Manitoba Hansard — 4 May 1992 (Sitting 58A, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-58a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS {HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL XLI No. 58A -1:30 p.m., MONDAY, MAY 4,1992 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thlrty·Fifth Legislatur e Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON , Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMJAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James , Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GJLLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

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

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

Johns Swan River PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

2868 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, May 4, 1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PR ESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Andrhea Lande, Brenda Austi n-Smith, Deborah Carlson and othe rs requesting the government consider restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to fight Dutch elm disease. Ms.

Becky Barrett (Wellington): I beg to present the petition of Katrina Boyd, Jean Davidson, Marise Leblanc and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I beg to present the petition of Sandra Mclaughlin, Joyce Jones, Natalie Strohman and others requesting the government consider reviewing the funding of the Brandon General Hospital to avoid layoffs and cutbacks to vital services. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr.

Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs). It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Province of Manitoba announced that it would establish an Office of the Children's Advocate in its most recent throne speech and allocated funds for this Office in its March '92 budget; and

WHEREAS the Kimelman Report (1 983), the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry (1 991 ) and the Suche Report (1 992) recommended that the province establish such an office reporting directly to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, in a manner similar to that of the Office of the Ombudsman; and

WHEREAS pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act Standards, the agency worker is to be the advocate for a child in care; and

WHEREAS there is a major concern that child welfare workers, due to their vested interest as employees within the service system, cannot perform an independent advocacy role; and

WHEREAS pure advocacy will only be obtained through an independent and external agency; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has unsatisfactorily dealt with complaints lodged against child welfare agencies; and

now THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba strongly urge the provincial government to consider establishing an Office of the Children's Advocate which will be independent of cabinet and report directly to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Human Resources Opportunity Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the unemployed and people re-entering the labour force; and

WHEREAS during the past 1 0 years alone over 1 ,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and training; and

WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the training centre's recent graduates have found employment; and

WHEREAS without consultation the program was cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and

WHEREAS there is a growing need for this program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of Selkirk, the Selkirk local of the

2869 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 4, 1992 Manitoba Metis Federation as well as many other local organizations and individuals. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gi lleshammer) to consider a one-year moratorium on the program. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth that: The Brandon General Hospital is the major health care institution for southwestern Manitoba; and The citizens of Brandon and southwestern Manitoba are deeply concerned and disturbed about the downsizing of the hospital and view it as a threat to the quality of health care in the region; and The Manitoba government has chosen not to review the current budget to ensure that cutbacks to vital services do not occur; and The administration of the hospital has been forced to take drastic measures including the elimination of the Palliative Care Unit and gynecological wards, along with the layoff of over 30 staff, mainly licensed practical nurses, to cope with a funding shortfall of over $1 .3 million; and WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba consider reviewing the funding of the Brandon General Hospital to avoid layoffs and cutbacks to vital services.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPO RTS Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): I would like totable, Mr. Speaker, the Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Urban Affairs and the Department of Housing. Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make to the House. It was my privilege to have recently signed a proclamation designating the week May 3 to May 9, 1 992, as National Forest Week in Manitoba. I would like to take this opportunity to read into the record the proclamation that I signed.

WHEREAS Canada's forests are one of the major aspects of our national heritage; and

WHEREAS our forests provide mil lions of Canadians and visitors with opportunities for healthful recreation and sport each year; and WHERE AS these sam e fores ts provide protection in our watersheds for soils and crops and form a home for wildlife and also provide thousands of Canadians with jobs in the forest products industries; and

WHEREAS the losses suffered each year through man-made forest fires are detrimental to the interest of all Canadians; and

WHEREAS the Manitoba Forestry Association is well known for its efforts in reminding us of our ever-present responsibility for the conservation of our forest wealth and is co-operating in the promotion of a national week focusing attention on our forest resources;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT KNOWN THAT I, Harry J. Enns, Minister of Natural Resources, do hereby recognize the days from May 3 to May 9, 19 92, as National Forest Week in Manitoba and do commend their observation to all citizens of the province. Mr. Speaker, honourable memb ers will be pleased to note that the tradition of the House continues with a presentation of a white spruce tree. These were supplied by the Manitoba Forestry Association in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources. Today is recognized as Arbour Day.

It is an occasion to plant trees and to reflect upon the future of our forests and forest industries. It was my pleasure this morning, in Brandon, to be able to join with my federal colleague, the honourable Frank Oberle, in announcing a farm forestry program to encourage the private wood lot industry. This $1 -million, three-year program will help to ensure that owners of treed lands have alternatives to clearing their land. As well, it will encourage owners of marginal land to replant their land in trees, which in years to come will benefit both our

May4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2870 environment and economy; in other words, sustainable development. I was also plea sed to advise honourable members that this principle of sustainable forestry development has been applied in the urban tree planting program that I was able to announce just last week. That program will see the planting of approximately 3,500 green ash and basswood trees on the properties of land owners who have lost trees to Dutch elm disease. Only through a combination of tree removal and tree planting will we ensure that our urban forest remains sustainable.

This program will ensure that the city of Winnipeg remains green now and in the future while providing jobs for our young people today. I would ask all honourable members to take these trees with them to ensure that they are planted where they can grow and be enjoyed. I might suggest that maybe some of them need some watering pretty soon. Thank you. * (1 340) Mr. Cllf Evans: It is certainly my privilege to reply to the minister's statement this afternoon regarding National Forest Week in Manitoba.

The minister's statement has indicated that the announcement of the $1- million federal announcement-that the program is to ensure that trees will be reforested and regrown. I would like to also remind the minister and members on the opposite side of the House that the forestry department and forestry in Manitoba is of great importance to this province.

We are well aware of the factthat some years ago, in the Interlake itself, we had devastating loss in forestry, and I would encourage the minister to not only include the urban renewal of the growth oftrees in maintaining the greenery in Winnipeg but also to encourage his department to expand in rural Manitoba, where we also have a tremendous need for further sustainable development for jobs, Mr. Speaker, and also to remind the minister that in his announcement on the Dutch elm disease, Dutch elm disease is also spreading very, very quickly throughout rural Manitoba.

I would ask the minister that in his department, he provide, not only the urban centre with more funds to be able to prevent this disease but also to enhance the growth of future trees, not only in Winnipeg, but in rural Manitoba. However, Mr. Speaker, I would just also like to comment and thank the minister for his lovely trees. We certainly will, on this side of the House , grow them at the appropriate spots. I know that this tree here will be in the Interlake some time this week. Thank you very much. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the minister for yet another tree.

I have a row of these growing in the back of my property, and for any of those who are not using them, I will be happy to take them off their hands. Forestry in this province is at a critical juncture. I think all Manitobans who have been following issues with respect to our forests and forest management realize that. There are some very hopeful signs. I point to the experimental forest application to the federal government, which has come forward now from Abitibi-Price and from various environmental groups, presently in the hands of our federal counterparts.

We are waiting for information as to whether or not the Manitoba application has been chosen, but we are all hopeful. The most hopeful sign, at the outset, was that environmentalists and the foresters themselves, Abitibi-Price, in particular in this case, came together in a joint application. That was a very, very hopeful sign for the future of forest management in this province, Mr. Speaker. That consensus building was seen again in response to the CEC decision of a couple of months ago.

When the decision came down, of course, Abitibi-Price, the people in Pine Falls, are very upset because they perceived it to mean that their livelihoods were threatened. Mr. Speaker, when they came together with the environmental groups involved, I think both sides were surprised that they could reach consensus, and they did. They went down that road, and for unfortunate reasons, it did not crysta ll ize in a positive recommendation to the minister at that time.

The point is they came to an agreement on the critical factors and a way to implement the CEC decision so that It did not mean that jobs were cost at Pine Falls. Now, the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), I believe, dropped the ball, Mr. Speaker, and did not take them up on their offer to appoint a mediator, and for that I think he will regret that decision. The point is that we are seeing signs of a coming together and a consensus building between both the forest companies as well as the

2871 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 4, 1992 environmental groups, and that is a very, very positive move. We are now at a stage where certain states in the United States require 40 percent recycled product in their paper products. That is clearly the way of the future. The way of the future for Abitibi-Price, for other manufacturers including Repap and others, is to include recycled materials, to join the move towards sustainable development, which means higher and higher levels of recycled product. * (1 345) Mr.

Speak er, I am ple ased to see this announcement today, specifically to do with turning private forest into areas of economic growth in a sus tainable way that is consistent with our environmental principles. I do believe that if we are going to capitalize-and there is every reason for this province to do it as much as any other province in this country-on the desire of the community at large to ensure sustainable forests and capitalize on the good will of both the environmental groups who are involved, as well as the producers, gov ernment must lead.

The CEC decision stood for the principle that government in this province was not leading. I call on government to lead in all areas of forest management, and I congratulate them on this program. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table Supplem entary Information for Legisla tiv e Review on the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba. Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for the Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker I have a ministerial statement to make. Mr.

Speaker, I wish to inform you and my honourable colleagues that the negotiators for the Province of Manitoba, the Government of Canada, Manitoba Hydro and the Split Lake Cree First Nation have recommended a comprehensive agreement to settle the outstanding obligations flowing from the Northern Flood Agreement. This proposed agreement is the result of more than two years of intensive, determined negotiations involving all four parties. Each party must go through the formal processes required for approval.

This includes a referendum to be held by the Split Lake chief and council by asking for the approval of the Split Lake residents. The chief and his council have attempted to maintain an open line of communication with the residents of Split Lake to build a consensus and ensure the agreement is understood. Both federal and provincial governments, along with the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board, will go through a further process of review.

This is a comprehensive agreement that fully and finally releases the province from all obligations under the 19 77 Northern Flood Agreement and provides the Split Lake Cree with $47.37 million. The funds from this agr eem ent will be administered through trust arrangements. The proposed agreement also includes resource management, environmental monitoring, land transfers and social and economic initiatives. Honourable members know our government has indicated our commitment to settle outstanding claims under the Northern Rood Agreement. It is a responsibility and an obligation we take very seriously.

