this forward, that we must get away from the fragmentation and periphery of services developing everywhere where we divide a child and their needs into small, little compartments and bureaucratize what should be, at the end of the day, a very simple and individual fulfilment of those needs.

So I put that on the record on behalf of this side, Madam Speaker. I look forward to more discussion, because the member has put forward onto this floor a very fundamental issue whose urgency will grow as the monetary fiscal issues of government have to be dealt with, particularly with the further withdrawal of federal transfer payments. So I appreciate this debate, and I appreciate the proposals of the member for Inkster.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of rising to deal with this particular issue insofar as it has been an issue that we have brought, the New Democratic Party has brought, to this Chamber time and time again since I was elected to this Chamber in 1990 and, I know, previously. I am glad to see that members of the Liberal Party have now determined that they too can agree to this kind of a solution, and I welcome their initiative of bringing forward a resolution in this area that allows us an opportunity to debate this issue. I welcome them aboard. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Party, speaking through the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), have determined that in fact they can support initiatives of this kind and welcome the bringing forward of a resolution of this kind.

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Energy and Mines has indicated, this is a complex issue, but I want to put on the record a few facts concerning this issue that I think are quite crucial to the debate. One of the issues related to this and I want to address--and I know that it is an attempt by the Liberal Party to try to resolve the issue--that they suggest the fact that there ought to be a pilot project basis. I think a pilot project basis is perhaps one solution, but I think it is too narrow and it is too rife with the possibility of doing a pilot and nothing happening for four years and going into another election and not having the opportunity of actually implementing some change in this regard.

The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says, what do I suggest? I would just remind the member for Inkster about past resolutions we have brought forward in this regard, but, more important, I remind the member for Inkster that as long ago as 1991, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the Manitoba of Association of School Superintendents, The Manitoba Teachers' Society and other organizations brought forward a paper recommending just such a policy as this. They brought it forward. I can provide the member for Inkster with a copy of that report if he would like.

They brought forward a recommendation that children's services and justice and education, social services and the like be integrated and looked at by the government. They asked the minister of the day then, the member for Roblin-Russell, to respond by December of 1991, I believe, to that initiative. There was no response. There was no initiative. I vividly recall questioning each subsequent Education minister and each minister as they came up, asking for progress on it. Nothing happened in this regard until initiative was taken by the government with respect to the institution of the child secretariat, the children's secretariat.

I just want to point out for members, and I am surprised that the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) was not aware of some of the recommendations in the Postl report, that it was put together in this regard. Perhaps I should read into the record some of those recommendations, page 116, recommendation, quote: That schools be recognized as a primary delivery site for community-based child health. Funding for these programs should come from relevant departments utilizing a collaborative, interdepartmental approach and redirecting resources. Vertical structures must be re-orientated to allow for horizontal programming.

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned at the comments by the member for Lac du Bonnet who sits in cabinet, who talks about the cabinet co-ordination committee, that he is not aware of this primary recommendation of the government's Postl report saying, let us forget the past. Let us forget the talk. Let us forget--in the words of the member for Lac du Bonnet, and I could go on much longer than I need to in terms of debating his analysis of how we have got to where we are. I will leave that aside because I would like to be positive in this regard.

The fact is that he has recommendations from government committees recommending specific action in this regard, not in his own words, we are going to have to study this and redevelop this and look at this.

Madam Speaker, the time has come, it is far too late in the game to keep pigeonholing government, to keep itemizing government--[interjection] The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says, we should have done it in 1980. I thank him for his suggestion. Perhaps the member could assist us in this regard by talking to his federal brethren who have demonstratively cut off resources to children and families and have helped put us in the situation where we are, in terms of not having resources. I could talk to him about dozens of pilot projects that were formerly funded by the federal government but that they have cut off funding to, that dealt just with issues of this kind as they relate to aboriginal children.

But I digress, Madam Speaker, and to return to the subject, we are past the phase where we can have another department studying or we could have a pilot project. The issues are so complex, the integration is so necessary and so required and has been so studied that I do not think another study or having another cabinet committee resolve the issue can actually do justice to it.

If we want to move forward in this area, the government has its own report, the Postl report, recommending a number of specific initiatives in this regard, and I say to the government and I said to the government from the very beginning, let us get on with it, let us move on it, you will have our support with respect to these initiatives. In fact we have made a number of recommendations, for example, concerning protocols and concerning protocols that were put in place by the government of B.C. five, six, seven years ago, Madam Speaker, that look at the integration. I will pass them on to the member for Inkster in case he wants to acquaint himself as well, since he has comments in this regard, but these protocols deal with the integration of government services.

It may not be the best method of doing it, but at least it is a method. The government has in this province adopted some forms of protocol, but there is a system of protocol as an interdepartmental co-operation and communication that could break down some of the barriers and actually get on with the job finally of delivering services to children and delivering services in a more meaningful fashion.

Fundamental to this, of course, is the question of financial resources and the fact that funds have to be earmarked and allocated to that. The member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) made mention of the fact that the education system has been asked to do too much, and I think that is in some ways a correct observation, although I do not agree where he is coming from, Madam Speaker, but it is a correct observation. Part of the problem is we have put it onto the classroom and we have not put the commensurate resources to enable the classrooms and the schools to deliver those kinds of services.

Madam Speaker, I just want to return to the issue of the whole school system, because I detected a reluctance on the part of the member for Lac du Bonnet to deal with school-based approaches, and I ask the members opposite, if not the schools, where else are the services to be delivered? You have cut parent-child resource centres; you have cut funding to Indian-Metis friendship centres; you have cut money for preventative health programs; you have cut money in social services areas that provide a speech and language pathology and the like. Where are these services to be delivered? Where are the children going to get these services if not in the school system that touches virtually and literally every single child in the province of Manitoba? It may not be the best solution from an administrative standpoint, but it is the only solution that we have.

That is recognized in your own report, a report undertaken by Brian Postl. That, for example, schools be recognized as the primary delivery site for community-based child health programs is one example. I could go on, and I urge members opposite to reread the recommendations of that report in order to familiarize themselves with some of the recommendations that actually could be implemented.

* (1640)

Madam Speaker, last year we in the New Democratic Party, in an attempt to try to evoke some debate and try to be positive and try to get the government to do something, put together a 10-point child plan. We announced it and we publicized it and we put details, and in our 10-point child plan we indicated within the context of that child plan that we would implement an action plan for interdepartmental co-ordination as called for in the 1991 report that I previously mentioned in the earlier part of my remarks.

