Kenaston Underpass
Environmental Review
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.
Allegedly, one of the good ideas that came out of the pre-budget consultation sessions last year was the Kenaston underpass, a project that all three levels of government have approved, some $29.6 million for the underpass portion of the project.
We have had a number of concerns about this project, the amount of money and the merit of this project, and the process under which this project will be approved since we have heard its announcement last year and have asked questions in the Chamber.
We have been concerned about the process of approving this project, both in terms of the cost benefit and in terms of the environmental process. The original document indicates that there would be public participation and a review of the environmental process and that this would be completed by December 31, 1994.
I would like to ask the Premier, how will the public be involved in the environmental licensing process through both the federal and provincial governments?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure that the member opposite knows that first and foremost, that is a project that was approved and agreed to by the federal Liberal government, by the City of Winnipeg government, and through the allocations committee that has been set up by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), who is the lead minister from the provincial government.
That allocations committee includes membership from the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, Union of Manitoba Municipalities and public leaders throughout Manitoba, and, yes, that project was put on the list of priority projects. It is the No. 1 priority for a grade separation in the city of Winnipeg and, as such, was one of the projects that was recommended.
Along with it, of course, there will be a four-lane divided Kenaston that will go all the way from Wilkes to Scurfield Boulevard. If the member has ever travelled that, he will know that it is a stretch of road that is subject to many, many accidents, a stretch of road that is really quite dangerous in its current circumstances and has been the subject of demands for a four-lane expansion for quite some time.
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker, the underpass will be subject to the normal review process that is provided for under The City of Winnipeg Act in terms of environmental review and also in terms of our own process, and that decision as to what type of environmental assessment and review it will undergo will be forthcoming from, I believe--and I do not have the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) here, but I believe the act calls for a review by the director and recommendation as to what type of public involvement is required for such a project.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the federal government, in a document signed by the Western Diversification branch, has said, in conclusion, the Kenaston Boulevard underpass project has been screened, and a public review of the project is not considered desirable. As such, the project may be approved.
The provincial Ministry of Environment had a recommendation from the City of Winnipeg to have an environmental assessment pursuant to The Manitoba Environment Act, but we have been informed, again under the same Diversification document, that the Manitoba Environment department is not going to have a public process and therefore is not going to require a public hearing process for this project.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been telling his own constituents that a public process would proceed. The federal Liberals have been saying that we have to stop this back-room wheeling and dealing in the red book.
Why have the two levels of government proceeded to approve this project and the environmental licence, contrary to the public indication that we had last spring with the announcement of this $30-million project and contrary to the public being involved in this process, as they are entitled to be here in Manitoba?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is complaining about a process that he and his party laid out when they designed, drafted and passed The Environment Act under which we operate. It does provide specifically for that kind of screening to determine whether or not indeed this is a project that requires full-blown environmental assessment review with public hearings and all of that, or whether it is one that, in the opinion of the director who is a nonpolitical, nonpartisan senior civil servant of government, makes that kind of judgement and recommendation.
The act was done in that way, as I understand it, to try and remove the politics from these kinds of decisions, Mr. Speaker. Now when the act is being used in the manner in which it was intended by the New Democrats when they passed it, drafted and designed it, they are now saying, well, we ought to get politics into it, because that is precisely what the member is trying to do in this particular forum on this particular issue, is to try and make some cheap politics out of it.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, this is the largest politically approved project in the whole infrastructure program here in Manitoba. It happens to be in the Premier's riding. It happens to be adjacent to the lead minister's riding who also is politically responsible for the Western Diversification branch of the federal government.
People in those communities want to be assured that a public hearing would proceed. The initial document said that there would be a process, but time constraints would make it necessary to have a very quick process.
But a public process should be required for the people of this province. We still may have this project end up in court because the two levels of government are trying to sidestep, in our opinion, a public process of this project.
Will the Premier now review with his Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) and his lead minister, the merits of this project in terms of the cost benefits of $30 million at a time when northern roads are crumbling? We have $30 million going into the Premier's riding for an underpass, Mr. Speaker.
Can the public have a public review process, which I believe they are entitled to?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, now we see the real agenda of the Leader of the Opposition. When he starts talking about northern roads and his constituents and all that, this is pure politics.
This is pure politics, and fortunately, they were more responsible when they were in government and they set up an act that tried to remove the politics from this kind of decision making, and the act is being followed.
