Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, for the Committee on Economic Development tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., I wish to withdraw Bills 52 and 53 from the committee. I would also like to refer Bill 25 there. Then on Thursday morning at 9 a.m., the Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet to consider Bill 54.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Economic Development scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, October 8, Bills 52 and 53 are to be withdrawn. Bill 25 is to be added for consideration. For the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs for Thursday, October 10 at 9 a.m. to consider Bill 54.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, will you please call Bills 62, 49, 36, 33, 60, 41 and 67.

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 62, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), The Jobs Fund Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Fonds de soutien à l'emploi), standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East who has 22 minutes remaining.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, in the continuation of the debate on this particular bill which will repeal the Manitoba Jobs Fund, I would like to add a few more thoughts to the record with regard to the role of government, particularly the provincial government, in creating jobs and stimulating the economy and helping the private sector and helping the co-operative sector, generally in stimulating the economy so that we have more jobs rather than fewer. Regrettably, in this province we just do not have enough jobs and the information we have had recently indicates that there is virtually no job creation or no job increase in the year thus far, 1996, than the level in 1995. In other words, the figures, if you put them on a chart, would show that the level of jobs was flat. The number that we had last year averaged around 522,000, I believe--or was it 521,000--and this year, we are virtually averaging about the same number. That is year-to-date figures.

We believe that the government should take more concern and more interest in this, and it is regrettable, therefore, they have seen fit to eliminate the legal framework of the Manitoba Jobs Fund. The Jobs Fund, in its day, did a terrific job in stimulating the economy, allowed Manitoba to be the first province out of the national recession that occurred in the early 1980s. Now we all benefit by having more people at work. We all lose if we have unemployment, because if a person is unemployed, he or she of course is not producing the goods and services that society wishes and, to that extent, for us to maximize production, for us to--[interjection] absolutely--maximize output, we should maximize the workforce. In other words, the ideal society is one in which there is absolutely no unemployment, that you have a rate of zero. That, of course, is the ideal.

Now, of course, when you compile statistics on people who are working or who are not working, it is a little more complicated because people do leave jobs to go to others. There is a transitional phase, people move around and so on. So you can allow a couple of points for that. But I say, regardless of what benchmark you want to use, governments, federal and provincial, have a responsibility for bringing that level down, the level of unemployment, as low as possible to maximize jobs. I would be the first one to admit that the federal government has the greater ability to stimulate the economy because not only, of course, does it control our trade through tariff policies and other agreements that it can enter into with foreign governments, but it also has a greater fiscal capacity than the Province of Manitoba or indeed any single province in this country.

In addition to that, and something extremely important, it can and does control the Bank of Canada if it so wishes. Through its monetary policy it can direct the Bank of Canada to virtually move one way or the other. Regrettably, in this country over too many years now, we have had the Bank of Canada pursuing a policy which has resulted in very, very high interest rates, and those high interest rates have tended to dampen the economy, have made it difficult for business, have made it difficult for people who want to buy homes, have made it difficult for people who want to buy automobiles, major appliances and so on, because high interest rates act as a detriment. The Bank of Canada could, if it had an easier monetary policy, and I use that in a technical sense, easier policy, would of course bring about a lower rate of interest, and I know this is tending to happen now.

We have pleasantly heard and read about interest rate decreases in the last few weeks, and let us hope we get a bit more. But the fact is that the federal government has this power of monetary policy that no one single province has, so I would say, I would be the first one to admit that the federal government has the key role.

But having said that, I believe the provinces in turn must also play their role, must also assume their responsibility, and in the case of Manitoba back in the '80s, when I had the privilege of being in the cabinet of the Pawley NDP government, we took that responsibility seriously and established the Manitoba Jobs Fund. Now, the ideal would be, the ideal of any government thrust, of federal and provincial and hopefully co-operatively, would be, as I said, to get unemployment to zero.

Unfortunately, we just have too many pockets of people in various categories who cannot seem to find jobs for one reason or another. Many of these people are disadvantaged. They lack the training, they lack the background, they lack all kinds of--many of them have various problems. Some end up in the prison system, some have had drug difficulties and so on. There are groups of people who have difficulty in getting jobs, but, nevertheless, I think we have to take the responsibility to do whatever we can to give these people opportunities.

I think in an ideal world I would like to see some kind of a provincial job bureau which would work with municipalities, would work with service clubs, would work with the federal government, of course, and would have various kinds of employment programs that would be available, having committees around the province, regional committees, local committees or whatever, working with the province and ultimately with the private sector, working with the federal government but through a bureau that could co-ordinate these activities. and work towards this ideal of zero unemployment.

Now, I realize it is very difficult for any one province, not only because it has a more limited fiscal capacity, but also because we do not have guards at the borders. If there are more jobs in Manitoba, people may come to our province, and it is sort of a never-ending challenge, therefore. Just as you see people on welfare flooding into B.C. because they think that there are better benefits there, similarly I suppose if we had a job stimulus program here and guaranteeing jobs in the community, that we would see an influx of people.

* (1440)

So there would have to be some regulations, some limitations, say, a year's residency before you could qualify and so on. But, regardless, the point is, however you do it, whatever you do, I believe it is incumbent upon the government to undertake this responsibility. I think that of all the initiatives that we took through the Manitoba Jobs Fund, which came into effect on April 1, 1983, and which had a provincial cabinet committee set up to administer it. We had an economic development strategy that was both short term and long term, and we developed it not in isolation. As I said last day, some of these ideas came out of a conference we had in Portage la Prairie with business, with labour, with other sectors of the economy, as to how the government should go about stimulating the economy.

We allocated monies under the funds in various ways, but we did have allocations into a few broad categories. One category was wage assistance programs to help employers create jobs, new jobs. Another category was major and minor construction projects. Yet another category was matching grants to encourage municipalities and community organizations to undertake certain labour-intensive projects immediately. Yet another category was loan programs to stimulate home construction and renovation, and a further one was energy conservation projects. All in all, thousands of jobs were created.

One wage-assistance program that I mentioned a moment ago, one of the early ones, was entitled the Manitoba Employment Action Program starting in the spring of '83. It had a number of initiatives, but it was available to all Manitoba employers in the southern part of Manitoba, and one thousand of those small employers together hired 1,700 unemployed Manitobans. Northern Manitoba business and unemployed persons were similarly assisted by a special program for the North called the Northern Remote Communities Employment Program. Another job wage program that we set up and expanded was one dealing with students and young people, namely, the CareerStart program which helped more than 4,000 Manitoba business, farms and nonprofit organizations and other employers hire, in one year, 1983, 6,300 people. So we had 4,000 small business, farmers, nonprofit groups, et cetera, hiring 6,300 young Manitobans between the months of May and October and, in doing so, gave those young people a good experience and, of course, provided them with some financial remuneration so that they could carry on with their studies in the fall if they were students or, if they were not going on, nevertheless, gave them some income and, hopefully, some good experience with which to launch their careers.

There were a number of programs helping people graduating from universities because it was bleak in '83--it was a very bad year in Canada--and to provide some opportunities for graduates that we had in engineering and science graduates program, and it enabled employers to provide jobs for graduates while maintaining engineering capacity within their operations.

The construction industry was particularly hard hit, as usual, by a recession, and the Jobs Fund strongly supported this sector. There were a whole host of construction projects funded directly by the fund. I will give you a few examples, Madam Speaker: the expansion of the auto diesel shop at the Red River Community College; the Earth Sciences centre at the University of Manitoba; a gymnasium at the Winnipeg school for the deaf; school additions at Cranberry Portage and Crane River; the Emergency Services Training college otherwise known as the fire college at Brandon; and an extension of the Food Products Development Centre at Portage la Prairie. Then there were a whole host of many, many smaller renovation and improvement projects on public buildings that were also undertaken, providing things such as improved medical centres, tourist facilities in provincial parks and so on.