We also called that schools be recognized as an integral component of community-based child health programs. We also said that nurses have to be put back in the schools. Now, members opposite ought to understand the fact that in the old days--and I know the members love the old days in a lot of respects--nurses used to do a lot of primary care in the school system, and it worked well. We went away from that. There is nothing wrong with taking that idea and going back to it, Madam Speaker, and putting them back in the schools, not just to deliver the primary care of vaccinations and some of those other cares but to provide for assistance in terms of other aspects of health as it relates to children. There is nothing wrong with that old idea coming back and being reutilized. That is why we put it in our 10-point child plan.

I am glad and, again, I am very appreciative of the fact that the Liberal Party has finally come around and appreciate the significance of this measure, Madam Speaker. I hope to see from them support for a plan of that kind. As limited as this resolution might be, I support the initiatives in it, because it is a first step, it is a move, it is something. Again, the time is very, very short. It is very, very difficult to turn the ship of state around, and as we move into the government's next four years, unless some initiatives are commenced quite early, unless some initiatives are commenced now, we will move on and move on and move on like we did for the past seven years, see no action, hear from more studies and will effect no change.

It simply is not fair. It is not fair to the child who cannot get speech and language treatment in their community. It is not fair to special needs children. It is not fair to the children that are having behavioural problems. If some intervention could be provided early on, the problem could be turned around, and we would not end up with a much larger problem at the end of the day. It is not fair to the aboriginal children of this province whose resources provided to them are wholly inadequate. It is not fair to the inner city kids, Madam Speaker, who require in some cases a nutrition program, before and after school programs, and other services of that kind. It is not fair to those children that the government not take specific action and specific measures.

They have the vehicle, as pointed out by the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). They have the vehicle of the Child Secretariat at their disposal to make some initiatives, and we have been--I have had problems with some of these announcements, and I have had problems with the way they have moved. In principle, of course, we support those initiatives and that direction. I have had serious problems in the application of the procedures. I have had serious problems with the lack of action on the part of the government dealing with specific measures as they relate to this area, Madam Speaker, but surely and clearly the time is past to continue studying the matter. Surely, given limited government resources, firstly, as a result of cutbacks and retrenchments by this provincial government and then serious cutbacks and almost a complete change in the way the federation is governed by the federal government in Ottawa, in light of those initiatives we virtually have no choice but to move in this area.

So I urge on government members, I urge on the Liberal Party, that we all work together in this regard. There are some positive steps we could take. We could probably do it in this Chamber almost unanimously, and if the members do not agree in principle with a lot of the initiatives and a lot of the measures, perhaps we can proceed and agree to proceed on some areas, some small parts, that we can all agree on. For example, allocating funds from the Department of Health in certain instances to the education system to deal with health needs and the problem that was pointed out by the member for Lac du Bonnet. Or putting community-based nurses back in the schools to deal with a variety of problems as they exist in the school system. Or integrating the justice system into the school system in order to provide--deal with children and services. Or specific measures of dealing with, for example, speech and language programs, be it at the daycare level.

There are some very good initiatives in that regard, I might add, Madam Speaker, even at the daycare level that we could put in place to deal with children's problems before children even attend school, but if it has to be at school, at school so that we can deal with the problems in the first instance and eliminate them early rather than having the problems become more difficult and more difficult to solve as we go along. Indeed, we have facilities, we have structures, we have schools that ought to be open and ought to be accessible to the community on a wider basis. Consider that option.

In my own community of Kildonan we have now--we ran at one of the schools with the assistance of the school board, with the assistance of the city, with the assistance in some cases of the provincial government--we have operated a youth drop-in centre at one of the schools, that was successful, over the summer, and we are now going to be operating year round, Madam Speaker. We are going to use that structure. We are going to use that facility to allow children, to allow kids to have a safe environment to play in and to allow them with an opportunity to meet and to have a safe place to go. That is using of a facility and a capital structure that has already existed, and that is an integration of services.

I see that my time is up, Madam Speaker, and I encourage all members to consider that. At least, let us try to do something in this regard, but not throw up our hands and just eliminate it all. Thank you.

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share some remarks on this matter, this resolution, that has been brought forward by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I commend him for this. This is, as we all know, private members' hour. I think that every one of us has that opportunity to express our views and to bring these issues forward unlike the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), who seems to find some difficulty with that and the free expression of the members here. I think we have to look at all these aspects.

But, in view of the resolution, there are some things that I think we have to bear in mind. The thing that comes to mind, and certainly I listened to the member for Kildonan attentively, it seems that over the last 20 years or so under a socialistic administration the NDP seem to think that we can solve all the issues by a simple cheque from Treasury Board. Those are the things that I think, that is living in the past.

I think that we have to take a more holistic approach to a lot of these things in terms of what we are doing. I think it is a matter of not only dealing with these things as the member for Kildonan has brought forward--he sees the issue as one that he is offering some suggestions in the way he sees things to happen--but I would like to offer some remarks that would be possibly taking a different approach to this. I think that government is already doing this, and I will demonstrate that in my remarks that I do make.

But I think that the basic point that I wish to make is that it is a matter again, and I say responsibility, the responsibility not only of individuals but the responsibility of parents and the responsibilities of governments and the responsibilities of families and the responsibilities of churches. I mean, churches, we cannot limit them. They have a responsibility in terms of dealing with the challenges that are out there in society today. The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) suggests that maybe these things should be integrated through the Department of Education.

As I said, I want to demonstrate that many of these are already taking place. Some of the things that I do have exception with, and I read from the member's "RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Education to consider integrating into our schools, initially on a pilot project, health, justice and recreation and social services provided to children by government department agencies."

I respect what the honourable member is saying, but I think there are other responsibilities that should be out there and taken by other people. On the same note, I say that, because of our 20 years of socialistic mentality, these things have been integrated already into the system.

* (1650)

Education, I think the education in many cases is the root of all these things because of the fact that if we provide people with education and understanding, then they will be able to do things better and be able to do things for themselves. So I think all these things have been accomplished, or some of them have, and we are well on our way in doing that.

The truth of the matter is the government has been proactive in terms of recognizing the needs and the co-operation between various government departments and agencies, as I have indicated, and in all the departments we have promoted and developed co-operative ventures.

