Manitoba Hansard — 27 February 1990 (Sitting 134, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-134

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, February 27, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEED INGS TABLI NG OF REPORTS Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker , it is my pleasure to table the Annual Report for 198 8-89 for the Manitoba Arts Council. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct Honourable Mem bers' attention to the gallery where we have from Ecole Lagimodie re forty-five Grades 5 and 6 students. They are under the direction of Lise Voyer and Ray Fisette.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Roch). On behalf of all Honourable Mem bers, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUEST ION PERIOD Forks Development Visitor Centre Status Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Mr. Speaker , $2.4 million has been set aside by the federal Government and an equal amount set aside by the provincial Government toward the construction of a tourist centre at The Forks, all a part of the Canada-Manitoba Tourism Agreement.

The deadline, in a letter from Jake Epp to the Min ister, said that by January 31 the Minister had to raise $4.2 million. The deadline according to another federal Min ister, Thomas Hockin, was March 31, the date that the agreement itself ended. Through some sort of cont roversy they split it down the middle and tomorrow in fact is the deadline for the Minister to raise $4.2 million. My question to the Minister is, seeing that tomorrow is the deadline, how much money has he raised? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Speak er, the whole question of the tourism centre at The Forks and so on has been a bit of a convoluted matter, as the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) has indicated. I can indicate to the House today that we are having ongoing discussions with the federal Government over a different revised plan which I think will serve the purpo ses of both the provincial and federal Governments and the people of Manitoba. Mr. Carr: Mr.

Spe aker, with a supplementary question to the same Min ister, does that mean that the Min ister 5575 has given up on his fundraising efforts in the private sector, and what effect does this have on the $4.8 million of public funds which have been designa ted towards the centre at The Forks? Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, a different proposal involving private sector in this particular venture is being explored at the present time under a different scenario than was originally contemplated.

When we have that matter finalized, I will be pleased to report it to the House and to the people of Manitoba. * (13 35) Mr. Carr: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister please shed a little bit of light on what he is now discussing with the federal Government? We know that there are competing visions, not only between the federal and provincial Governments but between Memb ers of the federal Cabinet itself, on what ought to go at The Forks. Can the Mini ster tell the House and, through us, the people of Manitoba, just what it is he is contemplating and how much it will cost? Mr. Ernst: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated to my honourable friend a moment ago, we are pursuing a different proposal at the moment. When that proposal is ready for announcement, such an announcement will be made. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, with a new question. Mr. Carr: I have a new question, and I am really sorry that we are getting the kinds of answers we are from the Min ister, especially when his Government talks about open Government. Boat Basin Construction Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): My new question to the Minister of Tourism has to do with the beginning of construction of a boat basin at The Forks.

We understand, Mr. Speaker, that work began last Friday. Can the Mini ster tell the House why no announc ement was made that construction had begun, and can the Minister also tell us what the value is, whether contracts were tendered and to whom the contract is given? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Sp eaker , firstly let me in form my honourable friend that this is an agreement between two Governments, the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada.

When both Governments are ready to make an announcement, an announcement will be ma de, and it is incum bent upon each Government not to make any announc ement until such time as that occurs. So it is not a question of not wanting to be open or anything else. It is a question of dealing in good faith

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 and fairness with your partner in these agreements. Regardless of which Government happens to be in power at the time, it is incumbent upon both to honour the agreement. That is No. 1. The second question asked just now- Mr. Speaker , those actions are all actions of The Forks Dev elopment Corporation of which the Mini ster of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme) has some involvement, so I will have to take that portion of the question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Urban Affairs. Mr. Carr: Mr.

Speaker , we und erstand that the boat basin is being built with monies under the Canada Manitoba Tourism Agreement. If that is not true, the Mini ster should tell us today and put it on the record. They have already begun construction on the boat basin, why will the Min ister of Tourism not tell us that it has begun, who got the contract, and how much it costs? Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the matter falls under the jur isdiction of The Forks Dev elopment Corporation.

What they under take to do, who they award contracts to and so on, is the business of The Forks Development Corporation and the partners thereof. Mr. Speaker , at such time as the Min ister of Urban Affairs returns to the House, I will be pleased to ask him to respond to those questions. Mr. Carr: Mr. Spe aker, we have yet another example of, after you, Alphonse; after you, Gaston. We cannot get hone st answers to simple questions in this House about The Forks Renewal Corporation because no Minister on that side is prepared to take political responsibility for it.

Will the Min ister answer this simple question: Where does the $2.8 million come from? Mr. Ernst: Mr. Spea ker, I do not know how many times I have to tell my honourable friend, if The Forks Development Corporation wants to undertake a project, they are entitled to undertake a project. They will, in due course-the shareholder, on behalf of the people of Manitoba, is the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme). I have indicated I will take those questions as notice until such time as the Minister returns. Health Care Computerized Monitoring Cards Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speak er, Canada's health care system is under- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Memb er for Concordia. Order, please. The Honourable Member for Concordia has the floor. * (134 0) Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian health care system is- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Doer: They keep leading with their chin, Mr. Speaker . What am I going to do? I do not know. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Time is extremely scarce and there are numerous Mem bers wishing to gain the floor. Ord er.

The Honou rable Member for Concordia. Mr. Doer: I better order 20 mirrors, Mr. Speaker, so the Members beside me can look in the mirror in terms of the action they took last night. My question is to the Premier. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The Honourable Member for Concordia. Mr. Doer: The federal cutbacks in health care are slowly eroding the national Medic are system in this count ry, the heart of Canada, in terms of the people of our country and the people of this province.

Recent ly, the Alberta Health Services Commission has introduced a feasibility study on the introduction of a plastic health care card system. This commission is recommending that people be rewarded or puni shed for a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. It will be used as a means of rationing health care. In other words, a potential compu terized cap on health care in one of our provinces. My question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is, will he tell the House whether or not the Gover nment is considering the introduction of a computerized plastic card for health care? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker , to begin with, let me say that I do not believe in punishing people for utilization of the health care system. Second, let me say that we as a Government have done everyt hing we possibly can to enhance services in health care in this province. In two budgets that we brought into this House, the first budget increased spending on health care by double the rate of inflation. The second one which was passed last June increased funding for health care by approximately 7 percent, well above the rate of inflation.

We brought in the most generous, most ambitious capital works program in health care that this province has ever seen. We did so because we have a firm commitment to health care in this province and will continue that commitment. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document from the Manitoba Health Services Commis sion indicating that the Government established a working group in January of 1989 to study the issue of a plastic health card in our health care syste m. It is conducting surveys with other provinces.

My question to the Premier is, what is the status of that com mitte e and the recom mendations of Government on the use of a plastic health care card? 5576

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker , I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and bring back a full and complete response just as I am sure that the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) would want. Mr. Doer: We have a situation where doctors fearing caps on their patient services now, notwithstanding the wage dispute, but the whole issue of capping of health care services.

My question to the Premier is, from a perspective of health care policy, would the Premier now not reject the concept of a plastic monitoring card, the possibilities and the potentials for invasion of patient privacy and privacy of the care of patients with a doctor of their choice? * (134 5) Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, this Government will not invade the privacy of patients and their relationship with their physicians. This Government will not limit the access to the use of the health care system by the people of this province.

Those are commitments that we have made and indeed will keep as we have kept all of our commitments to the people of Manitoba. We are not inte rested in rationing health care as was done under the previous NOP administration. We are not interested in doing what they did when they imposed a freeze for almost a year on capital works spending in health care. Those are the kinds of things that were very detrimental to our health care system. We are not interested in closing beds wholesale as they did in both the closure of more than 10 0 beds on a permanent basis in our major hospitals in this province.

Those are not solutions that we believe in. We are not going to do those things. We are going to support and make a commitment to health care as our No. 1 priority. Patient Record Confidentiality Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker , perhaps the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) will open the 85 beds that were left to him by the former Government and perhaps then his rhetoric would be somewhat consistent with the facts. He has not rejected the idea of a plastic health care card, which is being implemented now in the Province of Alberta.

My question to the Premier is, how does this fit with the security and confidentiality of information in terms of the sale of Manitoba Data Services, and will he table the security plans of his Government to protect the personal health care records of patients and doctors in Manitoba? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker , I am sorry I did not catch the full import of the question, but let me assure the Member if he wants to pursue the comments that I made on the record when I spoke to the MOS divestiture enabling legislation, that I indicated to Members of the House at that time that I would unde rtake to present to them, to the extent that I could, some of the wording around the agreement with either of the two proponents to give them some greater comfort with respect to what the Government 5577 is contemplating to secure the maxi mum security necessary in support of all of the individual files of Manitobans, in health areas, in driving records, whatever the wish is.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, to Members opposite, it is our intent to be fully open in this matter. Varta Batteries Closure Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker , my question is for the Min ister of Ind ustry and Trade (Mr. Ernst). We are constantly seeing the unfortunate effects of free trade, a deal which was supported by this Govern ment. Mr. Speaker , closure of Varta Batteries means 19 2 employees losing jobs. Many of them live in my riding, 44 of them. These people have worked for 14 -20 years. They are losing their jobs and they have no place to go.

Can the Min ister tell us, what did he learn about the impending disaster? Hon . Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry , Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speak er, we first received notice in the department from the federal Department of Investment Canada on December 8, 19 89. On December 15 , 19 89, a revised plan was submitted. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speak er, can the Minister tell us whether he had any other correspondence, other than this letter, which his Deputy Minister wrote on December 22, to save these jobs? Mr. Ernst: Firstly, Mr.

Speaker, after we received notice, I faxed the Min ister responsible for In vestment Canada in Ottawa and asked him to postpone his decision in order that I could meet with company representatives. Mr. Speak er, met with those company representatives on December 21 for some two hours. We explored a variety of ways and means of trying to firstly save the existing plant, se condly to see if Government financial incentives were acceptable to save the plant.

In addition to that, we pursued options with regard to other areas of busin ess, both with Varta and with Johnson Controls, all of which were unsuc cessfu l. * (1 350) Labour Adjustment Strategy Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour tell us whether they have met with the union to discuss the various options available so that these people are not forced to go on the street, and they can feed their families? Hon . Jim Ernst (Mi nister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, I can respond to say that staff have met with the Auto Workers Union and the employees of the company. Adjustment process has been explained and background work completed for establishment of a committee. The union is of the

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 opinion, at this time, they do not want to proceed with an adjustment committee pending an opportun ity for them to see if they cannot see if the plant can remain open. Department of Environment Smokestack Emission Tests Mr. Speaker: Honourable Mem ber for lnkster. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; ord er, ple ase. The Honourable Member for Wolseley. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker , I am not sure if that was a Freudian slip. Manitobans are no different than other Canadians in their concern for the quality of their air.