Heavy construction projects were a priority of the fund, and in that one year we allocated $4.25 million to extra highway projects at 11 locations, put $2.7 million into municipally cost-shared sewer and water projects, and another $3.2 million was contributed to a street repair program jointly funded with the City of Winnipeg.

Well, there were other municipalities and community organizations, Madam Speaker, in the southern part of the province that were also able to participate by sharing costs with the Jobs Fund through the municipal Community Assets Program. This was a $7-million program designed to permit immediate construction and renovation of local facilities in hundreds of communities and, indeed, this did happen.

Heavy construction jobs were the objective of the program, as I said, and many applications were approved for street repairs, bridge construction, as well as, public facilities such as fire-halls and municipal buildings. In northern Manitoba and remote communities, we offered similar initiatives, and, indeed, there were 106 capital projects in the one year, '83-84, October to March.

On the residential construction side, we stimulated jobs through an affordable new homes program. This was a low-interest long-term mortgage program for families building new homes and buying and renovating. Also, we had a buy-and-renovate program subsidizing mortgages for Manitobans to buy and restore homes in older neighbourhoods. As well, we had an in-fill housing program and, of course, a nonprofit housing program.

So there were many, many initiatives in the residential construction area. We also had a separate program in the cultural field. We assisted in a wide variety of projects, including the relocation and expansion of the Western Canadian Aviation Museum. We participated in the modernization of the Manitoba Forestry Resources sawmill operations at The Pas. There was a program of mapping for mosquito-control programs with rural municipalities, and a major commitment was made to the future redevelopment of Winnipeg's North Portage area.

So by the end of the '83-84 fiscal year, the Manitoba Jobs Fund had initiated and contributed to projects and programs, creating jobs for more than 21,000 Manitobans. Over that period of time--and I will not quote all these numbers--the unemployment rate fell substantially. All in all, more than $200 million was committed during the fiscal year, but I would add that these dollars in turn brought forth monies invested by municipal and federal governments. All in all, we had a supplementary expending by federal and municipal governments to an amount exceeding $97 million. In addition, more than $60 million was committed by the private sector. We in turn did provide the incentive, the stimulus for the municipal, federal governments and the private sectors to collectively spend a hundred and invest a $157 million together.

In other words, the Jobs Fund acted as a major catalyst in stimulating the private sector, in stimulating the public sector; there were all kinds of positive spin-offs, all kinds of benefits to the community. People, young people in particular, have been able to get job experience that they would not have had otherwise.

In the '84-85, the next year of the Jobs Fund, the initial phase was designed to address immediate problems of high unemployment and the sluggish economy, and they were met head-on as I was explaining earlier with programs of the Jobs Fund. The second phase will continue those initiatives but with some rechanneling of the direction. There was a need for immediate action which thrust the government into a proactive role during the first year, but now the economy was on the upswing in '84-85, the emphasis was to be on programs which would lead to a broader expansion of our economic foundation and which would result in more permanent growth.

* (1450)

There were specific sectors targeted, and let me mention some of these. In the agricultural sector, we wanted to provide support for a strong agricultural base and permitting the expansion of the value and range of products which lend themselves to further processing in the province. The agricultural industry, one of our basic industries, was over a $2 billion industry and employed more that 30,000 people, and so we recognized this, but the fund through its different programs worked to assist agriculture, for example, in areas of water and soil conservation to ensure continued fertility of the land. There were other initiatives taken in the agricultural sector.

In the energy and hydro sector, this is in the second year, we engaged in a home check-up program to offer home energy analysis to homeowners across the province, and the homeowners would receive an assessment of their home retrofit needs as well as advice on the assistance programs that were available. The business and community CHEC program provided matching funds of up to $15,000 to businesses and community organizations to retrofit their facilities to cut energy costs. The Cut Home Energy Costs Loan Program, CHEC program offered homeowners loans of up to $1,000 which they could pay on their monthly hydro bills to assist in home retrofitting. That was done over a couple of years period. So a great many things happened under the energy-hydro portion.

Another sector which we targeted for long-term growth was the small business sector. In 1983, we introduced a one-year venture capital trial program to allow small business to set up or to expand. There was quite a bit of interest stimulated by the program, and I note we had participation in 11 venture capital companies investing almost $1 million with Manitoba businesses. It was a relatively small program, but it was more of a pilot nature, of a trial nature. We also participated in some joint-venture programs with business, and there is quite a bit of information on how this transpired.

Technology was another sector that we thought should be stimulated in order to provide for some long-run expansion, a long-run base for the development of the province.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

At any rate, I see I am running out of time, so I will only conclude by saying that it is regrettable that the Jobs Fund was not utilized at all by this government because we have had a situation, a sad situation, of lack of jobs for people. As I pointed out last time, during our years in office, which were only 6.3, we created 37,000 jobs; 37,000 jobs were created in Manitoba during our administration and only 15,000 jobs have been created during the 8.4 years so far of this particular government. They only created 15,000 compared to 37,000, more than about 2.5 times to 1. I say one of the reasons we did so well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was because of the existence of the Manitoba Jobs Fund, all the initiatives we took, not just this government alone, but working with the private sector, working with the farm sector, working with community groups and getting as much assistance in the process from the federal government and, of course, involving municipal governments as well.

With those few remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I guess I will have to sit down because I have run out of time. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we continue, is there leave that this matter remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk)? [agreed]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, am very pleased today to put a few comments on the record concerning Bill 62 and following the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).

I wanted to, at the outset, begin by looking back a bit and looking at the reasons why the Jobs Fund was set up in the first place, why the government of the day looked at setting up such a fund, because at the time the fund was very well received by people in this province. You have to remember that, when the NDP took over in November of 1981, the economy of Manitoba was on its knees. The economy was in an absolute mess. The voters of Manitoba had just passed judgment on a one-term Conservative government; in fact, it was the first government this century to only last one term and it deserved no more than that. In fact, the NDP ended the election with 35 seats, which was our largest total--

An Honourable Member: Thirty-four.

Mr. Maloway: The member reminds me that it was 34, which was the largest total that we have had at any time while in government.

Now, during this recession that was being helped along by the Conservative government of the day we had on top of a deep recession, we had record mortgage foreclosures, we had record-high interest rates; in fact, I recall during that period that interest rates hit 18 percent to 20 percent, 21 percent. I remember being involved in a group, involved in bringing attention to that problem and trying to resolve it, a group called Homeowners Against Rising Mortgages, and we had a lot of media coverage and demonstrations and petitions and so on trying to do some work to try to solve this problem.

I might also tell you that people in 1981 in this province, businesses were lined up to give money to the NDP for the election campaign of that year. Architects and engineers in this province were coming to us. These were architects and engineers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who would say, we are Conservatives, we normally donate to the Conservative Party, but we want to donate to you because there is no construction going on in Manitoba, nothing is being built. Senior citizen home construction was cancelled. There was absolutely no activity in this province. That is why we saw people abandoning the Conservatives in droves, rushing to us, people who were not normally supporters of the NDP, because they wanted to get rid of the reactionary government of the time that basically believed in no-growth and had no growth in the economy. They came with a government that showed some promise and wanted to do something about the sad state of the Manitoba economy. At the time the Conservatives had promised an Alcan aluminum smelter, and that proposal went nowhere. Nothing this government tried to do developed into anything.

So when the NDP formed the government after the 1981 election, the government of the day had a big job to do trying to undo some of the mess that had been left by the previous government. As I said, the entire country at that period was in one of the normal downturns, periodic downturns, in the economy, and it was a very serious recession that we were dealing with at the time. So the government of the day set up the Jobs Fund to try to correct some of the problems induced by the recession. There was no suggestion that somehow all of the problems would be solved through the Jobs Fund but, at least, unlike the Herbert Hoover-R.B. Bennett approach of the Tories, who were in power then, at least this was a government with some degree of activism and a government that was willing to try something new to get the economy moving again.