During my time allotment I am going to touch on some of these co-operative partnerships undertaken by the departments, and the departments specifically reference what the member is talking about. He talks about the Department of Education and Training and the Family Services, Health, Justice, Culture and Heritage, and those things I will direct my comments in this resolution to the co-operative initiatives undertaken by the Department of Education and Training.

The government recognizes the fact that effective use of our financial resources and human resources call for greater co-ordination among the departments, with other agencies, and this is occurring in a wide range of area through various mechanisms, Madam Speaker.

The youth secretariat, as the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) referenced, this is something that is an interdepartmental protocol agreement. This is just an example of how government departments are already working together in order to co-ordinate existing government services, but there are many other existing examples especially in the Department of Education.

I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to identify just a few of the co-operative initiatives in the Department of Education. They encompass many areas such as distance education--we have all heard about that--and the technology and the upcoming council of the post-secondary education, the joint interprovincial curriculum initiatives, business advisory committee and advisory councils for school leadership.

Now, when we talk about distance education, our initiatives in the field of the distance education and technology demonstrate one way in which we are already facilitating co-ordination among departments with other agencies; and, as was explained to us yesterday in a presentation, I mean, it is just like our highway systems with distance education. You do not go and build a highway for Reimer Express or Arnold Bros. coming into the city or for some other, Bison Transport. You do not build three highways to serve those people. Those are things that I think that we appreciate and we understand.

We have created a special operating agency called MERLIN in order to facilitate a co-ordinated approach to the operation of the technology networks of education. Technology is rapidly becoming a basic feature of most Manitoba classrooms. A co-ordinated approach to technology networks in educational settings will result in increased learning opportunities for both students and teachers. Library linkages will also be initiated to facilitate linkages among libraries in schools and universities, colleges, public libraries in outlying areas, in smaller communities where I think it is necessary to have those resources available to the students, the young people and the families in these rural communities.

This initiative is especially exciting because I think it is an initiative that if we do not get on with it, then we are going to be way behind the rest of the world in terms of how we treat and teach our young people--and society gets involved. Certainly, the education aspect--yes, we do that through the services of the Department of Education. The educational institutions like school divisions, churches, the private sector, the government, departments such as Education and Training, Government Services, Culture, Heritage and Citizenship and Rural Development, they all play a part in that aspect. So I think when you talk about the integrated services those are already happening.

When we talk about upcoming council and the post-secondary education, another mechanism we are using to facilitate the co-ordination among departments is the demonstration in the upcoming council of post-secondary education. As many of you are aware, the report on the university education review, the Post-Secondary Education in Manitoba: Doing Things Differently, recommended a new approach to governance for the post-secondary education system, a council that has recommended as a way of strengthening the current system. Our ultimate goal is to transfer the post-secondary system into one which is not only strong but dynamic and creating excellence within that because that is really what we want to achieve in doing that because I think if we are going to do something we want to do it well. This will ensure that the long-term social, cultural and the economic growth of the province will demonstrate our commitment to the career aspirations of all our students.

We envision a strengthened post-secondary education system, Madam Speaker, which will be fully integrated and will be well articulated. Further, it will be one which will link social, cultural and economic developments of the communities through teaching, training, research and services that go along with that.

Finally, we believe that the strengthened post-secondary system should be broadly accessible to all those who wish to obtain post-secondary education. It will be fully transparent and accountable to the public, and it should be committed to the broad application of communication technology to the learning process.

Now, our proposed council of secondary education will achieve all of these goals. The council of post-secondary education really has its work cut out for it, but I am convinced that the council will be an important and an effective vehicle for the co-ordination among Manitoba's post-secondary institutions. Co-ordination among these partners is essential, and there are many benefits. As I have referenced, institutions will be able to establish and more effectively plan their program priorities both on the short- and long-term basis.

I believe the council is an important first step and the council will assist Manitoba universities and colleges to refocus on re-engineering or to re-engineer their contributions to the economic, social and cultural development of this province. This is especially important in today's fiscal environment, Madam Speaker, because over the next two years the federal government will be contributing fewer financial dollars to the post-secondary sector.

So, when I come back to talking about taking the responsibility, and in all due respect to the member for Inkster, talking about government, in terms of his reference to this resolution, although I do not think we totally disagree with where he is coming from, I do feel that there is a responsibility on all of us--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek will have one minute remaining.

As previously agreed, the hour being 5 p.m., and consideration of the second private member's resolution.

* (1700)

Res. 30--Two-Year Budgets

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that

WHEREAS the provincial government currently tables a budget every year; and

WHEREAS the absence of long-term stable funding is not conducive to long-term planning; and

WHEREAS yearly budgets afford little opportunity for assessment of efficiency and effectiveness of programs.

THEREFORE be it resolved that the provincial government consider moving to a two-year budget cycle to ensure more stable funding of programs and encourage a focus on long-term planning.

Motion presented.

Mr. Lamoureux: Actually, it is a pleasure to be able to stand and speak on two resolutions that we sponsored today--luck of the draw, I guess, to a certain degree.

Madam Speaker, it is a resolution in which I am hoping to get some sort of a response, in particular from the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). What I am most interested in from the government side on this debate are reasons as to why it is not feasible to have multiple-year or two-year budgets brought before the Legislature.

The reason why I say that is that I recall discussions with the former Minister of Finance in committees and, you know, if we had more resource dollars, I guess, to a certain degree I would have possibly been able to pull some of the quotes, because I know on more than one occasion, the former minister, Mr. Manness, and I had discussion on budgets, and I can recall his indicating that he would like to have multiple-year budgets brought forward. He believed that would be good policy or at least gave the impression that that would make sense and it would be good government policy, Madam Speaker.

As I did then, I still believe today that the objective of trying to achieve a two-year budget cycle from the government is in fact a very positive one. The benefits, I believe, far outweigh the negatives on this particular issue. No doubt, it would take a great deal of effort from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) to implement something of this nature.

But what government can do currently, if you open up a budget book--I do not know if I have one in the Chamber; fortunately, I do--if you open up one of the budget books, you will always find where it talks about the Estimates and changeover from the previous year. It would be nice to be able to go the extra year in saying this is what we can anticipate in the following fiscal year. I believe different departments, or not different, all of the different departments would be in a better position to be able to bring forward budgets, the budgets for approval from within the departments.

I have always found the budget debates and what happens regarding budgets to be very stimulating, very interesting, and because there is always a sense that you can speak and say what you really think about what the government is doing on a wide variety of different issues. Once we get down into the Estimates debates and the Supplementary Information, I find, depending on the critic and depending on the minister, you can actually have very productive discussions and dialogue that is created.