Child and Family Services--Winnipeg
Provincial Auditor's Report
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very apparent from the Auditor's Report and elsewhere that there is a crisis in the delivery of services to children from Child and Family Services agencies in Winnipeg.
The Auditor points out that there is inadequate government funding in relation to service demands, that there is no formal strategic plan. They are now using two hotels instead of one to put up children. They are using the Salvation Army. Front-line workers are saying that children are not being brought into care even when there are outstanding protection issues, and Manitoba has the highest number of children in care of any province per capita in Canada.
I would like to ask this minister and her government, what is she going to do to address the very serious concerns of the Provincial Auditor and the recommendations in this recent report? Will the minister do something positive for children under the care of Child and Family Services in Winnipeg?
* (1350)
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I want to start out my answer by indicating that I do not think there is a minister responsible for Family Services over the last number of years in the province of Manitoba who has not taken very seriously the protection issues for children to heart.
I do want to point out, too, that I am sure that every former Minister of Family Services, and myself included, has spent many sleepless hours at night looking at the issue of children who are at risk and trying to come to grips and find some of the positive solutions to providing support for those children.
Mr. Speaker, all members of the House must understand that the reason we need a Child and Family Services agency and a child protection branch in the department is that, in fact, there are children who are being abused and neglected and are in need of government support and some protection. We take the issue of child abuse very seriously.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor has raised some issues that are of concern, and the issues that have been raised is constructive criticism that has to be taken into account in any way that we deal with the child welfare system in the province of Manitoba and specifically in the city of Winnipeg.
We are in the process right now of setting up an operational review of the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency contracting out for services, and the agency and the government of Manitoba will be involved in trying to determine what the issues are that are facing us and how we come to grips with dealing in a very proactive way with children in Winnipeg.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if she is willing to make a fundamental shift in the system, so that instead of the agencies getting money because children come into care, that they will get the money so they can put it into prevention and keep children and families together.
Will the minister make a commitment to do that today?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder where that question comes from, because we had a lot of dialogue in Estimates last year, and that fundamental shift was made last year.
In fact, there has been $11 million freed up in the Winnipeg agency as of last year's budget that says no longer do you have to take kids into care like they have had to for many, many years.
Even before this government came into power, Child and Family Services had to take children into care in order to get funding. Mr. Speaker, that shift has been made, and the agencies now have $11 million freed up to ensure that they can put in place the up-front early intervention so that children do not have to be taken out of their homes to be supported.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of $11 million, but there is only $2.5 million in the budget line for the Family Innovations Fund.
I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if her solution to this very serious problem is to lower the age from 18 to 16, so that Manitoba will no longer have the worst rate in Canada. Is that how she plans to deal with this problem?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I do want to indicate, yes, there is a $2.5-million Family Support Innovations Fund, and there is also $11 million that has been freed up in the agency, where we have said to the agency, you no longer have to take children into care in order to get the funding to provide supports for those children. That decision has already been made.
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the specifics around 16- and 17-year-olds, we have indicated that the supports are there for those who want to be a part of treatment. If there are those out there in the community who are not a protection issue and who say that they do not want to be involved in any treatment programs, it is very difficult to treat those, but the services and the supports are there for those children who need protection or are prepared to be part of a treatment process.
* (1355)
Manitoba Telephone System
Oz Pedde--Contract
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System.
We have now had confirmed from two sources at the Manitoba Telephone System that the government recently paid Mr. Oz Pedde $225,000 to leave his position before his contract was up as CEO of MTS. While the board chair reported in the media that Mr. Pedde had "fulfilled his mandate," in fact, it is our information that Mr. Pedde was paid out for the remainder of his contract and, in addition, was given a further year's salary of $150,000 to leave for a total of $225,000.
Mr. Speaker, why did the government feel they had to pay Mr. Pedde $225,000 to leave before the end of his contract? What was the problem, to pay that exorbitant price?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, the member's information is wrong according to the information I have. My information is he resigned and that they negotiated a settlement of eight months' salary, and during that period of time he is to continue to do services if MTS requires--eight months' salary.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared--[interjection] Well, we will see.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is eight months until Mr. Pedde's contract is over. It is my information that in addition to the eight months, he was given a further year, which would total approximately $225,000 as the settlement.
