Manitoba Hansard — 11 December 1990 (Sitting 43A, 35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-43a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fifth Leglslature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS {HANSARD) 39 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXIX No. 43A - 1 :30 p.m., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1990 ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSE:MBL Y Thirty-Fifth Leglslature Members, Constituencies and Polltlca l Afflllatlon NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA , Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard , Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY,Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MclNTOSH, Linda MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROGAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS , Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

Liberal NOP NOP Liberal Liberal NDP Liberal NOP PC PC PC PC NOP NOP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NOP NOP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NOP PC NOP Liberal NOP PC NDP PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC NOP PC PC NOP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, December 11, 1990 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairman of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Bonnie Mltchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report for 1988-89 for the Legislative Library and the Annual Report for 1989-90 of the Manitoba Centennial Centre Corporation. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1990-91 Revenue Estimates for the Department of Finance. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of Honourable Members to the gallery where we have from the Cecil Rhodes School thirty-seven Grade 5 students. They are under the direction of Marvis Lenaghan.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Also this afternoon we have twenty-five students from the Glenboro School, and they are in Grade 7. They are under the direction of Mrs. Greenlay. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Speaker {Mr. Rocan). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Substance Abuse Program Cuts Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.

Today while the Minister was announcing his Government's consultation on drug and alcohol abuse, he was cutting in half a program, the Youth Intervention Strategy pilot project, delivered to students coping with drug and alcohol abuse in Manitoba's high schools. It was delivered by the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba. I want to table, Mr. Speaker, in this House an independent evaluation of this program which conclusively shows that both the teachers and students at these schools found the intervention program very valuable.

How can the Minister square his rhetorical concern for drug and alcohol abuse, as expressed in his news release today, with his willingness to cut back drug and alcohol abuse programs in high schools that are proving to be effective? *

(1335) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is a really interesting debate that we are going to have with my honourable friend with information that she may purport to put forward. I simply want to indicate to my honourable friend that the ministry of Health does not directly fund any such program in the high schools to my knowledge. Certainly the Minister of Health, myself, did not undertake any alleged reduction as my honourable friend states to the House today. Mr.

Speaker, let me try and point out to my honourable friend the value of this discussion paper to the strategy of this Government in terms of coming to grips with the issue of alcohol, drug and substance abuse in the Province of Manitoba. This is not a single department initiative or a single-funded agency initiative of Government. This is a multidepartmental effort involving Health, my colleague the Minister of Family Services {Mr. Gilleshammer), my colleague the Minister of

2793 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 Education (Mr. Derkach), my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae) to bring together and to focus from the community their ideas, their initiatives and the good ideas that they have to make the war on drugs a more effective program for Government across all departmental lines-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister knows that the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba funds the Youth Intervention Strategy pilot project, and he knows that his Government has cut back the Alcoholism Foundation for precisely these kinds of projects. Leglslatlon Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St.

Johns): I want to ask the Minister if he is willing to put some real commitment behind his rhetoric and not only provide funding to secure and expand the Youth Intervention Strategy project, but will he also finally proclaim the anti-sniff law, passed by all Parties in this Legislature last year, which could help police fight chemical abuse and could play a major role in this very serious problem facing all aspects of our society? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, to the answer of the second question, yes.

To the answer to the first question, as I tried to indicate-and now my honourable friend has answered her own question. Now, if the AFM in funding that high school project and in analyzing it believes it to be a very excellent program, I am going to ask them why, with a $10.5 million budget, they refuse to continue funding it, if as alleged by my honourable friend it is one of the more valuable programs that they have funded in the past?

That is exactly the kind of initiative and direction that we are wishing to take in this consultation paper whereby Manitobans from such diverse areas of the province as the North, to the South, to the City of Winnipeg, involved in education, family services, justice, as pol ice enforcement agencies and community services groups will have the opportunity to share with this Government through a consultation process their ideas, their initiatives and their directions, that we can undertake as a Government caring about abuse of drugs. Program Cuts Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr.

Speaker, i1' this Government were serious about dealing with the chemical abuse in our school system, he would ensure the continuation of the Youth Intervention Strategy project and not see it cut back. I want to ask the Minister why his Government continues to cut support programs like Youth Intervention Strategy, child-parent centres and refuses to meet with representatives of Pritchard Place, all of whom help people facing drug or alcohol abuse every day, and yet in his press release today he admits-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The HonourablEi Member's question has been put. Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me answer my honourable friend's question by simply asking her: How can she be so ill informed? I met with the representative of Pritchard House. My honourable friend talks about an AFM reduction in funding, which she alleges they have undertaken and done. I want to tell my honourable friend that it was this Government that reinstated funding for women's alcoholic treatment services and expanded them into the community after the NDP cut them back-1988, Mr. Speaker. It was not the NDP who kept the administration of AFM in Brandon.

It was the Conservative Government on this side of the House. It was not the NDP who refused to fund a new Sun Centre in Brandon and refused and let people suffer in a substandard building. It was this Government that committed a new one. I accept none of that rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. *

(1340) Environmental Laws Enforcement Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, today the federal Government announced its much awaited Green Plan. The Financial Post quotes a private environmentalist as saying, do not expect much that is going to cost the private sector money. When we lciok at the Green Plan, we see that the federal Government has gone the way of voluntary compliance of environmental law. During Estimates this Government's Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) also was on record as

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 2794 choosing not to charge polluters, similar to their federal Conservative counterparts. Is refusing to enforce polluter-pay legislation Tory policy? Can this Government assure the public that environmental law penalties in Manitoba will be enforced and strengthened? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, it was this administration that increased the penalties in this province for raising the maximums to a million dollars for large corporations, including jail terms.

The fact that the Member takes some umbrage that we have not put somebody in jail yet is not a measure of how well we are enforcing environmental regulations. When she talks about polluter-pay, believe me, it is far better to have the problem cleaned up by an identified and agreeable measure rather than have a site that is considered an abandoned site with no capability of having the private sector pay for the cleanup. Certainly we will fine, we will prosecut e whenever we have that ability, but polluter-pay remains the tantamount principle and enforcement. Ms.

Cerllll: I had hoped that the Minister could put on record the maximum fine levied in Manitoba . Informant Protection Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Another omission from the Green Plan is protection of workers reporting violation of environmental precautions. Will this Government strengthen legal protection of workers blowing the whistle on employers? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, in response to the

preamble of the Member, it is notthis Minister who sets the fines that are imposed by the judges. The judges choose the appropriate level of fine and impose it. It is not either her job or mine to questio n the judgment of those court officials. The fact is that we are quite prepared to deal with the issues of making it easier for those people who have a concern about environmental problems that they see occurring. We want them to be able to feel comfortable in phoning our information line or our emergency response line.

We want to be able to get that information so that we can have active enforcement of our environmental laws. Environmental BIii of Rights Introduction Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is for the same Minister. Is this Government willing to offer protection of the environment to all Manitobans by introducing an environmental Bill of Rights, since the Green Plan has also refused to ensure that? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, I had some considerable opportunity to debate the issues around an environmental Bill of Rights, not only in questions of policy, but also in conjunction with the national round table and in conj un ction with enforcement and the best opportunity for protection of environmen t. To tell you the truth, Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that one of the best ways of laying out the best opportunities and the best methods of protection of the environment include working very diligently within a framework of principles that can be applied on a broad basis across the Government and across the actions of that Government. An environmental Bill of Rights generally speaking does nothing to enhance the capability to protect environment or to make sure that adequate enforcement is in place. Substance Abuse Government Initiatives Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Just a very few minutes ago he said he was going to accept "none of that rhetoric." Mr. Speaker, I do not accept any of the rhetoric in this document which he tabled today, which has nothing new-no new information, no new initiative. All he is doing is reusing Bush-Mulroney rhetoric about a war on drugs. We know that the number of people using hard drugs is in fact declining. We know that the use of alcohol is declining . What we also know is that youngsters are beginning both earlier. They are the ones we need programs for.

Why has this Minister chosen another study, another wishy-washy paper, when he should have presented to us initiatives as of today that will take place in the Province of Manitoba? •

(1345) 2795 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, unlike my honourable friend the Leader of the Second Opposition Party, I do not have all of the answers. I note with interest that my honourable friend, in posing this question today, has not taken the opportunity in two successive years of Estimates to come in and share her thoughts on what Government ought to do, since she has all the answers. Mr.

Speaker, I reject absolutely and completely the Liberal Party position as espoused by the Leader, that Manitobans ought not to offer advice through full consultation, public hearings and a discussion paper, advice to the Government on strategies for dealing with drugs, alcohol and substance abuse. I reject that suggestion. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, there are youngsters in the gallery today who could have presented a better paper than was presented by this Minister. They have obviously more knowledge of what is happening to their young friends than this Minister does.

Why can this ministry and this entire Government not come forward with one single initiative making sure that those young people have the information necessary, the advice and counselling necessary and the treatment necessary when they find themselves subject to drug and alcohol abuse? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, in the process of the consultation program those same youth who are in the gallery today can come and share their thoughts on the problem with committee Members of Government, because I am sure those individuals will have a greater understanding and knowledge of the problem than the questioner.

My honourable friend wants to say there are no new initiatives. Does she not consider that the funding today and the construction today of a 12-bed adolescent residential treatment program for adolescent women at St. Norbert Foundation is not a new initiative? I want to tell her it is the first of its kind in Manitoba and the first women's adolescent treatment facility in western Canada. That is a new initiative of this Government that I am proud of. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health should talk to the parents who consistently have to send their children outside of this province to other western provinces in order to get treatment for, unfortunately, their drug abuse. Can the Minister of Health tell us how long it is going to take this Government in this mandate, since they did not do it in the last one, to come up with programs that will help our young people? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, not to let anybody who might be baffled and befuddled by my honourable friend's

preamble to the question, let me tell my honourable 'friend, as I have answered her before , that this Government, whilst developing a strategy for Government, has funded important initiatives in the school place such as the Target program as offered through the Manitoba High Schools' Athletic Association. That is only one of a number of initiatives in terms of education designed and geared toward prevention of use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by students in Manitoba-only one. Mr.