In solving our differences, we will be able to move on to new challenges. Mr. Speaker, this agreement will fully release the province from any further obligations to the Split Lake Cree under the Northern Rood Agreement. That does not mean we stop working with the Split Lake community. We have clarified our various roles and can now move on to tackle other challenges. I think this agreement involving the Split Lake Cr ee sho ws ha rd work and deter mined negotiations. The four other bands affected by the Northern Flood Agreeme nt have chosen to implement their claims under the original 1977 agreement.

The invitation to globally negotiate remains open to the four bands: Norway House, Cross Lake, Nelson House and York Landing, who ar e sti ll under the original Northern Flood Agreement. I am pleased with the efforts that all parties have made, and I look forward to future co-operation that can benefit all Manitobans. I will be providing further information for members of the Legislature and the public as the process allows. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): We, on this side, certainly welcome any progress that is made on the Northern Rood Agreement.

It was signed in 1977 by the then Sterling Lyon government. It has been 15 years. There are many lengthy, complex

May 4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2872 negotiations that have been part of this set of negotiations, Mr. Speaker. As the member of the Legislature representing Split Lake, I know. I have had the opportunity to talk to the chief and members of the council and with the community on a regular basis about the progress of negotiations.

Also, I am sure the minister is aware, there are continuing negotiations and continuing concerns of the four other bands which were signatory to the Northern Flood Agreement, concerns sti ll rela ted to envi ronmental assessments, part of the original 19 77 Northern Flood Agreement.

In commenting on the particular agreement, I would indicate to the minister that I know the position of the Split Lake Band is one, of course, that will be subject to referendum, but it is clearly, from their point, not a question of giving up all their rights as aboriginal people in terms of questions related to land in terms of environmental damage, Mr.

Speaker, and I hope that in suggesting that this releases the province from obligations under the Northern Rood Agreement, the specific wording of the 19 77 agreement, the minister would also acknowledge the position of the Split Lake band and other bands which have yet to sign a final agreement with the government that they are no way seeing this process of negotiations as leading to anything other than the implementation of the 1977 agreement. * (1 350) They still rese rve the right to deal with governments related to any environmental damage that may result from past or future dams, hydro developments, in fact, any resource development.

I think that is important because aboriginal people, I know, have said very clearly in regard to the Northern Flood Agreement that this, in many ways, has mirrored their experience generally, whether it be in terms of treaties, whether it be in terms of land claims, whether it be in terms of self-government. One lesson I think we all need to learn in society, Mr. Speaker, is to understand that the aboriginal people have a unique relationship with the land.

When we are talking about the legal system, whether it be a flood agreement with all its frustrations and lengthy negotiations, long after the flood agreement is merely a footnote in history, the aboriginal people of Split Lake, the aboriginal people of northern Manitoba, will still have their unique relationship with the land. So we should not be assuming, Mr. Speaker, that the signing of any agreement in any way changes that. This is really Just another chapter. It is nice to see that this final negotiation has taken place for the community of Split Lake.

We have much more to be done, not only in terms of the Northern Rood Agreement, but in terms of clearly recognizing the right of aboriginal people to the land which they have traditionally used. Indeed, we will be making comments on that I am sure in this session and in many sessions to come in the Legislature. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, we, too, certainly want to join in our thanks to the parties involved on both sides of this and our congratulations that they have been able to come to an arrangement after 15 years of dealing with this issue. It is high time.

I notice that my friend from Thompson indicates that we have all learned certain things. I think, if we learned one thing about this, it is how not to go about northern hydro development, and that Is not the way that the NDP let us down in the 19 70s. I note that Mr. Eliesen was representing us back then, and now he is the head of Ontario Hy dro, better that than Manitoba Hydro. Mr. Speaker, after 15 years, it is time that these people had a future and had some opportunity to maximize what they have in northern Manitoba and to move forward and beyond the destruction of some of the hydro developments.

Recognizing the human and the financial cost of hydro development in northern Manitoba today should be a necessary part of hydro development, and it should be what we do before we build these dams. Unfortunately, this government, I think, purports to have learned the lesson from prior failures of the NDP, but I am not sure they have. I see increased investment and increased evidence that the government is pushing forward with Conawapa no matter what. Everyth ing in between is just something to go through to get the ultimate result, Mr. Speaker, and that is wrong.

We have surely learned by this point that we have to think first and build later and recognize the full cost before we not only invest but wreak havoc in areas where 15 years later, like this, we will still be trying to settle the outstanding claims. Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one issue for the minister. The minister indicates that this will be the

2873 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May4, 1992 subject of a referendum. I know in the past, he knows in the past, there have been problems in dealing with membership and who gets to vote on these things. Those are issues that I will be looking for answers on. I look forward to some of his promise of further information. He has indicated that further Information will be forthcoming, and we certainly look forward to that. We also look forward to progress reports in the upcoming Estimates on the negotiations that are going on with the other bands, Mr. Speaker.

We hope Indeed that reconciliations can be had with them as well. As my friend had indicated correctly, much work is left, but surely at this point, recognizing the agreement that has been reached here , congratulations must go to the parties involved. • (1 355) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Economic Growth Government Initiatives Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1990, the Premier stated to us in this House that we are faring better in this recession than most other provinces and talked about the good times Manitoba would enjoy in the Mure.

On March 13 ,1 991 , theotherpartofthe economic troika of the government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) stated: You must realize that Manitoba is doing much better than the rest of Canada, and it is coming through this session reasonably well in comparison. The government must get credit for this performance, the minister said. Further, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) told us in 1990 when we were faced with the 19 91 recession: Manitoba is a beacon in the dark because we are performing so well in a relative sense to other provinces in this country. Mr.

Speaker, Friday, the gross domestic product as a factor cost came out in this country, the measurement of all economic performances, private and public of the government, and unfortunately, Manitoba was last in economic performance in the whole country-dead last. We have gone back through the years, and the last time that Manitoba was last was when Walter Weir was defeated by Ed Schreyer in 1969 in terms of economic performance and last place. I would ask the Premier: Why are we in last place, and what is his government doing about a situation that has not taken place in this province for 23 years? Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I note that the member was quoting from comments that I made in 19 90 and comments that the Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness) was making in 1990. Atthat time indeed, according to Stats Canada, we had a growth rate in 1990 of 3.5 percent. Indeed we were faring better than the national average. Those were accurate comments that you found, so I thank him for confirming the veracity of those comments. In 1991 , as I said publicly on Friday, it was a bad year right across the country. Everybody suffered and suffered dramatically from the recession.

In Manitoba terms, the reasons that are put forward by Stats Canada are that we had the lowest growth in labour income in the country, and that primarily is because we chose strategically to freeze public sector wages and set a target that was matched by most private sector employers. The wage increase kept taxes down in this province. Unlike other provinces, we chose not to raise taxes, so we have had five straight budgets of no increase in taxes, and we have positioned ourselves better for the recovery for the future.

As a result, Stats Canada, the very people from whom he derives his information, along with most of the major forecasters, are suggesting that in 1992, '93 and '94, we will perform better than the national average, probably in the top four provinces in the country. We think that is good news, Mr. Speaker, and we think that looking to the future positively is the sort of thing that everybody should be doing. We regret that the Leader of the Opposition persists in his gloom and doom, dark approach to all of things in society. That is not what the people are looking for.

The people are looking for positive leadership, and that is what they are getting. • (1 400) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the people are looking for jobs. The young people waiting in line today are looking for jobs. They are looking for economic opportunity. They are looking for performance. They are not looking for last-place finishes that this Premier brags about in this House. He quotes 1990; in 1990 we were in eighth place. I guess 1990 was a great year according to the Premier because,

May 4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2874 in 1991 , we were in tenth or in last place of all provinces in this country. I would ask the Premier, as head of the economic committee of cabinet, that $900,000 secretariat that they created and he chairs: What action is he going to take to start dealing with the 60,000 who are unemployed, the thousands of young people who cannot get jobs, the increase in welfare rates that are developing on the basis of Manitoba being in last place in 19 91 in economic performance? What action is he going to take? Mr. Fllmon: Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that we are beyond 1991 and that the economic forecasters, the banks and Stats Canada are suggesting that 1992, '93 and '94 will all be better years because we have kept the taxes down, because we have kept the deficit down. We have built the kind of foundation that people are looking for. They are projecting a 31 .7 percent increase in manufacturing capital investment. They are suggesting that as a province in 1992, we are going to have the highest overall increase in capital investment, the second-highest increase in private capital investment.

Those are the kinds of things that the Economic Development Board of Cabinet has been working on. Government Forecast Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Opposition): These are the same recorded announcements we received from the Premier in 19 90, the same recorded announcements we received from his economic ministers in 1991 , and it is the same kind of recorded announcements we get from the Premier again today, not acknowledging the pain and suffering that is induced on Manitobans with a 1Oth or last-place performance by this government.

I would ask the Premier: In light of the fact that private sector investment and many other sectors of investment have gone down, and in light of the fact that banks are downgrading the growth predictions for Manitoba, even as we speak today-[interjection] Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) gets upset from his seat. I guess I would be upset too if I predicted we would be doing better than any other province in Canada and came in 1Oth place or last place-[interjection] 1Oth place is fair. Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Mr.