I have thoroughly enjoyed many hours of discussion in which you have very good rapport, whether it is from a Liberal critic, New Democratic critic, and, obviously, a minister, in which I believe something very positive is taking place in terms of--and when I say "positive," I am referring that the best interest of Manitobans are in fact being addressed. I ultimately believe--I should not say "I"--we, as in the party, believe that one of the ways in which you further that type of debate or that line of questioning and answering is to provide more information.

Madam Speaker, that is one of the reasons why I believe that it is, again, very beneficial. So when we talk about it, we are not only talking about from within the bureaucracy or the civil service, if you like, in terms of being better able to do their planning, we are also talking about better ways in which we can hold the civil service accountable through legislative Estimates, committees, budget debates, and so forth.

Another reason for something of this nature, Madam Speaker, of course, is that we pass on a considerable amount of money to the City of Winnipeg. We also do it to all municipalities in rural Manitoba, the City of Brandon. We also have many different school divisions that are out there and which we contribute to. All of these different levels of government have to set their own budgets and decide in terms of what their priorities are going to be. If the government was able to provide this sort of information, again, they are going to be in a better position to have more planning.

You know, we have seen in government budgets in recent years where it is virtually 100 percent speculation on school divisions' parts in particular on just what they can anticipate from the government in the following year. That ultimately, I would argue, is not fair nor is it appropriate for school divisions and individuals that have to plan the expenditure of what scarce resources they have in setting and trying to achieve the goals that they have put forward for their particular constituents, in particular for children or adults.

Those are reasons why ultimately, the three primary reasons that come to mind, as to why it is government should be supporting this. The negative side, Madam Speaker, no doubt could be the optics, the political optics of government opening itself up for potentially more criticism, and I think that it is to a certain degree a valid concern. That should not be the reason why government fails to recognize the benefits and to move ahead.

I do believe very much so that the former Minister of Finance was of the opinion that, yes, we do need to move in this direction, but I was a bit lost as to why it is that he was unable to get it through the Conservative caucus. No doubt, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), who does not want me lost on this particular issue, was probably one of those individuals because I know how political this particular individual can be. He is probably one of those individuals who put up a roadblock for the then-Minister of Finance. I am an optimistic type of person. I look at the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and, hopefully, he is going to be able to override or jump over any potential roadblocks that might be put into place and bring forward multiple years, in particular, as this particular resolution is suggesting, two-year budgets to the Chamber. I definitely believe, Madam Speaker, that it would be of benefit to all Manitobans.

I want to briefly comment on some of my budget experiences and why it is, Madam Speaker, I feel that multiple-year budgeting would benefit. I can recall, for example, the first budget that was brought in, and I am sure most members in the Chamber will recall when government said we are going to establish a Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and they ended up borrowing money in order to establish this Fiscal Stabilization Fund, something of course in which we in the Liberal Party saw right through and voted against the creation of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund because of the manner in which this government was bringing it in.

* (1710)

Madam Speaker, again, I did not get to confirm this through looking back in Hansard, but I believe my remarks would likely have been--or the argument as to why I could not support the legislation was--because I believed that the government was going to be using this money in future budgets to try to make them look a bit better than what reality actually was. What did I see but years to follow where we have seen exactly just that, where government was tapping into the Fiscal Stabilization Fund or it was used for a rainy day. [interjection] The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says the rainy day came.

If in fact that is the case, it would have been more appropriate to have had the government to say in terms of this is in fact what their intentions are to do with the Fiscal Stabilization Fund in the following year, and in fact if it had been with the Minister of Finance's real desires to having more than a two-year budget process, especially something as important as issues such as the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the deficit.

The deficit is really proving to be a very interesting debate. Madam Speaker, the deficit debate is proving to be very interesting. I look at it, and I voted for seeing this particular balanced budget legislation, if you like, going to the committee stage. I was somewhat surprised in terms of the degree in which the New Democratic caucus is automatically lining itself up to vote against it. In the hallway, or actually it was in the members' lounge, Mr. Olfert was out there, and the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) brought up the point that why it is that I voted against or I voted to see it go to committee, and what it made me think about was during the last provincial election. During the last provincial election--I am not 100 percent sure, but there was a town hall meeting, and I did not recall the NDP candidate saying, I do not support balanced budget legislation.

So what it did is it caused me to look back in some of the material that I collected, like, no doubt, other people collect, and I found that there was nothing in the material that I collected from the New Democratic Party that indicated that they did not support balanced budget legislation. When I look at it now and I reflect on it, I see the New Democratic Party, in fact, was quite silent on this particular issue going into it. Madam Speaker, silence can be golden and silence says a lot, and it is going to be interesting to see how this whole debate continues because we are entering into committee tomorrow night and to see exactly what it is that people have to say about that piece of legislation, because the deficit is an important part of any budget.

When we talk about multiyear budgeting, it puts a responsibility on government to be a bit more accurate. In particular, the former Minister of Finance--[interjection] a good man? Well, an honourable man in terms of the budgets and so forth. I do not believe I voted--actually, I know I did not vote for any of the budgets by that particular minister for a number of different reasons. But, Madam Speaker, it is important that we recognize that the government has attempted in the past to predict what next year's or the following year's deficits are going to be.

But, Madam Speaker, they have been way out. They have not been close, so when we talk again about multiyear budgeting or a two-year budget, I would want to encourage the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) that it is not only important that we recognize the need for this, that type of a budget, but it is also equally important that we put some legitimacy to those percentages. It is important that we see not only that the government is sincere in wanting to provide a better form of budgeting our financial affairs through two-year budgets, but it is also that those figures are within a reasonable variance of what is actually happening. There is an onus of responsibility in terms of having some accuracy.

So, again, I would ask the Minister of Finance--Madam Speaker, I see that my time is running out. I would ask the Minister of Finance to comment on that, the accuracy of figures, and also what he believes are the negatives of two-year budgets and putting the two-year budgets in our Supplementary Estimates and Main Estimates.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to say a few words on this interesting resolution.

I start by making the comment that what the member for Inkster is proposing is something that currently does not exist anywhere in Canada, any provincial government, not at the federal government level, and not that that means he should not be proposing this, but I am wondering if his objective is more long-term planning than a two-year budget cycle. I was listening fairly closely to what he was saying and I am still not clear of what his understanding or definition of a two-year budget cycle is. I want to tell him if he is talking about planning over a longer term, that is something that I agree with and I would hope most members of this House agree with.