Speaker, because it has been stated by Members of the Liberal Party, and the Leader in particular, that when Government does something right, they would give credit. Surely my honourable friend would admit that a new 12-bed adolescent women's treatment centre in Manitoba is an important, proper and needed initiative that we have commenced in our funding. Economic Growth AH-Party Task Force Mr. Jerry Storie (Flln Flon): Mr.

Speaker, Manitobans are becoming increasingly pessimistic about our chances for economic security and a reasonable 1standard of living in the coming year, and that was confirmed by a recent poll. Today, CIBC has issued an outlook, a forecast, for the Manitoba economy which is bleak indeed. Mr.

Speaker, given that the CIBC report says there will be no increase in our economic activity in the Province of Manitoba, will the Minister of Finance convene, as has been requested on many occasions, an all-Party committee to look at the stagnant economy in Manitoba and ways to increase our economic activity and provide jobs for Manitobans? *

(1350) Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am not intimate with that release. I can indicate that I had a senior official from the Royal Bank visit m1~ this morning and indicated that again they will be downgrading all of the provincial estimates of ,economic growth in the country and yet

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2796 that their number with respect to Manitoba would remain at the constant level showing some economic growth for the 1991 year. Mr. Speaker, that official again indicated to us how fortunate we were in this province to have this diversified economy, how fortunate we were that within rural parts particularly that there is a robust growth in the economy and that is what, of course, is keeping the provincial average at a level far above the national average. Mr. Speaker , the Member asks for a common seminar or some type of day discussion on the issue.

I say to the Members opposite, if their initiative is based on the additional borrowing of hundreds of millions of dollars, we do not have the same foundation of understanding. I think such a day would be fruitless. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, if the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) could announce a committee to review the Constitution, a document which is esoteric and has no immediate implications for most Canadians, will the First Minister or the Minister of Finance at least take some initiative to do something that Manitobans do care about, the security of their families, their jobs and this province?

Will the First Minister or the Minister of Finance convene an economic summit to look at the deterioration of the manufacturing sector in our province, which is referenced as part of the reason for the decline in Manitoba? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, in preparing for the budget that came down in October I met with all of the economic and labour leaders of our province. I put the question to them as to which was the best way that our province could grow at even a faster rate.

I also asked individuals whether or not the provincial debt represented a significant problem and whether or not it curtailed expenditures by Government in the economic development portfolios. To a person, they agreed that the provincial debt has significant impact. They also agreed that increased taxation was not the solution to our problem. Indeed they thought that the long steady haul of trying to keep taxes lower as compared to the national average, that attempting to hold back the rate of expenditure growth was still the most prudent course to follow. Mr.

Speaker, nobody to this day has been able to show, I believe, the Premier and myself thatthere is a better approach to trying to govern over the next two or three years. Job Creation Mr. Jerry Storie (Flln Flon): Mr. Speaker, many people have been asking for an economic summit so that somebody can put forward some ideas for this Government, which seems bereft of ideas. Mr. Speaker, also mentioned in a CIBC report is the net out-migration of people expected in 1991. Young people are losing opportunities in Manitoba. They are being forced to move out of this province for jobs.

Can the Minister of Finance or the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) tell us what this Government intends to do so young people will have some hope of securing a job in their home province? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer to the question would be similar to the one I just gave. If the Member is saying, do we have a program whereby we are going to borrow again tens of millions of dollars for the purpose of making short-term jobs like the Member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans) used to do, I would have to say that we are not afforded the luxury of being able to borrow those additional tens of millions of dollars, particularly when Members of the Opposition in the social portfolios are demanding that we spend tens of millions of dollars more on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that we have a responsibility to try and maximize employment opportunities for our young graduates.

I can assure the Member that training programs that have been in place in the past will continue to have a great degree of importance, and we will do everything we can to ensure that necessary employment is in place. *

(1355) St. James-Asslnlbola School Division Provincial Audit Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): I am asking to respond to a question that was taken as notice regarding the Provincial Auditor's investigation of enrollment discrepancies at John Taylor Collegiate in St. James-Assiniboia School Division.

2797 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 The Member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) asked the question whether or not there were other schools in St. James-Assiniboia that were guilty of this same kind of discrepancy that is being investigated at John Taylor Collegiate. Mr. Speaker, I can indicate that the Provincial Auditor is examining all the records of John Taylor Collegiate and to date we have had no written allegations about anothe r collegiate at St. James-Assiniboia School Division.

The Member for Kildonan also indicated that the Deputy Minister may have in his possession a letter indicating that there are enrollment discrepancies at Sturgeon Creek. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no such letter on file. There is no such letter in my office . There have been rumours by various Members, but indeed nothing has been substantiated, so it appears as though the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) may have been on somewhat of a fishing trip. Minimum Wage Increase Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, yesterday after Question Period the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Praznik) put out a press release announcing that the minimum wage would be increasing by only 30 cents an hour as of March 1 . That is an increase of only 6.3 percent since the last increase, an increase of 2 percent a year. The Conservative Governmentfeels that is enough. The Liberals apparently feel that is enough. My question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). How does he expect minimum wage earners to cope with an increase of only 30 cents an hour, an increase that is indeed only an average of 2 percent since the last increase more than three years ago? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, I would remind the Member for Thompson that the recommendation to move to a $5 minimum wage came as a majority report of the Minimum Wage Board. It took submissions in this province, which he was free to make a submission to at that particular time. This Government accepted that recommendation based on a majority report of that board. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I asked in terms of the minimum wage earners how they are supposed to cope. Increase Implementation Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I will ask another question . Why did this Government choose to wait until March 1 for an increase?

These people have had to wait more than three years for an increase. They are going to have to wait past January, February, till March 1 before the next increase of only 30 cents an hour. Why? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it was the recommendation again of the majority of the board that there be a sufficient period of implementation for that increase. I took the recommendation of the chair on a period that would be suitable of two and a half months, three months. I should rE1mind Members in the New Democratic Party that one of the reasons we are off on this

schedule of well over two-year increases in the minimum wage was that under Howard Pawley, when he was in power, we got off a

schedule of year to year-and-a-half increases. They have been continually coming to this House and indicating that they care so much . Yet when they were in power they did not increase the minimum wage for periods of two and a quarter to two and a half years. This Government is committed to getting back on to a more regular period . Increase Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party Government increased the minimum wage by more than 32 percent over six years in four increases, unlike the 6 percent incre ase in three years of this Conservative Government.

My final question is-and I ask again in terms of the minimum wage earners, I ask the Minister, I ask the Premier: How do they expect people to cope when they are going to be faced with the GST, when they are faced with increases in the cost of living of 5 percent a year? How are they supposed to cope on 2 percent a year? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed at the information that gets put on the record of this House. My colleague the Minister of Family Services {Mr. Gilleshammer) has indicated on a number of occasions with respect to the GST the tax credits available .

If the Member would sit down and do some calculations he would probably quickly realize that

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2798 those particular tax benefits and payments made by the federal Government will more than compensate or at least compensate for the GST. -(interjection)- ! am not defending the GST. That is a fact. If the Members of the New Democratic Party do not like dealing with facts then they should not be in this House. I would say to the Member that there was plenty of opportunity for him and others in the New Democratic Party, if they in fact were quite concerned about this issue, to have made presentations to the Minimum Wage Board. I doubt if they did that.

City of Winnipeg Sewage System Upgrade Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings). The Minister's federal counterpart today has unveiled the Green Plan-the long awaited Green Plan-which it turns out is neither particularly green nor a plan. However, one of the statements in that announcement is that Canada must ensure safe drinking water for the Mure. We must also clean up past mistakes. Steps will be taken to prevent pollution in inland waters in Alberta and in Manitoba.

My question for the Minister is: Can the Minister indicate whether or not in his discussions with his federal counterpart Mr. deCotret the federal Government through these statements is making a commitment to assist In upgrading the City of Winnipeg sewage system, which in fact is the biggest source of inland water pollution in this province, or are these lofty statements simply that-statements in a nice looking booklet? *

(1400) Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would not draw the same conclusions necessarily as the Member concluded his question with. I have not discussed specifically the reference that is in this Green Plan to the Red River and the Assiniboine, but I welcome the interest that the federal Government is showing and am prepared to pursue those discussions. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, for the same Minister, one of the other statements in the Green Plan is that while it is not contingent on provincial participation, that would certainly be welcomed.

Is the province prepared to leverage the federal Government and demand that they do have the conviction of their words in this plan and suggest a tri-level approach to cleaning up the rivers, agreed not just in the City of Winnipeg, but throughout the Province of Manitoba, where the pollution has mostly been at the hands of public authorities? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to exercise leverage to make sure that we have as much federal involvement and as much support as is needed.

I see this as also being quite complementary to the process which we are embarking upon, and that is the Clean Environment Commission hearings in relation to the river water quality in and around the City of Winnipeg. Shoal Lake Water Quality Compensation Mr. Paul Edwards (St.James): In factthe more you see from the federal Government the less, I would think, you would want to jump into bed with them, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister considered, in light of the Green Plan's lofty words about Canadians' rights to clean water, requesting his federal counterparts to do their

part in compensating the Natives on Shoal lake and perhaps Consolidated Professor Mines in order to ensure that no mining activity occurs which would threaten the drinking water of the City of Winnipeg, seeing as quite clearly the Ontario New Democratic Party is not willing to take that stand? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been quite dismayed by some of the information that appears to be coming out of the Government run by Premier Bob. I am very concerned about the comments that are being made regarding developments in Shoal lake.

Let us not get too far away from the suggestion that was originally incorporated in the question regarding the Green Plan, because one of the concerns that is consistently raised when you get into a clean water protection Act is that associated with that, under a number of jurisdictions and a number of people who are pushing out there today, no water allowed for potable purposes should be allowed to be put into the stream without a water treatment plant.

2799 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 Mathematics Examination Withdrawal Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. The Department of Education is in chaos. This Minister promises a strategic plan; there is no strategic plan. He promises for two years an education finance review; there is no education finance review. He sets in place a high school strategy plan, and he does not even hire people in his own department, which is now trying to hire, to put the plan in effect.

The only thing that he has done in the last year is something nobody wants, and that is the high school examination process. Will the Minister do the right thing, do what all of the people in the education community are asking, and back off the high school exam process, start over and do it right? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): The only body that is in chaos is the body across the way, Mr. Speaker. Let me Indicate to you that with regard to the high school exam in mathematics, the exam is scheduled for January 11 and will go ahead.