Doer: My question to the First Minister is: When will we in this province, in 1992, be equal to the lost growth in 1991 so that we are even with what happened in the election? What are his predictions, in this House , when we will gain back the lost jobs, the lost opportunities, the lost investment, the loss in our future in 1992 to make up for the tremendous decline in growth and economic opportunity suffered under his government in 1991 7 Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, as I said before, the fact is that every one of the economic forecasters, major economic forecasters is suggesting that In 1992, '93 and '94, we will be among the top four. CareerStart Program Funding Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Family Services. Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment is now at 18 .6 percent, which is abnormally high. In fact, it is the highest ever recorded since statistics were kept on youth unemployment in this province. Unemployment is expected to remain high during this year. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, these high unemployment figures are reflected in the disappointment and the frustration of students who are finding it almost impossible to find jobs this summer. I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, will this government reconsider its allocation of money slotted for CareerStart? Specifically, will the government increase the CareerStart funding from $3.5 million back to $7 million, where it was a couple of years ago? Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): The member references the youth unemployment rates in Manitoba, and I say to the member that youth unemployment rates across this country are high. For the January to March period, 1992, Manitoba was in third place. The Maritime provinces and other provinces have a much higher unemployment rate with their youth than Manitoba. Having said that, however, we have maintained our CareerStart Program at last year's levels.

We have also introduced a new program, the Partners with Youth program, that is now taking applications, that there are a lot of municipal level governments and nonprofit organizations interested in that program, and that will allow us to create an extra 700

2875 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May4, 1992 jobs this year as those applications come in and are approved. Status Report Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Young people are looking for jobs that are not there. Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: How many youth job positions were cut by this government since it took office in 1988; that is, how many job positions for youth were there in '88? How many are there today under the downscaled youth CareerStart Program? Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I say to the member that we have maintained that program, even in very difficult economic times, maintained it at last year's level. We have introduced a new program, and I might point out to him that we are also maintaining some 44 youth job em ployment offices across this province. Last year, we had som e 13 ,000 students registered at those job offices which are located in 44 of our communities, and we were able to place almost 9,000 of them. So our budget for those youth employment offices has been maintained and again will be in operation this summer.

Youth Employment Programs Northern Manitoba Mr . Leonard Evans (Brandon East ): Mr. Speaker, I ask this minister: Will the government re-establish the youth employment program in northern Manitoba which was abolished last year? I ask this in view of the fact that northern unemployment is dramatically higher than the provincial average for youth unemployment. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the program that the member references was operated by the federal government last year.

We have maintained our programs, and young people in the North have every opportunity to access the job employment offices, to access CareerStart programming, as well as the Partners with Youth program. Student Aid Application Statistics Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today Canada Student Youth Employment Centres opened up across this nation. They opened up for business in a climate which is less than positive. We know that there are no jobs for young people. That is why we have such a very high unemployment rate.

We know that jobs have been cut in the private sector as well as in the government sector. We know that they are facing 18 percent increases In student fees, and we know that there is less money available to them in the student loan system than there was two years ago. The Minister of Education says she has increased it from last year. Well, yes, she has, but she is still, through her ministry, $600,000 less than she was two years ago. At the same time, she, by her own figures, admits there will be an increase of applicants by 43 percent.

Can she tell the House today where those 43 percent of new applicants are to go for student assistance in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,! would just like to add to the figures to clarify for the members In this House. Over the past four years, there has been almo st $4 mil lion more put into the student assistance program. I would also like to remind the member that the program is not capped, and that this year we put in over $600,000 more for student assistance. H students are in greater need then, certainly their cases will be examined.

Funding Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the minister is putting misleading information before this House. I traced back to 1989-90, and the figure for grants is very clear. It is $1 0,597,300. In 1990-91 , that went to $1 1 ,456,900. Las t year, it went back to $1 0,2n,ooo. This year it went up by $1 0,892,800 total. That is, to be exact, a $573,1 00 increase year to year, but a $61 5,800 decrease from two years ago. Can the minister tell us where in God's name she comes up with $4 million? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): During the Estimates process, I will be happy to provide her with the detailed information of the additional funds which have been put Into the area of student aid in the past four years. I will also remind the member that again this year there has been a commitment by this government. We have increased our funding to student aid by

May 4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2876 $615, 000, and in addition to that, the fund is uncapped. Appeal Process Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, if this lack of capping is accurate, can she explain to this House why she expects a 24 percent increase in student appeals for student bursaries? • (14 1 0) Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to take a look at the particular situation of students who find themselves in financial need during the course of their studies.

The appeal process is available to those students, whatever their age and whatever their family circumstance, if they believe that they have a concern which they would like to have brought forward. Those are estimated numbers, and I am very pleased that we do have a process where awards can be re- examined where necessary. Dept. of Highways and Transportation District 10 Headquar ters Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): My questions will be directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is also responsible for hydro and is also the Deputy Premier.

In view of the fact that the North West Company is laying off 15 employees in The Pas, as well as the continuing layoffs in the woodlands division of Repap and other layoffs in the area, and the importance of roads to the northern economy, could I ask the minister whether he will consult with and urge his colleague the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), and indeed the cabinet, to commit his government to keeping The Pas as District 1 0 centre headquarters, with the same number of employees that are there now. Hon.

James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs and responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the specifics dealing with Highways and Transportation, I will allow or request my colleague the Minister of Highways to respond to that. I do think, Mr. Speaker, to be fair, to point out to the member for The Pas the activities that are going on in northern Manitoba, particularly northwest Manitoba, this government's commitment of $55 million to the smelter in Flin Ron, which is a major impact, this government's commitment to the tree operation at The Pas.

The member has to be, as well, aware of the fact that when the government of which he sits left office, there was still some 90 percent unemployment in most of the northern communities, excluding probably The Pas, but in a lot of the remote comm unities, we saw 90 percent plu s in unemployment, which the member for the Churchill constituency knows as well. The Pas, Manitoba Employment Opportunities Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): I want to ask the minister again: What has the minister done in conjunction with his colleague the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.

Driedger) to protest to his federal counterparts in Ottawa concerning more proposed job cuts at The Pas? You see, these were only 15 jobs, but there are three more jobs being proposed to be terminated in six months in The Pas, at The Pas airport. If he has not consulted with his colleague the Minister of Highways, can he tell the House what they are prepared to do to speak on behalf of those people, northern people, who face job cuts in The Pas? I would like to ask the minister finally: When is he going to give the people of The Pas a fair shake? Hon.

James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs and responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we are very concerned about The Pas and the North. We have established, as he knows, a Northern Development Commission, which will bring forward policies and recommendations to assist with activities that are going on. I want to remind the member, as well, that he sits with a government that frittered some $27 million away in a bridge without a road to it, north of Selkirk, that would have given the Department of Highways a little more latitude.

He sits with a government that frittered $27 million away in Saudi Arabia, left us with an annual interest charge of $550 million. Tough decisions have to be made, Mr. Speaker, and it is a matter of trying to make sure that we get through these difficult economic times and we get onto future economic activities.

2877 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May4, 1992 Norway House Fisher man's Co-op Compensation Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my final question is again to the minister. We have just listened to a ministerial statement regarding hydro seHiement. I want to ask the minister: Why has his cabinet and treasury board not yet approved the outstanding sum agreed to by Manitoba Hydro to the Norway House Fisherman's Co-op for compensation for the period of June 1, 1991 , to May 31 of this year when it should have been paid, as per the agreement, within 30 days of the signing of the order of the arbitrator? Hon.

James Downey (Minister responsible for the Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, I will hold our record up as far as northern seHiements are concerned with Manitoba Hydro, with the Manitoba government. In fact, in the Grand Rapids forebay seHiement, he and his colleagues ignored and neglected and continually said they did not have a legal obligation. This Premier (Mr. Filmon) said to Manitoba Hydro, let us take a look; let us take a look at what obligations we have. Settlements have been made in his community. As the process proceeds, we will be making those kinds of settlements when all the work is done.

Ashern, Manitoba Ground Water Contamination Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Environment, concerning ground water pollution in this province and specifically in the village of Ashern. I would like to ask the minister what actions his department has taken for the residents of Ashern since his leHer to my inquires on the subject in November of last year, in which a consultant's report was to be released on the problem. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, this has been an ongoing problem, one of historical origin as a maHer of fact.

That is one of the difficulties that we have in dealing with it, that there is probably more than one source of contamination. At the same time, I recognize the concerns that the people in the community have, but there are no good immediate alternate sources of water other than for small amounts of water for consumption. We have not proceeded beyond the study phase, but we are planning on meeting further with the representatives of the community and trying to develop an action plan from that. Mr. Cllf Evans: Mr.

Speaker, can this same minister inform this House as to whether or not his department was involved in the negotiations between the Ashern water supply committee and Petro-Canada just in the past three weeks? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I would characteri ze the involvement of the department as negotiations. We are obviously involved at almost every step of the process. If the member has a specific issue that is concerning him beyond just the general principles, I would be more than glad to work with him. Mr.CIIf Evans: Mr.

Speaker, will the minister today commit his department's speedy assistance in order to provide the much-needed support for the community of Ashern and the health and well-being of the people in Ashern? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we are more than willing to work with the community. There are a number of other communities besides this one that have considerable problems associated with ground water contamination. To put the whole issue in perspective, we also have a number of communities that do not have a supply of water, pe riod, cont aminated or otherwise.

It is an increasing proble m across the province of contamination and one which the Department of Rural Develop ment, the Departm ent of Environment, in all of our various responsibilities, we know that the future development of the communities will be tied to the ability to have a good potable source of drinking water. North American Free Trade Agree ment Water Exports Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, since 1988, we on this side of the House have been very concerned about the impact of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and particularly its impact on this province.

Some new statistics from Statistics Canada suggest that over this last four years, Canada has lost something in the order of $8 billion in economic activity, and industrial production in this country has dropped some 9 percent while it has increased in the U.S. I note that the Minister of Trade has come back from some meetings with the federal Minister of

May 4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2878 Trade, and we have been asking some very serious questions about the U.S.-Can ada-Mexico agreement. In particular, I have some questions on the impact of the effect on water, on the cross-border transportation of water. I would like to ask the minister today: Did he receive some assurances from the federal minister that water is not included in this new deal? Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tou rism): From our review of the documentation that has been provided to us in confidence from the federal government, water is not an issue in ter ms of the proposed Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement, other than potentially the issue of bottled water for distribution between countries. *

(1420) Mr. Alcock: Did the minister share with the federal minister the concerns that have been raised in this House, particularly given the very poor performance that this country has had under this agreement? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I have on several occasions raised the concerns of the citizens of Manitoba as outlined to us when we did our consultation process back last year, back in June and July of last year. I have also raised concerns that have come to light from our perspec tive from review of the documentation we have been provided with.