In fact, at the end of the day we had proven that the Jobs Fund was reasonably successful in that in the period of time that the NDP was in government, a good number, actually 37,000 jobs were in fact created during that period from December 1981 to March of 1988, which is 6.3 years.

* (1500)

Now, in a greater period of time than that, since April of 1988 till August of this year, which is 8.4 years, there have only been 15,000 jobs created, and what we have here is a much better record of job creation under the NDP years than you had under the Conservative period. In fact, during that period the NDP created jobs at two-thirds of the national rate while the PCs were only creating jobs at one-half of the national rate.

Now, over that period of time I know the Conservatives were able to, when they were in opposition, try to make fun of the Jobs Fund, and there were a lot of jokes about the green signs and so on. That got articles printed and got them a little bit of press, nitpicking and picking little holes here and there on the program. But the statistics of the program indicate that there was a much better record there than they are prepared to accept was the case.

Now, over those years we had a number of special projects. The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) has outlined the number of projects that the Jobs Fund was involved in, but the member for Transcona, the current member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), remembers the refurbishing of the railway cars that went on at Transcona Shops. There was a rail car development program.

There were a huge number of projects that Jobs Fund money was going into, and we should, you know, understand that we are talking about leveraged money here. This was not just a case of the provincial government putting in all of the money. What we had here was essentially a joint venture between the province and the private sector and the other levels of government, the municipal levels and the federal level. For example, some of the projects involved the municipalities, municipal programs that just were not done during those four dry Tory years. The municipalities could not get anything done during those four years. Under this program they were able to access jointly funds to get projects put into place. Local organizations such as legions and personal care homes and churches were able to get money to install things like wheelchair ramps and other types of activity that needed to be done.

What these activities did was they improved the properties and they put people to work. In many cases, the youth unemployment rate always seems to be a problem. No matter what government is in power, the youth unemployment rate is higher than the average. It is very important for youths to have their first job, and many of the youths in this province got those first jobs during the Jobs Fund period, and they would learn a lot from having that opportunity as opposed to what was happening in the four years prior to this program.

This bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is nothing but a political document. There were a number of things that, I guess, probably aggravate us in opposition--and when we become government, perhaps, out of principle, we will want to repeal. Well, this bill was one of those when it comes to this government, to the Tories. This bill was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The bull will always rise and charge the flag. But this Bill 62, they hated the Jobs Fund. Nothing would get the Tories more riled up than the Jobs Fund, so at every opportunity they would rant and rail against the government and the Jobs Fund. The problem was that they ranted and railed so much that when they did become the government, they were not in a position to be able to backtrack sufficiently fast to be able to use some of the good aspects of the program. That is the sad part about it that in fact had they not been so critical of the Jobs Fund that they perhaps when they were elected would have realized that it had some valuable need for it and would have kept it around.

But that underlies the approach of a government of, say, the NDP stripe and the Conservative stripe. When the economies are going well, sometimes it is harder to tell the difference. But it is when the economy is in a recession that you really see the difference between R.B. Bennett and Herbert Hoover types over on the Conservative side and people on this side of the House. God help us if the business cycle takes a downturn, which it must every so many years, between now and 1999, when the business cycle downturns and the Hooverites on the other side and the R.B. Bennett types on the other side have to deal with the problem, and not being able to accept the idea of a Jobs Fund, will fall back to their ideology, will fall back logically to their ideology of doing nothing as the economy just slides to a halt, and that is what happens, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the economy gets into a recession.

In our government, we were not prepared to allow the economy to drag itself along for another two or three years waiting for the business cycle to right itself. We do not have the faith, we do not have the undying faith in the Chamber of Commerce's ability to get the economy going as the members opposite do.

As a matter of fact, how much faith does the Chamber of Commerce have in the business cycle? I was going through the Public Accounts records the other day. I am looking at grants, and I see grants to various business organizations, but certainly one of them was the Chamber of Commerce. I mean, here is an organization, a free-enterprise organization that will regale and rant and rave about government interference in business, government grants to business, and here they are accepting a business grant. Now, if that is not the ultimate in hypocrisy, I do not know what is. [interjection] Well, the member is trying to be funny, and he is not being successful at it.

But you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I am trying to get at here is, there is a fundamental difference in approach to this problem that would be exhibited by the Conservatives when they are in government and the NDP approach. Now, we happen to feel that our approach is the most successful, and it has been proven over the long haul that--it was not, once again, the Hooverites across the way who got the economy going in the 1930s. I mean, if we had left the economy to R.B. Bennett and his Bennett buggies and Herbert Hoover, the recession would be going on to this day. It would be a 60-year recession, because what was the Conservative answer to the problem? The Conservative answer was, well, do nothing. Maybe we could hide in the sand and hopefully things will go, the problem will rectify itself, but it never did. It took a Keynesian approach to the economy, to the economics of the day, to bring about a sustained recovery which continued for many years.

Over the years, we will test our theories and they will test their theories, and at the end of the day, I think the people will have to make a judgment as to whose approach is successful and whose approach is not.

* (1510)

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wanted to say that back in 1982 and '83, while Canada was in a very serious recession, Manitoba was the first province to get out of the recession. Many have concluded that the reason that we were so quick out of the recession was that we had the Jobs Fund, that we had this huge stimulus that got so much activity going.

I mean, what actions were the Conservative government of the day doing that would help the problem? Well, let me tell you. There was the Alcan smelter. Well, everybody remembers the Alcan smelter. Remember the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey)--the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) might remember this. [interjection] Not the former member for Transcona, the current member for Transcona might remember that it was the current Deputy Premier who ended up buying a bunch of land within a couple of miles of the Alcan smelter.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member for Elmwood is putting on the record--he is imputing a wrongdoing to the member for Arthur-Virden which I think has been proven time and time again to have not been the case that the member--and I would ask you to call the member to order. I think it is a rather shameful display to raise an incident that is not true and imply that somehow the member for Arthur-Virden was involved in a land deal related to Alcan. That was totally untrue, and the member should take caution in all his remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member. I will take the opportunity to read Hansard and report back to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Elmwood, to continue.

Mr. Maloway: I will not go further on this issue. I mean, the members can read the newspapers of the day to get all the seamy details of this. I was simply pointing out to the members, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at the time the only thing the Conservative government of the day had going was the Alcan smelter. There was controversy surrounding the Alcan smelter, and nothing in fact got built. In fact, they were planning to give away the province, they were planning to give away the ownership of the dams, they were prepared to give away half the province to get this smelter.

Unlike that government, this one has shown a few more signs of being interested in development. It has shown a few more signs of being clear of conflicts that the previous government had, which did impact on its performance. So the member need not get his shorts in a knot about something that he was not around here when it occurred. I am not going to take the bait and get any further into this. I was simply trying to point out to the members that it was a government of inaction. It is a government that anything that it did try to do turned into a boondoggle, and one of the head boondogglers is sitting in the front row today--perhaps he has learned some lessons--and the public had made a decision to turf them out of power, and it did so in a major way.

What I am pointing out to you is that when the new government came in, one of the centrepieces of our activity was the Jobs Fund, and they were very testy about that. They got a good whooping in the election and they did not like it, and so they worked on the Jobs Fund. Every little aspect of the Jobs Fund that they could poke a hole in, they would do that. That is why this bill, Bill 62, is before us here today because of their dislike, their disgust, their basic hatred of this idea.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker--[interjection] Well, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) is chirping from his seat again, which he is wont to do, but he should know that the Jobs Fund came out of an economic conference that was held in Portage la Prairie back in 1982. You see, some good does come from Portage la Prairie.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Government Services, on a point of order.