The concern relates to the potential negative impacts on them and their family and on the environment in general. In this province we only have to look back at what happened with Canadian Bronze and the pollution it spewed on a north end school ground some few years back. In addition, we have the Flin Flon example of the blanket of unhe althy air that goes over that town every day by the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company. Will the Minister of the Environment (Mr . Cummings) tell us why Manitoba Environment no longer conducts smokestack emission tests? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, we are monitoring the air qua lity in the immediate vicinity of the mill and certainly have been keeping track of any concerns related to the distribution of the smokestack outfall. I am not sure if I can answer clearly the Mem ber's question. I would like him to expand on his question, please. Mr. Taylor: Well, Mr. Speaker , occasionally these days we can see an Environment Manitoba official casting their eyes up to the top of a smokestack that is spewing smoke. Can the Minister explain what good he thinks that a visual opacity test actually achieves?

Is he as convinced, as the NOP was, that the polluters can be relied upon to be self-policing and to be left to their own devices in the case of air emis sions out of smokestacks? Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Speaker , if the Member is implying that Environment should be doing all of the monitoring and not requiring the industry to do some self-monitoring then I suggest he is wrong, because all that does is pass the costs back to the taxpa yers and the public purse. Mr.

Speaker , in relationship to the air quality in and around that commun ity, we have been concerned for some time about the qual ity of air and the outfall from that mill. A great deal of the problem, however, comes from the mill house itself. We have been actively working, as a Government, to lead toward the long term correction of that problem. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker , it will be interesting to see if that same sort of action is going to be forthcoming for all smoke stack emissions in the province. Federal Bud get Impact Envir onment Programs Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister, further on the same su bject, is: What action is he taking to protect Manitoba interests, given the $50 million cut by the federal budget last week on the national acid rain emission program? What are the specific impacts on Manitoba? What is he doing to minimize the impacts by these Tory cuts? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker , the plans to reduce acid emissions in this province are unchanged. * (13 55) Day Care Workers Salary Increase Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St . Johns): Mr. Speaker , my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

Today's annou ncement by the Min ister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) on the crisis in day care is a complete and absolute deception in terms of the demands of the child care workers and the needs of the child care commun ity. The only thing gu aranteed in this announcement today is another 24 cents an hour increase for day care profess ionals, the same as they got from this Government in the last two budget years, the same amount that drove child care professionals to take work action and embark upon a day of protest. I want to ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), since he appears to be abdicating responsibility and telling parents, you decide, in terms of the needs you have for maintenance grants and upkeep of your centres and fair salaries for day care workers, how he can justify, after this demonstration of concern and this clear need in our commun ity, how he can justify only another 24 cents an hour increase for day care workers? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I cannot 1 believe that I am getting this kind of questioning from -(laughter)- Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The Honourable First Min ister. Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, it is nice to see so many Liberals here enjoying themselves this afternoon. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Filmon: It occurred to me that there are probably more Liberals in the Senate than there were in the Legislature last evening. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order , please. I will remind the Honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon) that reference 5578

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 to either the presence or the absence of Mem bers is out of order. The Honourable First Min ister. Mr. Filmon: I agree, thank you. Mr. Speaker, I cannot bel ieve that the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) would carry on her blind, mindless criticism of the initiatives that we are making toward day care in this province. She is now down to the stage where she is speaking for nobody in the day care community. I will read to her the news release that was issued on February 27, 19 90, by the Manitoba Child Care Association. That is today, Mr. Speaker.

It says: "The Manitoba Child Care Association responds favourably to the Gove rnment's decision to accept in total, the recommendations of the working group." It says: "We are espe cially pleased that the funding initiatives" that they refer to in their news release "become effective in April of 1990 whether or not a provincial election is called." Because of course they do not trust the NOP to do anything for them because they did not for six and a half years- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; ord er, please. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. Ms.

Wasylycia-l eis: We are not talking about the recommendations of the working group, we are talking about the action taken by this Government in response to the contributions by the child care community given the fact that there has been no increase in maintena nce grants at a time when cost of living has gone up over 18 percent. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: What advice is this Premier (Mr.

Filmon) and this Government prepared to give to those centres who now must choose between nutritious food for their children, having been forced to turn to food banks to ensure adequa te food supplies for the children in their centres, and now give fair salaries to child care professionals? How can he justify putting the onus on parent-run day care centres to make those difficult- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Order, please. The Honourable First Min ister. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as we have reviewed the matter of child care, one thing was obvious.

There was a chronic under funding problem left in place for the day care community by the NOP. That particular Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis), who was largely res ponsible for leaving them in this und erf un ded situation, has the audacity and the hypocrisy to stand up here and continue to criticize this Govern ment that, in the space of two budgets, increased funding by 45 percent and today announc ed that for next year the increase will be an additional $5.2 million of additional funding to the day care people of this province in recognition of their concerns, in recognition of their needs.

She has the audacity and the hypocrisy to stand up here and criticize that. Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. Ms. Wasylycia-leis: There is nothing more callous and cold hearted than a Government to give another 24 cents an hour increase to child care professionals in this province and to refuse to address the serious ness of this issue. Day Care Grants Legal Opinion Request Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St . Johns): My final question to the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) is, given th at this announcement includes a disguised direct grant to profit child care centres by way of a dollar a day per child increase in the rate paid by Government for each subsid ized child, and in creasing in exis ting profit centres, which is in our view, a breach of the current law, it breaks the law of the land- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question- Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tell us if he is prepared to get a legal opinion of this increase and if he is prepared to once and for all ensure- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Order, please. Order.

The Honourable First Minister . * (14 00) Hon . Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Sp eak er, the provision that has been made, and the commitment that has been made, by this Government through our Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) of $5.2 million of increased funding for next fiscal year will increase the sal aries of trained child care worker s, to approximately $1 9,000 through this process.

The response of the Manitoba Child Care Association to our efforts, all of the efforts that we put forth into the working group and the task force and all the information that we provided was, and I quote: "This is the first time the child care community has had an active role in determination of the child care budget." They have lauded this administration for doing finally something that has been lacking for many, many years, particularly under the former administration, the NOP administration, of which she was an integral part and she failed them miserably. Drought Assistance Asses sment Mr.

Laurie Evans (Fort Garry): In less than two months, farmers in southern Manitoba could well be out in the fields planting their crops. My question is to the Minister of Agri cultur e (Mr . Findlay ). He has ind icated a willingness to provide some drought compensation to these farmers. My question is: has he com pleted the assessment of the severity of the drought in southern Manitoba, and has he come up with a dollar figure that he feels would be appropriate for that compensat ion? 5579

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I can tell the Member that back in Janu ary we made an analysis on the loss ratio information that crop insur ance had obtained on the claims that have come in. That loss ratio information was used to detail a program and a proposal to the federal Government which was given to them in January. Cost-sharing Mr. Laurie Evans (Fort Garry): In Mr. Wilson's budget, he indicated that farmers would be looked after through the contingenc y, but he went ahead and reduced his contingency fund from over $3 billion to approximately $1 .2 billion.

Can we infer from this, Mr. Speaker, that the Manitoba Government is prepared to cost-share any drought payment to Manitoba farmers? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): At this point, the proposal is in front of the federal Government from Manitoba, and I understand Saskatchewan has done the same. We are both awaiting a response from them. We would belie ve that they have a high level of responsi bility, if not the entire responsi bility, of making a payment in this direction to the western Canadian farmer. Farming Industry Impact Low Water Levels Mr.

Laurie Evans (Fort Garry): My final supplementary is to the Mini ster of Rural Development (Mr. Penner). We notice in southern Manitoba that many reservoirs are virtually empt y. Can the Mi nis ter of Rura l Development indicate what contingency plans are in place for water services to farmers in southern Manitoba on the assumption that we will get normal conditions in March and April? Hon . Jack Penner (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Fort Garry is certainly right. Many of the reservoirs in much of Manitoba are at a very low lev el.

Many of the communities are looking at ways and means and have in some areas formed task forces to study ways and means to protect themselves in the future of situations such as they might be contemplating and facing today. I want to indicate to the Honourable Mem ber that we did last year put in place an additional $1 million to help alleviate those kinds of concerns and indicate to communities our support to drought proof some of those areas and maintain for the long term a water supply to those communities.

We will be keeping a very close eye and monitoring the situations of the various communities that might be affected. Port of Chur chill Continued Use Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the federal budget has hit directly at the heart of Canadians, striking at health care, at educa tion, at regional development and Native and northern programs. We also find that the federal Gover nment is requiring Ports Canada in the budget to contribute $10 0 million in cash, which would be used for short-term capital needs for those ports.

I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs if he has sought assurances from the new Minister of Transport at the federal level on behalf of the northern commun ities that he represents and the people in northern Manitoba that Churchill will not be sacrificed to reduce the deficit created by Li beral and Tory corporate tax loopholes? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker , I am sure the records of this province will show how committed the Conservative Party is, has been for many years, in support ol the Port of Churchill.

That commitment has been there and that commitme nt for the Port of Churchill will remain with this Party. Port of Churchill Continued Use Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, that is all rhetoric. I ask the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) if he can assure this House that his Government has discarded the Lyon doctrine which was enuncia ted by Sterling Lyon in 19 83 when he said that he did not want taxpayers' money being put into federal areas into Churchill. He opposed it. I ask the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) whether he has rejected that policy, or is that the reason why we do not have a federal-provincial agreement on Churchill at this time as yet? Hon . Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, this Gove rnment- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker , I wonder if the adult day 1 care centre could calm down a little bit. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; order, please. I would remind the Honourable First Min ister that all Mem bers in this Cham ber are Ho nourable Memb ers. The Honourable First Min ister.- (interjection)- Order.

The Honourable First Min ister. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker , in response to the question from the Honourable Mem ber for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), this Government has continued to make a strong and firm commitment to the Port of Churchill. We have indicated throughout our time in Government, as we have in the past, because I can remind the Member for Dauphin he was not in this Legislature at the time, but under my colleague the Min ister for Nor thern Affairs (Mr . Downey), who was then the Mini ster of Agriculture, he held a major conference in Dauphin on the Port of Churchill. At that time the 5580

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 administration of Sterling Lyon made a commitment to keep the Port of Churchill operating to foster greater use and diversification for the Port of Churchill, and we are continuing to pursue a commitment to keep Churchill viable, and that will indeed continue to be our commitment. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker , the previous Leader of the Conservative Party said no provincial dollars, unlike the former Go vernment of Manitoba, the New Democratic Government that put up $58 million toward the Port of Churchill.