I have also raised some concerns that have arisen from comments and questions in the House. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, we raised the concern about the cross-border pipelines to transport water. Did the minister receive an assurance from the federal minister that those pipelines would not be transporting Canadian water? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I will take part of the question as notice to get back to the honourable member with the details. Again, our review of the internal working document that has been provided to us in confidence shows that this is clearly not an issue.

The pipelines being referred to are not for the distribution of water, and water is not an issue in the proposed North American free trade agreement, other than, as I have already mentioned, in the area of potential bottled water, Mr. Speaker. Impaired Driving Stayed Charges Review Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In a recent court case involving alcohol and driving in Brandon, the Crown has stayed a charge against an accused based on inadmissible evidence. The minister has indicated to the press that an appeal will be launched or is pending.

My question to the minister is: What process is in place in his department for a review of stayed charges to ensure that these kinds of decisions receive the appropriate review and attention? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Just to correct the honourable member, I do not think I said that an appeal would be launched in that case.

I did say, however, that senior prosecutors would review that case to see if there is any area that had not been uncovered, that if it were uncovered, would leave us in a position where reasonable and probable grounds might exist which would thus make the use of the blood test legal under the law. We have a mechanism, since the reorganization of the Department of Justice, Prosecutions Division back in 1989, a process for reviewing cases, and senior prosecutors are involved in those reviews.

That reorganization happened because at that time, under the previous regime in this province, people were waiting up to 14 months to have their trials in our criminal court system, Mr. Speaker. That problem was resolved within the space of about seven months. I just do not understand why that problem had not been addressed before that. Mr. Chomlak: Will the minister advise the House whether or not the particular case that I referred to in Brandon would have been dealt with and reviewed in the normal course of events if the matter had not been raised in the press and publicly outside of the court case? Mr.

McCrae: We try to be consistent in telling people, lik e honourable members opposite, specifically the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), for example, we do not run our prosecutions office based on what we read in the papers. The case the honourable member refers to was reviewed by the prosecutor in charge of the Regional Courts, who is a v ery senior person. When it came to my attention, it was also reviewed

2879 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May4, 1992 and is in the process of being reviewed now by other senior prosecutors, as well. When you can get the best minds on a case like that, then you should do that, and that is what we are doing. Judicial System Ball Reviews Mr. Dav e Cho mlak (KIId onan): My fina l supplementary to the same minister of a related matter: Does the minister have in place a process for reviewing bail decisions such as the one recently in Winnipeg, where an alleged abuser was to get out on bail based on a decision of the alleged victim? Has the minister had an opportunity to review that?

Is it going to be appealed, and what is the process in place? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, under the reorganization I referred to earlier, these decisions and reviews are made in a more structured way than they were previous to the reorganization. Certainly, more emphasis was placed on these issues with the Pedlar review and the emphasis this government is putting on the issue of domestic violence.

Here, again, the case the honourable member refers to is a case in which we felt the judge's decision in that case was somewhat out of line with the provisions in Pedlar and with the position this government takes. We announced last week that there was going to be an appeal of that matter. Residential Tenancies Act Proclamauon Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, thousands of Manitoba tenants and, I hope, all landlords are wondering when this government is going to finally proclaim The Residential Tenancies Act and wonderin g wheth er they have any commitment to it at all since it was passed in this Chamber 14 months ago. Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell us when the act will be proclaimed, since she said in the House on March 25, late spring or early summer, and since March 21 was the first day of summer, when will this act finally be proclaimed? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I have a different understanding of the calendar than the member opposite. I always thoughtthatthe first day of spring was the date that he mentioned, not the first day of summer. The answer remains the same as has been given many times in this House before. The question has been asked and answered several times. Rent Regulation Bureau Director's Status Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Why has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs demoted the director of the Rent Regulation Bureau and transferred him to the Public Utilities bureau, since everyone agrees that he was doing an excellent job as director of the Rent Regulation Bureau? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the word "unloaded. • That could be the member's word if he wishes to use it. It is certainly not the word that was in my mind.

With every department, as you know, members of various talents and abilities are moved where those talents and abilities are most needed. In this case, we have a situation with the PUB that the members opposite dwelt on very, very strongly during the Centra Gas debate saying: Are you going to have capable people? Are you going to have talented people? Are you going to have competent people with ability and experience to handle some of these things that are going to come up? We assured them we would and we do. Mr.

Martindale: There Is a big difference between working on gas shutoffs and being director of a department. Whyisthis ministerwateringdownthe regulations to The Residential Tenancies Act in response to pressure from landlords and developers who are lobbying this minister and the Premier (Mr. Film on)? Did the minister get rid of the director of the Rent Regulation Bureau in order to find someone who is more compliant? Mr. Mcintosh: Mr. Speak er , this was an administrative decision. It was a management decision with which I concur because I think it was a good management decision.

The member has not taken a demotion as is being implied by the member opposite. It is a lateral transfer. We needed a senior manager to assist with the anticipated 3,000 lock offs that we are going to have this summer, plus other duties at the PUB.

May4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2880 We have had extra hearings, as you know. We have had a wide variety of new initiatives and incentives being brought before the PUB. We have an extremely capable person handling landlord and tenant affairs right now, and I object strongly to the implication that the person acting as director in that capacity is not competent. I very much resent that. Suche Repo rt Working Committee Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, last December 6, as a result of the Pedlar Report, the government with great fanfare announced a community advisory committee.

This committee did not meet until four months later. Ten months after the Child and Family Services agencies were struck down and restructured into one lar ge agency, the community advisory committees that were to be established as a result of that restructuring have not yet met. Last Thursday, in response to the Suche report, there was a working committee established to implement standardized reporting procedures and other items. Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Ms.

Barrett: What gu arantee does this government provide to the people of Manitoba, the people who work in child care organizations, the children of Manitoba, that this working committee which is made up of excellent people, will be anything more than window-dressing, will actually immediately begin to do some work? *

(1430) Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I have a great deal of respect for the people who have agreed to serve on this working committee, and I am surprised that the member would feel that they are ju st ther e for window-dressing. These are people who have devoted their lives to working with children, who are very interested in the Suche report. We have accepted many, many recommenda tions from that report, and this working group will be commencing work in the near future to look at some of the recommendations made there to see in what manner we can implement them.

As well, we have included people from a number of other departments, from Justice , from Health and Education to give that perspective on the Suche report. I anticipate that they will begin their work in the near future. Reco mmendations Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain the delay in the Suche report government response, the delay in the review of 17 of those recommendations which deal with Child and Family Services Act changes to 19 93, instead of beginning to implement those changes immediately? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, The Child and Family Services Act was first enacted in 19 85, and there have been no changes made to that act since that time. We have a number of organizations within the province and a number of government departments who have brought suggestions for change to us. When we open up the act in the next session, we want to make comprehensive changes and not just react to the Suche report but also encompass within that some of the changes that other bodies have been advising us on. Children's Advocate Mandate Ms.

Becky Barrett (Wellington): Will the minister give this House and the people of Manitoba the assurance that the Children's Advocate will, in all cases, be an offi cial part of the prov incial investigative teams that are being set up as a response to the Suche commission when they examine abuse allegations in the child welfare system, not as a result of a report, but as an integral part of that? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, I anticipate when we have the legislation passed and the Child Advocate's office set up, that the Child Advocate and the Child Advocate's office will be involved in all cases of children in care. I would ask that the member not confuse the Child Advocate with the provincial Ombudsman. The provincial Ombudsman's office has a

section within it that deal with children and children's issues. I look forward to the member's support as we have a chance to debate that legislation and send it on to committee.

2881 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 4, 1992 St. John's Ambulance Funding Ms. Jud y Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, this governm ent keeps cutting back in areas of health care policy that do not make sense from a public health policy point of view, nor do they make sense from a cost-effectiveness point of view. Two weeks ago I raised the cutback to the Association for Childbirth and Family Education. Last week I raised the cutback to the dental program. Today, I would like to ask the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) why they have chosen to eliminate total funding for a very important program with the St. John's Ambulance program, which in fact saves money in the long run for our health care system and for rural Manitoba. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have in the past provided a block funding grant so that mem bers of staff of the ministry of Health might access the training program free of charge. We are now accessing the service as needed and paying for the services employee by employee. Point of Order Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, a grant was not provided for- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. The honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) does not have a point of order. *** Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Which option should St. John's Ambulance take now that this grant has been cut back? Should they pass on the increased cost required to service the rural community to the rural communi ty, or should they reduce their training staff by the one position the government is supposed to cover at a time when their resources are already overtaxed? Mr.

Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know which of the options will be followed, if any of the options, as advanced by my honourable friend, since I doubt whether she is close enough to the administration that she would be able to presuppose the decision they might make. Mr. Speaker, I would fully expect that St. John's Ambulance will carry on in the fine tradition of providing ambulance training services to volunteers and others throughout the province of Manitoba.

In doing that, should the min istry staff continue to access that program as we expect, they will be paying the fees on an individual basis to achieve that. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Would the min ister at least follow the advice of his own Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, which he set up last week for all memb ers in this House to meet with, the advice of that centre being to make decisions- Mr. Kevin Lamou reux (I nkster): From the media's point. Point of Order Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Inkster suggests that we are raising questions from the point of view of the media only. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. *** Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the honourable member for St. Johns for one very brief question. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I will proceed with the question even though the member for Inkster is imputing motive. Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: We are ra1smg these questions because of the interests of Manitobans in quality health care. Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Would the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) start making decisions that are done on the basis of cost effectiveness and preserve good preventative, healthy public policies for the province of Manitoba? Mr. Orchard: At the risk of taking advice from my honourable friend when she shouts and yells that certain things are happening, Mr. Speaker, I simply indicate to my honourable friend that the decisions we are making are decisions which leave in place services for individuals.