My question for the minister: Is the minister prepared to table the agreement that was signed with Mr. Pedde, and further, is the minister prepared to do as he said he would do on May 17 of this year--and this was at the end of the Public Utilities Committee review of the '93-94 Annual Report which was never passed--when he said: I can assure the member that we will answer as we always do; we will talk to our House leaders with the idea of trying to find an early date to reconvene the meeting.
Is the minister prepared to bring the Manitoba Telephone System back to the committee and table the agreement that was signed between the corporation and Mr. Pedde?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the House leaders, they will negotiate when those committees are called, but I remind the member that he should not use hearsay to come to Question Period. He should be sure that he knows his facts.
Oz Pedde--Resignation
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Would the minister table the agreement?
Mr. Speaker, if they would table the agreement or table the agreement with Faneuil, which has been asked for, he would not have to stand up and discuss this issue, if he would table the agreements that this corporation signed.
My final question for the minister: What was the basis for the required, the desired departure of Mr. Pedde from the Manitoba Telephone System? Was it that he questioned the advisability of the Faneuil deal? Was it that it was a precipitous, he felt, and undervalued deal with the Shaw Cable consortium? Was it the fact that the Manitoba Telephone System is being required to carry its competitors like Netlinks, which has up to a million dollars in arrears owing Manitoba Telephone System today?
What was the reason that the relationship between Mr. Pedde and the board came to an end?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that this member brings all kinds of innuendo and misinformation to this House.
The former president of the Manitoba Telephone System submitted his resignation, for reasons known to him. Basically, he felt he had completed his mandate.
The member maligns a certain small business in the province of Manitoba today called Netlinks. He used the figure of a million dollars, totally maligning that particular small business which is out doing business in Manitoba, in competition--[interjection] Mr. Speaker, the member put his question. I would respect him to not be giving the answer to him and to other members of the House.
Netlinks is one of two people that are in the reselling business. Their particular financial arrangements are technically confidential. In the start-up period, there are some problems with billing both of those companies. MTS is negotiating with them as we speak, and there is a letter of credit on file with the Manitoba Telephone System from the company he mentions. The Manitoba Telephone System is fully covered in the process of negotiating. That kind of information is confidential.
I want to remind the Liberal Party, you do not bring to this House confidential information of small businesses, because that hurts them in the competitive marketplace.
* (1400)
Physio/Occupational Therapists
U.S. Recruitment
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, in the past two years, an alarming number of graduates from the physiotherapy and occupational therapy program have been recruited to leave Manitoba despite their desire to remain here and despite the obvious needs in the community.
Since this government has 100 secret committees studying everything and reporting to the public on almost nothing, can the minister outline what the plans are to help keep these trained Manitobans here in Manitoba to provide the service needed?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question today. It is true that American recruiters have stepped up their attempts to recruit Manitoban and Canadian physiotherapists and occupational therapists. There is a reason for that, because as quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press: "when it comes to skills, Canadian therapists can 'dance around' their American counterparts."
I suppose the honourable member should be sharing with me the pride that I have for the standards that we have and the educational excellence that is producing these kinds of physiotherapists and occupational therapists.
I also understand from the same article, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: "The best information we have shows that most returned in a couple of years." That was Pat Findlay, the executive director of the Manitoba Society of Occupational Therapists.
So while I can understand Americans who are not graduating as many therapists per capita or therapists as competent as we are here in Manitoba, I can understand them stepping up their efforts, but we are monitoring that carefully to try to ensure that we can keep those therapists here and working for Manitobans to the best extent that we can.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for reading the column back to me, but I note that he did not answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with people involved in the system, and they advised me that one of the major reasons they feel that people are leaving the system is because of the cutbacks at the institutions.
Can the minister outline for me what the plans are to keep physiotherapists and occupational therapists here in Manitoba?
Mr. McCrae: Well, I have to correct the honourable member because he is wrong in what he says. Hospitals in Manitoba contract with Community Therapy Services, Mr. Speaker, and the Community Therapy Services' grant from the Department of Health in 1992-93 was $2,309,000. In '93-94, it was $2,929,000.
So the honourable member continuously talks about cutbacks, and while I have acknowledged that there are shifts happening in the health system, the honourable member uses the language in such a way that it misleads people. I would hope that he would try to avoid that and perhaps even apologize for misleading the people of Manitoba.
Rural Manitoba
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to misleading, I think the minister actually should be looking at his own notes. I asked the question about institutions, and like the minister dodges and weaves the questions, he either totally overlooked the question or did not answer it because he does not know.