In view of the fact that Churchill is in serious jeopardy and his Minister of Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger) is going to be spending $15 million for pictures on driver licences over the next five years, will this First Minister now direct that that $15 million be used for an agreement on Churchill as a higher priority than putting pictures on driver licenc es over the next five years? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speak er, we have made a commitment � to the protection and safety for humans on our highway , system and on our road syste m.

We are proud of that commitment, just as we are proud of the commitment that we have made to do every thing in our power to eradicate drinking and driving in this province, because we believe in the safety of the Manitoba people who are on the highway system, unlike the New Democrats who could care less about the safety of individuals- ***** Mr. Speaker: Order , please; order please. The Honourable Member for Dauphin, on a point of order. Mr. Plohman: The First Minister is imputing motives. He is saying that we are not concerned about safety of drivers in this province.

That has been demons trated to be a false statement by that Minister by the actions of our Party and our Government while in office and the statements that we have made in this House. � Mr. Speaker: Ord er, ple ase. As the Honourable , Mem ber for Dauphin has stated it is -(interjection)- As the Honourable Member for Dauphin aptly pointed out, it is a false statement. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! • (1 41 0) Native Affairs Secretariat Urban Native Strategy Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; orde r, please.

The Honourable Member for Niakwa. Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Duri ng the Estima tes que stioning, the Mi nis ter of Nort hern and Native Affairs (Mr . Downey) stated categorically that the Native Affairs Secretariat was devoting a substantial amount of its resources and a 5581 su bstantial amount of its time to the development of the Urban Native Strategy. Now we find that the Government has once again hired a consultant to tell us what to think and what decisions to make.

My question for the Minis ter of Northern and Native Affairs is this: how is the Native Affairs Secretariat involved in the Urban Native Strategy process, and just what is its role? Hon . James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Sp eaker , the Urban Na tiv e Affairs Department has been working, not only in the City of Winnipeg but throughout Manitoba dealing with the Metis and Indian community in Manitoba. I am proud of the work that the department has been doing.

As the Urban Native Strategy has developed, monies have been put in place to work with, through a consultant, an Urban Native Strategy of which is involved the Native commun ity, the leaders, and as many individuals as possible. It has been at the request of the urban Native leaders that we have continued to employ the individual and the consultant who has been doing that work. If the Member wants to argue with the leadership of the Native community, then I will make sure that they get the Hansard of which he is opposing their request. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Minister's Confidence Mr.

Herold Driedger (Niakwa): The Minister caused a review of the Nat ive Affairs Secretariat to be undertaken in 1988. Does this use of consultants, rather than his own de par tment, reflect the Mini ster's continued lack of confidence in the Secretariat? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): No, Mr. Speaker . Mr. Herold Driedger: Well, then, Mr. Spea ker, if this is not a lack of confidence, then yet when h .. has an opportunity to demons trate that there is confidence in the Secretariat, he replaces one acting director with another acting director.

He by-passes his staff for input for a consultant, paid advice rather than an impartial one. Why? Mr. Downey: I have to say to the Member that the majority of activities that have gone on within the Urban Native Strategy, within the Native Affairs Secretariat, have been carried out in consultation with the Native community. I have not unilaterally made decisions, but I have worked very closely with the Native commun ity dealing with the real concerns, not the political posturing of the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-POLITI CAL STATEMENTS Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr.

Speaker, may I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for Gimli have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed)

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker , and Mem bers of the House, for the opportunity to bring to your attention a milestone in Canadian history. It was on a Satu rday night in Hamilton, Ontario, in February of 19 20 when Hal Rogers, an ex-soldier recently returned from the First World War, got together with 13 other young men, who, like Hal, were longing for the camaraderie of the trenches.

Those men formed an organization that has since become the largest all-Canadian service organization, an organization that has grown to 17 ,000 members in 585 Kinsmen Clubs, 470 Kinette Clubs and more than 400 auxiliaries in this count ry. Since 19 38 the Kinsmen have had as their motto "Serv ing the commun ities greatest needs." Mr. Speaker , since 19 64 the Kinsmen have raised more than $14 million for cystic fi brosis research. The last fiscal year alone saw the Kinsmen raise more than $2 1 million for community projects. There are several current and former Kinsmen seated among us.

The Honourable Member for Minnedosa, Harold Gillesham mer, having the distinction of being a life member of the Association of Kinsmen Clubs, and I, myself, am proud to have served in my constituency as president of the Teulon Kinsmen. I have four Kinsmen Clubs in my constituency and I am very proud of the work they do. At this time I would like to congratulate the many achievements of Kinsmen Clubs throughout Canada and throughout Manitoba in particular, and cong ratulate the Association of Kinsmen Clubs on the occasion of their 70th ann iversary. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon.

James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Spe aker, I would ask that Report Stage be called. REPORT STAGE BILL NO. 81- THE ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Speaker: Bill No. 81, The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'environnement, the Honourable Government House Leader. Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker , if there is no deba te on this Bill, I would move that the Bill be concurred in. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Man ness), that Bill No. 81, The Environment Amendment Act be concurred in. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 82-THE DANGEROUS GOODS HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Speaker: Bill No. 82, The Dangerous Goods Handl ing and Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises dan gereuses, the Honourable Minister of the Environment. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ma nness), that Bill No. 82, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transpor tat ion Amendment Act, be reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Publi c Utilities and Natural Resources and be concu rred in. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 83-THE OZONE DEPLETI NG SUBSTANCES ACT Mr. Speaker: Bill No. 83, The Ozone Depleting Su bstances Act;

Loi sur les su bstances appauvrissant la couche d'o zone, the Honourable Min ister of Environment. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker , I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Bill No. 83, The Ozone Depleting Su bstances Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. MOTION presented and carried. HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker , would you be so kind as to call the second readings as listed on pages 1 and 2 of today's Order Paper. • (1 420) DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BILL NO. 56-THE WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

(2) Mr. Speaker: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Min ister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Connery), Bill No. 56, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Thompson, who has 20 minu tes remai ning, the Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker , when I began my contribution on this debate in the last opportunit y, I said that this is a flawed Bill. Indeed, I belie ve what has happened since that time has proven conclu sively that it is a flawed Bill.

When the Minister ! know probabl y, I bel ieve, at the committee stage have to admit that, because I am expecting and I am hoping that there will be some sig ni ficant amend ments introduced to this particular Bill by the Government itself. Many of the provisions of the Bill have raised concern, particularly, I think it is worth noting, not just from injured workers, but also from companies as well, 5582

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 and the Minister acknowledges there will be significant amendments. I just want to indicate that we have pinpointed a numb er of areas. I raised a numb er of them last time in which we will be bringing in amendments if the Government does not. We may amend some of their amendments if necessary in order to make sure that some of the difficulties that we have identified in the Act are not dealt with. I think that is important, because as I said this Bill was rushed in. It does not deal with the comprehen sive range of changes that we believe are necessary in terms of Workers Compensation.

In particular it doe s not deal with the many reco mmendations of the Legislative Review Committee that remain outstanding. I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that even though we will be bringing in amendments if necessary at the committee stage, we are not satisfied with the degree to which this Bill goes. We bel ieve this Bill should have brought in major changes to Workers Compe nsa tion based on the Legisl ativ e Review Committee. I am disappoi nted that in essence it deals with, I would not call it housekeep ing, that was an initial indication, Mr. Spe aker.

Some of the provisions in the Bill if they are no t de alt with could have major ramifications. Really what we are saying on this Bill is what is as important as what is in the Bill is what is not in the Bill. There are a significant numb er of items that are not in the Bill. I mentioned last time some of the concerns that I have and our caucus has about this Bill in terms of for example the board's structure. I indicated in particular this Government has been operating illegally in terms of the board's structure over the last six months. They have had a part-time chair. The legislation, Mr.

Speaker, prohibits that. What they are doing with this Bill is really rubber-stam ping what they have been doing for six months, and I believe that is un acceptable. I bel ieve the Government should not have put in a chair on a part-time basis when the Act states, the chair shall be full time. I belie ve that has not resulted in the type of dealing with claims, the type of board pol icy development that we require. I indicated it is not just a question of that. Mr. Speak er, there are serious concerns that we have about the structure of the board.

We belie ve there are some real dangers in having some of the appointments basically put up for patronage appointment. It is not that I have objections to Governments appointing individuals who have similar policy positions to their own position in terms of boards and commissions. I am not suggesting that at all, but this is unique. This is the Workers Compensation Board. I bel ieve it would be far better if there was a structure that allowed for labour on the one side, management on the other and truly objective community representatives on the third side. I bel ieve this can be accomplished.

There are many ways of doing it. One way is to require some sort of approval process on appointments for commun ity representatives on the part of the labour representatives and on behalf of management. That ensures that whoever is in place on the board from 5583 the community is consider ed to be fair and essen tially neutral, Mr. Spea ker, because I believe that is important, and I discussed that last time during my contribution to this aspect of the debate. I have expressed concern about a num ber of other provisions in the Bill-the definition of accident.

I am hoping that will be changed, that it will be amended. I would like to address another area too which I believe is a serious omission in this Bill, and that is the fact that we do not have a provision in this Bill to bring back into force the regulations that existed in terms of firefighters. We have for many years, Mr. Speaker , provisions affecting firefighters that I would say are absolutely necessar y, given the situation facing the hazardous workpla ce in terms of the exposure to hazardous goods, to the situation where they are exposed to situations that can cause cancer or heart attack.

Let us not forget what has happened. There were regulations in place. The regulations go back well over two decades in this province. The last version of those regulations was brought in by the New Democratic Party Government, the Schreyer Government, in the 19 70s. It was struck down recently by the Court of Appeal in Manitoba by Justice Lyon. The ruling basically said that if the Legislature wanted to have this in force it should be in legislation. Mr.

Speaker, what has happened is that we have seen quite clearly from the Minister that this is not being brought in this legislation on Bill 56 and I want to say that is unacceptable. That is absolutely unacceptable. We bel ieve that there need to be changes brought in to protect our firefighters and to bring in the same kind of protection they have had for more than two decades, Mr. Speaker. We will be discussing this at committee stage. We will be urging the Minister to bring in that kind of protection.

I know the suggestion may be made that perhaps there are other workers who are deserving of the same type of protection. In deed that may be the case, but why should this Government deny firefighters that protection because there may be possible other occupations that should have the same protection? Why do they not in this Session bring in the provision in terms of firefighters and deal with those provisions? Why do they not do that now and work on the development of protection for other workers in similar situations in the future?

Let us not deny our firefighters of the rights that they have had in this province for more than two decades. I consider that a serious omission on the part of this Government. I can indicate there are many other provisions of the Workers Com pensation Bill tha t could have been introduced, based on the Legislative Review Committee. I do not want to review them in detail, because we do not have the time, but there are many provisions that were accepted by all three Members of the Legislative Review Comm ittee.