In doing that, particularly in terms of the grant structures that my honourable friend has attempted to relate as having dire consequences to the people of Manitoba, I say to you, Sir, that in each and every case , the exis ting or alterna te services are

May4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2882 available, and the compromise to access of those services is not at all inhibited by decisions of this government. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House . On Friday, April 24, 1992, during consideration of whether or not there was urgency of debate on a proposed motion regarding a matter of urgent public importance, a point of order was raised by the government House leader (Mr. Man ness) regarding whether more than one person from a recognized party could speak to that matter.

As members will recall, I said I would have the matter researched and would report back to the House . All motions for emergency debates have been researched as far back as 19 88; that is, since we have had three recognized parties in this House. In no instance did more than one person speak for each party to the matter of urgency of debate. What may have confused the matter is that when a matter of privilege has been raised, Speakers have allowed more than one member per party to comment on whether or not the conditions of privilege have been met. I trust this clarifies the issue.

MATTER OF URG ENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Mr. Leo nard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), under Rule 27.(1 ), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the decline in this province's gross domestic product in 19 91 , which saw Manitoba record the worst performance amongst all the provinces for the first time since 19 69. Mr.

Speaker: Before determining whether the motion meets the requirements of our Rule 27, the honourable member for Brandon East will have five minutes to state his case for urgency of debate on this matter. A spokesperson for each of the other parties will also have five minutes to address the position of their party respecting the urgency of this matter. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr.

Speaker, our economic decline in this province, both relative to other provinces and absolutely in terms of our economic history, is the greatest problem facing this province today and is reflected in the high unemployment levels, the high poverty levels that we have and the social distress that occurs in our province. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that two conditions must be met to consider this a matter of urgent public importance, one of which relates to the fact that the topic cannot be debated during the ordinary business of the House.

I point out, of course, that the Throne Speech Debate has passed, the Budget Debate has passed, our Interim Supply Estimates debate has been completed. I realize I could bring a grievance, but that is limited, and we are limited in the number of members who could participate in that fashion today. Also, I note that we are in the Estimates of the Departments of Health and Education, neither of which are considered to be economic departments. Therefore I believe that condition is met. * (1 440) The other condition is regarding the matter of public interest.

I would indicate here that It is in the public interest to debate this issue, since this Legislature must grapple with the problem of economic decline, of intolerable high levels of unemployment and we mu st together seek solutions. Mr. Speaker, in 1991 , Manitoba had the worst economic growth rate in the entire country. That is a record we should be extremely concerned about. Manitoba placed 1 Oth in performance. This 1Oth place performance is the worst since 1969 when the Walter Weir government was defeated by Ed Schreyer of that day.

According to Statistics Canada, this is the first time that Manitoba has had negative economic gr owth ba sed on their present metho d of calculati ng. This is going back to 19 61 , Mr. Speaker. I would also observe that employment declined in 1991 by 2.2 percent; that Is, our number of people in Manitoba actually shrunk. We are not going forward. We are going backward.

Also, I note in the provincial budget the prediction is that the economy will grow below the national average in 1992 and 1 993, and also that the Toronto Dom inion Bank and the Royal Bank have downgraded their expected economic forecast for this province. Mr. Speaker, according to the Royal

2883 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 4, 1992 Bank, the largest bank in this country, virtually no growth in jobs is forecast for 1992. It is virtually a stagnant situation that they are forecasting. Secondly, our unemployment rate is forecast to remain at unacceptably high levels in 19 92. We were 8.8 in 19 91 and will more or less be at that rate again in 19 92. This is just intolerable, Mr. Speaker. I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that nonresidential investment is expected to decline by 3.3 percent in 1992.

I repeat that we are talking about nonresidential investment; that is, investment that pertains to business, that pertains to industry and comme rce is expected to decline by 3.3 percent. That investment is the basis of economic growth, is the basis of job creation, and if we are going to have negative investment in the business sector, then how can we have job creation for this province as a whole? So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a poor economic situation, a very bad situation in terms of those men and women who cannot find jobs.

You can see it on the faces of the young people today who are going to the employment offices looking for jobs that are simply not there. They are frustrated, they are disappointed, they are angry, and, unfortunately, this government has done nothing to help. In fact, this government has been cutting back on the CareerStart money. It is cutting In half from two years ago, and certainly this is the wrong way to go if we mean to create jobs for our young people. Mr. Speaker, as I said, the economic situation has an impact on our social situation.

You have more abuse; you have more social problems when you have high levels of unemployment, so we have to tackle this No. 1 one problem facing the province today. Therefore I would urge that all members of this House support me in this call for an urgent public debate. There is no question that it is urgent that we debate our economic situation at this time. Hon. Clayton Manness {Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today, the substance of the motion, the issue is urgency as we stand in our allotted five minutes.

I guess the best way to describe the comments coming from across the floor is sheer hypocrisy. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where exactly one week ago tonight, when because of illness there was an opportunity to debate the reality of our situation by bringing forward Estimates of the Department of Finance, that members opposite chose not to. There was an opportunity to speak, not for a few minutes, but indeed the whole evening from eight until midnight and leading to the next day. The NDP decided not to. The issue was, I would think, just as important a week ago as it is today. What was the problem then?

The hollowness of the argument and the urgency rings, and it rings hollow indeed. Mr. Speaker, the member points out in his submission that he has an opportunity to grieve today, tomorrow, Thursday, any time he wishes with respect to the state of economic affairs of this province-concurrence motions, many money bills to come, when indeed the member over the next few weeks will have an opportunity to debate this issue. I hope to bring forward some of the money bills for second reading as early as two or three weeks from now.

The member will have an opportunity at that time to debate, and I expect him, given what he claims to be the urgency of these numbers, to rise on that occasion and to put his points of view on the record. Mr. Speaker, seeing that the member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans) has gone into the substance somewhat in trying to present his case for urgency, I would like to point out that, although by his analysis-and I do not suggest for one moment I support his analysi&-1991 may be the first year where Manitoba had the lowest economic growth, I point out to him in 1984-85 that Manitoba had the ninth lowest level of economic growth.

I want to point out that what we are talking about through all these assumptions and all of these measurements, assumptions built around him, is a fall from $27. 700-and-some billion to $27.71 0 billion as a measurement of the Manitoba economy in terms of 19 91 . I want to point out to him that in my budget on page 1 0 of the appendix, I said that the economic growth in Manitoba would be negative 1.2 percent in 19 91 . As It turned out, it is now 1 .6 percent by Stats Canada's number, one of the forecasters, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out, using the magnitude ofthe numbers, thatfor '92 and '93, by all the forecasters, Manitoba is at the Canadian average or going to be above the Canadian average. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if you were to grant a debate, and I am calling on you, given the fact that the members have not established urgency, that there should not be a debate, but if there were, what

May 4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2884 would be the essence and the substance of the comments coming across the floor? The members over there would ask us to spend more, increase the deficit, increase taxes deferred and try and buy jobs. We have categorically rejected that approach; so has the NDP government in Ontario, because they have cut government positions, they have reduced taxes to businesses, but yet increased taxes to individuals. So I say, Mr. Speaker, where would the debate lead? The debate would lead to the same type of discussion that has been in this House for several months. Mr.

Speaker, in my view, urgency has not been established. The memb ers will have plenty of opportunities over the course of the next number of days and weeks to debate this issue fully. Thank you. * (1 450) Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, there are two conditions in our rules and a third opportunity that is referenced in Beauchesne. The two conditions have been spoken about. The third condition that is referenced in Beauchesne is a general willingness of the House to debate this matter.

Now, I am delighted frankly that the member for Brandon East has brought this motion forward because I think there is a different situation here today than existed a week ago, and that, Mr. Speaker, is that we now have information that suggests that after four full years of operation, this province has fallen to 1O th out of 10 . The Rnance minister made some commen ts about the magnitude of that drop, that drop from $27 such-and-such to $27 such-and-such, a drop of some $500 million, which translates in this province to about 16 ,000 jobs, and that is what is occurring in this province.

The Finance minis ter also referenced, Mr. Speaker, what he called the poor performance in 19 84-85. In fact, this province grew against the national GOP in '84 and '85 and in '82 and in '83 and in '86 and in '87. This province began to falter in 19 88, and it has slipped badly. Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister makes much about Stats Canada. Stats Canada tracks some 15 indicators every month. I would encourage the Rnance minister just to stop and to step aside from his ideological position and just stop and reflect on what has occurred. Four years ago, this government came to office-four years ago.

They had a plan. The Finance minis ter spoke about that plan in his budgets. Today, on 11 of the 15 indicators that Stats Canada tracks, we are faring worse today than we were four years ago. Virtually every economic policy that this government has put into place has failed. That came to a crescendo, if you like, on Friday when we discovered that this province for the first time in over two decades is now 1Oth out of 10 in this country. That fact affects a great many people in this province, and I think that is worthy of debate.

I think that is something we should be debating in this House, and I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to support this motion. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to thank all honourable mem bers for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) should be debated today. I did receive the notice required under our subrule 27. (1). Members know that our Rule 27 and Beauchesne's Citations 389 and 390 set out the conditions necessary for a matter of urgent public importance to proceed.

Rrst, the subject matter must be so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought forward early enough. Second, it must be demonstrated that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. I note that the member for Brandon East has not used his opportunity to raise a grievance. The Estimates for the Departments of Rnance and of Industry, Trade and Tourism are still to be considered by the Committee of Supply and may be appropriate for discussion of the issues raised by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).

Further, Private Members' Resolutions 24 and 25 are upcoming and are areas too where this issue could be addressed. Further, I do not believe that the matter is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the proposed motion is not debated today. Accordingly, I am ruling the motion out of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I challenge your ruling. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair having been challenged, shall the ruling of the

2885 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB L Y OF MANITOBA May4, 19 92 Chair be sustained? All those in favour, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members. • (1 540) A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Cumm in gs, Dacquay, De rkach , Downey, Driedger, Ducharm e, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, Mcintosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.