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no question that much good comes from Portage la Prairie, but the Jobs Fund would certainly not be an example of that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of order.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is the current member for Portage la Prairie is reflecting on the people back in 1982, the leaders of the business community, the people in industry, people in labour and government representatives who met to decide on a course of action to get the province out of recession. I mean, he has no respect for the people of the day who were making a sincere effort at the conference to develop a plan to get the province out of the recession.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have allowed a little bit of leniency this afternoon, but seeing as today is Monday, I think it is time to reel it in a little bit. Could I ask that those conversations that are going on right now go on in the hallways or out in the loges. I think it is much more appropriate.

The honourable member for Elmwood, to continue.

Mr. Maloway: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the business leaders, the labour leaders and the government leaders were meeting in Portage la Prairie, they were performing a function that is not unlike the process that has worked very successfully in Europe for many years, in the Scandinavian countries where the economy is more or less centrally directed or centrally planned by virtue of the leaders in the labour movement, in the business community and the government getting together and deciding in a sectoral way how the economy is to run for the next period of time. So what we were doing was borrowing from ideas that had worked somewhere else, and that is what we have to get back to. We need co-operation in this province, which we are not seeing right now. We need co-operation between business, between labour and between the government. Among these three groups, if there is no co-operation, if there is no good will among the three groups, as was seen, as was experienced by the Jobs Fund back in 1982 and '83, unless that good will and willingness to meet and co-operate is there among these three key groups in the economy then the economy is not going to go along. It is not going to expand. It is not going to do as well as what it could. That is just a fundamental point.

The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) spoke about the 21,000 jobs that were created by the Jobs Fund, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in its very first year. He talked about the jobs with the municipalities. The municipalities have a difficult time as it is finding money with declining tax bases in a lot of cases, finding the wherewithal, the money to develop infrastructure. That is exactly what the Jobs Fund did: it came to the aid of the municipalities in this province to accomplish some of the projects that were really necessary for them to have to make life better and to keep those municipalities intact and to stop the disintegration and the migration away. In fact, it was a very important move in terms of rural development.

* (1520)

I mentioned earlier that churches got grants. I know of a church that got a grant to put in a wheelchair ramp. I do not think anyone here would suggest that somehow that would not be a socially useful project, a project that is necessary. We have mentioned, the legions got money, senior homes got money. All of these projects were vetted through the proper methods, and work was done with leverage money.

As was indicated, in the Jobs Funds' case, the government put up 40 percent of the funds, and that was an excellent way of leveraging money from the private sector and from the other levels of government to get these projects done. It was the closest we have come yet to be able to adopt a system similar to what has worked well in the Scandinavian countries for years and years.

If this government refuses to adopt a co-operative approach in dealing with the other sectors of the economy, then they will see we in the opposition doing that job for them. In fact, it will certainly make the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) feel vindicated if we were to win the election next time based on a coalition of a business and labour groups wanting to throw out the government because of its inaction and usher in a new co-operative approach to get the economy going again. That is, in fact, where I think the trend line is headed.

I think the member indicated that at least $157 million came from the private sector, from the municipalities, from the federal governments, to stimulate the economy. The jobs that were created, you have to look at the individuals who were affected by these jobs. We are talking about unemployed people. When we are talking about young people who have not had a job for a while, what happens is, despair sets in, what happens is, alcoholism grows, teenage pregnancies. All sorts of social problems develop when people are not working, and it is impossible to quantify exactly how much social upheaval was in fact prevented and ameliorated by this Jobs Fund program.

In the four desperate, desolate years that the government opposite held the reins of power, nothing was happening. In those four years, the social problems were increasing. Once the new government came into power and the Jobs Fund was kicked into action, there were many, many people, young people and people on Unemployment Insurance, who had meaningful jobs, who had income and a feeling of a sense of work and became productive members of society. I would guess there are a lot of people that would think very fondly about the programs that were a part of this program that they may have taken part in, that were helpful to them and kept them away from some of the social problems that we have seen.

I mean, what do the young people have to look forward to today to keep themselves busy? This government has given them VLTs. That is its answer. The Tory answer today to the Jobs Fund is VLTs. That is its answer. If it does not fit within the balanced budget legislation, then of course it is not--

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

As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I have a committee change.

I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) for Thompson (Mr. Ashton); St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway); St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale); Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for Tuesday, October 8, for 10 a.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) who has 27 minutes remaining.

Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise today to make a contribution to the debate of this very important, very fundamental bill, 49, on The Regional Health Authorities Act. In fact, the title of the bill really betrays the impact of the bill. It does not portray the fact that this bill is very fundamental and can and will provide the basis for a substantial change in the health care system as we know it today. It is simply not about regional authorities; it goes beyond that. It goes into the heart of the democratic process as to how it is operating. It goes into the whole question of how labour issues, employment standards and employment transitional benefits should be handled. So it gets into the field of labour relations as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been a lot of concern by people in Manitoba of this bill as they become familiar with what it means and what it could imply. I note that the Manitoba Health Organizations, the MHO, which is a very well-respected organization of health care officials throughout Manitoba, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing virtually the health care community in the basic institutions that we have in Manitoba--the hospitals and nursing homes and so on. They have outlined a number of major concerns with the bill. From their analysis, they maintain that even though we have these regional boards established under this bill, or give the government the authority to establish these regional boards, nevertheless the major decision making will still be concentrated in the Department of Health.

In other words, the question arises, to what extent do we have real decentralization of decision making? To what extent do we have regional decentralization in terms of tailoring programs to fit the various segments of the province, the various regions of the province. The fact is that this could be tantamount to some kind of a fraud. In other words, we are telling you, you are getting regional boards, you are getting regional authorities, but virtually all the power in the minister's office will be maintained in the core of the Department of Health. So really one could be rather less than charitable and say, well, the main reason for setting up these boards is to enable the government to use them as a front while they cut back in the health care system. Do not blame us if the local board, the regional board, happens to close down the hospital in one community or another. It is not our fault. The regional board made this decision.

Well, of course, the regional board would have had to make some very hard decisions because I am predicting they are going to be underfunded. They will not have the monies they require to maintain the level of services in the various hospitals, so places like Wawanesa could lose a hospital, and Shoal Lake which was hoping to have an expansion and new hospital, goodness knows, what is going to happen there in the future. There are many communities that are rightly concerned as to the future status of their hospital. Well, the government, I am not surprised, did not act on this, and will not act on this, until the regional boards are in place, so that they can do the dirty work, if you will, for them.

* (1530)

It sounds very cynical, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think, unfortunately, this is going to come to pass, this is what is going to happen, and no one likes to see a rural hospital close, particularly if you live in the particular community, but from the departmental point of view the argument may be, well, we have too many hospitals. They might make that argument. We have too many beds, and therefore somebody has to give up, some community has to be prepared to sacrifice its particular health-care facility. One does not want to see this, but I am suggesting that the Minister of Health will find these regional boards to be a very convenient tool to virtually hide behind in terms of the very, very serious negative consequences of underfunding.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

But, all the while, any major change in the system will still be concentrated in the Department of Health. The Manitoba Health Organizations has pointed that out very, very well in its brief, and I would urge all members of this Legislature who will have to vote on this bill to study the MHO brief. It is submitted to the government in an unpartisan way. They do not represent any political party. Obviously, they are presenting the views of people who are expert in this field.

