Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 50 (36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-50

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVIII No. 50- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 20, 1998

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOW A Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon.

McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS. Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary. Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Interlake Brandon East Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C.

P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

318 7 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 20, 1998 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Dauphin General Hospital Foundation Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of the Dauphin General Hospital Foundation pra ying for the passing of

an act to incorporate the Dauphin General Hospital Foundation. Rail Line Abandonment Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to present the petition of L. Leonhard, L. Maydy, L. Bresky and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the provincial government go on record requesting CN and CPR to not proceed with any discontinuance of lines until the report has been tabled, that being the Estey Grain Transportation Review report.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the rules and prac tices of the House (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Urban Shared Services Corporation (USSC) has announced plans to privatize laundry, food services and purchasing for the Winnipeg hospitals; and THAT it is estimated that more than I, 000 health care jobs will be lost over the next year as a result, with many more privatized in the next two or three years; and THAT under the terms of the contract, Ontario businesses will profit at the expense of Manitoba's health care system; and THAT after construction of a food assembly warehouse in Winnipeg, chilled, prepared food will be shipped in from Ontario, then assembled and heated before being shipped to the hospitals; and THAT people who are in the hospital require nutritious and appetizing food; and THAT the announced savings as a result of the contract have been disputed, and one study by Wintemute Randle Kilimnik indicated that, "A considerable number of studies have compared costs of service delivery in health care between self-operation (public sector) and privatization.

Invariably, privatization is more expensive."; and THAT no one in Manitoba seems to benefit from this contract, especially patients. WHEREFOREYOURPETITIONERS HUMBLYPRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). It complies with the rules and practices of the House (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Urban Shared Services Corporation (USSC) has announced plans to privatize laundry, food services and purchasing for the Winnipeg hospitals; and

318 8 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 THAT it is estimated that more than 1,000 health care * (1335 ) jobs will be lost over the next year as a result, with many more privatized in the next two or three years; and THAT under the terms of the contract, Ontario businesses will profit at the expense of Manitoba's health care system; and THAT after construction of a food assembly warehouse in Winnipeg, chilled, prepared food will be shipped in from Ontario, then assembled and heated before being shipped to the hospitals; and THAT people who are in the hospital require nutritious and appetizing food; and THAT the announced savings as a result of the contract have been disputed, and one study by Wintemute Randle Kilimnik indicated that, "A considerable number of studies have compared costs of service delivery in health care between self-operation (public sector) and privatization.

Invariably, privatization is more expensive. ": and THAT no one in Manitoba seems to benefit from this contract, especially patients. WHEREFORE YOu'R PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Le gislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, dir ects me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon 10 students from Shaughnessy Park School from the CEDA Taking Charge! program under the dir ection of Mrs. Doreen Szor. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD St. Boniface Hospital Neurosurgery Program Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, every month this government makes a new announcement on health care ; a couple of months later they make another new announcement on health care, and then a couple of months after that they make another new announcement on health care. Regrett ably, months after they make their announce ments, patients are still waiting in the longest waiting lines in Canada. People are very concerned about the state of their health care system.

Madam Speaker, the government announced, as one of their so-called top priorities in the budget just presented in this House two months ago, that they would expand as a, quote, top priority the neurosurgery program at St. Boniface Hospital. Today, Madam Speaker, the government announced they were going to cancel the same program at the same hospital. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): did he involve his Minister of Health in the prepara tion of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), or is it just another example of health care flip-flops by this government? Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, it is a sad day for the people of Manitoba when the Leader of the Opposition comes to this House

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 318 9 and so blatantly attempts to misrepresent what is happening. The member came here to say a program is being cancelled. Two things have happened here today. With respect to neurosurgery, it is being consolidated at Health Sciences Centre, being tra nsferred to that parti cular facility. But what is really interesting is this whole design plan was not done by the cabinet, it was not done by planners in the Ministry of Health, by officials, it was done by physicians, by nurses, by allied health care workers and their administrat ors.