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary: The minister does not recognize that community services is not institutions like St. Boniface, like Health Sciences Centre, but notwithstanding that,
my final question for the minister is, what resources is the minister going to put in place so that students who graduate can feel comfortable going into rural Manitoba, so that there are trained personnel around and so that resources in the community are expanded so that new graduates can move there comfortably and feel confident working in those new positions?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is a constant endeavour of this government to enhance the opportunities for Manitobans to locate in rural Manitoba, in communities in rural Manitoba. It is our constant effort to stress the high quality, high standards of living and quality of life that exist in those places.
We would really appreciate it if honourable members opposite would support that. I extend that plea to members of the Liberal Party who make the claim, for example, that rural Manitobans are not smart enough to carry out the duties of some of the professions.
I find that repugnant and offensive, and the lack of support from honourable members in the New Democratic Party for decentralization initiatives is equally disturbing because it sends another message. When some of the programs that we carry out in rural Manitoba to try to attract people to live there are called small potatoes by people like the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards), they are working at cross purposes. We are looking for their support.
The Wildlife Act
Aboriginal Hunting Rights
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): I want to quote from a committee meeting that was held on June 28. My question is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources.
The minister said on June 28: In checking with our legal counsel, we are advised that the constitutional rights of the natives for hunting and fishing is not affected. Another quote: This legislation does not deal with any of those rights. It does not take away from those rights. Another quote: Section 94--It makes provisions to allow for the aboriginal hunting and fishing rights, and lastly: Our constitutional lawyers say that those rights are overriding rights, and no matter what we do in The Wildlife Act, that will remain.
Mr. Speaker, I took the minister's word, and I said in committee that the minister is an honourable person. I told him that if a treaty issue ended up in court, I would be the first one to come to the minister and tell him, I told you so.
My question is, will the minister come clean, be honest and be the honourable person that I know he is--
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I caution the honourable member in the terminology you are using. We are all honourable members in this Chamber. Your reference to the minister being honest means that he has been dishonest, which is not quite correct, sir.
Now, the honourable member, kindly rephrase your question.
Mr. Lathlin: Will the minister come clean and be the honourable person that I know he is, and advise the House that he did, in fact, assure me that those treaty rights would not be affected? Did the minister mean what he said in committee on June 28, 1994?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, this question was raised by one of his colleagues just, I think, a week ago, when we opened the House. The same question came forward. I said at that time that the legislation never dealt with the treaty rights in terms of individuals. The purpose of it was for the safety of Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again the reason it was brought forward, that people are discharging firearms at night. These high-powered rifles carry for a mile, up to two miles, and in the dark, even if you use a spotlight to shoot, you cannot see what is behind that. That was the purpose of the legislation and why it was brought forward.
I want to repeat it again. I have never challenged the aboriginal rights in terms of hunting that have been established by treaty. The same issue is being brought forward by the Metis community, and I am not in a position to deal with their rights.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, I said it once, and I will say it for the last time. Bill 10 was a backdoor approach for this government to attack treaty and aboriginal rights.
My supplementary question is, why then are Indians being charged today under The Wildlife Act if this legislation was never intended to attack the treaty rights in the first place, as they are affirmed in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again. I am not challenging the rights of native people to go and take game for their own use. They can do that by whatever means. What I am addressing or what we addressed under that bill was the safety of Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, there has been no treaty individual who has been hunting for food--using the normal process, he can hunt on a year-round basis. We are not challenging that. I think we are within our responsibility to make sure that the safety of Manitobans is protected.
I have no argument with them taking game on a year-round basis. I look forward to actually working together with the native communities in co-management arrangements in many cases to enhance and make sure that we have a sustainable renewable resource in wildlife for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the fact of his saying that I am challenging the rights of native Indians to take game.
* (1410)
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record in this House that in committee, I also said that we are all, as aboriginal people--
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have recognized the honourable member for your final supplementary question. Your question, sir?
Mr. Lathlin: Why did the minister say one thing in committee and then turn around the next day and give his officials the marching orders--it is open season on Indians?
Mr. Driedger: I take exception to that kind of remark in this House, because I will not accept that kind of accusation from that member.