Another problem that the bill presents, and this is quite serious, that in future changes to the health-care system can come by regulation which, of course, goes by cabinet action rather than by statute, rather than by legislation. Instead of having to bring another bill in, the Minister of Health can simply go to cabinet and change the organization, change the system, the health-care system in one way or other simply by regulation, and this, Mr. Acting Speaker, is undemocratic. It is far better for serious changes--I am not talking about miscellaneous, minor, trivial, technical changes; I am talking about something of a major nature. It is far better for the democratic process that this come before this Assembly and that the public through the media or anyone who wants to pay attention will understand what is happening and the public would be given an opportunity also as usual to present their briefs, their views, before a committee when that particular amendment to one of the health-care acts comes before it.

As the MHO has pointed out very well in their brief, major programs could be wiped out without public scrutiny, and I do not think any member of this House, no matter which party they belong to, would wish to see this, because I want to remind people that we do have an opportunity to sit on both sides of this House. There is nothing written in the stars that one will only be on the government side or, indeed, on the opposition side. In time, though one may find yourself on the government side now, you may find yourself in future on the opposition side, and I am sure that if a major change were to be necessary to the health care system you would want it brought before the assembly and not have it dealt with simply by cabinet.

Another problem that the bill has is the fact that there are provisions for a commissioner to have extraordinary powers in dealing with employees. Now, how does this come about? Well, the fact is, there is a clause or clauses here to provide for transitional employment situations. In other words, if you have facilities either closed down or combined, you are going to see employees being moved from one facility to another, and you may involve more than one union.

There could be a CUPE union; there could be the Manitoba Nurses' Union, for example, and there will be problems. This bill gives the commissioner, as he is called or she is called in this bill, extraordinary powers in dealing with these employees, in fact powers that really should be under the Manitoba Labour Board but are not and will not be. In other words, the Labour Board, in its mandate, which is established by statute law, will be contravened in effect by the commissioner, who will be operating under this particular bill, a commissioner who will have extraordinary powers and who will have no public accountability. This is another observation of the Manitoba Health Organizations and something that all Manitobans should be concerned about.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

Another difficulty with this particular bill is that it is almost silent on the role of community health centres. There is no reference, I believe, in here as to initiatives that could be taken in terms of providing community health programs over and beyond hospitals. I am not suggesting that there cannot be community health facilities. In fact, there was one opened just officially a couple of weeks ago. I had the opportunity to be there. I had the privilege and honour of being there with the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) a couple of weeks ago, where a facility was opened in Brandon promoting good health in terms of heart problems and in terms of diabetes, those two disease areas, diabetes and heart.

I was very impressed, and this is an outreach facility. It involves the Department of Health but also involves the Brandon General Hospital.

So I am suggesting, you do not need this bill or you do not need to refer to it, I am sure, in the bill, but, nevertheless, the criticism does stand that there should be mention of the role, the potential role, the future role of community health programs, community health centres. There is nothing here by way of an appeal mechanism, and, again, the government and all MLAs in this Chamber should be concerned about the ability or the lack of ability of citizens or officials in the system to appeal decisions of the health board.

The health board will have, according to the legislation, the final say in the particular region and can therefore overrule any particular hospital board or any nursing home board, and it will have the money provided by the Department of Health, by the government and, in its wisdom, may make mistakes or may do something that is not as acceptable to some as one would like. Therefore, it is only natural for citizens and people in the system to want to appeal, and therefore, there should be an appeal mechanism built into this legislation to provide necessary checks and balances, but that indeed is not present. There are no appeal mechanisms, and this is another deficiency of this particular legislation.

Further, I am just wondering to what extent we are simply adding to the bureaucracy in the health care delivery system. I have heard many members opposite on the government side talk about the need to be very efficient and not to have too many public servants, not to have too many civil servants; and, in fact, they have cut the civil service, and they have bragged about being able to do with fewer staff, yet, this bill provides the basis for an additional degree of bureaucracy in the whole system.

It maintains the Department of Health, with all its personnel, will establish regional boards which will have to have staff. They will have to have people who will do accounting, who will do research, who will do whatever is required to help those boards make decisions. In addition, of course, the local hospital boards, local nursing home boards, continue with their key staff and then in addition the bill sets up advisory councils for each district. Again, we do not know to what extent those councils will have to have personnel, but I would think they would have to have some form of secretariat to be an effective advisory council. You just cannot expect citizens to voluntarily sit on a council and not have some secretarial assistance or to have some means by which to pay for--they have to have funds for postage and whatever else they wish to do, and they need staff for their advisory function.

* (1540)

So here you have the Department of Health regional board, the local hospital or nursing home board and then a district advisory council--four levels or four compartments. It remains to be seen, it is going to be very, very interesting to see, to what extent the bureaucracy will be maintained in the Department of Health while the bureaucracy is built up in the regional boards. That can be a very serious problem.

Now maybe the minister will tell us, oh, no, we are going to cut staff in the department or maybe transfer some out so that there will not be this extra growth, but I am suggesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a direct possibility, this is a distinct possibility that you will have an expansion of the number of officials required to operate this regional service that we have been discussing.

Perhaps most serious of all is the reference in the bill to charging user fees. As a matter of fact, this is mentioned in different parts of the bill, but I look particularly at Section 25 when they discuss the general powers of the regional health authority and it states, under 25(e), "where authorized by regulation, charge fees for health services, or categories of health services, directly to the person who received the services, at the rates fixed in, or calculated in accordance with, the regulations." In other words, the minister and his department can authorize the regional health authority, in turn, to exercise and implement a user fee system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a threat to the Canadian health care system as we know it, where we have a one-payer system, as the Americans like to refer to it as, where you have people being able to access a universal system, and it is available to all. Now, with this system being proposed, with the user fees being proposed in this bill, you are going to have a system where some people who have money will get certain services, certain operations or whatever within a brief period of time, and those who do not have money will just have to go on the waiting list and wait for how long?

We have an example of this right here and now. In case of eye surgery, removal of cataracts, we have actually got this two-tiered system right here in Manitoba. I have constituents who are very poor who have to wait for months, if not close to a year or more, for cataract surgery, whereas, if they had the money, the $1,000, $1,500, $2,000, whatever it happens to be, they can have their eye surgery done, their cataracts removed in a matter of a week or two weeks. There is no waiting period. This is one example of a working user-fee system.

Well, with this particular clause, these board can go beyond this and exercise and bring in a whole host of fee of services that can be charged at the same time. Again, the Manitoba Health Organizations comments on this, and it says that it is tantamount to an insidious deinsuring of health services. In contrast, it makes no mention of services that are basic, that would be guaranteed, such as you would get under the Canada Health Act. So, on the one hand, there are no guarantees; on other hand, you are saying to the local boards, we may pass regulations enabling you to charge these fees.

That to me is one of the major problems with this bill. It is a threat. It is a draconian measure. It is a threat to the universal accessible health care system as we have known it. Are we opening the door wide to a deinsuring of health services in the province of Manitoba?

What also concerns us on this side, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that while the minister likes to brag about consulting wide and far with the community, with the health care providers and so on, as far as we are concerned there have been no genuine public hearings for the community, for people at large around Manitoba, to come to the government and give them some views on the bill. It would be good if this bill and this committee could go about the province. You cannot do this with every bill, but by virtue of the fact that this is so basic, it is so basic to the health care system, and it is tantamount to a major revision of the system as we know it, that public hearings should be held. A committee should go around, with all parties represented, not just the government side with a couple of MLAs, as has been happening, even though they may be well intended. If you want a bona fide committee of this Legislature to go about Manitoba to get the views, it should represent all parties on that committee, not the government side alone. If it only has the government side, you cannot say that it is truly a legislative committee. It is a government task force maybe, but it is not a legislative committee hearing the views of the citizens.

Well, this did not occur one way or the other with this particular bill, and that to me is a major deficiency. So here we have a bill the people now are just becoming aware of, that it is posing a major challenge to the health care system as we know it and that they have some basic concerns. They are finally coming around to understanding it, but we would have served the democratic process far, far better if the Legislature had a committee with this bill around the province, allowing maximum input from the citizens.