As a matter of fact, we have had a considerable amount of support from the rank and file teachers who are administering the exam. We certainly have a lot of support from the parents who are endorsing the exam, Mr. Speaker, and yes, there will always be some controversy about the philosophy of an exam, but indeed we intend to proceed with the exam. The math exam will be written on the 11th of January by all semestered students. St. James-Asslnlbola School Division Provlnclal Audit Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I should have acted in the same manner that Members opposite did when they were on the other side of the House. Has the Minister had an opportunity to review an anonymous letter that I forwarded to his fellow Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), with respect to some very serious allegations relating to St. James-Assiniboia, and will the Provincial Auditor investigate those allegations? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we learn a lot about each other in this House, and I have learned a lot about the Member for Kildonan in just the posing of that question.

The Member did send me a copy of an unsupportable letter. I have met with the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) over it, and it certainly has been forwarded to the Provincial Auditor. Again, it is amazing how one learns how desperate some people have become politically. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, if I had followed the practice of Members opposite, I would have called a press conference prior to that letter. I forwarded it to the Minister. Mathematics Examination Consultations Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): My final supplementary is to the Minister of Education.

Will he table one single study or one single report supporting his position of the examination process taking place on January 11 that will count for nothing in almost all school divisions? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): As you can see, this Member's questioning is very disjointed, but I can tell you with regard to the examination, Mr. Speaker, over the last two years we, have indeed entered into conversation with many people who have some very serious concerns about the standards in quality of education in this province.

Indeed that is probably the first and foremost thing on most peoples' minds, especially parents who are sending their children to our education institutions. It is timo that not only schools, but this Government became accountable to the people who invest millions of dollars in the education system. Mr. Speaker, the exam is but one very small step toward that type of accountability in the system. Personal Care Homes Riverton, Manitoba Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): My question is for the Minister of Health.

The residonts of Riverton in the last six months developed and submitted to this Minister a proposal for construction of a personal care home in their community. Considering the fact that the Interlake as a whole has a 57-person waiting list, 504 beds being used with 561 needed and 28 residents alone in Riverton

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2800 waiting for beds, will this Minister tell this House now that he will meet with the representatives from the task force as soon as possible? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes, the members of Riverton in the constituency of Interlake have made representations to the ministry and to the Manitoba Services Commission about their need for some form of long-term care facility in their community.

I only indicate to my friend that the same challenges in decision making are present for this Government as were for the six and a half years previous in which Riverton desired long-term care and made that same representation to the Honourable Bill Uruski. We will attempt to meet the needs of all Manitobans in terms of long-term care, including those in the Interlake. Mr. Cllf Evans: Mr.

Speaker, this Minister's department has made claims that the area has been overserviced, and I believe that a couple of years ago the same proposal was put before this Minister, yet there are people waiting on a waiting list to get personal care beds in this area. I ask this Minister: Will he agree now to review the whole proposal, get the project moving before the list gets longer? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend did make a very interesting point in that the Interlake region, in terms of its number of available personal care home beds, is above the provincial average.

I investigated and I asked that question, and I am pleased to provide the answer to my honourable friend. The difficulty in the Interlake is that they neglected for a number of years the needs in Riverton and placed all of the personal care home beds in Selkirk, where coincidentally the previous Premier of this province resided, and the people of Riverton did not receive construction for personal care home beds. *

(1410) Mr. Cllf Evans: To the same Minister, a commitment has been made by the Riverton Hospital Foundation to contribute land and money to this worthwhile project, a huge commitment. So I ask the Minister now: Will he commit his department to prioritize this project now? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my honourable friend that I share, as coming from a rural community, his enthusiasm for his residents. It is the same enthusiasm that his predecessor shared in Government as a Cabinet Minister.

I simply indicate to my honourable friend that the commitment on this side of the House by this Government has been to substantially increase the number of personal care home beds that are available to the seniors of Manitoba in areas where the greatest need and the greatest disparity of availability is. That included such regions as Benito, Erickson, Manitou-and I can go on and on-Beausejour, Pine Falls. Income Security Program Federal Minister's Comments Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, some time ago a disabled Manitoban took the federal Government to court claiming that they were acting inappropriately in their enforcement of the Canada Assistance Plan. Well, the case went to the federal Court of Appeal and the recipient here was successful.

Today I have a letter from the Honourable Perrin Beatty, the federal Minister of Health and Welfare-and I am prepared to table the letter-which fundamentally threatens all disabled people in this province with effects, should they not be successful in appealing this case, that could adversely affect Canadians in need and may well translate into less flexibility in provincial systems to meet clients' special circumstances. My question for the Minister of Family Services is: Has the Minister contacted the federal Minister, and will he ask him to stop intimidating Manitoba recipients of income security programs?

Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Famlly Servlces):Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the case that the Member references. This is a national issue which needs adjudication, and I think that what we must do is let the process take place and the courts make a determination on that. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, while that process is taking place, the federal Minister is writing to disabled people in this province saying that they could lose benefits if that case is successful in the federal court.

Now, will the Minister undertake to speak to the federal Minister and ask him to stop this harassment of people who are pursuing a legitimate course of action? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the case is before the courts and has been before the courts for some

2801 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 time. It is a case that has implications not only for Manitobans, but for people in all provinces. I think that we have to allow the natural course of justice to take place. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker , perhaps the Minister would be willing to let Manitobans know that they will suffer no loss of benefits as a result of this court case. Mr. Gllleshammer: The court case is ongoing. We have to await the adjudication of that case. We are certainly prepared to abide by its outcome. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAV House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before I call the motion of Supply, it is my understanding that the Department of Health will have its Estimates considered in the Committee Room. The Department of Natural Resources will begin to be reviewed in the Chamber, to be followed by Housing. Mr. Speaker, I understand there is not an agreement at this time to waive private Members' hour, but there may be further instructions at five o'clock when we come into private Members' hour. Mr. Speaker, I then move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mccrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. •

(1430) Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to alter the sequence of Estimates? We are going to have Health in Room 255 and upon the completion of Natural Resources in the Chamber, we will do Housing. Is that agreed? Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Health; and the Honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Natural Resources. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPL V-HEAL TH Mr.

Deputy Chairman (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, pleaise. We will now resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Health. When the Committee of Supply had last considered these Estimates, the committee had been discussing item 1.(

d) Policy and Planning Secretariat:

(1) Salaries $504,300, on page 88 of the Estimates book. Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the Minister give us an update on the situation of the shortage of anesthetists because in the Question Period he said that he would write some more information? Can he give us a breakdown? He has said there are 83 people practising right now. Can he provide that list and where he got the number 83? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): The College of Physicians and Surgeons reported to us that the number of anesthetists registered had risen from 49 in ·1978 to 72 in 1989, and to 83 in 1990.

Now, as I indicated in the House, that is the number that are registered. There are some who are not actively prac:tising, and I am informed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. This is month-old or two-month-old information. Of these 83, it is reported that 78 are actively practising; and we have five, obviously from that, that for whatever reasons are not prac:tising. I do not have information as to why they may not be. They may be registered and in retirement, for instance, or for other reasons not practising. Mr.

Cheema: Can the Minister tell us if he has inquired about the group which is serving both hospitals, Misericord ia and Concordia, and the issue I raised in the House, not in terms of creating a sort of panic, but I think the situation is going to get worse as of January 1st. Can he give us an update on what kind of measures they have put in place to make sure that the surgical procedures are done as of January 1 in Concordia Hospital? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, again, you know, I am not going to probably provide my honourable friend with a great deal of additional information compared to what was provided in the Question Period. In the May-June period this summer, just in the last six months, we experienced potential difficulties with the practice group out of Health Sciences Centre that offered services to

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2802 Seven Oaks Hospital. We took that issue very seriously and made an arrangement that appears to be working fairly well so that the service can continue at Seven Oaks. The Misericordia circumstance is similar, although I think my honourable friend appreciates that there is a smaller practice group involved than with Health Sciences Centre and Seven Oaks. We are attempting to work a similar arrangement there with the anesthesiologist group, so that we can hopefully continue service provision out of Concordia. We have not concluded an arrangement to date. Mr.

Cheema: Can the Minister tell us the current situation at Victoria Hospital? Mr. Orchard: Concordia Hospital is anticipating difficulties , I belie ve, because of one or two retirements. An Honourable Member: Victoria. Mr. Orchard: What did I say? An Honourable Member: You said Concordia. Mr. Orchard: Concordia-I meant Victoria. I believe Victoria's problem centres around the potential or the stated intention for one or two practitioners to retire in the new year. Mr.

Cheema: The Minister indicated in the House thatthe Standing Committee on Medical Manpower has been working in co-operation with the Department of Health to solve this crisis. Can he give us an update on what solid measures they have taken into account to make sure that we will have the accurate number of anesthesia resources in Manitoba? Mr.Orchard:You see, Mr. Deputy Chairman, there are two or three approaches that need to be undertaken. The training side, for instance, is one. The Standing Committee on Medical Manpower does have a role and are playing a role.

I will stand to be corrected if I err in this statement, but there has been recent recruitment success into Brandon General Hospital, for instance. I believe that the Standing Committee on Medical Manpower assisted Brandon in that recruitment. You see-and I think my honourable friend understands this maybe better than anybody else could-this problem in terms of anesthesiology is one that has grown out of the peculiar way in which the MMA has been allowed to, in the past, have exclusive distribution of the global pot of money that Governments in the past have provided to them.

Quite frankly-and we have said this directly to the MMA, so I am not offending them or saying something that we have not discussed with them-they have created their own inequities within the system, because they have created some significant winners, who are amongst the highest paid professionals in Canada, and certainly do very well in the Manitoba context. You never hear of those people, because they are the winners out of this around-the-table distribution of Government money, which Government did not provide any guidance and input to for many, many years.

Then, when a difficulty comes up, I find it quite interesting that the physicians of Manitoba would have from the president of the MMA a letter December 10, 1990, basically throwing all of the blame on Government for this problem of anesthesiology and centring it around the issue of modest amounts of funding and that Governments simply did not give them enough money. You know, Mr. Deputy Chairman, I hope we have the opportunity to debate this issue, because this is not exclusively Government's problem.