In fact, a few years ago in our budget documents, like is happening in many provinces now, we not only tabled our current budget estimates but we also showed a three-year plan that projects out for the next three years. Granted it is not in the same detail as our detailed budget estimate, but it does show what our expectations are in terms of what our revenues will be in terms of the best information we have available. As a result of that, it shows what we feel are reasonable levels of expenditure on a global basis, on a government-wide basis, that we can afford and can incur, Madam Speaker.

I think the issue of long-term planning is something that we wholeheartedly endorse and agree with and continue to do more and more of in our government, and we are seeing more of that in provincial governments across Canada. Listening to the member and then reading his resolution very closely, the first point under the "WHEREAS" suggests that "WHEREAS the absence of long-term stable funding is not conducive to long-term planning;"--I guess I am wondering how that relates to a two-year budget cycle. If I were to agree with him that there is some volatility in revenues, particularly in transfers from the federal government--and that has been the case over many years.

We have had many discussions in Estimates, Public Accounts here in this Chamber on the volatility around federal transfers and, in fact, that is one of the reasons why we established the Fiscal Stabilization Fund many years ago. And that is one of the main reasons why the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is a very important element of our balanced budget legislation because we do acknowledge that there is volatility in revenue, particularly transfers from Ottawa, and therefore we need the ability through a reserve account or a savings account, whatever you want to call it, to deal with any of those fluctuations.

Having said that, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) referred to the other day when speaking to balanced budget legislation, if you track the last 20 years of our budgets our revenue has actually exceeded our budgeted revenue more often than it has fallen short. In fact, if you look over approximately 20 years, our revenue has exceeded our budgeted revenue by about $500 million. The member, in his resolution, makes this point about long-term stable funding.

I know the federal Liberals in the last federal election in their red book made a suggestion and a commitment; they said that they felt very strongly that predictability of financial arrangements are vital. In fact, they said that they were prepared to provide the maximum degree of predictability and stability for each level of government. And we certainly applauded them for those statements, something we agree with, but I think their record has not lived up to that commitment. In fact, it has been quite the opposite. We need look no further than their 1995 federal budget where again, without any advance notice to provinces, there was a significant reduction in terms of transfer payments to provinces. In the case of Manitoba, next year our transfers will be down by $147 million, the year after that by some $220 million.

* (1720)

What is even worse is they have now given us an indication for a two-year period of time but have indicated that there is still no certainty, they are still looking at maybe reducing transfers further, and at this point in time we need to wait until the next federal budget in 1996 unless we get some notice over the next few months what their specific plans are around transfers.

I agree with the issue of long-term stable funding, but when we get approximately one-third of our revenue from the federal government and you look at the kind of volatility we have had over the last many years under both levels of government, a commitment made by this level of government that they have not lived up to at this point in time, so in the absence of that stability for our funding levels, it is very difficult to then do the opposite which the member spoke to in terms of ideally trying to provide a little bit longer-term commitment to municipalities or school divisions or universities or community colleges or other organizations that receive their funding from us.

When we have virtually no predictability and stability from the federal government revenues, which are one-third of our revenues, it is very difficult to then turn around and provide that kind of stability for people who receive funding from us.

Having said that, the member asked about our accuracy. When I have looked at our budget documents over the last several years in terms of areas within our direct control, I would say our accuracy has been outstanding. Our ability to predict our own source revenues, we have virtually been right on target over the last several budgets. Certainly when it has come to hitting our budgeted targets on the expenditure side, again we basically hit those targets.

When I meet with the bond rating agencies they acknowledge that. They say that how governments build up credibility is by hitting your targets, and they say very clearly in the case of Manitoba we have done just that in all areas that fall within our control.

When we are falling short of a target, it has been because of an area that has been outside of our control where numbers are provided by another level of government like the federal government, and it ends up, because of events during the course of the year, those numbers change very significantly. So our track record, I can assure him, is excellent.

I would gladly spend the time to sit down with him and track our comparison of our budgeted own-source revenues, to how we have ended up in terms of actual, how we have ended up in terms of our budgeted expenditures to our actual.

The next part of the WHEREAS talks about, "WHEREAS yearly budgets afford little opportunity for assessment of efficiency and effectiveness of programs."

Again, I guess I am confused how this two-year budget cycle would enhance that, because right now we have, I think, one of the more detailed Estimates packages in all of Canada. The Estimates books that we provide to all members of this Legislature are as comprehensive as you will find in most provincial governments.

I think in terms of provincial governments, we probably allot as many or more hours than most provincial governments. We allot, as we all know, 240 hours. We just went through it back in May and June of this year.

So in terms of the budget process being an opportunity to assess and evaluate, I think the kind of budget process we have now provides us, as a government, the opportunity to do it in a more detailed, comprehensive way by doing it on an annual basis. It certainly provides the opportunity for members of the opposition to question effectiveness and efficiency, to question individual allocations, and so on. Again, that part of the WHEREAS I am somewhat confused with.

I ask the question when talking about--right now we go through it on a yearly basis--under this two-year budget cycle, is the member thinking that we would only review departments every two years or would we only review half of the departments every year? What is the thinking behind that? I guess if that is sort of the outcome of a two-year budget cycle, I am not convinced that that accomplishes his WHEREAS talking about efficiency and effectiveness.

I think the system we have now provides greater efficiency and effectiveness. I am not suggesting it cannot continue to be improved, but it certainly creates the opportunity for us as a government, because I think, as the member knows, although he has not had the opportunity to be a part of government, but the budget process is a very detailed, comprehensive process. We have started it right now. Obviously, that is no secret, we have started our 1996 budget process, going through many months of analysis, of review, of discussions with our departments, ultimately, analysis by Treasury Board and so on. So we are talking hundreds of hours at the political level, let alone the hundreds and thousands of hours at the staff level in terms of preparing a document.

Again, the opportunity to continually assess how our programs are performing, what programs we should be providing, what areas we should be funding and so on, I think the kinds of things that the member refers to in his WHEREAS are being accomplished under the kind of system that we currently have.

Besides those kinds of things, in addition to those conceptual concerns, I think there are a host of technical issues which would need to be addressed during a two-year budget cycle if one ever were introduced.