As I ind icted in my opening comments, they were people on all sides of the spectrum in terms of lab our -mana gement, Brian King, the Chairperson, an injured worker himself. The bottom line is, many of those recommendations have not been dealt with. We consider that to be una cceptable, Mr. Speaker. In fact what is happening,

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 that we are finding that is particularly of concern, is that the Government has not been bringing significant changes in via the way of legislation. We have seen changes brought in by the board on board policy that can have a very significant impact on injured workers. I mentioned the experience rating system. I have indicated our concern about the way that system op erates. It puts an onus on emp loyers to have emp loyees not report accidents, because that reduces their rates. That reduces the amount they pay for Workers Compensation. The bottom line, Mr.

Speaker, is we are already getting reports from individuals in the workplace who are saying that pressure is being put on them not to report accidents. It is not that that pressure did not exist before, it did. It is documented. There are Mem bers of this House-the Member for The Pas (Mr. Harapiak), I remember , told me once that he had a broken leg. His employer at the time in Sud bury took the position of getting him to go to work so he would not be counted as a lost-time accident. That is without the experience rating system.

With the experience rating system it is going to become much worse. * (1 430) I note, for example, this year there is some report that the level of accidents is down. I hope there will be a real decline in terms of accidents. I believe there is every possibility to improve safety in the workplace. I do not want to see accidents decline because they are not reported, because companie s are putting pressure on injured workers not to report accidents, therefore, not leading to increased rates. I do not want to see that, Mr. Speaker .

Once again, the frustration is that the Government has not brought this in, in legislation, it was brought in by re gulation, by development of policy by the board. I want to talk about another issue on Workers Compensation that I have very serious concerns about, Mr. Speaker. That is a concern related to the calculation of maximum earnings. The board has changed the policy.

They have developed a policy that is going to hit very hard at many of my constituents, many of the constituents of other northern commu nities, many industrial workers, because what they are doing is they are considering maximum ea rnings to in clude all earnings, including, for example, bonus es and other forms of earnings that members in the workplace have had. I want to take this as an example of the type of situation that is going to develop because of the new policies of the Workers Compensation Board. An individual working in the mine, at lnco in my constituency, becomes injured.

Because of that injury the worker is off for a period of time, returns at another occupation, is unable to continue to be a mine r. The individual before may have been earning $40,000 in salary and $1 0,000 or $20,000 in bonus, a hard earned bonus, one that no one in this House-u nless they have worked underground-can fathom in terms of the amount of work, the amount of effort, the commitment that it takes to get a bonus of that type. What will happen is, they will return to the workplace, and if this policy is allowed to stand they will only be eligible for the salary they were rece iving.

There will be no potential for them to receive compensation for the differential in wages.

They may have been earning $50,000 or $60,000 prior to the accident, they may afterwards be earning $35,000 or $36,000, but because of this new policy of the board, and it is one that has not been well publicized, those individuals who before would have received a top-up in their income to reflect the loss of income that is a direct result of a workplace injury or accident will now face a substantial loss of income because of the fact the Workers Compensation Board is now going to be interpreting the provision in regard to loss of earnings as being a straight cap at the $36,000 level.

I bel ieve there are two things that the Government needs to do. First of all, changes like this should not be made at the board level. These are important changes. They should be done by legislation so that we as Members of the Legislature can debate them. Significantly what should be done is first of all, the maximum level of earnings should be raised to reflect wha t the realit y is in terms of not just northern communities, but in many industrial areas here in Winnipeg as well, that is no longer a realistic level in many industries, particularly for skilled tradespeople. That needs to be raised.

The second thing though, Mr. Speaker , that has to be dealt with is the fact there should be provision for bonuses and other forms of income that should be reflected and should be recogn ized by Workers Compensation so that people do not face a dramatic loss of income. That is what is going to happen to my constituents, a dramatic loss of income if they are injured, if they are no longer able to earn what they previously earne d , particularly those working underground, but many surface workers, as well.

If they are working at a job receiving far less than they were receiving before, the bottom line in this particular situation is that the y will be dealing with a major loss of income that could substantially hurt them in terms of their lifestyle. It could have a su bstantial impact on their families. Those kinds of changes I said are unacceptable, those kind of changes should be brought to this House, they should be in legislation, they should be deba ted by Mem bers of this House, Mr.

Speaker , and we consider it absolutely una cceptable that those kinds of changes are being made now and that we as Mem bers of the Legislature have virtually no ability to deal with some very significant changes in policy by the Workers Compensa tion. (Mr. Neil Gaud ry, Acting Speaker , in the Chair) So, Mr. Acting Speaker, when I look at this Bill it is very cl ear, it is a flawed Bill. Some sign ificant amendments are needed even to make this Bill worthy of any type of support. I am not saying there are not some positive provisions in the Bill.

I have said at the beginning of my remarks, there are some positive provisions, but there are many flawed provisions and there also is a lot that is missing. There is a lot that is already happening at the board level that is not in this Bill that should be in this Bill, there is a lot that should be in this Bill. Many of the recommendations 5584

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 of the Legislative Review Committee that should be in this Bill are changes that we cannot wait any longer for. Let us no t forget that the Legisla tive Review Committee made its report public nearly three years ago, nearly three years ago; nearly three years have gone by since that time. An Honourable Member: That is the third time you said that. Mr. Ashton: I wanted to mention it to the Mini ster responsible for Workers Compensation (Mr. Connery).

Yes, I will say it three times, I will say it 30 times, I will say it 300 times so long as the Minister refuses to enact many of those changes, and let us not forget, once again for the Mi ni ster re sponsibl e for Workers Compensation, that those provisions, the vast majority of them, 95 percent of them, were accepted by all three Members of the Legislative Review Committee. There was consensus that existe d , there was an implementation team in place, recommendations had been developed, the vast majority of the LRC, the Legislative Review Committee, provisions had been discussed.

While I think anyone can understand that a new Government requires some time to deal with it, even if something is in progress I belie ve that is a fair enough situation, Mr. Acting Speaker . The fact is that we were looking at some substantial changes in 19 88, the 19 88 Session. We are dealing here in 19 90 with a Bill that does not even begin to scratch the surface in terms of some of the significant changes that have still not been made. I said before, Mr.

Acting Sp eak er, changes have been made administratively, but what is missing are some of the significant changes that we require to this Act, The Workers Compensation Act, to bring in many of the legislative changes. With those comments, Mr. Acting Spe aker, we will be debating this Bill in committee. We will support its passage through on second reading, but I want to make it very clear and on the record that we do so recognizing the serious faults of this Bill. We will not vote against this Bill because we believe there are some positive provisions.

We bel ieve that some of the major negative features of this Bill can be corrected at committee. What it is going to require is some sense of commitment from the Min ister and the Go ve rnm ent to listen. (interjection)- The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) says there is. I hope that is the case. Let us not forget the bottom line here is the situation facing injured workers and their families, Mr. Acting Speaker. I believe that we have the opportunity, a golden opportunit y, to bring in changes, to make a substantial improvement in the livelihood of injured workers and their families.

We have that opportunit y, but we have to be willing to listen to them, whether it be on this committee on Bill 56 where I hope people will listen, or whether it be on Bill 31 where I hope the Liberals and Conservatives will listen once again to ordinary people, or on Bill 42 when we do go into committee on that which affects landlord and tenant rights. I could go through the list of Bills, Mr. Acting Speaker, because the bottom line is up to us now to listen to 5585 the concerns of the working men and women of this province, the injured workers and their families. Now is our opportun ity.

That is why yesterday we passed through a numb er of Bil ls. We want to get in to committee to hear those proposals. That is why we will be passing Bill 56 through, because we want to get into there. Let the process be allowed, Mr. Acting Speaker, to go to its fullest extent. Let us have the public make its presentations, but let us have a commitment from all Parties to listen to members of the public. I have not sensed that commitment unfortunately on many Bills that are now before committee. I have not seen that, for example, from the Liberals or the Conservatives on final offer selec tion.

They are not listening as people come into the committee and make their views known. I consider that to be most unfortunate because these, Mr. Acting Speaker, are people that we should be listening to first and foremost. Let us open our ears, let us open our minds, whether it be on Workers Compensation, final offer selection, or Bill 42 that would deal with the disgusting slum conditions in many areas of our province. Those are just three Bills.

There are other Bills that also can have some sign ificant impact, but only if there is a real commitment to listening to the people who are going to be making presentations in committee. I want to say that our caucus is listening, Mr. Acting Speaker. We are listening on final offer selection, on Workers Compensation, on landlord and tenant affairs and many other issues. That is why yesterday we said we want to go to committee, so the voice of the people of Manitoba could be heard on these important Bills.

That is why on this Bill today we are also saying it is time to go to committee, it is time to listen to the people, to the injured workers and their families and follow through on the legislative process it should be. Thank you very much for this opportunity to address what I hope will be a Bill whose flaws can be corrected and a Bill that will get the message across to the Government that we need far more changes, far greater reform to Workers Compensation in the future. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. Mrs . Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Mr.

Acting Speak er, last week, as in many weeks, we have-the light is flashing here. Is this indicating that the mike-thank you. Last week, and the Minister responsible, or supposedly responsible, for Workers Compensation (Mr. Connery) is spending his time heckling across the room. I would like to explain to him that one day last week we had nine- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! * (1 440) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please; order, please. Mrs . Charles: In one day last week in my constituency office, we had nine people come in with Workers Compensation claims. Would the Minister please listen?

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 I would not mind his attention. Nine claimants came in on Workers Comp- ***** The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Ord er. The Honourable Minister for Northern Affairs, on a point of order. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Acting Speaker , I would appreciate it if the Member would continue with her speech and not reflect on my colleague as to whether or not he is listening or is not. It is recorded in Hansard as the Member should know by now. If he does not listen, there is a full opportun ity to read it. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Gaudry): The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. The Honourable Mem ber for Selkirk. An Honourable Member: How does she know I am not listening? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Ord er, please. Mrs. Charles: This is exactly the lack of respect that workers receive at Workers Compensation. Now I know why, because the Mini ster has the same lack of respect for people in this House. Hon.

Edward Connery (Minister responsible for The Workers Compensation Act): On a point of order, I will not tolerate the Member for Selkirk saying that they do not get respect at the Workers Comp. Those 300 people work hard for injured workers. She should be ashamed and she should withdraw those comments right now. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Selkirk. Mrs. Charles: Mr. Acting Speaker -(interjection)- if the Members across the way would shut up- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Gaudry): Order, please; order, please. I will not tolerate this in the Chamber. The Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, I do bel ieve we are debating a Bill. I believe that the Bill is Bill 56. It might assist, if perhaps we could ask the speaker to be able to speak to the Bill, but ask other Mem bers to allow her to speak. I do bel ieve we are straying from the purpose of the debate. I would love to get into this, Mr.