Another criticism of these boards, and a great disappointment, I know, to a lot people is the fact that they are to be appointed by the minister or the government, they will not be elected. They will not be democratically elected in their locale. Now, I believe, in the province of Saskatchewan they are elected. There is provision, I do not know the details, but they are representing the community. They are elected by the community.

I suppose the minister could say, well, look, these boards are not going to be responsible for raising the money. Unlike a school board which is somewhat related to a municipality that has to raise property taxes, these boards will not be required to raise a penny towards this, of course, unless they charge user fees or allow the medical community to charge the fees. But really you could argue, well, you do not collect the money so you--I mean, we are collecting the money, we the government, so we have the responsibility, basically, and therefore we will do the appointing. So that is an argument. There is some logic to that, but, having said that, I think a lot of people will be less than satisfied to feel that they have a regional board that, sure, they may come from the area but the people in the area did not have an opportunity to elect. They were just sort of put there, sort of foisted upon them, whether they liked it or not, here you are, this is your regional board.

I am sure a lot of these people will be well meaning and will do their best, and they will serve. But they will still not reflect some of the views of the community, therefore, I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they should at least in part be democratically elected. At least some of them should be elected so that that would be a compromise position. I guess the ideal, in a way, is total elections, totally democratically elected, as in Saskatchewan, but fallback would be, okay, we are going to appoint some but some will be elected by the community at large.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have pointed out some of the major difficulties with the bill. There are many others, and I try to imagine how this particular legislation is going to apply in my own constituency where we have a major health care facility, the Brandon General Hospital, and several large nursing homes, personal care homes. Just how is it going to operate there? As I gather, the region will be relatively small. It will be mainly greater Brandon area and will be more in a sense resembling the two regional boards that I believe will be in the Winnipeg area.

I stand to be corrected on that number for Winnipeg, but I know there are 10 rural boards in addition. In this case, you will have a board who will, therefore, oversee the regional authority that will oversee the board of directors of the Brandon General Hospital and the board of the Fairview Home and of the Dinsdale Home and the Rideau Park nursing home, to mention the main facilities.

* (1550)

The suggestion has been made by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) who represents part of the city of Brandon, Brandon West, that this particular regional health board will guarantee and assure the role of Brandon General Hospital in the future as an important regional facility. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not the case whatsoever, because to begin with Brandon General Hospital, which we think is still a regional hospital, has been undermined because of serious underfunding by this government in the last four or five years, and the region that it serves is well beyond the region of the Brandon regional health board. The Brandon regional health authority will take in an area very close to the city of Brandon, whereas the region that the BGH serves takes in eastern Saskatchewan. It takes in north of Brandon. People from Dauphin come, Swan River and so on, various parts of the province beyond Westman, so that it has served a regional function, but that regional function is being undermined and limited by the underfunding of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) who should be very concerned because this hospital is in his own back yard, and the information we have--for example, in 1996-97, the Brandon General Hospital will have an estimated funding shortfall of $2.4 million.

That is because the government itself has cut $1.6 million, but there are increases in costs and also because of the fact that there may be a reinstatement of salary levels to the pre-minus-two level. You may recall, some staff took a minus-two cut, and this was supposed to be reinstated this year. Well, that is still subject to provincial negotiation.

When we take all these factors into account, there is a shortfall of $2.4 million. The management of the hospital is looking for initiatives to cut costs. I am advised, and this is public information, that they will try to find--after one go-around, they found some places to cut--they will go around again and look for another $890,000 to cut, not that they want to, but even after all that is done, they will still be short of nearly a million dollars. After all these cuts, they will still be short nearly a million dollars, and what are they going to do?

Its role as a regional facility is being undermined. Its role as an important health care facility, period, is being undermined, and now that the hospital is going to be forced to cut more medical beds--I believe there have been 40 beds eliminated. The Minister of Health keeps on, really jokingly, not seriously, about bed cuts when we were in government. This is absolute nonsense. There were some summertime closures, and there were some other things that happened to offset that, such as out-of-hospital surgery beds that were put in place, but the fact is, over the last few years, it has lost 120 equivalent full-time positions, and 40 beds have been eliminated.

Now they are short again, and they are going to have to look for solutions. What are they going to do about this bottom-line one million dollars? Well, it is going to mean more bed closures. It is going to mean perhaps the loss of speech therapy services. Nobody wants to see the loss of speech therapy services. The minister says he does not want to see it. I do not know whether he was alluding to this in Question Period today, saying, well, we were advocating. Well, that is absolute garbage and absolute nonsense. It is just the reverse. We have been going after him to assure the continuation of the speech therapy services. How many letters have I written? How many letters have I received on the subject? [interjection] Right, a ton.

Nevertheless, the underfunding by the minister, by this government, means that they are going to have to look at that. They are going to have to possibly eliminate the speech therapy service. They do not want to, but what are they going to do? So the government and the minister have to get real. You cannot expect to maintain Brandon General as an important facility and as an important regional centre if you do not fund it properly.

So there is no question that Bill 49 really has no bearing on the future role of Brandon General Hospital as a regional facility, although the minister made statements to Brandon to that effect a couple of weeks ago. That is totally wrong. What will ensure the well-being of Brandon General as an effective, meaningful health facility is funding. It has to be funded properly, and without that funding, it will continue to deteriorate. This is very sad. It has good staff. They are doing their best, but they are overworked, and the morale at that hospital is extremely low. You just talk to anyone there, and you will find it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I gather my time is now concluded, and I thank you for listening to me and giving me the opportunity to put these comments on Bill 49. I really would hope that the minister will seriously look at this bill and withdraw it, because it is--we are not against decentralization, but this bill goes beyond that, and it has too many flaws in it. It should be really withdrawn and reworked. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, and it will come as no surprise to members opposite that this bill is not pleasing to this side of the House. I know the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has already spoken and made that point very clear.

What I want to do today is to discuss three major points. First of all, I want to discuss the decision to provide the one-tier system throughout the city of Winnipeg and the province, which the government claims will reduce costs by eliminating duplication in administration and improving efficiency. I want to say parenthetically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I find it very hard to believe in the whole concept of duplication in social services. Quite frankly, my experience in the field is that cases of duplication or cases that are called cries of duplication usually mean that the government wants to save some money by reducing much needed services and usually by overworking already overworked and, in some cases, some pretty dispirited workers, so I do not really buy this whole notion of duplication. There is not a lot of fat in social services, and in fact the pickings are pretty lean. Anyway, I want to come back to this point.

The second major issue that I want to address is the new directions or, as I prefer to think of them, the new twists in social welfare or--anyway I want to discuss this.

Third, I want to discuss women and children living on social assistance and particularly the punitive new realities that this legislation will mean for the lives of Manitoba women and children on social services.

Before I get into these matters properly, I want to comment on the change of language and the name changes in this bill, the change from The Social Allowances Act to the employment and income assistance act. I know the minister told us at second reading that we would be no longer using the term "social allowances," and I know that this is not merely a cosmetic change. As I think all members here will agree, language is one of the most powerful tools we have in the creation of visions, in the creation of idea, and in the creation of reality. Anyone here who is familiar with Bible myth, for example, will remember that in the Bible it is Adam who names the animals. When he names the animals, he is not merely giving them names; what he is demonstrating is knowledge of the animalness of each animal that he names. Once again, it is language that separates us from animals and language that allows us to articulate visions, ideas and reality. Articulation and language are basic to human experience.

* (1600)

It is clear what Tory spin doctors are up to here. Not only are they shifting the paradigm and doing this through the new title, but they are also, through this new title, quite clearly beginning to divest themselves of any responsibility for providing social allowances and, as well, suggesting that each and every citizen in Manitoba should be employed.