This is the profession's problem, and we have achieved, in this agreement that we signed recently with the MMA, one component that I believe is very, very important, and that is a study on fee

schedule reform. Within that study I believe that there will be the opportunity to adjust some of the past internally created disparities of the fee

schedule that MMA has caused and foisted upon themselves and physicians of Manitoba. I am hopeful of that process and that will-if it proceeds reasonably-iead to, I think, the MMA being "drug" along, if that is as blunt as I can put it, to solve the problem. Instead of coming to Government and saying, well, just give us more money, and we will solve this problem, the Government has put in this year's budget, $280 plus million at their disposal.

Surely within that, creation of winners and losers over the past, there would be the ability to find the strength from within to help resolve the problem instead of on a perennial basis coming to Government and saying, as the president has in his recent correspondence, it is Government's problem. It is not only Government's problem, Mr. Deputy Chairman. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think to some extent the Minister's remarks are quite correct in a way that if you look at the fee schedules set by

2803 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 the allocation committees, the anesthesia department has been lagging behind. Certainly that has created a problem in terms of recruitment, because even if you look at the statistics, even the graduates who are getting training from this place, not more than 50 persons stay in Manitoba. Manitoba's program is if not the best but one of the best programs in this country, and that has been recognized. I am not saying from a political point, that is very true. I think it is a shame that this incentive, if you do not provide it to them, they will leave.

Especially if you look at the numbers of people who are going to retire next year, I guess about 10 or 12, and then the year after probably another five to six, we have to aim for at least 15 or 18 more persons who will settle. At the same time, people who are going to be trained will leave, 50 persons, that is a normal rate, that is if you follow the same pattern. *

(1440) I think in a way it is absolutely crucial that the Minister of Health is going to come and make sure that the-I am going to take exception to one of his remarks earlier in the House that we said that we do not favour this special fund. That simply is not true. At any given record if the Minister can assure me that if I or any Member of our Party has said that we do not approve of this special fund, because I think the Minister has a responsibility and Government, from the taxpayers' point of view, have a major responsibility to make sure to oversee the funding allocation.

If that budget can be used to bring at par with some of the specialties, because some of these surgeons doing if not the same work but work which is at par in terms of risk, they are paid more than the anesthesiologists . I think that is a problem, but they may not have a major force in the organization so that may be one of the reasons, but I think their point of view I want the Minister to know that we never made that remark. We will stand by that. The special allocation of funds is extremely important, because that way the Minister will have some direct authority to make sure some of the services are provided.

Before I go further, because something is really bothering me, I want to clarify it today that as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, in the guideline issued by the Government of Manitoba, if he or she is a member of an organization-I am not in a conflict with any of my work. If I happen to ask a question in the area of health, that does not mean that I am in the political association of the group or I get a special input. I think I take great offence to that comment. I would like the Minister to clarify that because that means that I should not be raising any questions then.

That means that people who are working in the farming community, are they not going to raise questions about what is important for the farming community? People who are working in insurance agencies, are they not going to talk about those things? I think if this Government wants to have more clear guidelines, they should approach the LAMC committee, whatever, to make sure that everything i!1 clear. As far as the law of this province is concerned, I am not in any conflict at all. I am not a member of any major committees. I am not taking any participation in terms of advocating for any group.

I feel bad that such a comment was made. It makes good sense for a 20-second TV, but it does not make sense in the long run. I mean, nobody is twisting my arm to serve in this House, but I have decided I want to do my job, and it does create some problems for me in terms of my personal belief in what I think is right for the people of Manitoba. I want the Minister to retract those remarks from the record. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I realize my honourable friend was quite alarmed at one of my answers, but I did not reflect upon him personally.

I did not accuse him of conflict of interest or any such concern. I ne1ver raised any such concern; but I did point out to my honourable friend, because you know I was absolutely frustrated during the negotiations with the MMA. I have never been in quite a similar circumstance, because I approached it with a wide open mind trying to resolve problems including some of the shoring up monies, et cetera, et cetera. The executive of the MMA-and I believe they were totally out of touch with their membership at large when they did this-rejected a very, very good offer.

They were driven by their non-medical advisers to do that. My comment to my honourable friend in the House the other day was-and I believe and I will stand corrected if I am wrong-but I believe to practise medicine in Manitoba, you have got to pay your dues to the MMA. Hence, you are a member of the MMA. That does not reflect in any way that you

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2804 are representing their narrowed interest when you ask questions. The point I made to my honourable friend, so that he understands clearly what I was saying to him the other day, is that as a member of the MMA, I wished he and others who had the same kind of concerns would have made those concerns known to the executive of the MMA, the elected officials, and the non-elected officials who were providing the advice, which I think was bad advice, for the doctors of Manitoba ; more importantly, bad advice to the people of Manitoba in the long haul.

That is where I was saying to my honourable friend as a member of MMA that he ought to get and try to shape some sanity into that organization, because at bargaining time they seem to have lost it. It was not reflecting and accusing my honourable friend of a conflict of interest.

I made a speech the other day in the budget, in which I pointed out to the House that as a farmer-and I have benefitted as a farmer from a number of programs from previous and this Government-I laid out the peculiar financial circumstances we find ourselves in, where our grain prices are approximately $1 .30-some a bushel compared to $6.50 in 1973. That, I do not believe, placed me in a conflict of interest when I made those statements, nor do I consider, when my honourable friend asks questions in terms of how we are going to come to grips with some of the fee

schedule inequities within the Manitoba system, that he is speaking from a vested interest-not at all. I never meant to leave that impression and never attempted to. Mr. Deputy Chairman: I am going to ask the committee to revert to dealing with 1.(

d) Policy and Planning Secretariat: 1.(d)

(1) Salaries, $504,300.00. Mr. Cheema: With due respect, that is a part of the whole mandate of the Party. The planning and research is supposed ter- Mr. Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with 1.(d)(

I) Policy and Planning Secretariat, $504,300.00. Shall the item pass? Mr. Cheema: I thank the Minister for those comments, and certainly that will help me to go to sleep tonight, because I think it is unfair that when a person is working from a non-biased view that he or she is being accused of something and left the impression on the record that was the case. I see it as a thought that I may not be then doing the Health portfolio or something else, if that is going to come in the way of performing my duties. My next question is to the Minister.

Can the Minister tell us what his Government has achieved in terms of the shortage through the Standing Committee on Medical Manpower in the area of rheumatology? Mr. Orchard: I do not think our numbers have changed. Our recruitment efforts have added new rheumatologists as specialists to the province of Manitoba. Let me tell my honourable friend that I expect that we ought to be able to.

I say this with more confidence than I have had in the last year and a half or so because within the 3 percent monetary offer to the physicians of Manitoba that the MMA agreed to, we focused in on three specialist groups: pediatric cardiac surgery , rheumatology-the Deputy and I both have a tern porary mind glitch here where we cannot remember the third. We took three specialist disciplines that were in need of a recruitment boost, if you will, or whatever you want to call it.

Within the 3 percent global settlement that the MMA agreed to, we insisted that a 20 percent increase be added to the visit fee, for instance , of rheumatologists in the province of Manitoba. We think that will, in part, help to recruit and retain rheumatologists to Manitoba. As I speak to you today, I do not believe that we have any successful candidates moving to the province as I speak. Mr. Cheema: Can the Minister tell us what efforts have been made-and I think everyone knows that the shortage is not only here but throughout this country.

Our numbers, at least in Manitoba as compared to the rest of the country, even though there are many factors, including the fee schedule, it is also going to have an impact on the teaching program, as I said last year. I would like the Minister to tell us what special steps they have taken to ensure that we would have the adequate numbers in the near future. (Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) *

(1450) Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend, in his question, identified some of the challenges, and let me put another one more directly on the table. There are those who believe that the retirement climate in British Columbia has put a number of seniors in that province, particularly in Victoria. From an age group perspective, more seniors do suffer from an arthritic

2805 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 condition which rheumatology, as a specialty, deals with. We are fighting two quantities, if you will, in the Victoria attraction: numbers of people as potential patients and certainly what some would consider, I think quite inappropriately, a better climate. I mean, I much prefer the Manitoba climate, and I cannot understand the drive to that soggy climate out there in Victoria where they have maybe a few days of sunshine a year and the rest of the time cloud and rain. Nevertheless, we have that as a difficulty.

One of the issues that was brought to our attention consistently that we could not do anything about until we got into the new round of negotiations with the MMA was on the fee

schedule side of it. We insisted as part of the agreement that there be the 20 percent increase-not 3 percent, but 20 percent-to the office visit for rheumatologists in Manitoba. I think that will help. In terms of the training program, again I think that opportunity for compensation quite frankly may well make students more interested in rheumatology as a professional career. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Acting Chairperson, can the Minister tell us through his department or if they have the information through the University Grants Commission the amount of money given for the research for this department, which is very vital? Even the Department of Anesthesiology, the Department of Rheumatology and other departments, their viability for the training program depends upon the good research . How much money have they been given this year? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairman, I am going to have to try and determine that through questioning my honourable friend the Minister of Education as well. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Acting Chairperson, will it be possible to have the information in the near future? Mr. Orchard: Well, I will make every attempt to get that information. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Acting Chairperson, can the Minister tell us, because now they have a four-year mandate and it looks like there is a strong possibility that the present Minister of Health may be a Minister of Health for at least four years, what areas of shortage in the medical manpower or medical resources they have targeted to make sure that we do not have a problem in 1994 so that the Minister will not be able to say, whoever he or she may be, that we did not know what problem was going to come? Now they have four years.

What evaluation have they done in terms of the graduation time, in terms of the post-graduate programs, the aging age of the physicians and other factors which are having impact on the manpower in Manitoba? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Chairman, an important question, I have made myself a little note here, because my honourable friend's

preamble to the question stimulated some more information that I knew he would want to have, and doggone if it did not slip my mind. Ah, I know what it was. On the research side we will attempt to do two things. The first I think we can do fairly quickly. That is give you the global figure of research support, but the internal allocation of that is, in my understanding, determined by the Faculty of Medicine. I do not know how quickly we can find out the internal reallocation, but we will attempt to provide that as well.