Acting Speaker, myself, as Workers Compensation Critic, but I do believe we should perhaps get back to the normal debating process. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Thank you. The Honourable Member for Selkirk. ***** Mrs. Charles: Mr. Acting Speak er, I was trying to tell the Minister that in one day last week we had nine claimants come to our office with problems with Workers Compe ns ation. Usually every day we have one, sometimes two, occasionally three or four, but nine is outstan ding.

I would hope the Minister would take with some serious recog nition the situation that must exist when nine people independently have to come into an office of this House in order to get help in receiving their due claims in Workers Compensation. Let us go over a few of-why these people did not receive their claims. One we sent over to welfare because his family was going hungry and in phoning up Workers Compensation-why was his claim not paid out? Was he due it? Yes, he had a broken leg.

He was due his cheque from Workers Compensation, but the file had been left on the desk while somebody went on vacation for two weeks. It took two weeks to open the file, two weeks while the person was on vacation and meanwhile this family is going hungry, and this 1 Minister is trying to say that I am not concerned about the workers in this province. I am indeed concerned about the workers of this province, and I am indeed concerned with the problems at Workers Compensation.

The other two files that we opened that week were also claims-a ctually three files-two were lost in the filing system, which nobody seems to understand, and one which was even tually found in an old file drawer, which we came back with the report from the adjudicator saying we have no idea why it got into that filing drawer. This is the attitude we put up with day in and day out with Workers Compensation. As of today, we received a letter from Workers Compensation withdrawing increases in a pension that was guaranteed in a letter in 19 84 to a worker in the vicinity of the Town of Selkirk.

Workers Compensation has not improved. We have workers in the system who will independently on the phone ask us-and I will not repeat the phrases because it would be asking for bodily harm to be done to the Minister-to do things to the Min ister, that are not fit to repeat in this House, because of the frustrations they have in trying to deal with a process that his department allows to continue. I do not think anyone in this House realizes how qu ickly you are susc eptible to the whims of the economic struggles that we each know exist out there but how quickly we can have our own support network fall to pieces.

I have seen many, many hard working people come through my office door in tears because the y cannot get their cheque from Workers Compensation, and time after time it is not because they are not due the claim but because they have lost the file. Of course the filing system is such that we only pull out the file physically from the rack of files at Workers Compensation so you cannot follow any file through. The Minister is showing his indication of how much he supports wanting to listen to the problems that in my constituency we have and I am sure in other 5586

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 constituencies-I have certainly had other Mem bers here. There is no reason why, when you ask an inquiry on a file for a worker in Workers Compensation, you should have to have it physically pulled from the list so that because an inquiry has been made it goes back to the back of the pile and the claim is delayed one more time. There is no reason why workers who go to have their claims processed have to be treated as if they were insign ificant people and just a num ber.

Ther e is no reason why, when you have been guaranteed a pension with increases at the rate of cost of living, and with the increase and the rate of disability as it increases over the years as they pass, that we should allow Workers Compensation to withdraw what was once guaranteed in a letter.

I hope the people involved in this one particular case will take it through the law system in order to sue Workers Compensation for withdrawing guarantees that were given to them in a letter on Workers Compensation letterhead and now is being withdrawn because they are deeming that the injury is not taking place any more or is not increasing in severity because the worker is no longer employed. He lost his employment due to the injury in the first place, and the letter from 19 84 indicates that further increase in disabilities can be expected.

If at that point the doctor proves that the disabili ty ha d inc reas ed, then the Workers Compensation would increase the benefits according ly. That was guaranteed in a letter, and this Min ister's department is withdrawing that guarantee. I just hope the Minister will see fit to care enough about this case when it comes to his attention in the name that he will understand that these types of problems have to be dealt with in a humane way. You cannot guarantee them one year and withdraw it the next year and expect anybody to have faith in the system. Mr.

Acting Speak er, the costs for these mess-ups at Workers Compens ation are to us all and certainly to the residents in any community that will have to support these workers who now have to go on welfare. Of course � we all kn ow th at tho se who pay taxes in every municipality pay it on their realty tax. That is not necessarily as fair as an income tax in that we all have houses and the better we increase them in value the more we are taxed. Everybody is taxed in the Town of Selkirk and every other community by Workers Compensation.

When they go on holidays and leave files on their desks and then have people having to go on our town welfare and be asked to pay these people on welfare rather than have them supported through Workers Compensation or the Province of Manitoba according to the merits of their case, I wish I could say that Workers Compens ation has improved. In some cases the appeal system certainly has. Where that has happened, I wish to congratulate the people involved in that improvement. When it comes to the worker coming through the door at the corporation headqua rters, there is no difference.

According to the reports I have from the workers that come in my constituency office, they are still being treated shabbi ly. They are not given any 5587 respect for the iniuri es they have had occur. We continually have Workers Com pensation doctors overrule specialists. In one case, even though the doctor had put this person's leg in a cast and had said that he was to be off work for a period of four to five weeks, Workers Compensation said he did not have a broken leg so therefore he could not be compensated. It was not a broken leg. They did not bother to look at the doctor's report.

They just wanted to read into it what they had and that -(interjection)- no, they did not look at his leg either, even though it was in a cast. They do it over the telephone and just say, he does not have an injury, therefore we are not going to compensa te him. When we phone up the doctor and have the report verbally read to us, phone back Workers Compensation and indicate perhaps they should read the doctor's report, they go, oh, well, I guess we overlooked that and now they are sending out the cheque.

There is no reason anybody should have to come in to their representative's office in order to receive due justice that they have in the process that is before them. They do no t receive a fai r treat ment at Workers Compensation. * (1 450) I wish to tell the Minister this in all hone sty that he has to continue to look into the system that is at Workers Compensation and hope in no way that he has ceased working towards bettering it, because it is a failed and flawed system that continually uses the weak and the vulnerable to put them at the mercy of the bureaucracy that exists.

I do not wish to indicate that these people, the adjudicators and the staff there personal ly, are out to be mean or nasty to any person. I would expect that the system itself cau ses the se worker s to be so overworked and so frustrated with the system that they cannot give back the respect to the people that they should have. Mr. Acting Speaker, this Bill has its merits and it has its faults. I would like to go over that line by line when we get into committee, but I want the Minister most of all to know that he cannot expect that this Bill is going to improve the morale at Workers Compensation.

That is his duty and is under his charge. If he allows it to continue, then he is responsible for the case that exists there. Workers Compensation is a mess and this Minister is responsible for it. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): I believe the Minister of Workers Compensation is wanting to close debate. We still have speakers that would like to speak on this. Mr. Guizar Cheema (K ildonan): Mr. Acting Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to address some of the issues.

I think this Bill No. 56 will definitely go a long way to help the workers, but there are a number of problems I want to bring to the attention of the Minister . I think the No. 1 problem is the time period when the patient is seen by a physician and the time when they get their first cheque. The time period is usually anywhere from 2 to 3 weeks, and that causes hardship. I do not think this Bill is going to address that.

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 A second problem which most of the workers are saying in my area and other areas is their inability to get hold of their adjuster which is at times very difficult. They keep on calling them, they write them letters, but there is no response, or usually the response is wait for another 10 days, the file has gone from one place to anot her, and their cases are lost. Mr. Acting Speaker , many workers have lost their houses, they have lost their cars and other problems in family life which is terrible. I think that has to be answered.

We know the Min ister does not have power over that, because the Workers Compensation Board are ultimately responsible. The Minister has been helpful in a numb er of cases to solve, and we have been given a few officers to get hold of them , but the problem is not resolved yet. Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to address that many workers, some of them whose primary language is not English, they are having a problem to commun icate with adjusters. I am told that not more than one personal adjuster can speak another langua ge.

That is extremely important because un less you speak the language, how are you going to know their problems? At times they are using int erp reters. I think we should be concentrating on hiring some people who would have knowledge of other languages, so that they can solve some of the problems. Not only are we wasting tax dollars at the Compensation Board, but also we are wasting tax dollars in the long run, because these people undergo a lot of stress and they cannot seem to reach anyplace. I think a num ber of problems could be resolved because we all get the compensation cases from all of the constituencies.

I am sure the Member for Portage (Mr. Connery) does get the same numb er of cases. At times it is very frustrating because he is not in charge here in the real sense, it is the Workers Compensation Board who makes the final decision. The second problem which many patients are facing and the physicians face is that the person sees the physician for the first time, and if that report does not go in favour of the Com pensa tion Board, the Compensation Board does not look favourably to that report. I think that does not really serve the purpose.

They appoint their own physicians, and I think they are looking for a favo ur able report in terms of the Compensation Board, but not looking after the workers as such. I think that is not a reasonable way of solving the problem, because you are first of all prolonging the whole issue for as long as 18 months in some cases. Mr. Acting Speaker, it can only be solved if we have set guidelines. There should be reasonable doubt given to prove from the worker, because I would say all the workers are not there to cheat the Compensation Board, but they want to get what is due for them.

They have paid their dues and the compan ies paid their dues, but the system is still far from perfect. I would request the Minister to look into the issue of hiring new adjusters who would know the language barrier, and I think that will help us a long way. Second ly, I want to address the issue of the new program started by the Compensation Board. That is the back injury program and that seems to be working fine.

It has a perfect model that the Compensation Board will try to put this worker back to work with a back injury as soon as possible and they are going to allocate the nurses who will be trained at the work level. I think that will help to bring the worker back to the force as soon as possible. With that I will end my comments and I will request the Minister to look into two specific issues. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Speaker, I too would like to put a few words on the record regarding this particular Bill.

I find it somewhat frustrating in terms of the approach the New Democratic Party in this Chamber has taken when it comes to the workers of this province, in particular the workers who are injured at work. If we take a look at what this Bill is and what this Bill is all about, we will see that it is to the benefit of all the workers, all the injured workers, in the long term. This is a Bill that has been standing in the name of the New Democratic Party for a num ber of, not days, not weeks, but months. When we had an opportunity to speak on this Bill, we did th at.

After initiall y speaking on this Bill, addressing some of our concerns through the Member for Radisson (Mr. Patterson), the then third Party of this Chamber stood the Bill much like they have stood every Bill in this Chamber and have held up passage for whatever political reasons and rationale that they have had. Mr. Acting Speaker, the same principle applies to all Bills in this Chamber when it comes to Government Bills. This type of obstruction that the NOP have been putting on us also hurts the worker. It also hurts those tha t are in most need, those tha t have in ju red themselves at work.