This bill and its title does not make allowances for those whose physical conditions, illness and physical disabilities mean that they cannot and probably never will work. It does not make allowances for those living with mental disabilities, mental illness or mental breakdown, which may mean that they cannot and probably never will be employable.

So it seems to me, this shift in title is definitely an attack on the dignity of the less fortunate citizens of Manitoba. The assumptions in this new title are that everyone should work, those who do not are somehow aberrant and that there is no government responsibility to provide assistance for those who cannot. Though here the government in its kindness and wisdom will provide, not social assistance, but employment and income assistance.

I want to reiterate that the current legislation then shifts the discourse by changing language, by using language which I would suggest begins a process whereby government ultimately will divest itself of a social responsibility for those who are most needy and most in need in our province. It gives a door out. It turns its back on the principles that Manitobans most value, compassion, social justice and co-operation.

Now, I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this door was first opened by the federal government who, by abandoning the Canada Assistance Plan, thanks to persons like my member of Parliament, the former Minister of Human Resources, Lloyd Axworthy, by abandoning the Canada Assistance Plan and moving to the block funding of Canada Health and Social Transfer Act, the federal government led the way, led the field in disregarding social, health and educational responsibilities.

I know the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), when he spoke on Bill 36, spoke of the history of social allowances in Canada and addressed the fact that in Saskatchewan, unlike Manitoba, there was a humane way of implementing these federal changes.

I want to reiterate them just briefly. Saskatchewan, as we know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, replenished funds drained by the federal deficit reduction zeal, whereas here in Manitoba $23 million was cut from welfare programs and millions from health and education. Of course, health and education are also issues that are ensconced in bills before this House. But I realize that I am digressing.

The main point that I want to make here is, the change from social allowance to employment and income assistance is the kind of double talk that this government often uses to disguise its really reactionary agenda and to mask a host of power grabbing and usually punitive measures. We see it in labour bills. We see it in the regional health authority bill, on which my honourable colleague from Brandon has just spoken.

We see it everywhere the New Right turns, and here are some examples, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This government uses the word "reform" to describe regressive legislation. Words like "right to work" are used by the New Right when what is really meant is union busting. "Choice" is used in health care, and it usually means user fees or going outside health care. "Removing red tape" usually means removing environmental protection. "Public accountability" when it is used in education often boils down to teacher bashing or simply cutting back funds to education. You know, I would like to direct the attention of the government to Ernest Hemingway's book, A Farewell to Arms, where he suggests that language in the 20th Century has been so debased that only the names of places have any meaning anymore, and it seems to me that this government could take a lesson from A Farewell to Arms and from an artist of the calibre of Ernest Hemingway.

Actually, of course, the debasing of language is an appropriate rapper style for this government's demeaning authoritarian legislation. In Bill 36, as in other bills, content and form, idea and style reinforce each other. Nothing is to be trusted, neither the names nor what is inside. This government, it would seem to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would roll us forward to the 19th Century, and I know steamrollering ahead is one of the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Stefanson) favourite expressions. We are leaning towards workfare today. Can the workhouse of the 19th Century be far behind? Or, to put it more simply, this legislation could well be the start of a return to the social conditions of the 19th Century where supports for the poor depended upon charity and where government responsibilities were not recognized.

You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I was thinking about this bill, what do I get in my mailbox but a bag from Safeway, which really represents to me how far we have come and how institutionalized poverty is in our society? It seem perfectly normal to get a bag from Safeway asking us to fill it up for Winnipeg Harvest, and we support Harvest. We do not want people to be hungry in our society, but this is what it says on it: Winnipeg Harvest is now supplying food to over 34,000 people each month--47 percent are children; 7 percent are less than one year of age. Well, for shame, this government should be ashamed that bags like this come to people's houses. Where is their sense of responsibility and compassion and caring for Manitobans and especially in this case for Manitoban children? This is absolutely beyond the pale.

With that I want to turn to say a few words about the one-tier system for social allowances. Now the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) once again addressed this issue in great detail. He pointed out that the City of Winnipeg system for social allowance is superior in many ways. He suggested that it was less bureaucratic, that it had fewer layers of administration. He also pointed out that the city welfare is more flexible in working with employable recipients and it encourages volunteerism, and I think that volunteerism and employing recipients are to be encouraged. City welfare, we are assured, does a better job of returning clients to the workforce. The city reduced its client load this year by 3,000, which is to be commended. All these points have certainly been borne out in the constituency work in Osborne where I know my constituency assistant tells me time and time again how much easier it is to deal with city welfare.

I want to point out that a person on city social assistance, someone who is deemed employable, is also eligible for some benefits which are very helpful in the job search, for example, bus passes, work clothes and babysitting expenses. These are extremely important to people who are beginning a job search or preparing to work. On provincial assistance, I am told these supports are extremely difficult and, in some cases, almost impossible to obtain.

You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems to me to be telling of our times when we know that Mrs. Downey can travel to South America at public expense, several thousand dollars--I understand it was somewhere over $4,000--but a social assistance recipient in Manitoba in search of employment must cough up his or her own bus fare of $2.70 for a round trip.

* (1610)

Deputy ministers and their wives can now, on the approval of a minister, so I understand, travel expenses paid, but social assistance recipients must pay their own child care expenses when they begin searching for a job. This does not even make common sense, not even to mention ethical sense, but this is social justice in our Premier's Tory Manitoba.

The last word I want to say on the amalgamation of Winnipeg social assistance with its provincial counterpart is this: One type of social allowance or two types of social allowance is not the real question. The real question, the real issue is providing services for the thousands and thousands of Manitoba social assistance clients, preparing these people for the workforce, training recipients, preparing them for real jobs which pay real wages, recognizing as well that people need actual, concrete supports like bus passes and access to phones as they begin their searches for employment and as they continue their searches for employment. It is pretty hard to get a job when you do not have a telephone.

The important thing is making sure that recipients searching for work have access to quality child care, and this includes child care for children with disabilities.

I want to add, and this is, I think, really important, that a mother or a father or both mother and father cannot be expected to abandon their six-year-olds to the street and equip them with latchkeys while the parents hurtle out at the crack of dawn to low-wage, part-time jobs without benefits.

Again, what we need in the province of Manitoba are real jobs and accessibility to affordable, high-quality child care.

So, again, of course, one or two types of allowance with different administrations is not what matters. What matters is a recognition that some people can never work, that flexibility is vital, the out-on-the-market job, as soon as your child turns six, is ludicrous since it ignores individual circumstances.

You know, I think we need to stress that this bill allowing the Manitoba government to take over the administration of city welfare means lowering the city welfare rate to that of the province. It means including earnings of dependants of applicants and recipients in determining assistance levels.

I do not know exactly what this would mean. Would this mean that a 14-year-old's babysitting earnings must be reported and then deducted? Does this mean that kids who deliver newspapers or cut grass or shovel snow cannot keep the cash, or, if they keep it, will it be deducted from their mother's or father's social assistance?

This is bad social policy for so many reasons. It is impossible to enforce; it discourages initiative; it encourages and almost demands dishonesty.

I want to turn now to the matter of forcing people to search for work because and in part for many of the things I have decided, it really sticks in my craw, and it bothers me for a great many reasons. First of all, I think it proceeds from the same mindset that dreamed up the snitch line. That is, embedded in this legislation is the assumption that persons on social allowance will do their extreme best to ensure that they never, never work, that none of them are looking for employment, whereas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth, and I will address this issue in some detail later on.