Now in terms of specialist groups, this is not as simple a question as simply answering to you the obvious one of anesthesiology and rheumatology. There are other disciplines, such as radiology and emergency medicine and pathologists that are, for a number of reasons, in pathology, not necessarily income, not in abundant supply, shall we say. The second dimension-and those are areas that we are attempting to work with, the professional association and the faculty there, to develop policies and actions which will help in the recruitment of retention.

The bigger issue, and this is one that is much more difficult to come around, and maybe we will at the end of four years have a solution to it, is in the maldistribution of physicians. That is still, above and beyond, probably the greatest challenge that any Government will face in this province, because it is being faced by every provincial jurisdiction.

I mean, all you have to do is sit for 10 minutes, talk about physician distribution with any colleague, be it British Columbia or Quebec, and you will find that the major urban centres have little difficulty recruiting, retaining physicians in abundant supply, but our rural and remote areas continue to be plagued with difficulties . We will no doubt get into that discussion, too, so I will leave further clarification of what we are targeting and how we are moving in that direction. For the time being, the professional specialists that I mentioned earlier are the ones that we see as

December 11 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2806 needing some facilitation by Government to enhance the recruitment retention efforts. Mr. Cheema: The Minister has not recognized the areas of deficiency in terms of four years, because the data is there. Extensive work has been done, I do not know whether in this ministry, but the other part of this country. The statistics are available from Health and Welfare Canada plus the CMA, how many people we have and how many are going to retire in four or five years, which specialty we are going to be short in. I think that is what my question is.

Are we going to have a specific look from the Manitoba perspective in four years' time or five years' time, which is going to be very crucial? Mr. Orchard: I misunderstood my honourable friend's question there, but now, with more clarity, that is-the larger issue my honourable friend raised is the subject of the physician manpower study that has been undertaken by the ministries of Health across Canada. We should have that report available early in the new year. It will be a subject of discussion at future Minister of Health meetings, because it is an issue that affects all of us across Canada.

We have our difficulties with rheumatology in Manitoba; we have our difficulties with anesthesiologists, but we are not unique. With few exceptions, most provinces have those difficulties. Mr. Cheema: I want to go back to the issue of physician maldistribution. When you talk about maldistribution, the walk-in clinic phenomena comes along with that. There were, interestingly, two studies. One study was done at least by this department, and that study raised more questions than it solved any of the other questions in the past. There were a number of factors.

The Minister last year promised that they were going to look into more in terms of some sort of concrete ideas, which way this ministry is going to go. Now, when they are thinking of addressing the physician maldistribution problem, can the Minister tell us, what is the Government's policy in terms of the walk-in clinics? Mr. Orchard: Right now, there is neither a policy which limits or prevents expansion. It is within the fee-for-service billing system that one may operate a walk-in clinic in the City of Winnipeg.

I mentioned to my honourable friend earlier on that In terms of the recently signed agreement with the MMA, one of the components was fee

schedule reform study, which we hope would address some of the peculiarities that have grown into the system over previous distributions of Government's increased funding to physicians. The second aspect of study under the new agreement was the study on volume or the factors affecting the volume of growth of physician billings in the Province of Manitoba. We are working with the MMA in providing that kind of information to the consultant which, hopefully, will lead us to a conclusion there that will tell both of us whether the walk-in cllnic is truly the one that is driving volume of billings. *

(1500) I will tell you straight out, I will sit down within a group of physicians, and if we have one-on-one conversations and go around a room of 20, I will get almost, well not 20 different opinions, but if I ask, are you in favour or against, I will get from vehemently against to vehemently in favour. There is no consensus of opinion amongst doctors as to the impact of walk-in clinics on the level of billing and the quality-and there is the important key-the quality of medical services.

Hopefully, that argument can be resolved, so we may have disagreement as to which is based on personal thought or vested interest in whether the walk-in is good or bad amongst physicians. With completion of the study on volume, we believe we ought to have some statistical evidence to draw conclusions from as to their impact on the system, so that we will not be arguing good or bad without proper information. Mr. Cheema: I understand the situation is difficult in terms of even defining what is walk-in clinic and what is the other practice, but in a taxpayer's point of view, the question is very important.

I mean, the perception is there. Whether their perception is right or wrong, I think with that data available through the Health Services Commission, it is not difficult to derive a conclusion how these services are being used, and one of the volume of overbilling-not overbilling-or whatever way you want to say it, that maybe the conclusion can be derived. In terms of the physician maldistribution, that question is going to be very crucial, because the walk-in clinics, as many people have said, have come in the way of getting some young physicians to some of the other communities.

If somebody can make the same amount of money working in a

2807 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 walk-in clinic, it is very difficult for them, having all other conditions of life, whatever way they want to live, I suppose, in Winnipeg, if they like it, to force somebody. At the same time, the taxpayers have to be served in a more uniform way. Somebody living in Thompson is still paying the same amount of taxes, and they still expect the same amount of services. I think this is going to be a tough battle for the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard), and it is going to be a tough battle from various organizations, even from a human rights way at the end, and saying where you can or you cannot practise. Ultimately, the decision has to be made. I would like to see some progress made in that respect, so that the public would know which way their money is being spent and how the very limited medical resources are going to be rechanneled or reused. The other question which comes to everyone's mind during the campaign, which is a very vital question, how when you are starting a practice that does not mean that you are paying for the medical fees?

You are paying for all the other services like lab billing or the physiotherapy services. Every physician does cost a lot of money, not for his or her fee but the other resources. What the perception was during the last one year that unfortunate incident at one of the lab clinics which ended up having overbilling which was perceived to be a misuse of services.

Certainly, we would like the Minister to proceed in that direction and make sure that not only the billing practices of physicians are checked, the billing practices of labs are checked regularly, because for some lab or any person, it is going to take me five years to know which way my practice is going to be. It is very unfortunate, because by the time you understand millions of dollars are gone down the drain. So who is paying for it? Each one of us is paying, but in that respect the image of a professional or image of the medical services creates a lot of problems for the public at large.

We would like the Minister to proceed in that direction and make sure that some of the services are checked more regularly, because if the physicians are being checked, why not check the lab services. I would like to know what specific measures this Minister has taken in view of the allegations of this particular lab clinic and one or two other clinics which were being investigated this year? Mr. Orchard: Well, Mr. Acting Chairman, I want to deal with the three issues that my honourable friend raised. Look, I accept a challenge.

I mean, I have been faced with difficult choices and decisions in this ministry already. I am prepared to make the difficult, the unpopular choices if it means that we benefit the health care system over the long haul and provide more effective use of the resources. That is what I am here for. One of th1 constraints on doing that-and I will deal specific:ally with the walk-in clinic issue-is twofold. First of all, I do not have at my disposal an analysis which clearly says they are the problem causing thus and such as unnecessary expendituref1, if you will, using that as an example.

Without that kind of data to back up decision making, I have to refrain from maybe exercising some controls, licensing, whatever. It may be available as a policy option. The second constraint I have, and this one is a much more temporary one, is that as part of the agreement with the MMA, we agreed to study the issue of factors driving the volume of physician billings. Specific to that is, naturally, an assessment of the impact of the walk-in clinic. It would be, I would suggest, viewed as bad faith if we were to unilaterally act, for instance in the next few months, without the advice of that committee.

That is a temporary problem, because with the tabling of the study, I think we can come to fairly quick decision making given reasoned analysis. My honourable friend is right when he indicates that it is not simply the fee-for-service billing of a physician that cost the system with every new physician that comes on line. The recent figure is that each doc:tor who hangs his or her shingle out in Manitoba costs the system $250,000, and that is a combination of ordering of lab tests and other insured services, including admission to hospital.

So that, you know, every time we bring a professional physician into the medicare system of Manitoba, w13 can expect to spend more money. There is no question about that. Now, in terms of the specifics of the labs in their billing practices, my honourable friend might recall that a year and a half to two years ago we initiated the-is it called the menu, you know, of lab test ordering, instead of ticking off tests very simply so that the tendency, it was alleged, was that you would order more tests than were necessary. There was a much more definitive method of ordering tests. It

December 11 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2808 was resisted by the practitioners, but in the first full year of operation a budget on lab testing which normally went up by $2 million on an annual basis in fact went down by a million dollars in that first year of operation. So we think that without compromising patient care one iota, we saved the taxpayers of Manitoba some significant dollars, which quite frankly we would have had to borrow and continue paying interest on forever, and denying services because we paid interest instead of service costs. So that is one.

The second one, shortly into my term as Minister of Health, I was given a rather interesting set of circumstances around which to make a decision. One of the major labs was investigated and it was pretty clear that they had overbilled us by just under a million dollars over a period of what-five or six years I guess? We chose to settle out of court and have them pay that money back to us, and they did. Subsequent to that, I guess there has been some initiation of legal proceedings, because they believe that maybe what they agreed to in terms of overbilling, they should not have agreed to, et cetera.

We are standing quite solidly behind, because one of the things that I asked very clearly before I gave direction to proceed with not going to court but settling on that repayment was that we were sure we were working on as good as possible information. If anything, I was assured that would be a sustainable figure if it went to court, and we are prepared to do that. *(1510) (Mr. Deputy Chairman in the Chair) Other events have led us to, just recently, requesting a voluntary audit of all the private labs that are providing service to Manitobans.

We expect full co-operation in that regard, because no one who is operating within the intent and the procedures in filling policies of Government would object to a voluntary audit. The interesting and the curious thing about this whole lab services thing is that for over a number of years-and I mean, this is not a political comment because it started, I guess, under the Schreyer administration, carried on under the Lyon administration, carried on again under the Pawley administration. We operate very much on a trust and goodwill scenario where we trust that the billings are done appropriately, et cetera.

That trust and that confidence, of course, was shaken with the one recovery of just under a million dollars, so that stimulated us to move into a voluntary audit. So far we have not had anyone refuse. If a lab does refuse, then we have some other decisions that we have to make, because it is my understanding that we may have to seek other recourse if we are refused the opportunity to audit. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, can the Minister tell us whether the voluntary auditing of all these labs, are they going to put in place a program which will automatically-if somebody is not following the normal variation of the particular lab or a particular test, are they going to be audited regularly? Mr. Orchard: If I follow my honourable friend's question that if a procedure goes beyond what would be considered a normal billing for a practice group, will there be an automatic investigation, and the answer to that as I understand it is yes, that whenever-and this causes some concern.