NAYS Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilll, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (In terlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Harper, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Mar ti nd ale, Plohman, Reid, Sant os , Wasylycia-Leis, Wowchuk. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant}: Yeas 27; Nays 25. Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll}: I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: The memb er for Seine River (Mr s.

Dacquay) for the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) ; the memb er for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) for the memb er for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). [Agreed] Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas}: I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Com mi ttee on Pu blic Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar);Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Ain Flon (Mr. Storie). [Agreed) Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface}: I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: St. James (Mr. Edwards) for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). [Agreed) House Business Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, before I move the Supply motion, I would like to Indicate to the House that there may be a slight variation in the Health Estimates inasmuch as there might be agreement not to complete one line of those particular Estimates.

I would beg the leave of the House to save that for some period in time, potentially, and therefore bring forward then the next item, the next department on the Estimates review, that being the Department of Rural Development. Once a decision was made as to how this was going to be accommodated, I would bring this forward tomorrow for retroactive passage. Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable government House leader. • (1 550) ORDE RS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader}: Under those conditions, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) in the Chair for the Department of Health; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training. COMMITTEE OF SU PPLY (Concurrent Sections) HEALTH The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Bob Rose}: Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This afternoon, this

section of the Committee of Su pply, mee ting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of Health. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 5.

May4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2886 Health Services, (a)(1 ) Salaries on page 87 of the Estimates book. Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think we should take a couple of momen ts and deal with the outstanding issue of how we will handle capital estimates. I would first like to report to the committee that I have had discussions with my caucus about this situation. First, let me indicate that I am having a great deal of difficulty convincing my colleagues that there are legitimate reasons for this delay.

There is, I must say, not a great deal of sympathy on the part of my colleagues for the fact that the minister is not ready and that he has these problems or issues to deal with in terms of capital spending. I wantthe min ister to know that I am doing my best to convey his difficulties in this instance. I will continue to indicate to my colleagues that the minister just is not prepared, due to unforeseen circumstances, and apparent inclination to revamp capital estimates according to this so-called health care reform strategy that will be released any day now. I wanted to pass that along, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, for the benefit of the committee. Secondly, I would like to indicate that at this point I believe we are over 40 hours. We are at almost 42 hours, which is beyond the hours negotiated between all parties for the Department of Health. We had set a goal of 40 hours. So clearly we are beyond 40 hours, and we still have a significant number of lines involving a lot of money for the Department of Health left before us.

After considerable discussion it is the feeling at least of my caucus that we deal with capital estimates during concurrence, if the minister is prepared to give us a commitment that he will be ready to deal with capital estimates at that time in concurrence. It would in the interests of being as close as possible to the negotiated agreement that we try to tidy up Estimates over the next couple of days and actually do the vote on the Minister's Salary as early as we can this week.

Whether that is tonight or tomorrow, it is hard to say at this point, but that we do actually try to accomplish as much as we can in today's Estimates and tomor row's Estimates and see if we cannot conclude health care Estimates, have the vote on the Minister's Salary and deal with capital estimates during the time of concurrence. That is my recommendation, following the minister's information. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am at the will of both of my honourable critics in this regard because either process suits me.

I understand that with our global hourly numbers of 240 there are constraints, that each critic naturally wants to have a certain budgeted amount of time. I did not intend to leave a one-only kind of an option. That is why I suggested concurrence as well as the potential of leaving just the salary line open. Concurrence is fine in my estimation, and it would allow us an equal opportunity, of course, to use the concurrence motion to discuss the general agenda of reform should that be deemed appropriate.

So that is fine by me, and I would look forward to maybe some thoughts from my honourable friend the member for The Maples to see what sort of approach might be considered reasonable by the Liberal caucus. Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, from our point of view, both opportunities would have been equally good for us, but I did not think that the timing was effective. When I discussed this, they said whatever the consensus is. It seems like the member for St. Johns and the mi nis ter do agree with the concurrence idea that we can debate. That is fine with me.

So we can finish the Health Estimates mostly likely tonight then because we still have from eight to 1 0. That will give us another three or four hours. If we are going to do that, then I would like to probably finish here tonight so that we can have the other members to start their own fresh Estimates tomorrow in their own respective departments. I have no difficulty with that. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: In line with what I sense is a consensus around leaving capital estimates to concurrence and trying to finish up as quickly as possible, I am wondering if the min ister would be prepared, with staff on hand, if need be, for us to jump all over the place in terms of the remaining lines with perhaps the exception of the AFM. I know that some of my colleagues would have concerns about particular constituent problems and issues pertaining to hospitals and programs that fall under the insurance line. I am wondering if we could have some agreement as much as it is possible to jump

2887 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May4, 1992 all over the place without necessarily moving line by line. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think if there is some sense that we might be able to expedite the total discussion of the remaining amount of Estimates, bearing in mind that we have already had a substantial amount of discussion around most of these issues already, I would have no objection to really taking a look at the las t remaining portions of the Estimates and, to the best of our ability, have sufficient staff here.

If it took another half an hour or so to get an answer if I did not have the right staff available, I would find that probably to be the most accommodating way to speed the process along. Also, should there be questions that we simply cannot answer tonight, the same thing as has applied in the past, we would undertake to provide a written response as quickly as possible after the conclusion of our Estimates.

If there seems to be a sense of moving along so that we might conclude Estimates today, later on this evening, I would certainly attempt to have as many of the staff, particularly the executive director of AFM, available. Can I make a suggestion of maybe having AFM at eight o'clock this evening? Would that be reasonable? • (1 600) Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: First, let me indicate to the min ister that I am not sure we can actually finish up tonight if we go till midnight. So I would say we should perhaps play that by ear.

The other concern I have is, some of my colleagues have asked for an opportunity for coming to this committee and asking some questions on some of their facilities in their own constituencies, and I have suggested this evening might be a good time. I also have a speaking engagement that will take me out of the building for about an hour between eight and nine. If the minister is willing, I do not think there is any point at this hour to call the AFM In for this evening until we see if we are moving along quickly, but I would doubt it. Mr.

Orchard: Just so to make sure I understand, you do not think that we should have the executive director of the AFM here for this evening, then. Okay, the answer to that being no, we will make sure they are here at an appropriate time then and not this evening. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Is there unanim ous agreement to abandon the line-by-line approach in order to skip ahead or to revert back to lines already passed? Unanimous consent is required from the committee. [Agreed] Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I would like to ask a few questions where the member for The Maples (Mr.

Cheema) left off on Thursday pertaining to the situation with respect to our hospitals. I know the minister has indicated that he can only give us so much information, and that he is in the middle of discussions and planning. I would like to ask, though, a question we have raised before in Estimates and get a b etter understanding of financing of hospitals. What are the reasons why the minister could not give us a breakdown of increases being provided to each hospital in the province of Manitoba at this point, or could he do so? Mr. Orchard: We have not discussed individual hospital budgets ever apparently.

I cannot speak forever, but as long as I have been here we have never dealt with individual hospital budgets for current-year planning. As I recall my time as critic, we have not done that either. The reasons are individual hos pitals have differing plans and agendas. There are varying degrees of deficit carry-over, et cetera, and varying methods of handling each of those that are somewhat of an individual discussion with each hospital. I guess that Is why there has never been, in the current year, an attempt made to discuss the projected budgetary requirements of each hospital.

That is why we will attempt to provide the kind of global figures across hospitals as to what was approved last year, what sort of deficits that we expect to be incurring across the system, and what kind of an increase we are able to provide, and then give global figures in that regard. Also, I guess it is fair to say that we have not got final reconciliations on year-end March 31 , 199 1. We do not know whether some hospitals will be in modest surplus or modest deficit positions. That has a significant impact on how far the dollar will go, I guess put it that way, of this year's budgetary increase.

Certainly those who have operated without a deficit or even with a modest surplus, upward of 2 percent, will have no encumb rance on this year's hospital increases. Should a hospital, in the final reconciliation, find that they have incurred a deficit, of course, that becomes first call on any new dollars that are

May 4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2888 provided to that facility. Those are the kind of detailed discussions that are ongoing right now in terms of planning around how hospitals will expedite their program, and what are the parameters of that program del ivery this year given the current budgetary allocation of $950-some million or $949 million, whatever the number is globally.

But it is an issue that we have never dealt with on an individual hospital basis, and I think it would probably be appropriate to not break with that long-standing tradition because there are areas where the hospitals and we are even agreeing to disagree going back to a two-or three-year period of time in terms of reconcniation of potential deficit from the past. We have never brought those things forward because they are very much before the commission on a regular basis. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Can the minister confirm that there will not be then an across-the-board percentage increase, hospital by hospital, but in fact that an increase is negotiated separately with each institution? Mr. Orchard: Each in stitution's budget is developed on the basis of (

a) the historical budget which provides a sense of their base-line funding, if you will, I guess the minimum amount offunding that they carry into the next fiscal year, and then a general allocation of Increased monies and the targets for where we will provide resources, i.e., to carry existing negotiated contracts, et cetera, are then provided to the hospitals. In advance of that, I guess it is fair to say the hospitals have made their requests of government as to what they believe they need to undertake a range of operations that they envision for any given fiscal year.

That can include main tenance of existing programs, expansion of programs, et cetera, so that sometimes hospitals will not be consistently granted. Like in the Estimates, the budgeted allocation last year and the increase this year amounts to 6.1 percent in terms of total hospital funding. That will not be necessarily evenly distributed across the hospital in a final figure, hospital by hospital, because for in stance a hospi tal mi ght be undertaking the opening of a capital construction project which has renovated their facility.

Those capital costs will become part of the current operating budget, because government retires that capital. .. (1 610 ) That can mean that one hospital-and I am using extreme figures-may receive something more than 6 percent because of the new program costs of a new facility. Other hospitals may, although there is not too much brand new program initiative, but some hospitals will have an expansion of a given program which other hospitals for instance do not have and would receive somewhat of an increase.