Immigration
Family Class
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, immigrants have helped shape Manitoba and have been an integral part of our history as a province. However, a steadily decreasing number of immigrants are coming to the province of Manitoba, currently only 1.8 percent of those who come to Canada, instead of the 4 percent we should be entitled to as a representation of our population.
New federal policies which have recently been introduced sharply decrease family class immigrants and require a $500 application fee for every immigrant who wants to make application, no matter what their country of origin.
I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, what effect are these changes from the federal government having on Manitoba's ability to attract and keep immigrants?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for raising the question.
There is certainly reason for grave concern with the new Liberal immigration policy, that there is an attempt there to seriously curtail the family reunification class because of the perception that there are problems in Ontario. The federal minister recently said that this move was going to prevent Canada's welfare system from being abused. We have written to the federal minister and have been trying to set up a meeting with him to make him understand that if there are problems in Ontario, that this should not be a cause for national policy and that he should relook at this.
Last year, 49 percent of Manitoba's immigration was from the family class. The member is absolutely right that our immigration levels have declined, and this will have a serious effect on that. We are urging the Liberals to take another look at this.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the government promised in the 1990 campaign to work towards increasing the economic class of immigrants.
Is the minister and his government now trying to increase the family class, or are they going along with the federal government's new guidelines and policies which will make it much more difficult for families to reunite?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the officials of the federal government to increase Manitoba's numbers in terms of immigration. We have signed a Memorandum of Understanding, and we hope this leads to a substantive agreement between Manitoba and the federal government to allow us to do more recruiting, to enhance the co-operation with federal officials and to be able to more actively put forward Manitoba's position.
We know from the direction that the federal Liberal government is going that this is going to be increasingly more difficult. We cannot depend on the federal Liberal government to sell the Manitoba position, and we are becoming more active in doing our recruitment abroad.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about the Memorandum of Understanding that has recently been signed, can the minister share with us what authority under this Memorandum of Understanding the provincial government actually has in setting and establishing the number and type of immigrants that will come to the province?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the Memorandum of Understanding and the agreement we hope to sign is simply a question of good will.
There is only one gatekeeper and that is the federal government. It is the federal government that determines the levels of immigration. They have deemed, because of the perception of problems in other parts of Canada, that they want to shrink the number of immigrants coming to Canada. It is the federal government that is the gatekeeper. They are the only level of government who can determine the numbers that are coming into the country.
Again, I have attempted to meet with the federal minister. I have written to the federal minister protesting some of the changes that he is attempting to make in the family class, asking him to look at it again, because this could have a devastating effect on the numbers that come to Manitoba.
Health Care System
Nutrition Policy
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Health about his own government's health promotion task force report of 1991 where it recommended that the government develop a co-ordinated food and nutrition policy linking preventative nutrition and health. I would also tell the minister of his recent 1994 nutrition services in Manitoba report where, in fact, the very same recommendation was made.
Can the Minister of Health tell us, given that in the recent throne speech, the word "nutrition" let alone "nutrition strategy" has not been mentioned, will he be at least considering these two very important reports and, in fact, acting upon this very important recommendation which will save millions of dollars in the health care system if done properly?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): We certainly will be considering those reports, Mr. Speaker.
We agree with the honourable member wholeheartedly, that any population health strategy or, more importantly, child health strategy has a very, very large nutrition component to it. I think that as the debate unfolds, we may be discussing perhaps how widespread a food policy ought to be or whether it ought to be more targeted, because we are fortunate in Manitoba to have data which assists us in targeting effectively this type of programming.
The answer, very briefly, is yes.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the minister.
In both these reports, they talk about a nutrition policy for all ages, from young children to the elderly.
Given that it is six and a half years into this government's mandate, when can we expect to see a nutrition policy developed, and will the minister table that information to the House before the next election?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member asks that question, she neglects to refer to the significant changes that have been made in the last six years. You listen to the New Democrats and nothing should change. You listen to the Liberals, and they tell you things are not changing fast enough.
I understand where these questions are coming from. We are moving on many, many fronts. I expect early in the new year to be able to make better known the plans of the government with regard to our child health strategy. Of course, we are not ignoring the rest of the population by giving some attention to the children of this province. That suggestion--if that were being made by the honourable member--would be incorrect, too, but I do not think she is saying that.
Ms. Gray: My final supplementary is to the Minister of Health.
Can the Minister of Health tell us, does he accept the recommendations in his own government's report, nutrition services in Manitoba, and will he, in fact, be implementing those recommendations?