You know, my honourable friend might recall the former Member for Transcona brought up an issue of a physician who was complaining that the Manitoba Health Services Commission was regulating his practice because he was not able to see his patients as he wished. That was investigated by the Medical Review Committee. I do not want to get into the details of it, but the physician's practice patterns were a multiple over the normal.

Even when reviewed by a two-individual panel where one physician was chosen by the Medical Review Committee and the physician being investigated chose a physician to represent him, the conclusion was still that the level of billing was inappropriate. Yes, those kinds of checks and balances are in place and continue to be in place. The unfortunate circumstance with the Medical Review Committee is that it is a committee operated by appointments from the Manitoba Health Services Commission and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The MMA for the last number of years have chosen not to participate.

We believe that they will be quite likely participating in that review process in the near future. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that we are going to see more of those complaints in the future because of the aging population and the variations are changing according to the pattern of practices. With a narrow approach-and sometimes we get into trouble because you bring the issue

2809 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 because somebody is very excited or worried or concerned, but if you do not look at the broader perspective you can always mislead the public. I think still the lesson can be learned from both sides that the reviews are the normal variation. It does not mean a permanent fixture. It changes quite frequently depending upon the age distribution, depending upon the particular practice of the area of the city and the geographical distribution and the proximity of the lab or the proximity of the hospital, a lot of things depend.

I just wanted to ask the Minister to make sure that those normal variations are looked across the board and reviewed regularly so that the public does not suffer, because each and every interest group or particular individual may have their own interest, but ultimately the taxpayers are paying for all those bills. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, my honourable friend correctly identifies some legitimate reasons for a variation in billing by a given physician.

I do not think there is any question that in a lot of one-, two and three-physician practices outside of the city of Winnipeg that the billings by those rural and northern practitioners I would venture to say are significantly higher than their urban counterpart, but that is because there are, simply put, higher patient-to-physician ratio in rural areas.

Those are all taken into consideration so that when comparisons are made, comparisons are made with as close to the same practise methodology or the same practice by physician as possible, so that we are making an apples-to-apples comparison, not an apples-to-oranges comparison. I simply tell my honourable friend that this committee is successful in recovering each year some fairly substantial amounts of dollars where those unjustifiable discrepancies in billing volumes are investigated, and they are voluntary reimbursements. Very few of them have ever gone to court. Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I would just like to carry on where we left off at our last sitting on the issue of pay equity. When we adjourned I was asking the Minister where we were at with respect to the extension of pay equity beyond the 23 health care facilities that reached an interim settlement on July 13. Mr. Orchard: Does my honourable friend mean extension beyond the 23 facilities specifically named in the legislation? Ms. Wasyly·cla-Lels: Yes. Mr. Orchard: That is under consideration , Mr. Deputy Chairman. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Could the Minister elaborate in terms of what exactly is under consideration, what plans are being made, what recommendations he is looking at, what procedures, what process? *

(1520) Mr. Orchard: Well, the simple process is to, because there have been some fairly substantial, how would I put this, glitches in the implementation process for those individuals involved in the compliance with the legislation, and we think that finally those glitches, difficulties have been substantially resolved. We now, we think, have a workable process, and it would be my anticipation that investigation and costing of that workable formula is the next logical step so that Government has some sense as to how much the full implementation of pay equity, how much additional tax dollars that would require.

That is the process which is in process. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I am wondering if I could ask a question specifically on the mechanism by which pay equity might be extended to all other facilities other than the 23 listed in the pay equity legislation. The Minister has had strong representation from a number of organizations. I am thinking specifically of the Manitoba Council of Health Care Unions, who have asked and believe that the simplest, most cost-effective, straightforward manner to do this would be an administrative extension of the jointly negotiated process for the 23 facilities.

Is that under active consideration by the Minister? Is he considering that route or is he looking at other options? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, as I said in my first answer to my honourable friend, getting this far has been a most onerous task. There were difficulties, and let me tell my honourable friend in case she does not know them. When pay equity was brought in first of all to the line departments of Government, the 1 percent of payroll goal was virtually no problem. It worked out extremely well. There were some pretty substantial increases.

When pay equity then moved to the outside agencies, since we are dealing specifically with 22 hospitals and St. Amant Centre, as specifically named in the legislation, when it moved outside of

December 11 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2810 Government, it became much more complex to identify target groups in occupations. The numbers increased significantly, quite significantly. We had the anomaly of pay equity that a LPN working for Government, because there were relatively fewer recipient target groups in Government, received a fairly significant increase through pay equity at 1 percent of payroll, but when we hit the hospital scene that same LPN got significantly less. That was compounded even further by the fact that unless you were a LPN in one of 23 named facilities you got zero.

I do not know whether the previous Government, when they brought forward pay equity, realized that pay equity would cause inequity in terms of the benefit that a LPN, as the example, would have from that legislation because as it sits today there are three classes of LPNs: Government, generously treated; named institution, modestly treated; excluded LPN in excluded facilities with nothing.

I simply say as a general principle to my honourable friend that when we came into Government, one of the incredible inequities we ran into that the NOP-and my honourable friend was part of it-foisted upon health care facilities was differential funding for non-union facilities. If you were not a unionized facility, your funding level was significantly below the funding level of a unionized facility which meant that those non-unionized facility workers were penalized by the funding formula of the NOP. On the other hand, they were saying, we believe in pay equity and we are going to bring this in.

They would not even fund union and non-union facilities with individuals doing exactly the same thing in those respective facilities. The NOP chose to discriminate against that. That was one of the very first initiatives that I took to Treasury Board and Cabinet. In over a two-and-a -half-year funding period, we have removed that inequity in funding, and it is being removed now with the exception of approximately $30 per month union dues which we are not funding, and one would expect not to fund because if you are non-unionized, you are not paying the dues.

I simply say to my honourable friend that the principle we used in implementation of equal funding for union versus non-union--we removed the discriminatory policy of the NOP that we inherited. I view this issue of pay equity, where you have NOP legislation naming 23 facilities only, to be discriminatory again. I simply indicate to my friend that as quickly as this Government can, we will attempt to rectify again that created inequity which we inherited.

The method by which we do that hopefully will be one which builds upon the experience of the negotiating and implementation process in the 23 facilities that were named in the legislation. Hopefully, the lessons learned there, the methodology learned there will guide us in the implementation, should Government be able to make that policy and funding decision because there is a fairly big dollar attachment to the taxpayers of Manitoba. To make that decision I would suspect we would attempt to not create further discrimination, but rather to create an equitable application.

If a successful formula exists, that is the one that my penchant, as I sit here today, would be to follow. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I just want to put on the record that no one thought pay equity would be easy to accomplish. No one believed that there would not be some difficulties to deal with along the way. That is precisely why the whole process was staged originally and why the intention was to move first on the 23 facilities. In fact, that was recognized quite clearly by the Minister's own colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Praznik) in his Estimates on November 19 when he said, that is why I think ultimately that the legislation, with respect to the nursing profession, was limited to initially 23 facilities in order to, with the involvement of the employee representatives, agreed to with that kind of understanding, provide a way of working out those problems in a manageable form. I think that needs to be kept in mind as we collectively deal with these difficult problems.

I would like to get a clarification from the Minister on this whole issue, since we are all pursuing this, because we do not want to see a system that perpetuates any kind of discrimination. Right now, with the system in place for 23 facilities, partial pay equity anyway in place for those 23 facilities, we have in place a two-tiered system, with one set of facilities getting a certain pay scale and another whole range of facilities not being able to enjoy the benefits of pay equity. That, as we all know in the Legislature, because we are getting calls every day

2811 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 from nurses, is discrimination. It is a problem that has to be dealt with fairly urgently, in my view. I would like to get a sense of the Minister's timetable with respect to moving to beyond the 23 facilities so that we can at least give some peace to those health care professionals, who are right now very concerned about the present state of affairs. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I really and genuinely appreciate my honourable friend's concern in this regard.

I think she is very sincere in this regard in wanting it to be extended to the non-named facilities. I simply indicate to her, so am I. I will tell my honourable friend, judge me by what we do. You see, Mr.

Deputy Chairman, what I mean in that is that my honourable friend sat in a Cabinet and participated in discriminatory funding guidelines between union and non-union health care facilities with no qualms about those workers in non-unionized facilities being paid less than unionized workers, because her Government, the NOP of Manitoba, deliberately chose to follow a policy of lesser funding to non-unionized facilities. We said, that is wrong, and so did the Manitoba Health Organizations for five consecutive conventions from 1982 to 1987. *

(1530) In 1988 we started solving it, because it blatantly discriminated against the employees in non-unionized facilities, discrimination that was closed by and large from 1977 to 1981, the last time the Progressive Conservative Government was in office, because we inherited that kind of discrimination in 1977 between union and non-union facilities. We inherited it again in 1988, and we closed the gap again because we do not believe that you ought to discriminate on the basis of union versus non-union membership. The NOP believed you should. We solved that problem. Now we have a second NOP problem.

That is inequitable application of pay equity. I suspect, with the fairness that the Progressive Conservative Party always brings to public policy, we will resolve that NOP discrimination as well. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I hate to get into a debate at this level. I will just remind the Minister that negotiations, discussions were under way when he became the Minister of Health. When this Government took office they had ample time to consider the difficulties and resolve them. It was in their term in office to follow the spirit of the legislation.

It had the responsibility for following through the process and dealing with the difficulties and obstacles that I mentioned would come out of any pay equity process, that we recognized and knew would have to be dealt with. This Government took from April of '88, when they took office, to July 13, 1990, before any kind of resolution was arrived at for the 23 facilities. Then it was only a partial resolution; then it was only partial pay equity forcing those health care facilities to take their case to the Labour Board and to try to seek justice in any avenue available to them.

I do not think it serves anybody's interest to distort the past , to suggest that the previous NOP administration had sorted out all of the difficulties that come with any pay equity process. In fact, I would like to remind the Minister that he has been the one in power to resolve these matters. I would like, to have from him, if he will not give me a firm time by which he hopes to have pay equity extended, would he give me a rough timetable, a vague underntanding of when he hopes to have pay equity extended to all health care facilities? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, I am unable to do that as I sit here this afternoon because, as my honourable friend well knows if she is following closely the current negotiations with MNU, that is a topic that is on the table. I cannot give my honourable friend that kind of information as I sit here today. I was al moist concerned that my honourable friend was going to try and say that in 1988 when we came into Government that a plan was in place to remove the blatant discrimination of the NOP of funding levels betwe1en union and non-union facilities, because I would have gotten terribly upset with that.