The most frequent call I get as an ML A, at least in the first 18 months of serving this Chamber, have been from injured workers requesting some type of assistance in getting their claim processed in what would be a timely fashion. * (15 00) When they come up to-in terms of the Estimates process, the Mini ster of Workers Compensation (Mr. Conne ry) had stated that he would be willing to field qu est ions regard ing Workers Compensation even though the NOP had passed the Minister's Salary. Mr.

Acting Speaker, we were wanting to ask questions indeed and the Mini ster was indeed wanting to give us some answers in terms of what has been going on in Workers Compensation. Yet we had the third Party of this Chamber standing up and objecting and not wanting the official Opposition to get anything on the record in terms of what we feel is in the best interest for Workers Compensation Board to proceed. Last night I believe the NOP have done it once again.

Al least the official Opposition has gotten on the record some questions pertaining to the current status, the legislation that we now have before us and how it going to be affecting injured workers across the province. I think really that is what we have to look at. I have had a number of constituents, as I have pointed out, who have come to me. One night, it was after 5588

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 eleven o'clock in the evening, I had a constituent who gave me a call and had broken down into tears on a Friday even ing. The Saturday I sat down with this particular lady and we went over some of the problems tha t she was having because of the tremendous backlog. Mr. Acting Speaker , we had people waiting an un necessary and unforgivable period of time. This particular individual was waiting eight months, and it was not even at the review committee process. Our constituents have regular payments.

They have time payments in terms of mortgages, monthly bills and things of that nature that have to be met, and the backlog over at Workers Compensation which was created through the NDP has not been cleared up. When it comes to addressing the problem, this particular problem, whether it is through legislation that will no doubt assist in some mann er, we find once again that they feel it is their right to be able, using their political motives and options, to hold up what would benefit the workers of our province, the injured workers of our province.

I have to ask why the Government has not seen fit to put a higher priority on this Bill. For day after day after day we had Bill 31, final offer select ion, called up on the top of the Order Paper. For day after day after day we had other Bills go well in advance of the Workers Compensation Bill and then, Mr. Acting Speaker- An Honourable Member: Relevance. Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) says to be relevant. This is inde ed relevant. The Bill is perta inin g to changes, comprehens ive changes to The Workers Compensation Act.

We are talking about how these changes can be taking place, and that is speaking to the changes. If the Conservatives feel that they have a point of order, have them stand up and make their point of order, otherwise to stay in their seat and listen to what we in the official Opposition have to say. An Honourable Member: The only way you guys will stay in power, like cutting deals with weasels. Mr. Lamoureux: The Member for Springfield (Mr. Roch) is quite correct, that the only way this Government will stay in power is through coalitions of the sort that we saw yesterday.

I would be interested in finding out there last night, I would be int erested in finding out the type of deals that this Government makes with the third Party in order to prop it up. Mr. Acting Speaker , was this part of the deal, that they would pass Workers Compensation? Who knows what that deal was. I think that this Government is scared, that this Government was scared of the official Opposition asking questions. What does this Government have to hide?

What is it that they are so scared of that they felt that if I was to ask qu estions regard ing Workers Compensation, regard ing any other topic that affected the injured workers in the province or in my riding, what are they so afraid of that they had to do it in the man ner in which sha fted Mem bers of the official Opposition? What are they scared of? Why did the 5589 NDP not have any questions? Were they content with all the ans wers that they received? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please. I would like to remind the Honourable Member to keep relevance to the Bill. Mr.

Lamoureux: Workers Compen sation came up, Mr. Acting Speaker, in the Estimates process.- (interjection)- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please. Mr. Lamoureux: During the Estimates, you will find that this Bill was referred to, and that this Bill will have a dramatic effect on the expenditur es of this Government. What I am calling into question are the motives of this Government and the motives of the third Party in this House.

I am suggesting to you that the Government is scared, that they do not want to answer questions that the official Opposition wants to put on the record and that the third Party in this Chamber maybe wants to get out of this Session. They do not have any- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please; order please. I would like to remind the Honourable Member to keep relevance to the Bill. I would like the other side of the House to keep qu iet also. Thank you. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Speaker, getting back to the lady who had actually come to my home on a Saturday.

She was concerned- An Honourable Member: That was a Friday night, if I remember correctly. Mr. Lamoureux: To the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), yes, it was the Friday night-I did not know if he was really paying attention. The Friday night, she had given me a call because of this Government's inaction on improving the conditions at Workers Compensation, on this Govern ment's inaction of making this particular Bill a higher priority so that we could be solving some of the problems at Workers Compensation.

As a result, we have constituents such as the one that I am pointing out who gave me a call late on a Friday evening in which I arranged to meet her on the following day to hear what this Government and the previous NDP administration had put her through that no Manitoban should have to be put through. If the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) wants to take this lightly, albeit, but this is not a light issue to those who are affected by this particular Bill.

This is a very serious Bill that does not deserve the put off that the ND P have put on this Bill, the holding up of this particular Bill and why they refuse to let it go to comm ittee, Mr. Acting Speaker , for their politic al alternatives. In meeting with this lady on the Saturday, she had told me about the cottage that she had to sell because she had to maintain payments in terms of her mortgage

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 payments, her regular monthly bills. She told me that she was going to have to sell her van in the next two weeks un less some type of decision was going to be made. She was not even at the review stage yet. The backlog was comple tely una cceptable, Mr. Acting Speaker.

This particu lar piece of legislation through rec omm endations, through a large numb er of recommendations-and that is what this Bill is based on, a large num ber of recommendations that were brought forward to the Gov ernment -I belie ve will go a far way in ensuring that the Workers Compensation will work in a much faster man ner. The people whom we have working at Workers Com pensation curr ently are all very com petent indi viduals. I do not envy the position th at thi s administration and the previous administration had put them in.

It is no doubt a tremendous amount of pressure, and I would not myself want to be on the receiving end of telephone calls from people who are in dire straits, people who need the money in order to make payments, people who are being turned away from this uncaring, heartless Government and being forced to go and collect, whether it is provincial economic security or City of Winn ipeg welfare. I do not think any one of us in this Chamber would like to be put in that type of a situation. My intentions were not to hold up this legislation. Actually, I would have liked to have seen it passed back last Novem ber.

I would have liked to have seen it go into committee in fact last Novem ber, much like other Bills that we would like to see in committee and in particular Bill No. 42. On that note, I would hope that after I sit down that the Minis ter, unless Mem bers of the Opposition or in fact any Government Mem bers would like to speak and put some remarks on this particular Bill, that the Government Minister will close debate and in fact we will see this Bill go into the committee process. Hopeful ly, the Government will be calling it in a very quick fashion. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. HOUSE BUSINESS Hon.

James McCrae (Government House leader): A point of order, Mr. Acting Speaker . The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): On a point of order, the Honourable Minister of Justice. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable Member for Interlake would allow me one moment ju st to make a couple of commi ttee announcements. * (15 10 ) The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Thursday, the 1s t of March at 10 a.m. to consider Bill No. 84. The Law Amendments Committee will meet on Thursday, March 1 at 8 p.m. to consider the following Bills: 65, 70, 71, 40, 6, 39, 66, 68, 69.

I thank the Honourable Member for his indulg ence. Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Just before I go into my remarks, on a point of order, the Public Utilities is meeting tonight. Would those Bills tha t he has indicated-it is not meeting tonight? That is a change? I know it is a different Bill. I am only asking, if there will be no public representations on the Bill in question, or if the Min ister is expecting public representations on Bill No. 84, is it possible that it might be dealt with by committee tonight? That is the point I am raising. Mr. McCrae: Mr.

Acting Speaker, I suppose the problem connected with that is the availability of the Honourable Min ister of Environment (Mr. Cummings). I think it is the Environment, to deal with Bill No. 84. He is available on the Thursday but apparently not this even ing. That is the reason for the timing. Bill NO. 56-THE WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (2) (Cont'

d) Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Acting Speak er, I would like to just put a few comments with respect to this Bill dealing with the amendments to The Workers Compensation Act. All Mem bers of the Assem bly can rise and detail problems and issues that arise with respect to Workers Compensation. There are and there have been serious concerns with respect to the legislation. I would like to raise one issue with respect to the legislation. I find the Conservatives very silent on this issue. That comes about as a result of the question of financing and the way Compensation Board accounts for its financ es.

If you recall two years ago, the question of financing in Workers Compensation was a major issue, because Conservatives said that this corporation was in the hole of several hundred millions of dollars, and in fact the corporation was not going to get out of the hole and it was being mismanaged. Mr.

Acting Speaker , virtually nothing has changed in respect to the way the corporation accounts for its funding, and everyone kne w that in terms of the long term liability the corporation was solvent provided that the necessary premium adjustments were made on an annual basis in fact to deal with the long-term conti ngency liability that the corporation required. I find it passing strange that Conservatives have now sat quiet on the question of financing with respect to Workers Compensation. I also noted the comments of the Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) with respect to this legislation.

He was somewhat critical of Mem bers of the NOP of somehow stalling this legislation. Mr. Acting Speak er, I went down to the Clerk's Table there while the Member was speaking and I note, Sir, that while their spokesperson made his speech on November 17 , the Bill was not called again until January 17, at which time the Member for The Pas (Mr. Harapiak) took the adjournment from the Mem ber for Radisson (Mr. Patterson). The Bill was not called until Janua ry 17 and it was stood by the Member for The Pas. On February 22 the Bill was called for the second time, at which time the Member for The Pas spoke.

He stood 5590

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 the Bill only once and he spoke on the next occasion that it was called with the Mem ber, our House Leader, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), taking the adjournment. Of course the Bill was spoken to by the Member for Thompson today when it was called and it was stood yesterd ay, I believe; it was called yesterday and it was stood. The Member for Thompson spoke today, the 26th, four days after the previous speech. Mr.

Acting Speaker , so much for the argument and the debate that somehow this piece of legislation was in fact stalled, because we know that if Bills wanted to go through, the Government did not wish to grant leave, the Bill, either the Member spoke or would have had to in fact give up his or her right to speak on the legislation. So much so for the debate on holding the Bills in question. Amendments are required to this piece of legislation. We want to move it to commi ttee and hear the representations that will be on this legislation. Hon .

Edward Connery (Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I would like to conclude debate on Bill 56 before it goes to committee. I would like to say that I appreciate the comments of the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema) who made some good comments, some good suggestions which we as a Government, I as the Min ister, am always prepared to listen to. I am, and I cannot say how much I despise and reject and am fed up with the insidious words of the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles). I think her comments are despicable, her actions are despicable.

To say that the weak and the vulnerable are used by the Workers Compensation Board is a disgrace to her, a disgrace to every Member of this House and a disgrace to the people that work at the Workers Compen sation Board. That Member should be ashamed of herself because I am ashamed of her. She shakes her head and she says no. If that is the kind of conduct we get out of Selkirk no wonder we turfed Howard Pawley, and I will tell you that you are the next one to go.- (interjection)- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, order. Mr. Connery: Mr.