This legislation does not address the tremendous difficulties that individuals have in equipping themselves for the job search, such as access to technology which is necessary for producing and reproducing resumes, again money to pay for child care and then that proverbial bus pass or money to pay for transportation. By my reckoning, 15 job contacts a month at $2.70 for a round trip would cost $41.25, and if the contacts are to be made every two weeks, then the cost would be $82.50. This is in the city of Winnipeg, and I cannot really speak for the costs in rural and urban areas. I am sure that some of my colleagues will be addressing that issue.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, $41.25 or $82.50, it does not matter really--well, I suppose it does matter, but whatever, either of these sums is a huge amount of money for a single parent on social assistance who received $816 monthly or a single parent with two children who receives $1,032 monthly.

I want to throw into this debate another numbers issue, and that is currently there are well over 40,000 social allowance cases in Manitoba. I do not know how many persons have been deemed employable, but when these people begin their bimonthly or monthly 15 job contacts, the businesses are going to be absolutely swamped and inundated by thousands upon thousands of job applications. I have visions of my local Perth's manager or corner Mac's store, the manager swamped in applications.

Another number, people can make their job contacts as they will because they need to in order to continue collecting social assistance, but where are the jobs? The minister, when she did her speech at second reading, talked about 700 training positions, but, as I have just said, there are 40,000 social allowance cases, so things, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not really stack up. I understand, as well, that the labour force has shrunk by 5,000. This was from July to August, so, again, where are the jobs for the thousands upon thousands of social assistance recipients?

This whole notion of job search reminds me of some of the make-work projects in the 1930s, dig a ditch, fill it in, dig a ditch. A few days ago, I heard Dalton Camp, presumably a very esteemed Progressive Conservative, speaking on Peter Gzowski, and he was lamenting the excesses, the inhumanities, the silliness and most of all the expense of workfare. Now, remember, this was not me; this was Dalton Camp, and I suggest the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) might phone him up and ask him about her bill. He will tell you what he thinks of workfare and he will tell you why it does not work and he will also tell you that he has seen the not so hidden agenda of workfare bills, and that is that workfare drives down wages and weakens labour unions by creating a large and ready supply of cheap labour, and that is surely part of the hidden agenda here, creating a large and ready supply of cheap labour.

Now, very seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to point out that this government has cancelled program after program, cut grants to education year after year, taken from all Manitobans the very job training and educational opportunities required if our citizens are to be employable and employable in positions that pay reasonably and will allow them to provide their families with decent standards of living.

One institution that comes to mind for me is the Winnipeg Education Centre. Years ago students attending the Winnipeg Education Centre were given grants, living grants, which allowed them to pass through the program, and there are many fine community workers who graduated from that program. I can cite, for example, Chriss Tetlock, from the North End Women's Centre; Josie Hill, who I think works for Family Services. I can cite a woman named Marlene Fiddler, a teacher in my local school who went through that program, but this program does not exist in this form any longer. This government has simply cut it and then demanded that people somehow had the skills to procure employment.

* (1620)

Now, to underline what was said earlier, this government then has both demanded that social allowance recipients find jobs and failed to create the jobs that these people can find. The only job creations I have heard of are a few low-wage, no-benefit jobs, a kind of return to the unfettered capitalism of the 19th Century, and it is a 19th Century mentality that really characterizes the government opposite.

An Honourable Member: That recent?

Ms. McGifford: Maybe not that recent, as my honourable colleague from St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has pointed out.

My guess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that this legislation will send thousands of social service recipients out on wild goose chases, very expensive wild goose chases for these people. It will send them out on fruitless chases for nonexistent jobs. It will demoralize them even further and most social allowance recipients are already pretty demoralized. Once again, this is very, very bad social policy.

When the minister addressed the bill at second reading, she bragged about the programs created by her program to help with employment. Well, one of my constituents was helped by one of these programs. This is a young woman who has survived abuse. She has two young children, eight and 11. One of them is seriously ill with asthma. The young child could really benefit from having her mother at home.

Well, since May 1, 1996, this is no longer possible. As soon as May 1, this young woman spent all her time, morning, noon, afternoon searching for a job, and then with the assistance of one of the minister's programs she got a job, 30 hours a week at $6.25 an hour, which means $750 every four weeks. I understand that she continues with some assistance from social allowances and that she can keep $100 and 25 percent of what she earns, but she lives in terror that she is going to lose her job. She knows that she cannot quit regardless of her circumstances.

She starts at 7 a.m. She leaves her kids at home because she has no other viable choices. She wants to take her former husband to court to get maintenance, but she does not have $25 for the fee. She does not want her kids to be latchkeys, but she does not have any choice. She has tried to get into the Manitoba Fashion Institute and was rejected; Taking Charge!, she was rejected. She wants to be free from social assistance; she wants a future for herself and her children, she wants independence; instead, she lives as a single mother coping with everything, all made more miserable by the bleakness of her future, by the confining nature of her life, and by the fact that she and her children are confined to what John Kenneth Galbraith has called "the underclass."

Clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 36, which changes social allowances to employment and income assistance, does in principle move this province further along the New Right road to workfare.

So I want to join with members of my caucus today in opposing this very, very regressive, draconian legislation. From my point of view, from the point of view of my caucus colleagues, this legislation is ethically misplaced. It is morally wrong, and it is bad social policy. We just plain do not like it. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 33, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I am pleased that I can debate this education bill that is before us after listening to the comments by my colleague the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) speaking about the regressive changes to social allowance programs in this province because the two are definitely part of the same agenda. They are definitely part of an agenda that is widening the gap between the different members in our community, and they are part of the same agenda that is an authoritarian, dictatorial approach to government that this government is part of. They are part of the same agenda in terms of the sense of elitism that is being exercised in the bills.

I am going to deal with Bill 33 today, which is a very short bill that makes some changes to education administration. It does, indeed, seem that the current Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) is wanting to reach in and direct in a very--a fashion of almost micro managing. I think that is the term that is often used in the business world, but I would suggest that is what the Minister of Education is doing in every classroom of the province. This bill is going to reach in and, in a way that is unprecedented, change the role of teachers, the autonomy of teachers. That, I think, speaks to a number of things about this government.

We know that they have had it out for the public education system from Day One, but this bill--and it goes hand in hand with particularly Bill 47 and other bills and papers that this government has brought forward--is going to dramatically change the very basic principles in our education system.

I want to start off by talking, I would say, more generally about education and then how that applies to this bill. I believe that there is really nothing more powerful in terms determining the kind of community and society that we are going to have than in determining education in our communities. There is nothing more powerful than deciding what people should know or what they will learn. There is nothing more powerful because that in turn becomes the limiting vision or view of what they will believe, and that in turn will determine who they become, who we become as individuals, and collectively as a community.

So the kind of issues that are being dealt with in Bill 33, shaping our education system, setting curriculum and setting the way that students are going to be dealt with in terms of testing and teaching, I think, are extremely important. I know that oftentimes it seems like the education system is seen as a way to deal with all sorts of problems that beset our society. I know that we on this side of the House are often urging governments to develop programs so that early on we can develop the resources in young people so that a lot of problems down the road could be prevented.

One of the problems with this government's approach is, while they have tried to say that they want to set up parent councils and give more authority in decision-making to schools, the bills that they are bringing in are doing the complete opposite. It is very centrist, it is very reductionist in terms of its approach to school and reducing the roles in decision-making that local school communities will have.

I believe Bill 33 is part of the marketization of education. This government does not seem to believe in a public school system that is about the nature of the relationships in the school. They are moving toward this notion of school choice, and we must come back to asking ourselves, in a lot of the cases with the direction in these bills, who is going to be served by this? I want to deal with that, but I want to look a little bit more about the basic principles of education that this bill threatens. The basis of having a public school system is to ensure that--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 25 minutes remaining.

The hour now being 4:30, time for private members' hour.

* (1630)

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)