There was no such thing; that discrimination was continuing and it was widening the gap of discriminatory funding between those union versus non-union fac:ilities. Mr. Deputy Chairman, I want to take and indicate directly to my honourable friend, because my honourable friend over a period of time of about a year and a half to two years has been saying that this Government is stalling the implementation of pay equity, nothing could be further from the truth. My honourable friend identified an implementation starting point, which was April 1988 . My honourable friend was Government during an

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2812 election campaign--no, the election campaign was over then, so that whole process started by legislation when we came into office. In two successive budgets I have set aside at the Manitoba Health Services Commission sufficient funds to fund completely and fully the 1 percent per year guideline of pay equity for health care facilities. That money has been sitting there.

That money will be flowed, but what happened to delay the process was absolutely nothing to do from a lack of will on myself as Minister of Health or this Government to implement the provisions of The Pay Equity Act. It was a very complex negotiation process between the bargaining agents for the unions whose members were involved as target groups in the implementation of pay equity and a number of administrators from the various named facilities. The two sides were sitting down working through the details.

There was a fundamental disagreement approximately 1 O months ago wherein the group, the consortium if you will, and I know that is not the right term, but the group representing the unions said that we were not funding according to the legislation , that our 1 percent-and the administration made the case that yes, we have 1 percent on the table. That Issue was taken to the Labour Board, Province of Manitoba. The Labour Board, in reviewing the case, concurred that management was providing the 1 percent funding. That decision did not come down until July of 1990.

Again, I simply say to my honourable friend, I know that she wants to leave some impression amongst nurses, particularly in Manitoba, that this Government does not wantto implement pay equity. We have implemented, flowed the money and built it into successive years' salaries as quickly as we had the agreed-upon authority to do it, and we did not wish to proceed with a Labour Board challenge. We would have preferred to start flowing the money nine months ago.

I mean when you are into this kind of negotiations, one side can make a case; and if you cannot reach at a consensus an agreement, there is a vehicle that is provided in the legislation that the Labour Board shall be the body which decides disputes. They did just that. That process took another few months. Since that point in time, we have been pro-actively moving to the implementation of the first two years and the third year of pay equity, and the monies will flow. They have been set aside for two years.

They are budgeted again this year and it is not this Minister, this Government, or any Member of this Government that is holding up the process. As soon as the cheques can be cut and flowed, they will be. That is a commitment I have been giving to my honourable friend in answers in the House for approximately a year and a half. We are very close to being there, it is my understanding, and the monies will be flowing. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Is the Minister talking about the money for the October adjustments and the retroactive settlement? Mr. Orchard: That is exactly what I am talking about.

You know to even demonstrate further the sincerity of Government in trying to make this money flow, I communicated with the chief negotiator from the employees' side and offered, without prejudice knowing this was going to the Labour Board for consideration, to start the process of flowing the money well in advance of that decision. Now it is a very complex procedure, but I have never done anything to inhibit the flow of that money. It has been set aside. We are desirous of having it go to those who, through the negotiation and legislation, ought to receive that money.

We have done everything and, as I understand it, we have essentially a process in place now where the money will flow. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Obviously this is a sore spot for the Minister, because I did not even ask about the question of dollars flowing from the settlement arrived on July 13, which was going to be my next question. I am still not sure why it has taken five months for cheques to go out for the retroactive payments and for this year's adjustments that were scheduled to go out in September and October.

I am wondering if the Minister could give us some explanation why it is taking this long and which deadline is he living up to. Is it the one on October 18? Is it the one where he said on October 18 that cheques would be out by the end of the month? Or is it, as he said, later, before Christmas? Or is it now not until the New Year? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, it is as soon as everyone agrees, because the money is ready and I have told them to flow it. Now my honourable friend asked the question, what happened from the July Labour Board decision? They forgot some people in the

2813 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 calculation. Some part-time people were left out of the calculation. I know my honourable friend would like to say, oh, the Minister is at fault. He did it. He did it. That is not the case. There was a legitimate error wherein a group of part-time employees were not included in the calculation. Now in my honourable friend's desire to see equity in the implementation of pay equity, I think there would have been criticism, and I would have levelled it at both sides doing the negotiations if they had left out a g roup of people. That is what took some additional time to identify and to redo the calculation. *

(1540) It is my understanding that the latter time agenda of this month is the one that will now be met in flowing the dollars on pay equity. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I at no time said or would even imply that the Minister himself is holding up these cheques. In fact I think the root of the problem must rest somewhere in the administration. It still baffles the mind why it would take five months, even if a problem was identified, to get the cheques out so that by now they would be in the hands of health care workers in the province. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, my honourable friend indicates some bewilderment and puzzlement over the process. She is right. I just simply remind my honourable friend that earlier in the questioning, she indicated that this was a complex thing, that it was phased in. I believe she quoted some words from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) because it was such a complex and breaking-new-ground initiative that no doubt there would be a lot of problems encountered in its implementation. She is right. There was.

We think that we finally have all of the problems behind us, have a formula, have a dollars-per-hour, if you will, settlement which can be built into the current wage schedules as well as flow retroactively because that is the money that has been held in abeyance. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Just to go back to an earlier response from the Minister, he indicated to me that he could not give me a time table in terms of the extension beyond the 23 facilities because of present negotiations. Is the Minister saying that the issue of extending pay equity is part of the current negotiations between MHO and MNU? Mr.

Orchard: I will stand corrected, but I believe that is one of the positions brought to the table by the MNU. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Could the Minister give us any clarification of whether his negotiators are attempting tc> resolve this issue through regular negotiation process as opposed to an administrative extension that I referred to earlier? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I think when last we sat on a Friday afternoon some 10 days ago and my honourable friend got into the negotiation process with the MNU, I indicated that I would not bargain in public. I reiterate that answer to her.

If you wish to continue posing the questions, feel free, be at liberty to do so, but when they involve current negotiations, I will not respond. Ms. Wasylyc:la-Lels: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I will carry on then because it has been my understanding that the issue of extension of pay equity is an issue separate and apart from the current negotiations between MHO and MNU.

In fact, I simply refer to MNU's own brochure on the issues of importance to them where it is clearly stated that they believe pay equity discus:3ion should be separate and apart from these negotiations and that is the basis upon which I raise this question and continue to raise the question. Is there a separate set of discussions going on pertaining to pay equity, or is it this Government's intention to roll this issue into the other concerns being brought to the table by the MNU? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, I simply indicate to my honourable friend that it is, as my honourable friend correctly identifies, part of the negotiation process. I am sorry I am unable to satisfy her desire for information on issues that are currently being negotiated. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: That is fine, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I think that is an important clarification for all of us to know that the Minister has this issue before the broader negotiations with MNU.

While we are on the topic of the negotiations, let me follow up a question I raised in the House and seek some clarification about why the Government has, through the MHO, indicated on Friday that a monetary position would not be put on the table until Friday, December 14. Even that date was not a firm commitment. Mr. Orchard: Again, the issue of timing and of non-monetary issues are all in a substantial

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2814 negotiation currently ongoing with MNU. I would be very, very careful, if I was my honourable friend, in bringing information that she believes, or may believe is correct, to this committee about the negotiating process . I again say to my honourable friend that as much as I would like to accede to her desire to bargain publicly with this professional group, I will resist that temptation, as I did when negotiations were protracted and ongoing with the MMA. I do not bargain in public. I do not believe that anyone benefits from such an exercise.

I participated in some, what would have been considered, I suppose, bargaining in public back when I was Opposition Critic, where I asked confirmation during Question Period of a supposed and alleged offer that the then New Democratic Party Government had before the MONA, the Manitoba organization of nurses. I was solidly and firmly rebuked by telephone, by the president of the MONA at that time. I would not want my honourable friend to receive a similar rebuke. That is why I would caution her in participating in this attempt to bargain in public. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: The Minister says he does not want to bargain in public which, of course, I have no intention of asking him to do. I am simply asking for information. Although I remind the Minister that it is he who has chosen to, in the past, make public statements around negotiations . I think specifically of his comments with respect to the doctors, and his calling of doctors, liars, in the middle of negotiations. I think he is quite familiar with public posturing in the middle of negotiations. I am not for a minute suggesting that he do that in this case.

I am certainly not asking for information about the bargaining. I am asking simply why, with December 14 scheduled as the last day of negotiations-a timetable which the Minister in the House said was agreed to by the two sides, by MHO and MNU-why at the last moment someone made the decision to delay placing a monetary position on the table? Mr. Orchard: I want to take a little bit of umbrage with a statement made by my honourable friend, often repeated by her Leader, that I call the doctors of Manitoba, liars. I did no such thing. I never called any doctor anywhere in the Province of Manitoba a liar.

I will tell my honourable friend exactly what I said which has stimulated her comment . *

(1550) When we put the offer on the table to the MMA, it involved a shared responsibility on volume of billing. In their wisdom, the elected executive of the MMA, the then president and the executive director, came out with such wild and fantasizing statements that we were rationing physician services, that we were going to set a quota in a doctor's office, and once, under this Government's formula, you reached your quota for that day, you would turn patients away.

I simply observed to the members of the media that if any physician in Manitoba turned a patient away from their office on any day using the reasoning as explained publicly by the then president of the MMA or the executive director of the MMA, that they would not be telling their patient the truth, that they would not be telling Manitobans the truth, that in effect if they made that statement in turning away a patient, they would be lying to that patient. That was a statement of fact. I never called a doctor anywhere in the Province of Manitoba a liar.

They created a hypothetical straw man to whip up public sentiment against the Government , and they put to their membership, the doctors of Manitoba, and they put to the public of Manitoba a completely false

interpretation-the president and the executive director of the MMA-on the offer and the proposal made to the MMA. They thereby raised the fears of Manitobans that doctors would physically turn away patients at the end of the day. It was a position that I know physicians had as a genuine concern because it was expressed to me directly by physicians who would come up to me and say, how could you do that? My simple answer was, we are not, nor would we. That was where I came from. Getting back to my honourable friend's question, and I almost forget what it was now. My honourable friend is saying, the monetary offer.