Mr. McCrae: As I say, Mr. Speaker, perhaps when we examine the department's plans in more detail, we can deal with them recommendation by recommendation.
In general, we do accept recommendations which deal with proper nutrition, especially for young people, but certainly other Manitobans as well.
Public Housing
Rent Increase
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing.
Hundreds of seniors in the Brandon area have signed a petition protesting the rent increases by Manitoba Housing ranging as high as 17 percent, which they find exorbitant and a real hardship.
I would like to table, for the information of the government at this time, petitions with about 500 signatures. I would like to point out that these increases are partly as a result of including Manitoba tax credits in the income calculation.
My question to the minister is, my constituents would like to know if the government, if the minister, would reconsider and remove the Manitoba tax credits from the formula to lessen the rent increase for 1995.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be pleased to receive the petition and to have it referred to the rent appeal process, if it is deemed that is what is necessary.
I should indicate to the member that the increase, the property tax credit being counted as income for purposes of calculating the rent geared to income, plus the change from 26 percent to 27 percent of income, amount to about $7 to $8 a month each. So for seniors who are receiving the basic pension, plus the supplement, that is the amount they are looking at.
Of course, there are many other things that can cause a rent increase. We have found in looking at some that people have had amenities that are over and above the basic shelter that we provide, and an audit had not been included. Of course, then they have to be calculated in.
By and large, many of the increases we are seeing occur because the tenant's income has increased. Of course, if your income increases and you are paying 26 or 27 percent of your income, your rent will also, at the same time, increase. So there are many factors that are included in rent changes, and those are all taken into consideration.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, maybe this supplementary question should be directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), if not the Minister of Housing.
Will the minister confirm that the Manitoba government will receive a considerable increase in revenue from including the property tax credit in the rent calculation? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars are you extracting from some of the poorest people in the province?
Mrs. McIntosh: I should indicate, Mr. Speaker, that all of the rent that we collect on subsidized housing all together does not come anywhere near covering the cost of providing subsidized housing to the people of Manitoba.
We collect in some cases 25 percent of income, in other cases 27 percent of income, the lowest rates in the nation for the people here in Manitoba. In addition, they are allowed to receive property tax credit rebates, even though they do not pay the full property tax credit.
We are now saying that this income they receive is truly income and should be calculated as a percentage of the income, but the money that we receive in no way covers the cost. It is subsidized housing. We subsidize that housing so we always take an operating loss.
* (1420)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, well, the rent increase is like a tax increase for some of the poorest people in this province.
Will the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Housing confirm that his government is extracting about three-quarters of a million dollars from social housing tenants based on this change in the rent-to-income ratio and the inclusion of property tax credits in the formula to calculate the rents?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think in response to the question from the member for Brandon East, the Minister of Housing has already indicated that at 20 percent, that rental charge is amongst the lowest in all of Canada. We also have amongst the most generous tax credit program in all of Canada.
I would encourage the member for Brandon East to look at the tax situation of seniors here in Manitoba. Seniors in Manitoba are allowed to earn the highest level of income of any province in Canada before they pay any personal income tax, so there has been a series of things that have been done to make Manitoba an extremely affordable place to live for seniors.
You need to look no further than the budget prepared by the government of Saskatchewan, where they show three different income levels for families, a family of $25,000 or less, and if you include the basic charges, the most affordable place in all of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat, all of Canada, is right here in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.
On Monday, December 6, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the second opposition House leader, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). He asked whether it was in order for one member to suggest that a person in the press gallery would notice that a particular MLA only attends portions of House sittings.
As the honourable member noted when raising the point of order, there was considerable heckling going on at the time and it was difficult to hear. I have now had an opportunity to read Hansard and to review the relevant Beauchesne citations and to reflect on the matter.
Citation 289(3) states that, "This absence (of members) from the chamber should not be the subject of comment." Citation 481(c) indicates that a member must not "refer to the presence or absence of specific members." Also, Citation 487(2) reads that "Words may not be used hypothetically or conditionally, if they are plainly intended to convey a direct imputation." That comes from Speaker Phillips who in September 1986 made this point when ruling on a somewhat parallel matter. Therefore, if we read Citations 289(3), 481(c) and 487(2) in conjunction, it is evident that there was a point of order.
To conclude, it is inappropriate and improper to refer directly or indirectly to the absence of another member of the House.
That concludes the point of order.