What would happen if a general election was held in the middle of a budget cycle? What happens to that budget document? I would assume that the new government comes in and sort of starts fresh.

Well, it is a little different now. You have an annual budget cycle so, when you go into an election now, you have usually a budget that is in place and represents the last budget of the government before you go to the polls.

I think those kinds of just logistical, sequential things, I am not sure have been clearly outlined--I know the member only had 15 minutes--in terms of how he would see those kinds of things functioning.

What kind of financial reporting would be expected? We have had discussions about the performance of Public Accounts. Would Public Accounts only meet every two years? I know the member has expressed concern we are not, some members have expressed concern we are not, meeting as often now as we should. Would a two-year budget cycle mean that Public Accounts would only be released and dealt with on a two-year basis? If that were the case, I really do think that that would be a backward step in terms of accountability to this Legislature and to Manitobans. Obviously other legislative amendments would be required, but I think, if that was sort of the outcome of a two-year budget cycle, as I say, that would be a backward step and would be unconscionable in my opinion.

Madam Speaker, the budget document has historically been a very powerful policy instrument for government. It is more than a financial document; it is also a policy instrument of governments. I think, again, to have that kind of an annual document is important in terms of the direction that the government is heading, their accountability to this Legislature and to the public and in terms of continuing to communicate to Manitobans what their plans are.

Now, as I said in my comments, that is not to say there is not room for long-term planning, and that is a different issue from my perspective than a two-year budget cycle document. I think, if that is the thinking from the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), then we are on similar ground, and I think there are more things that governments can be doing in terms of--in fact, I say even longer than two years.

As I have said to the member, our document produces the current year budget and then an extra three-year planning document. We are talking about a four-year time period. I agree with that kind of planning. I think that is the planning that governments at all levels should be doing, that they should be doing it over a three- to five-year period. They should be doing it over their whole mandate of office and looking ahead in terms of what their revenues will be, what their expenditures will be, what their priorities are and so on. I think that is a healthy discussion and one that should be taking place as part of the budget process and part of the Public Accounts process and so on. But I do not see how a two-year budget cycle in any way enhances accountability to the public, dealing with the issues, responds to the two WHEREASes that the member has in his resolution.

I am open minded in terms of future discussions with the member for Inkster. I would welcome any additional information he ever accumulates or is prepared to share on two-year budget cycles or if he sees other jurisdictions starting to move in that direction or other government and so on, or any research that, with his limited financial abilities, he is able to put together.

I would welcome that, and I am certainly prepared to do that on behalf of our government, but my initial reaction here today is that this resolution should not be supported, because it is a departure from a system that I think is serving Manitobans very well, and I have not heard any sound reasons for changing. In fact, I think there are very sound reasons for maintaining the kind of budget process and document that we currently produce, but I am certainly open to continuing that dialogue on this discussion and look forward to more information.

I think discussions around budgets, around budget process, around public accounts, are healthy and productive discussions usually. Usually, the discussions we have in those forums are very meaningful and important for all of us, so I welcome future discussions with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and any information that he can share with me and with this House.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

* (1730)

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I am delighted to rise today and speak on this resolution put forward by the member for Inkster.

I was listening to the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and found myself in agreement with some of them, some of the ideas that he was talking about in response to this resolution, most particularly that planning over a longer period of time is good, and I agree with his comments. None of us would disagree with that as a concept and an ideal.

Budgets by their definition are nothing more than plans. Good budgets that are based on solid information end up being closer in reality than budgets that are based on information that is not accurate, and as the minister has said, the government can only control portions of the revenue stream and has far more control on the expenditure stream, but in situations where they are statutorily required to spend money, such as in income security and social assistance, those areas can have an impact on the best-laid budget plans.

I agree with the minister that we need to look at planning in the budgeting process as in the programming element. I agree with the minister, too, in comments that he made that I believe this resolution--the ideas that it is espousing are not necessarily bad, that we need to look at long-term stable funding and long-term programming, but two-year budgeting is not going to do it.

A budget is a plan. It is also a political document; it is based on an ideology; it is based on a set of values; it is based on the government of the day's perception of its role in society. So while the numbers are very important and they do have major implications for programming and for everything that happens, the assumptions upon which those numbers are based and the programming that come out of those assumptions are, to my view, even more important or equally as important as the actual numbers attached. The actual numbers attached will bear, if it is a good budgeting process, good in the sense that it follows from the values and the vision and the principles of the government, if they are brought forward in the budget, there will be a close analogy.

We disagree with the values and the ideology and the budgeting numbers that this government has brought forward, but I think the principles are the same, that a good budget is a budget that reflects the will of the government and reflects as far as possible the ability of the government to determine ahead of time what the revenues and the expenditures are going to be.

Two years, three years--you put garbage in, you get garbage out. You put good things in, you will get good things out.

So I think this resolution misses the boat here on the problems that it is attempting to address.

The minister and I believe also the member for Inkster have talked about accountability. I think that is a real issue that this government has to address, a real issue that we have been trying to get the government to respond to in many areas that this resolution does not deal with.

The idea that by having a two-year budget you can be more accountable is absolute nonsense. You are as accountable as a government as you choose to be. You are seen to be as accountable as a government as others choose to see you. There is very little objective criteria against which you can judge the accountability of a government. There are things, but perceptions are very important in this regard.

Whether you budget for one year or two years or 10 years, No. 1, it is still a plan which is open to the vagaries of what happens in real life and, No. 2, if you do not want to have a budget that is open and clear, you will have a budget that is not open and clear.

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Canada West Foundation has made some comments in that regard about the Manitoba budgeting process, and a two-year budgeting process is not going to be any better than a one-year budgeting process if a province does not deal with some of the concerns that they have.

I am going to quote a paragraph, because I would be unable to effectively paraphrase it, not being a financial wizard myself. The paragraph starts: A disturbing and confusing part of the Manitoba budget is that the province is reporting a surplus this year, but the Dominion Bond Rating Service reports that tax-supported debt of the province will actually grow this year by $141 million, over $166 for every single Manitoban. No explanation for this is given in the budget, yet the goals of fiscal clarity clearly demand one.