Mr. Deputy Chairman, it is our intention to make a monetary offer to the nurses of Manitoba. The timing of that will become evident to my honourable friend, and I think will be of such timeliness that it will provide ample opportunity for acceptance, for ratification, and prevention of a disruption of patient services through a strike or any other withdrawal of services. All I say to my honourable friend is, do not necessarily buy into this rapid and quick argument that the Government is stalling, the Government is holding back, the Government ta-da, ta-da, ta-da. There is bargaining going on.

Positions are taken to strengthen your bargaining position. I accept that. That happens whether it is us in Government, my

2815 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 honourable friend in Government, or my honourable friend from the Liberal Party in Government. That is the nature of negotiations. I simply indicate to my honourable friend that there will be financial offers placed, and we think they will be reasonable because we have often stated and concurred with some of the recent statements of the MNU and its presidency, as reported In the media, that nurses have a pretty reasonable case to put to Government. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: I appreciate the Minister's clarification about the reports about him calling doctors liars. I do want to though just spend a moment more on this question of the negotiations. The Minister has said his monetary position will be put on the table in a timely fashion, such to allow ample time for discussion and negotiation. I just have a hard time dealing with that statement when, in fact, the timely opportunity to put a monetary offer on the table was this past Monday when it was expected, when both sides had agreed to that kind of timetable.

To suggest that there will not be any kind of monetary position on the table before Friday and then maybe not even on Friday, December 14, causes a great deal of consternation on the part of the health care workers of the province.

It throws a monkey wrench into, I think, what had been otherwise fairly peaceful, harmonious negotiations, and does not really do anything to create a co-operative climate where give and take is possible, where everyone's cards are out on the table, and where it can be a very productive, useful, fruitful exercise creating the best chance for a peaceful resolution of an otherwise difficult area. I just find it very difficult to sit here and accept the Minister's statements that he will be making an offer in a very timely fashion.

He has already created problems of requiring-at least by the nurses' own press release-forcing them to begin initiating a strike vote for this Saturday. That causes everyone a great deal of concern. We are particularly concerned about the kind of agony that the people of Manitoba are going through, the patients, the elderly, the infirm of Manitoba who are not sure what to expect.

They have only the experience of the recent long, drawn-out, protracted negotiations between the province and the doctors of the province which caused enormous uncertainty, agony, fear, worry and resulted in the Governmentfinally caving in and agreeing to basically what the doctors requested. I think everyone is interested in avoiding that kind of situation. lrhis is my last question on this issue, just simply to ask if the Minister would not consider moving up the date of whatever timely means and put a monetary offer on the table before tomorrow? Mr.

Orchard: I take my honourable friend's concerns and her advice very seriously and will be passing those on and giving them very diligent and serious consideration. Mr. Deputy Chairman, I just want to tell my honourable friend that, you know, she talks about the physician negotiations and, again, I think probably doE1s herself a disservice in terms of putting allegations on the table, et cetera, et cetera, that I do not think will stand the test of time. Of course, I will not expect my honourable friend, when that is proven, to ever say, I am sorry, I was wrong.

As I remember, the doctors started out asking a significant amount more. We decided very deliberately, and the reason why we went through a protracted and-do you think I enjoyed standing up periodically and being questioned about the sincerity of my negotiations with the MMA and seeing billboards all across and letters go out, and all of the myriad of and the barrage of misinformation, partial information and some factual information, go out about the bargaining process? I did not enjoy that one little bit. You know what we had as an agenda of Government? We said there are some achievables we need.

We need to have some advice on what drives volume because any place you go in Canada, you will find ministries of health wrestling with the uncontrolled volume of billings by physicians because it drives significant cost. We got that. Previous Governments did not. We got that. We wanted to have the fee

schedule looked into with the whole and sole purpose of reforming it, because proc13dures for which we pay a 20-year-old rate with changing technology is not only bizarre, it is disgraceful. We got that as part of these negotiations. Binding arbitration was the issue. The previous Government, of which my honourable friend was part, had binding arbitration with the Manitoba physicians. The difference was they had a wide-open formula. We agreed to binding arbitration with eight limited principles on the table, two of them

December 11, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2816 reflective of the province's ability to pay because we wanted to protect the taxpayers. That was the ultimate goal in any agreement involving binding arbitration. My honourable friends did not do that when they negotiated binding arbitration with the MMA, and then after the first year award, did not proceed with it. Given the background of all of those, we had a monetary agenda on the line with the Manitoba physicians as well.

I will tell you right now, and I do not think this is bargaining in public at all, but our agenda was that if we could save ourselves negotiating dollars in our agreement with the MMA, which we did, we will have those monies available for the negotiations upcoming with the nursing profession of Manitoba. •

(1600) Those prolonged, protracted negotiations with the MMA, and finally getting binding arbitration that would reflect and have enforced consideration of the province's ability to pay and the cost of living in this province, the whole genesis behind those was not giving away, not backing up the Brinks truck to the solution so that we would have some resource and fiscal capacity for what we knew were going to be strenuous negotiations with the nursing profession of Manitoba. We have those dollars that we did not give away in the MMA negotiations.

I do not think my honourable friend would want to leave the impression that we should have given more to the doctors of Manitoba and less to the nurses. I do not think so. That is exactly the position we took in opposite. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Not directly on the negotiations, just related, since the notion of using the notwithstanding clause with workers in this province has been hinted at by the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Rlmon), I would like to know if that idea has been thought about at all by the Minister?

Has it been part of any of the discussions around these negotiations or any other labour-management bargaining? Mr. Orchard: I guess I would have to seek clarification from my honourable friends under which circumstances she would recommend using the notwithstanding clause. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: I am seeking clarification from the Minister since it was not I who suggested using the notwithstanding clause, it was the Premier, the Minister's Leader, who referenced this in his own Estimates, leaving the implications quite vague, but still leaving the suggestion that it might be used in the event of requiring, forcing workers back to work. I am simply asking the Minister if this is anywhere in his thinking, thought processes, any part of any discussions around this or any other labour-management dispute? Mr. Orchard: No, we have not discussed that, Mr. Deputy Chairman.

I have not discussed that. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: On to another matter entirely and that has to do with the MNU brief, All in a Day's Work.

This is further to the question I raised in the House, and it relates to a letter written to the Minister on November 12, a concern from the MNU that the sub-committee had tabled its report to the Funding Guidelines Review Committee and the Board of Directors of the Manitoba Health Services Commission without addressing two of the major issues of concern by the Manitoba Nurses' Union: one being the whole question of a funding system that reflects the complexity of patients needs; and the other being input by health care workers into decision making and representation on facility boards of directors.

I am wondering if the Minister could give us an update on the whole review process of the MNU brief, All in a Day's Work, why those two areas were not dealt with by the subcommittee. Has in fact the subcommittee tabled its report to those two bodies I have mentioned? What decisions are being made in terms of that process? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, the committee that was reviewing All in a Day's Work created a draft report which was reviewed, revised and accepted by all members of the review committee.

It did not deal with a couple of issues, and it did not deal with those issues for the very reason that they did not believe they had the mandate respectively, and particularly from representatives of the commission side, to deal with the issues because they were policy issues. As well, Mr. Deputy Chairman, I am a little bit prophetic because the issues that were not dealt with have subsequently been part of the nonmonetary proposals made by the MNU in this current contract negotiation. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I would like a further clarification.

2817 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1990 The Minister has suggested that the report of the subcommittee was accepted by all representatives of the subcommittee. The letter that I referred to from the MNU surely indicates that there was a strong concern, grave concern, about the fact that the subcommittee kept refusing to address two very important issues, all of which I believe is seen as--this whole process is seen as quite separate and apart from the negotiations that the Minister has referred to.

My question i_s: Why set up a committee to review a report as major and significant as this one, All in a Day's Work, then ignore two of the major recommendations, areas of concern, out of that report? It is my understanding that all of the recommendations have to do with policy. All of them have to do with policy recommendations. Why two were singled out? Does this mean the Government would like to delay acting on those areas, that they are not prepared to meet or at least are discussing with the health care professionals in this province those two areas of concern? I am still seeking a clarification, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I do not have the letter, which my honourable friend received before I did, outlining those concerns. The impression left by my honourable friend the day of her questioning was that big, bad Government was refusing to go along with the recommendations of the committee.

In fact that was not an accurate statement by my honourable friend, that the committee reviewed extensively, worked around a number of issues in the All in a Day's Work report and came to a unanimous agreement of recommendations that they would forward to their respective parties , namely the Manitoba Health Services Commiss ion and namely the executive of theMNU. The subcommittee agreed unanimously . There was no one who disagreed, contrary to what my honourable friend said.

When that committee report reached the MNU there were concerns expressed, but Government did not refuse anything, because Government has not had the recommendation come from the Manitoba Health Services Commission on the unanimous report to date. We expect that shortly. The process does not happen instantly and overnight, because the subcommittee members from the commiss ion side report to the commission board, and they discuss the issue and forward recommendations to Government. That has not happened yet.

So my honourable friend's statement that Government refused to act upon unanimous agreements, ,or whatever her allegations were, was not accurate. *

(1610) Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am asking about what has been left out of the report, not what is in the report. That is the essence of the concern raised by the Manitoba Nurses' Union. It seems to me that if you set up a committee to study the recommendations of a significant report, as is All in a Day's Work, then that committee should be looking at all the recommendations.

MNU has expressed grave concern that consistently throughout the committee proceedings the two major areas of concern to them were not dealt with, were not dealt with, were not discussed and, as a result, were not part of thatfinal interim report or final report of the subcommittee that went to the funding guidelines review committee and the board of directors of the Manitoba Health Services Commission. It seems to me that is a very major issue that the Minister, although he may not be directly involved in this process, would not want to see dealt with and in fact an error corrected.

I would ask him if, given the seriousness of the concerns expressed, he would not in fact ask the subcommittee or send the report back to the subcommittee and ask that committee to look at all recommendations in full as presented in the report All in a Day's Work. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairman, do not let my honourable friend forget that the i

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-43a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf 43a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0cdc16bbdc5ab07fe112d54f8d36212dadcd1c3b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).