In addition to that, the hospitals will have a varying opportunity to access the life support supply fund and also the new inn ovative fund of $3 million. That definitely, I would anticipate, will not be evenly distributed across to all hospitals. It wi ll be accessed according to the program that a given hospital might bring in, in terms of meeting the inn ovative guidelines.

The go ve rnmen t's commitment is to provide some $53 million more this year to fund hospitals, and the distribution of that is in terms of salary increases on existing contracts, some supply increase and then, as part of the $53 million, we have a commitment for the first year of a three-year funding com mi tmen t on current nego tiat ions. Of course, then th ere is a commitment in there in terms of new capital projects, any increase in costs which may be incurred through retirement of those newly operational capital projects and any associated program costs. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Acti ng Depu ty Chairperson, is it possible for the minister to provide for members of the Legislature, or at least the two critics, copies of hospital budgets? Mr. Orchard: That has not been done in the past. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Is it possible? I realize it may not have been done in the past. I did not know that. I do know it is hard to get all this Information together. I am wondering if the minister would agree at this point to provide us with copies of the hospital budgets, at least for the year we have just ended, and as they become available for this fiscal year. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Manitoba Health Services Comm ission annual report, when tabled, outlines the total of payments, hospital by hospital, I believe. That was some ofthe information that I was providing, some of the historical spending information that I was providing to my honourable friend about a month ago. I would not be prepared to bring to committee individual

2889 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May4, 1992 hospital budgets to discuss line by line the hospital budgets, if you will. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Is the minister suggesting that, if we feel it is important to get that information, in order to do our job as critics and so on, we will have to ask for that information from each institution, each facility? Mr. Orchard: You might take that course of action, but you might get the same answer. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I will keep trying to find ways to get that information.

Throughout all of these discussions on health care, and especially as we hear talk about changes coming, there are more and more questions being raised about why we are not able to look at hospital budgets and then make intelligent comment based on that information. I think it is something we need to have at our finger tips in order to be effective as critics, and I will certainly try to pursue other avenues to get that information.

With respect to the increases that the minister talked about, or with respect to my earlier question about what is included in the increases, the minister said part of that negotiated increase with a facility-there may be variation depending on different capital expansion or new programs being added to a facility. As one example, can I ask the question: Does that mean that the operating dollars required for the new psych services building will be included in the negotiated increase with the Health Sciences Centre, or is that separate? Mr.

Orchard: Those operating costs that we negotiate and agree to will be part of the '92-93 budget, since we expect the psych health building to open later on this year. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Yes, and we are dealing with the '92-93 budget. My question was: In terms of the increases that are now being negotiated and as part of the overall increase to hospitals, is the psych services operating budget included in the increase being negotiated with the Health Sciences Centre, or is it separate and apart from that increase for that facility and in some other category? Mr.

Orchard: It is being negotiated with the Health Sciences Centre and is part of the $53 million of increased funding provided this year over last year to hospitals in the province of Manitoba. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I apprecia te that. I am wondering specifically since the minister said some hospitals may get more than 6 percent because they have a new program that needs funding or capital expansion.

Would the case of the psych services building be such an example and therefore be negotiated as part of the Health Sciences overall budget and therefore be an indication, maybe a factor accounting for a higher than average increase for that particular facility? (Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, naturally, when you bring on stream a major capital investment as part of the-bear in mind that what is happening with the psych health building is a consolidation of several roles-teaching in the old psych building, acute psychiatric beds in other parts of the Health Sciences Centre complex, and those are being consolidated into the psych health building new construction, and that means a closure and in some cases an iron balling, I guess, of some of the current facilities that are being used.

My honourable friend will recall that for probably 15 years, the capital redevelopment of the old psychiatric hospital has been before government in the past and has only recently been acceded to because that building was approaching a century in age. As part of the program costs, yes, there are additional costs for a new facility because you have a capital cost which you are retiring. Principal and interest become part of the current year's funding mandate. Also bear in mind that the staffing and the operating costs to run the acute care beds side are part of the existing Health Sciences Centre budget.

That is why the budget reflects, yes, an increase no doubt in terms of Health Sciences budget to operate the new psych health building, driven by capital debt incurred in the construction.

That is why I have often said that any Minister of Health can become a significant hero at the time of tabling capital estimates because if you acceded to every construction request for which there is approximately $200 million worth at every single year that we present capital estimates, if you say yes and proceed with them, you are a hero as you are doing it, but all of those costs do raise the operating costs to the system because the capital costs have to be retired over a period of time. That, in addition to any changes in operating costs, is incorporated into the budget of facilities when

May 4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITO BA 2890 add itions or new construc tion is being commissioned. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Just before I lose sight of this reference to the life support supply fund, I do not know about that program. I am just wondering if the minister could indicate where it is located, if there is a description anywhere in the Estimates book, under what line it might fall, or what it is. Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend might-no, maybe my honourable friend would not recall because the life support fund was brought in, I guess, three or four budgets ago.

Let me give you the background. * (1 620) Budgeting in the past has been undertaken where supply costs, including pharmaceuticals, were budgeted at a given figure, be it 3 percent, 4 percent, 5 percent, so that on the supply line of budget that was the increase that was conferred. That left facilities in a somewhat compromised position potentially in that-let us take an example of a smaller hospital and that smaller hospital could be in rural Manitoba or indeed in the city of Winnipeg.

The complexity of their operation would not be as great as some of the larger hospital facilities, and with greater comple xity often follo ws mor e sophisticated supply costs on the pharmaceutical side. By providing a 3, or a 4, or a 5 percent across-the-board increase to all facilities, there was no recognition of the unique demands that may be placed upon the operating regime of a given hospital when they undertook more complex care delivery. As a result, we established the life support supplies fund, $2 million.

Institutions could make application for unusual supply costs unique to their operation, and a small subcommittee of the board and commissioned staff, I believe, would review the applications and make allocations from the life supply support funds so that on the basis of extraordinary cost incurment-or incurred by the facilities, they had their regular supply budget to offset them, and when that was insufficient, because of enhanced costs because of the complexity of their service-delivery patterns, they had an option to access a specific fund worth $2 million. It has worked reasonably well.

I think my honourable friend can see the logic behind it, because if we would have taken the $2 million and simply spread it across all hospitals, some hospitals may not have had the same need and may have built that into other areas of operation leaving some of our more sophisticated care delivery hospitals constantly coming back to government saying our base-line budget needs to be increased. So by focussing a fund for access for special needs, we eliminated the potential of overfunding some and underfunding others. It has worked reasonably well, and it is a $2-million commitment. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Acting De puty Chairperson, based on the information that the minister now has, can he give us an indication of how many hospitals will be running deficits or expecting deficits for this fiscal year? Mr. Orchard: Bear in mind that this is a changing target. It would appear as if approximately one-half of our Urban Hospital Council member hospitals will be incurring deficits this year, and then the other hospitals outside of the Urban Hospital Council membership, which are the larger facilities, the figure may approach two-thirds of them incurring deficits of varying sizes. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Could the minister give us a

summary in terms of the reasons for the deficits on an across-the-board basis? Mr. Orchard: I guess the simple reason is they spent more than they were budgeted. But I cannot-you know what I mean-1 am trying to-my honourable friend, I know, is going to-ff I can be so blunt as to kind of comment on where this discussion is going to go-{inte�ection] No, no-there is, because I have listened to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) who, when he deals with the hospital at Brandon, says that we should simply provide more base-line budget, and that is not in the cards.

We established base-line budgets, and some of the institutions were not able to operate within those base-line budgets. It varies from institution to institution. Some have taken earlier management initiatives, some have taken recent management initiatives to achieve balanced budgets, so there is no one single, compelling reason across the board. It varies from institution to institution. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: If anything, I am trying to ascertain to what extent deficits are tied to these so-called restructuring targets that the minister appears to have applied to each hospital.

I know in the past when I have raised this, I have gotten nowhere. However, I am certainly hearing a different story from people in facilities, where it is

2891 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May4, 1992 their understanding that they have been given very explicit, direct targets for restructuring purposes. This is separate and apart from overall funding increases and operating year-over-year situations but has to do with targets that are separate and apart pertaining to reductions to budgets and reductions in beds. I am wondering if the minister can give us a breakdown of what this restructuring exercise has meant, at least starting with urban hospitals, for this past fiscal year, the one we have just ended and the fiscal year we are just in. Mr.

Orch ard: Well, Mr. Acting Dep uty Chairperson, in general terms, last year when the budget exercise was undertaken, our hospitals, and let us just deal specifically with the Urban Hospital Council membership, indicated that they needed X number of dollars to operate. We provided a lesser figure and I think the lesser figure was $1 8 million. Well, it was $18 million, a reduction to the member hospitals of the Urban Hospital Council.

Bear in mind that, because they indicated they needed the total amount to operate, they came back with operating plans which would allow them to operate within the global budgets that were approved last year. Some did and some did not, and that is where we have roughly haH of our Urban Hospital Council members now looking as if with reconciliation for year-end March 31 that they will be incurring deficits. • (1 630) (Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Without repeating myself in terms of an earlier question with respect to individual or grants going to each facility, I am wondering how a hospital which has a deficit, regardless of whatever origin, handles the situation where they may be given by this minister-he certainly has not denied this and it appears to be well documented out in the field-slightly over a 5 percent increase, which is to reflect roughly a 3 percent negotiated settlement but of which a part, 1 .2 percent, is going to meet the pay equity requirements as established by Judge Krindle and where another 1 percent must go to meet regular increments that cannot be avoided, which leaves about a 0.8 percent on the salary side, and then roughly a 2 percent on the supply side, which appears to be below cost of living.

How does a facility handle a situation where it is starting negotiations, certainly expecting more than a zero percent negotiated increase but given funds that barely meet, that barely go beyond a zero percent increase for negotiated wages, that do not see an increase on the supply side commensurate with the cost of living and is told to find and achieve, meet deficit amounts in that overall negotiated or that overall arrangement with the government?