Now, the Canada West Foundation is not normally an organization that we on this side of the House quote with any great degree of regularity, and the minister may argue with the statements that were made in this document. It says to me that the government can choose to be opaque or clear, and the budgeting process, whether it is a one-year process or a two-year process or a multiyear process, can be as opaque or clear as the government chooses to make it. What are the debt numbers? What are the deficit numbers? How much have taxes gone up? What kind of taxes have gone up? What is the government's actual expenditures on things? What is the financial bottom line for the people of Manitoba? All of those things are open to a great deal of manipulation in the budgeting process.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that Bill 2, as it reflects on multiple year versus single-year budgeting, clearly will help obscure for the people of Manitoba, has the potential to obscure for the people of Manitoba the actual costs for individual citizens of the province of the operations of the government. I would suggest to you that multiple-year budgeting will not change that because, if you have 35 percent of the current financial information and current financial expenditures of the province now not reflected in the actual budget document--that includes the expenditures and the money in and out for Crown corporations and special operating agencies, upwards of 35 percent--then I would suggest that you can budget on a 25-year period. If you are hiving off major components of the government's expenditures and revenues, then the people of Manitoba do not have any better idea under a one-year budget than they would under a three-year budget of what the actual revenues are for the people of the province of Manitoba and the actual expenditures are.

I would suggest that this resolution will not have any greater impact, will have even less impact actually after we discuss and finally vote on the balanced budget legislation because this legislation will allow the government to put into the overall picture the actions and financial statements of Crown corporations. It will allow Crown corporations to be sold off, and it allows even more for the entities called special operating agencies to be formed. Those special operating agencies, as I understand it, Madam Speaker, are entities that are separate from the Estimates book that we see in the budget. What this allows is for the government to say, oh, oh, we have an area here which is going to be a net expenditure for the government, so let us hive it off and then we do not have to show it in the budget Estimates.

It does not mean that the people of Manitoba have not expended money for those services or behaviours or actions. No, Madam Speaker, it means that not at all. In effect, what it does is it obfuscates even further the already murky picture that the Canada West Foundation has said the Province of Manitoba's budgeting process is currently exhibiting.

Ultimately, the government could say income security is a special operating agency, so we do not have to show those expenditures, massive as they are, Madam Speaker, largely because of the inaction in economic development that this government has undertaken, the inaction of this government in implementing programs that would help people get off the need for income security.

That is another topic, but under this legislation which is not addressed at all by the resolution brought forward by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the government could say income security, child and family service agencies, emergency rooms or some portion of the funding for the hospital system, portions of the funding for the education system, we do not need to have those be seen as government expenditures. We will just make them special operating agencies, and then we do not have to come with that revenue and expenditure to this House and have them publicly debated and under public scrutiny. No, Madam Speaker, we do not need to do that.

* (1740)

This government will not need to do that under Bill 2, and whether the government budgets for one year or a million years, if they decide that they do not want to have the public see what their budget actually looks like, then this piece of legislation, this balanced budget legislation will allow that to happen, Madam Speaker, and accountability, which is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) was talking about, goes right out the window.

This private member's resolution, ill conceived though it is, as I believe it is, because it does not deal with the basics of the problem that we are facing here in Manitoba, it does not deal with the fact that this government is slowly--not so slowly, I think that after this session is completed, the next budget that we see next year in this House could very well, Madam Speaker, be on one single side of an 8-1/2 by 11 piece of paper, because everything else will be gone, but it will not be gone from the responsibility for the population to support those programs and those expenditures. Oh, no, the government will continue to spend money, will continue to make decisions on programming, will continue to raise revenue, but the people of Manitoba themselves, as seen by their representatives in this Chamber, will not have the right to look at and examine those government actions.

The minister, in his discussion on this private member's resolution, talked about the Estimates process that is currently under way, and Manitoba has by far the largest number of hours of Estimates.

There are times, Madam Speaker, over the five years I have been here when I was not sure that I liked that process and I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), the former Minister of Family Services and other ministers will share that with me. It is an uncomfortable process at times, but part of the discomfort that that process engenders is precisely what needs to continue to happen, which is the open window of scrutiny.

The legislation that is before this House, that this private member's resolution does not deal with at all, is going to close that window. It is going to pull down the blind, and the people of Manitoba will not know what their government is doing.

I would suggest that this private member's resolution does not address the major issues facing the people of Manitoba. I wish that the Liberals had come up with a resolution that did discuss in more detail that, and I wish the Liberals were going to support us in our opposition to the closing of the window of public scrutiny on the part of the Province of Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, I too have a few comments to put on the record. Firstly, I just want to get some clarification here. Are we discussing Bill 2 or the resolution? I kind of lost track there and I was not sure if it was my position to stand up and challenge.

I would certainly say that from what I have seen of the opposition and what I have heard in committee and in this House that they definitely would not be in favour of a two-year budget. I do not think they would want any kind of a budget that they could present to the people of Manitoba, because it would be either--I guess it would be in such a large state that probably we would never get through it.

Just a couple of comments about budgets, I think that some of the statements that have been suggested are true, that it is a picture of what we plan on doing and how we plan on doing it, through revenue producing ideas and also through expenditure cutting. I can speak from experience that in the business world not having a picture of your financial situation available to you--in our instance, we do it on a quarterly basis and then review it at the end of the year--and I recognize, with the numbers that we are talking about in government, it is probably too big to do it in that short of term, but I definitely think that going to the two year would be catastrophic to the government and also to the Opposition. Sitting through the debate and the questions in regard to the budget suggesting that we go to a two-year or a longer budget term, I would think that perhaps sitting here today we may be discussing the 1970-72 budget as opposed to the more current and, obviously, the most impressing issues upon the people of Manitoba today.

I think that the one-year budget as opposed again to the two-year budget is certainly something that we as government would want to be able to present to the people on a snapshot basis and at the end of the year with a new budget presentation in the spring. It certainly gives people a chance to look forward and see what the government is doing, what they are proposing to do and basically judge them in that same time frame as opposed to waiting that two-, three-, four-year period.

I certainly think that, again, as the honourable member for the opposition has suggested, that would not be in their best interest because they seem to be a party that no matter what the problems would be, whether it was a revenue shortfall or an expenditure cut that had to be made, we definitely know that it would be a tax increase to bring in more revenue. It would never be a cut in the budget that we have sometimes proposed and the people of Manitoba have obviously chosen to accept and did so resoundingly in the April election.

I do have, I guess, some things that I see as the benefits of the annual budget as opposed to a two-year budget. I do not have a problem with a two-year budget or a five-year budget. I think certainly we have to project the future, and I think we have to have goals and ideals to get to that level, but, in the same breath, we have to take a look at it on a year-to-year basis and make adjustments as the demand is there.