Acting Speaker, she says that the -(interjection) - The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please; order, please. Mr. Connery: We have brought on additional staff at the Workers Com pensat ion. We have brough t on additional adjudicators. While the Memb er for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor), the sandbox kid, is chirping up over there he could have got up and put words on the record if had wanted to- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please; order, please. I would remind the Honourable Member that all Mem bers are honourable. Mr. Connery: Mr.

Acting Speaker, the staff at the Workers Compensation Board have gone the full mile 5591 to make this a very viable operation to service injured workers, people injured in the workplace. They have worked extremely hard to do that. I am very proud of the effort they have put in. Now we have not said that we have achieved all of the goals that we want, nor will we -(interjection)- lf the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles) and the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) would like to put more words on the record I would sit down while they did.

I am in the process of ending deba te on this Bill. ***** An Honourable Member: Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of order. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): The Honourable Member for Selkirk, on a point of order. Mrs. Charles: I would be very pleased to speak again on Workers Compensation if the Min ister wishes me to do so.- (interjection)- Well, he asked me if I wanted to. Mr. Connery: She talks about incompetence and she talks about people not doing the job. Where was the Liberal Party last night when they could have asked questions on Workers Compensation when we came to the concurrence Bill?

They were not in the House. They were out having a good time- * (1 520) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please; order, please. I will not tolerate this kind of debate in the House. The Honourable Mini ster for Consumer and Corporate Affairs.- (interjection)- Order, please. Mr. Connery: Mr. Acting Speaker , I can tell you that -(interjection)- the Member for St. Vital (Mr. Rose) says we will never be in Government, but we seem to be there already. Well, I guess maybe he is hoping to be in Opposition some day, but he is already there and will never get beyond that.

We have, at Workers Compensation, put in place a chief executive officer and an administrative staff that has worked very diligently to turn around the Workers Compensation. Some of the staff that the previous Government put on the I-Team have been hired because of their compe tence to work at the board to bring in place a system that will respond very quickly to the needs of injured workers and people that have suffered disease in the workplace. I can tell you that the wait for review at the appeals commissioner's level is down to three months on the average to get a reply or a decision.

They can get an appointment right now, because there are openings for people to go to the appeals commissioner. We also have an early intercept team for those who are obviously not a difficult case, that they will get a

- Tuesday, February 27, 1990 cheque within maybe two weeks or three weeks. Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that they brought the average level down tremendousl y. We have a new facility on Portage Avenue for new employment services and rehab facilities for those that are looking to be re-employed. We have people there to assist them, to fill out their resumes, to look for jobs that they are capable of doing. The rehab is working with them to get them back first of all into their original workplace. That is the goal of the Workers Compensation, but that not being the case, to find other jobs. Mr.

Acting Speaker , I have met with all of the unions in Mani toba that were invited to sit down and go over with me their concerns of Workers Compensa tion. We made out a long list of the things that they were concerned about, and we are addressing them. The Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says that there 17 8 recommendations in the King Report, and yes, I agree. Most of them were unanimous, but a matter of fact, most of those now have already been implemented either through legislation or through policy or practice, so there are very few recommendations of that one that has not been completed. So, Mr.

Acting Speaker, while we have some 50,000 claims at the Workers Compensation, 22,000 of them that are of a work loss nature, yes indeed, from time to time there will be a file that gets missed. Something will happen along that line, same as the Liberals missed being here last night and goofed up on their opportunity. Our staff will also make the odd mistake, and we continue to review that. My special assistant and I review all of the concerns that come to our office. If there is a pattern of a certain area, we speak to them at Workers Compensation.

I can tell you the chief executive officer is very concerned that all of the failings or inadeq uacies that maybe are brought to them to correct them as quickly as possible. We have in place a new board of commissioners, and after this legislation has passed, it will be tripartite with equal representation from the community at large, from the employers and from the employees. So, Mr. Acting Speaker , I resent the words of the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles) left on the record, and I resent that she would leave any insinua tion that staff would use the weak and the vulnerable.

I cannot imagine a Member of this Legislature making comments of that nature. It is just not becom ing to any Honourable Member of this Legislature, so her words speak for herself. Mr. Acting Speaker , I am glad to see this Bill go to committee. I look forward to the prese ntations of the public and those interested, and we will review their comments to ensure that the Workers Compensation Board does the very best it can for those injured workers of Manitoba. Thank you. Some Honourable Members: Question. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. ***** The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Gaudry): On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mr. Derkach, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'admin istration scolaire, standing in the name of the Mem ber for Interlake (Mr. Uruski). It is the wrong one. BILL NO. 59-THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education, Bill No. 59, The Public Scho ols Amend ment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ecoles publiq ues, standing in the name of the Honourable Mem ber for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Acting Speaker, I will be speaking on behalf of our caucus, just saying a few words. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudr y): Does the Honourable Member for Interlake have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for In terlake. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Acting Spe aker, there are a numb er of changes in The Public Schools Amendment Act, Sir. Some of the changes that are now being put into law, and most notably for my benefit because I have a number of Frontier Schools within my own constituenc y.

The movement of the Frontier School Division into, what one would say, the 20th century by having elected boards and recog nizing what has been done over the last decade in terms of bringing the Frontier School Division into modern day terms, recognizing the boards, recognizing the work that all the community committees have done in this whole area is certainly a recognized positive move putting that into legislation.

So that the amendments to The Public Schools Act in the bro adest terms are acceptable and in fact we will likely be raising some questions in committee but, in the broadest terms, they are acce ptable to us and we will allow this Bill to move to committee and hear presentations on it. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 60-THE EDU CATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gauclry): On the proposed motion of the Honourable Min ister of Education (Mr. Derkach), Bill No. 60, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'administration scolaire, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for the Interlake (Mr . Uruski). Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker . I wish to indicate that we do have some reservat ions with respect to this legislation as it is now proposed, sir. It appears to myself that the accountability portion of this Act is, putting it in the most layman's terms, it is flawed, Sir, it is not really there to accomplish 5592

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 what I bel ieve. If the Government wishes to acco mplish acc ountability from the various sectors in the educational field dealing with private schools, et cetera, then this question really has to be addressed. If it is the Govern ment's intention to say to the public that we are doing something by legislation and effectively not doing anything, then this legislation accomplishes just that. So, Mr.

Acting Spe aker, we will find out in the committee whether this legislation is in fact the fluff that it is purported to be, or whether the Minister and the Government really mean what they are saying in this Bill, Mr. Acting Spea ker, and we will see that when it goes to committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. * (1 530) Bill NO. 98-THE MANITOBA DATA SERVICES DISPOSITION AND CONSEQUENT IAL AMENDMENTS ACT The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Mini ster of Finance (Mr. Mann ess), Bill No. 98, The Manitoba Data Services Disposition and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur !'ali enation de la Commis sion des services d'i nforma tiqu e du Mani toba et modif ica tions correlatives, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). The Honourable Member for the Interlake. Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Acting Speaker , I wish to speak on this legislation, on this proposed Bill, purporting to seek authority of this Assembly to divest from the public domain a corporation that was set up, I believe, by previous Conservative admin istration.

In fact, to create the Manitoba Data Servic es this corporation was set up by Sterling Lyon to actually consolidate all the various activities of data processing within Government under a single entity because the Government was faced during that period of time with a multitude of operations some of which were housed within the Manitoba Telephone System , some of which were housed in various Governmental departments, some of which were in fact all over through the bu reaucracy.

With sub missions for expanded programs, subm issions for new capital expenditures in the field of computer hardware as it is known, the Government was faced, I venture to say on a weekly basis, of requests coming in from the various departments and agencies for expenditur es and expansion of services that the Government made the decision; and what I would consider a wise decision during that period of time to bring together all the various entities in the computer field under one roof, bring forward the expertise within Governments, put it under the umbrella of a Crown agen cy, and put together all the services that could be provided to Government and put them under one roof and operate them centrally to bring about the kind of efficiencies that a central agency in fact can bring about at that point in time. 5593 I say that point in time because at the time this corporation was brought in the whole technology field in terms of smaller sized computers, smaller hardware, the massive amount of data that could be stored in a very small piece of equip ment was not able to be achieved so that the efficiencies of the day could in fact be achieved by having a central facility for the Government, and Manitoba Data Services was in fact created.

Mr. Acting Sp eak er, the Board of Directors of Manitoba Data Services, as it is now constituted, has a number of private entrepreneurs sitting on that board. In fact, the last time that board came to the Legislative Committee to report, it was very clear in my mind that the Board of Directors said to Members and to the public of this province that this corporation is among the finest of any public sector corporation in its field. It is operated with the most stringent busi ness ethics, the most stringent of controls, the most stringent of cost component measurement.

That is why in terms of the cost to the public of the data services that this corporation provides through the myriad of activities through the various governmental departments, it has been very clear that those costs have been going down to the users on an annual basis and the corporation has made millions of dollars in profit to the public, albeit, it is from within Government circles. Mr. Acting Speaker, I note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mann ess) did not hear my earlier remarks. The Min ister of Finance gave me the scenario of taking from one pocket and putting into the other.

That is essen tially what he was saying. We do that in essence right now with accounting. We had the Provincial Auditor doing the accounting of most of the corporations and of the dep artments within the Go vernment. The Provincial Auditor is a public servant, in effect a creature created by

an act of this -(interjection)- well, the Minister of Finance says he is not going to privatize the Provincial Auditor. That was done under Sterling Lyon. What we did then is rather than-and let us un derstand what we did pay for the cost of the Civil Service and count the num bers, because that was the game of the '70s, that we wanted to show the public of Manitoba that we would reduce the numb er of civil servants and make the case that since we reduced the num ber of Civil Service, we could in fact give the taxpayers of this province a tax cut.

That was the political rationale and the jargon of the day, that if you said that the num bers of civil servants was down and we reduced the numbers, we could then offer Manitobans a tax cut. Mr. Acting Speaker , we did at that time, as the Minister of Finance is saying we are doing now, what we did is we cont racted out. So, instead of paying for offices within the Civil Service, the same kind of overhead that any company requires, we did a little bit more. We not only paid for that, but we added a margin of profit to the private companies on the basis of contracting out. So what did we accomplish at the time?

We did accomplish the reduction of Civil Service, but we did not reduce the cost to the public purse. We accomplished it by saying we will in fact hand it over to the private sector firms. We will pay for their overhead and we will put into place a margin of profit for them.