What guidelines is the minister giving a facility to handle what would appear to be an impossible situation and in reality helps us understand why some facilities have said publicly that they are expecting only a zero percent increase? Mr. Orchard: That is exactly what most of the facilities are developing in terms of management plans and action plans to present to government, to indicate how they are going to operate in the next fiscal year with the budgetary commitments that have been communicated to them.

I want to indicate to my honourable friend that I have never at any time indicated that our budgetary allocations will meet the demands of the hospital side, because we have continued with the no-deficit policy that was put in place circa 1986, 1987. I will not revisit that issue, but the first recommendation of the deputy minister in May of '88, when I came into the office, Mr. Edwards asked very pointedly if we intended to carry on the no-deficit policy, because it was the only way to have some degree of management control over hospital budgets.

The answer was yes and continues to be yes, that we will maintain the no-deficit budget. There are significant decisions that are required within our hospital system, because the nature of funding to hospitals says that you must continue to provide globally more than 6.1 percent year over year. When the inflation rate is something Jess than 2 percent, I think that challenges one's thinking about where a continuation of funding the needs as identified by the hospitals under the current configuration is an exercise in impossible financial management.

I simply indicate to you that the latest figures I have seen and our deficits-! will just give my honourable friend some idea what it looks like in terms of the operating budgets-across the hospitals in Manitoba, we are probably going to have deficits in the neighbourhood of $6 million by reconciliation right now.

May 4, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 2892 Now, In addition to that, that is first call, if you will, on any increase in the budget this year. Recent figures that I had a chance to look at-just to put things in context, because I am not in any way, shape or form indicating that our approach to financing is completely trouble-free as far as our managers of the hospitals are concerned. I certainly would never indicate that. I simply. want to put it in context. Nearly every province in Canada right now has brought down budgets where the increases are very modest.

I believe Nova Scotia's most recent budget projects flat funding for the next two years, and we believe that applies to the hospital side. That is no increase. We know that Ontario's budget is a 1 percent increase, and we also know that there is no funding com mitment from the Ontario gove rnment for-(interjection] well, okay, I will not argue with my honourable friend, 2 percent compared to our 6 percent on our line, and I know there is no commitment. No, I should not say that. The last information I had is that there was no financial commitment to pay equity in the projected increases to Ontario hospitals.

Saskatchewan, for instance, and their budget comes up later on this week, but preliminary indications are somewhere In the neighbourhood of 2.5 to 3 percent less funding this year over last year, so an actual decrease in the amount of monies available. One might pose the question there. How are they coping? Well, they are coping by having to manage bette r and ma ke some decisions around management of patient care.

I simply assure my honourable friend that to the best of my knowledge, all of those hospitals in those respective provinces went in with deficits incurred that they have to pick up out of the funding increase from this year. I think the last figure I saw somewhere just recently on deficits in the Ontario hospitals was indicating something in the neighbourhood of $17 8 million across-the-board deficits in the Ontario hospitals that they were projecting to date. They are dealing with the same kind of problem. I will give you an example of St.

Michael's Hospital just recently came to grips with a $60-plus million deficit that they had incurred. They have just recently signed a management agreement with government that lasts, I believe, six years in which they are going to reduce that deficit over a six-year period of time within their budgeted increases in fu nding. They ha ve made a contractual arrangement to stay on target.

We, likewise, are looking at the initiation of contractual arrangements with some of our major hospitals to retire deficit, et cetera, in anticipation of their concerns that the amount of money that we are providing, the $53 million more in hospital funding that we are budgeting to provide, will not meet their requests of increased budget. We are in the process right now with at least a couple of hospitals of developing contractual arrangements for budgetary management. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: If average negotiated salaries are expected to be this year across the board-1 am not just singling out the health care field-3 percent, yet, with the requirements for hospitals to cover pay equity and to make pay equity adjustments and to meet regular increments, reclassifications and any other benefits which leaves close to zero percent really to meet a 3 percent average negotiated salary increase, what advice will the minister be giving to hospitals?

Is It to Increase tensions between management and labour and be prepared for strike action because there are no resources to fund much beyond a zero percent, or is it to dig deep into the operations of the facility and start making serious reductions In that area? If it is the latter, is the government then providing a framework for helping to make those decisions and advice and criteria about what is acceptable or not acceptable? Mr. Orchard: First of all, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are providing a funding mandate for negotiation of contracts this year, a funding mandate which is not insignificant and approaches $1 5 million for negotiations of contracts to expire. That funding mandate, we believe certainly is not as much as what was requested. * (1 640) What we are saying is, this is what we believe we can reasonably project to fund on behaH of the taxpayers. We are saying the same message that we put out in December of 1990 and all during the month of January 19 91 , that government only represents the taxpayers.

Taxpayers do not have bottomless pockets to pay government taxes to negotiate settlements beyond what is reasonable.

2893 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 4, 1992 We think we have given a reasonable funding mandate. We are hoping that moderation will prevail and that those individuals at the bargaining table, both from a management perspective as well as from a union perspective, will take a look at the financial circumstances of this province, of this nation, will take a look at the inflation rate, will take a look at the issue of having a job today, and will negotiate the most reasonable agreement they can given very difficult circumstances.

I want to tell my honourable friend that we do not see the taxpaying private sector side of the Manitoba economy being able to afford any of the kind of taxation increases that have been proposed in other provinces. I will give you a simple analogy, and I will use the figure of a $40,000 paid position in government or a government-funded agency. That $40,000 position requires probably the taxes paid by eight individual Manitobans working elsewhere in the private sector.

That is why, from time to time, we have, within the Civil Service of the Province of Manitoba, initiated some layo ffs but, more importantly, through streamlining and negotiations with the union, reduced the number of these kinds of funded positions throughout government.

We have not approached the issue with glee, but for every position worth $40,000 in the public sector that we can eliminate and still continue to deliver reasonable services probably protects a minimum of eight jobs in the private sector, because the taxation paid for by the private sector of eight employees is going to be transferred directly to that one position in the bureaucracy. That same argument can be made throughout the funded institutions of hospitals and health care, because all of the dollars that go there are transferred dollars from the private sector workers and businesses.

Anyone in the public sector, be it a funded agency, who believes that they have an unlimited right and opportunity to demand more and more from the productive side of the taxpayer without consequences of further layoffs in the private sector, is not realistically thinking around the issue.

So when we provide a $14.7 million increase for all of those workers who are currently going to negotiation in the health care system, I simply say to you that there are literally tens of thousands of people in the private sector who would like to have a similar funding mandate from their employers who are paying the taxes to give us the additional $1 4.7 million.

That is why I am saying that certainly that is not as much as, no doubt, some would demand in terms of the funding and bargaining mandate, but let me assure my honourable friend that, given the realistic circumstances government faces and the private sector faces today, we think it is a reasonable mandate provided by the taxpayers of the private sector to achieve a settlement that can have built within it a number of agendas that are desirous of negotiation, negotiation within the taxpayers' ability to pay. (Mr.

Gerry McAlpine, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) Now, in addition to the $1 4.7 million, the current year of Estimates includes a funding commitment of over $1 7 million to pay for the nurses contract that was agreed to last year. When you start talking a $53-million increase in funding, and immediately you have some $32 million of that consumed by soon to be negotiated agreem ents and past negotiated agreements. I think you can see how the funding of salaries for those bargaining in the public sector becomes a really dominant issue in glo bal funding of institutions.

I simply reiterate to you that last year, when Ontario reached their significant settlement with long-term nurses, I do not believe they provided funding in the base to undertake that. All of that increase to the nurses' union in Ontario last year had to be found from within existing budgets. We did not do that. We provided a significant increase last year to cover the nurses' salaries, and we have something in excess of $1 7 million to cover nursing salary increases as negotiated January of 1991 for both hospital and personal care home side. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: The minister fails to mention that he is under some obligation, as a result of the court decision , to move in this way. The government chose not to appeal Judge Ruth Krindle's decision and clearly has decided to live with the judgment, and that has required a certain amount of dollar expenditure additional to the base. I would like to just clarify this whole area since the minister made a commitment earlier to tell us the amount that would be required to meet the pay equity adjustments, if the $1 7 million that he refers

May 4, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2894 to is, in fact, that number. Does it refer to all 23 facilities or the extension beyond? Mr. Orchard: All facilities and in part a portion of that meets pay equity. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Now I am a little confused. Let me just seek clarification. The minister indicated that about $1 4.7 million was on the table as part of negotiations for new contracts. The minister said, in addition to that, $1 7 million was on the table to meet pay equity requirements. Did I misunderstand the minister? Mr. Orchard: Yes, you did. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: This is painfully slow.

It is like pulling teeth, but could the minister be a little more forthcoming and just tell us how I might have misunderstood him, and whatthe $1 7 million exactly is for? Mr. Orchard: The $1 7. 5 mil lion is the dollar commitment required to achieve the second year funding for nine months in fiscal year '92-93, as negotiated with the MNU. That funding figure is one which applies across the system, all facilities included, not just the 23, and inclusive in that $1 7.5 million figure is, if you will, the extension dollars to bring unincluded facilities up to included facilities status.

So it is a combination of all facilities, some of which have a higher rate of increase, because the negotiated settlement in January of '91 extended the concept. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Is the $1 4.5 million totally devoted to new contracts to be negotiated or is part of that also to cover the ongoing increments, reclassifications and so on that must be covered at any rate? Mr. Orchard: The $14.7 million is an all-inclusive figure for the entire demands across the system for which bargaining mandates are being sought in this fiscal year. • (1 650) Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Once one eliminates the automatic payout for increments, reclassifications and other mandatory benefits, what is left of the $1 4.5 million for negotiated salaries? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, our role here is to-as we attempted to do with the MNU negotiations, we have given to the bargaining representative of the hospitals and the personal care homes a funding m

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-58a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 58a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2c70b71ab235e8a73959763c8912fd0363025af8

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