Certainly, again, referring back to my personal business in the late '70s, who could have predicted the interest rates that went through the roof overnight. It was not a matter of a build-up process; it hit us. Had we not had some budget expectations and some goals set in our mind, we would not have been able to adjust to those numbers, to accept what was happening to us and also to try and survive. I think that the government is very wise in going just strictly and staying with the one-year process. I think that it provides us the ability to be flexible where you get into two- and three-year budgeting plans. As a proposal of what the future should be like, it certainly does not lock us into that, and we can make the changes that are necessary to adjust.

I think that again being new to the House and seeing the budget process that we just went through, I cannot imagine the resources that we would need as government let alone what the opposition would need to sit down and discuss it.

The honourable member talked about hiding things. I really find that to be offensive in my mind because I think as government, and I would expect as you, when you ever have the opportunity to be government, would be straightforward and bring forward the answers on a trusting and faithful basis to the people of Manitoba so that they can make their judgments based on that information.

* (1750)

We do talk, as the honourable member has discussed, about balanced budgets. Whether this is the time to get it on to the record or not, I detect a sense of fear that when you get into the balanced budget legislation that you just have no idea of the benefits to the people of province, can sit down and look at a budget, understand it, make their decisions. I do not think that you have a grasp on that.

I think that what you like to see is the fact that you can make your decisions, and if it does not fit into this plan this time, let us change it. Unfortunately, what I see from that side is the only thing that would change in your budgets is that the revenue would go up as well as taxes.

The idea of we can continue to tax people and take the money from them, the bottom line is as the people of Manitoba have suggested. I find it so hard to accept and to believe that you have not caught on to that yet is that the province and the people want the government to control their spending.

If we go into a two-year resolution or a two-year budget or a three-year budget, who has the control? Who is going to be able to measure where the government has succeeded? Certainly the opposition I would think would support the Liberals on that because I am sure the longer they could hide the truth from the people of Manitoba, particularly the financial truth, would be in their best interests as far as promoting their self-interest within their own party.

I think that the other thing that was suggested by the Finance minister (Mr. Stefanson), and it certainly makes sense to me, is if there should ever be--and I state that very, very cautiously--a change in government, which you know it certainly has its question in that itself, that who would be responsible for the balance of the debt for that period of time? Would it be a new government or the government of the day? Would we introduce a new budget again on a two-year cycle? Would we, at election time, present two-year budgets to the people of the province of Manitoba and let them decide? What type of reporting would the government be responsible to give to the people of Manitoba?

As the honourable member on the opposition has suggested, and wrongfully, I might add, that we would have the ability to change the numbers, to correct things. Well, do you not think that the longer a budget would be proposed for for the public, the easier it would be to do that? Therefore, by suggesting that we stay with the one-year budget principle, we are suggesting to the people of Manitoba that the statement that we are going to present to them would be the best that we have done. It is easy for you to read, look at and challenge if there are questions.

As I say, I sat through the budget process--I do not know how many hours of it--a lot of it I found to be useful, a lot I found to be very unuseful in the sense of actually questioning the government and their spending capabilities.

Getting back to the resolution, I think that the presentation by the honourable member--I think the idea of projecting future budgets is not a bad idea. I think if you are going to measure budgets, it has to be done on a year-to-year basis. People have to be able to sit down and judge. If you lengthen that period, all you are doing is opening the door for more indiscriminations and things could be suggested that could possibly take place.

I think the information provided by the honourable member was perhaps lacking, like he is standing up and basically he is making a statement as to how the resolution should read, but he is really not filling in any of the details as to how it would actually function. I think that is something that perhaps with further discussion and conversation with the member, we can certainly get more of the information that we need to examine it.

It actually seems to me that perhaps you might have just run out of something to write down one night and thought that this might be the idea that we would go with. I would think that--[interjection] Well, certainly, we do table a budget every year, and we do do long-term financial planning and the people of the province of Manitoba accept that. Anybody in the business world accepts that we deal on a one-year basis for budgeting, because it is so dramatic, the changes that can go on.

Some of the examples that I have cited have certainly been cause in the real world for people to stay to the one-year term. We do not want to get too far ahead of ourselves because of the dramatic changes that can take place. A natural catastrophe for government could be unending as far as what it might do to their annual budget, but the contingency funds that we build in, spread over the long range, certainly take care of that situation.

I had one more comment that I would like to make, if I can just find it. The wording of the resolution suggests that a two-year budget cycle would improve the opportunity of assessment, and I know I have discussed that, but how can we assess something so far down the road?

As I say, we are sitting in the budget process, and we are sitting in committee process right now, and we are discussing things that happened three and four years ago, and I would ask you, what is the relevance? Absolutely none.

Estimates, I would suggest that the Chamber would be full, and we would have our professional people in, our departmental people in. The building would be full of strictly that to answer the questions--[interjection] It has been suggested for the two-year that we would go to 640, but I am not sure where it came from. That is just a number that has been bandied about.

An Honourable Member: Eight hundred and nineteen.

Mr. Tweed: Oh, 819, and the number is growing. I am certainly glad to see that the opposition is paying attention, and I hope they are benefiting from some of the information that I am availing to them as the day goes on.

Madam Speaker, I certainly would like to suggest that I do not have a bad feeling in regard to the long-range planning. I think that has been shown in history. It has been shown by the people. It has been shown by business and more so by business in the last 20 years.

I can tell you, when I first started in business we did not do a budget. After the first year I sat down and I said to my family, how long can we continue to do this without a plan? So we did set up a budget and we set up a short term, which was quarterly; we set up mid-term, which was yearly; and we set up long range, which was in that one- to three-year plan.

I see government on this side, that is exactly what we are doing. We have a one-year budget that we can present to the people so they can understand it, so they can question it, so they can disagree or agree with it, however they feel about it. We do also have long-term spending, and I guess in today's world, economic restraints in place, that we can make our budget balance.

Madam Speaker, I know that I have taken some of the time in the House, and I do not want to monopolize it all. It is unfortunate actually that our Liberal members opposite have left because--[interjection] Oh, I am sorry. I cannot speak about them because they are not here. [interjection] He was here, sorry.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Turtle Mountain that he is not to make reference to the presence or absence of any member.

Mr. Tweed: For that, I apologize, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Turtle Mountain.

Mr. Tweed: Similar--

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

The hour being 5:59, what is the will of the House?

An Honourable Member: Six o'clock.

Madam Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).