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 So I have to say we did not accomplish a heck of a lot, but we satisfied the political ambitions and in fact the ability of dealing with some of our political friends and making sure that they got contr acts in the public domain, a basis of secur ity, a basis in fact one could argue, Mr. Acting Speaker, at the basis of largess, at the expense of the public purse.- (interjection)- No, it is not a matter of even creative accou nting, it is a matter of basically saying, we will give you some of the public welfare that is arou nd. We will do it by contracting out.

That in fact is what we did at the time. On this one, this one has to have a little bit more finesse, because ther e is one difficu lty that the Government has in this whole area. That is the difficulty with the confidentiality of records; that is the difficulty that the Conservatives have. This corporation now has and maintains confidential records in a number of areas on behalf of Ma ni tob ans. Mr. Ac ting Sp eak er, notwithst anding the Mi nis ter's com ments that no company would in fact sign an agreement if they thought the Legislature could pass

an Act deta iling penalties for disclosure or for allowing of information that may leak out as a result of some misadventure within that corporation that they will not go into an agreement, I want to tell the Minister that any future Legislature will be able to bring in whatever law it deems appropriate at the time to deal with any infractions of confidentiality that may occur. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Man ness) better tell those two firms or how many firms he has that he is in negotiations with that he can not give them that guarantee by virtue of the contract. Mr.

Acting Speaker, there will be occasions that some future Assemb ly, some future Government through this Assem bly, may want to pass a law to deal with actual breaches of confidentiality under this.- (interjection)- The Minister of Finance (Mr. Mann ess) attempts to bait me and says, we will nationalize. Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not a matter of nationalization. The corporation is there in the public domain now. We have all paid for it, what are we going to nationalize? What we intend to do now is to privatize.

We are going to privatize a corporation and allow it to be taken over for a number of reasons. * (15 40) I want to go through the reasons that the Minister gave.- (interject ion)- Pardon me? Yes, that is what I sa id, the former Sterling Lyon admin istration did something and centraliz ed the computing services of the Government. Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to go through the Minister's comments as to his rationale for the objectives of selling this corpora tion. He said some of his criteria that we will sell, continuance of existing MOS jobs, I hope so.

I would say Manitobans would be outraged if in fact there was not the continu ance of MOS jobs. I think that would be the height of stupidity on any Government, on any Mini ster of this Crown, to at least not allow that one little guarantee to be maintained. The second criteria is that there will be a guarantee of significant new job creation. There can be some guarantee, but I want to tell you that will be very hard put over any length of time. I say that because of the changing technology in the information base and I venture to say that beyond a decade no such guarantees would be provided.

We will see what this Government is talkin g about when in fact those agreements eventually are tabled. Mr. Acting Spe aker, broadening of client sou rce reve nu es to includ e na tional and in ternat ional accounts-what is preventing MOS now from in fact going beyond the public sector clients that it maintains?

If MO S and the Government itself, through its present board of directors, of whom on which sit some of the most, what I would say, experienced minds in the computer field in probably this province for sure and possibly within this countr y, have indicated this is a very efficiently run company that if you want to go out and seek business, nothing prevents us. Nothing except the Government prevents us by policy direction. That objective could be obtained by keeping the company where it is now.

There are three sources of the criteria that have been put forward that can be accomplished by leaving that corporation where it is now. The fourth one is to establish co-operative educational opportun ities with Manitoba's un iversities. What is preventing MOS and the Government linking up with the schools of excellence in the computer science field at the University of Manitoba, Un iversity of Brandon or the University of Winnipeg and Red River Community College and all the educational institutions of higher learning in this province?

What is preventing the Government from saying, yes, this is a field we want to pursue? We have some excellent staff and human resources in this province who are taking and investing their talents in the computer field and we will broaden the scope of MOS and go into this area. Nothing prevents this corporation from going that route. Another one was position of new MOS technology through inv est ment and produc t research and development. Nothing prevents MOS from expanding its horizon, though all of those last numb er of criteria, the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) wanted to impress on us that somehow these doors will be open only if this corporation is privatized. Mr. Acting Spe aker, it can acco mplish all the se ob jectives even if it is maintained as a public entity under the umbrella of the Government. All it needs is the policy directive to go ahead and expand into those areas. Mr. Acting Speaker , let us un derstand where the difficulty comes into being.

The difficulty comes into being when one does allow-and because pu blic corporations tend to be on the headlines and scrutinized by the pu blic much more broad ly than priv ate corporations are, then the difficulty comes in if some scope of their entrepreneurship gets into difficulty. Then you have all the political outfall in the papers, in this House. I mean, we have gone through it all.

I go through the history of the Manitoba Development Corporation, the Chinese food, the vegetable plant, the aircraft manufacturing and a whole host of adventur es that originally were started by private entrepreneurs who came to the public and said we cannot make it on our own, we want public investments in these corporations. The board of directors provided those 5594

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 loan funds and ultimately the projects did not succeed. The public ended up picking up those enterpris es, repossessing on them, and the same difficulty can occur as occurred, for example, in MTX, MP IC. Absolutely, there is no doubt that occurs. The Government of the Day says we do not want to be involved in any of this political outfall and the political downside of having this corporation under the public domain, because it has been a profitable one. Mr. Acting Speaker , you have two choices.

You either continue that corporation as a profitable, topnotch corporation as it is reputed to be and leave it in a public domain under its present scope, and if you want private enterprise, so-called private enterprise, and provide that initiative, then give them the welfare, the grants, the support that you want to create the atmosphere for growth, if that is what they want. * (1 550) I do not agree with it, Mr. Acting Spe aker, but the fact of the matter is that is the name of the game across this country.

It is competition between the public purse of one province versus anot her, or a province against the federal Government. That is what has occurred over the last several decades. It has not worked to the benefit of the taxpayers of any one area, but it certainly has benefited to some extent the pocketbooks of some large corporations in terms of the jobs that they have created. Mr. Acting Speaker , to in fact divest itself of this profitable corporation that keeps private records on behalf of its citizens will be the Achilles' heel for this Government.

I want to tell my honourable friends in the Conservative Party-and I bel ieve that the Liberals are supporting this move, because while the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus), he kind of was on one side and another on this issue, my reading of this is that the Liberals support the privatization move of this corporation. I believe that they will in fact support it along with the Tories. Mr. Acting Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Man ness) as well indicated as one of his objectiv es that this corporation will be paying taxes to the Province of Manitoba, something it has never done. Mr.

Acting Speaker, all that the Mini ster of Finance has to do, by decree, is to say this corporation will pay all the taxes, no problem. What is preventing the Government from having MO S pay the taxes? MP IC pays its full share of taxes to the Province of Manitoba, to the City of Winnipeg, all its insurance taxes, as any other insurance company did, and the Province of Manitoba gains from that revenue, so what is preven ting the Mi nis ter of Fin ance from decreeing that this corporation in fact will now pay taxes, or has not paid taxes to now? Mr.

Acting Speaker , in essence, I think what worries me about this piece of legislation and this move by the Conservatives, is that they had to bring in a Bill because they were not certain of their legal position because of the confidentiality of this Bill because they had to bring in this piece of legislation. There are two sections in this Act which are in my mind very key to this 5595 transaction, or this proposed transaction, and one is of course that in case of a conflict between this Act and any other Act, this Act prevails to the extent of the conflict. Mr.

Acting Speak er, they are in fact making sure that in case they have missed something in their divestiture desires, they will have the authority clearly under their belt; and secondly, under The Legislative Library Act it is very clear that where the public interest so requires, the Lieutenant-Govern or-in-Council may direct that any public record in any department or agency or any public record transferred to the branch shall not be made available for public inspection for such period of time that the Lieutenant-Govern or-in-Council may designate. Mr.

Acting Speak er, in fact the very essence of my remarks, the confidentiality of records has to be broken by the

section in this Act,

Section 9, dealing with the storage and processing and the provisions regarding confidentiality required. The Government itself has to admit that it will and is prepar ed to release the information of private records that are kept in the public domain to a private corporation. So, Mr Acting Speaker, the Government itself now by this Act is admitting that it has to break the laws of this province in order for this divestiture to go through, and that is very clear by the Bill that the Mini ster of Finance (Mr. Man ness) has in fact brought forward.

The Minister in his remarks talked about receiving unsolicited offers to purchase this company when they were approached. They wanted a thrust within a high tech area. Well, one just has to remember the thrust that the Government of Saskatchewan just went through into a high tech area, and a Conservative Government, a busine ss-sense Go ve rnme nt. You know, those Conservatives tend to tell people that they have real business sense. You know what, Mr.

Acting Speaker , they created, they invested was it not something like $30 million into a translation company, a computer translation company that was going to translate all their English statutes into French, Sir, in the Province of Saskatchewan? They invested this money and in fact there are some court cases in the Province of Quebec by the Japanese investors into this company by the entrepreneur from Quebec who went to Saskatchewan and really got himself a nice deal, a real sweetheart deal with the Government of Saskatchewan to operate a computer company.

You know, Sir, I am told, if all the news reports are correct, they have not trans lated one line of statutes into French, but the public of Saskatchewan spent millions of dollars of public money and said that they were interested in a thrust in a high tech area. I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Man ness) is not one of those who is now going to take the entrepreneur skills from the Province of Saskatchewan and transpose them on the public of Manitoba to put into place a thrust into the high tech area and bring about the kind of investment that Saskatchewan got itself into, Sir.

I want to say that there is no hang-up on my part of taking a commercial entity of the public, and if it

.L Tuesday, February 27, 1990 deemed be divested so be it, Mr. Acting Speaker , as it was done with Flyer, as it was done with Manfor. In fact some of those negotiations were going, but there is a difference in my mind, Sir , between those commercial entities and one that has been created, by a Conservative administration albeit, that provides complete and sole record-keeping for the public on a confidential basis and reports to the public.

That to me is the major difference between this corporation and any other commercial entity and the Government's intent to divest.- (interjection)- The Min ister of Finance (Mr . Man ness) says tha t they feel no ideolo gical commitment to the devolution of Crown assets, instead from a rational policy objective we are using Crown div estitu res as levers to signific ant economic devel opment. Manitoba has had a taste of Conservative economic policy of the '70s where Sterling Lyon said-and here we are having another round of this-w e are going to place all our economic eggs in one basket.

We are saying that all the jobs and all the so-called profitable jobs can only be created by the private sector, and so whatever is in the public domain no longer shall remain and should be transferred to the public sector. What were the fruits of that Conservative ideology and Conservative economic policy of the late '70s and early'80s? Massive out-migration, Mr. Acting Speaker, high unemplo yment. This investment in the province we were ranking among the tops in investment in this province. During the four years of Sterl ing Lyon, investment fell, thousands of Ma n

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-134
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 134.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1c1d6c511acba176f69d4f1726ec8e60e9d6b7ad

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