For the first time, we have a plan that is being devised by front line health care workers, and the Leader of the Opposition opposes it. Mr. Doer: I think we had the answer that it was another flip-flop. Health Sciences Centre Capital Expenditures Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): In August of 1990, the government promised major capital expenditures to refurb ish, renovate and upgrade the Health Sciences Centre's operating rooms.

They put those capital promises on hold for four years, and then they dusted them off in March of 1995, before the last election, and promised to spend major amounts of money on capital for the Health Sciences Centre . They again froze that capital, and in questions we raised year af ter year after the broken promise, again, from the Filmon government, the government said we are very concerned about the situation at the Health Sciences Centre, and we do not want to see a so-called super hospital. Given the fact that the government is now transferring surgery from St.

Boniface to the Health Sciences Centre, closing down the Misericordia Hospital as an acute care hospital and tra nsferring surgery to the Health Sciences Centre, why should anybody believe this government when just a year ago we had fruit flies in the operating rooms at the Health Scie nces Centre? I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): when will the capital promise made in 1990 be completed at the Health Sciences Centre to deal with the long waiting lists that his government has created through his broken promises? *

(1340) Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): The Leader of the Opposition is wrong in what he brings to this House. First of all, Jet me tell him that the capital redevelopment at the Health Sciences Centre is on track. It is well over estimate, well over $70 million, and that planning and detail is well underway and will be going to tender in due course. It is in the control of those who are doing the planning; the authorities to spend the money are in place. But secondly, the member for Concordia, the Leader ofthe Opposition, has said that we are moving surgery into the Health Sciences Centre.

The plan that was unveiled this morning actually has a net decrease of some 1,200 procedures at the Health Sciences Centre as we expand the role of our community hospitals and move general surgery and surgery from the Misericordia out into those community hospitals, so I am not sure he knows what he is talking about. Mr. Doer: The minister never answered the question. When will the promise be completed? That is what we asked. He never answered the question again. Diagnostic Testing Waiting Lists Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The minister has distributed copies of his briefing notes, and his briefing notes state that in Manitoba, waiting lists for ultrasound, CT and MIR are significantly longer than any other Canadian city; a fact that we have made to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) time and time again, which he has denied, and now is contained within the Minister of Health's own briefing notes. The waiting list for ultrasound is 8,000; CT scans, 4,500 people, according to the minister's briefing notes, are on those waiting lists, Madam Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier: is he satisfied with the fact that our waiting lists are significantly higher than every other city in Canada? Is he satisfied with that standard, and is he satisfied with the announce ments made today to deal with these unconscionable waiting lists in our health care system? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not know where he has been in our

3I90 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, I998 public statements or followed them over the last number of months. We have not denied those

part icular numbers. In fact, last winter we approved the first tranche of I think it was $I .5 million for the Winnipeg Hospital Authority to develop a plan to bring those down to much lower levels. That plan is in the process of implementation. In fact, I understand today that waiting lists for a number of those diagnostic areas have already declined significantly. One of the key tools to make this happen has been to get centralized planning, centralized operation of our diagnostic equipment, and the New Democrats have opposed that. So you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Madam Speaker, we are seeing the beginnings, think, of one of the best delivery systems for hospital care in Canada, and I am very proud to be associated with it. I just wish the Leader of the Opposition would be more up to date in his information. Health Care Facilities Bed Availability Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the minister will have to forgive us for being a bit skeptical, because we have been this way before on many occasions. We had the Bell-Wade Report that spent what?-a million dollars talking about how neurosurgery should be at St. B, cardiac surgery should be split between St.

B and HSC, and now we are seeing a total shift. So we have been this way before. One of our major concerns is one of the issues that came out of this morning's press briefing, the attempt by the government to indicate that there will be I6 5 additional beds available. That is not true, because the minister's own notes say that the net increase-given that we have the longest waiting lists in the country-<>fbeds in the system will be 28 beds, 28 beds when you have people lying in the hallways as we speak. How does the minister justify that? Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, the reference was to the creation of the tra nsition unit at Misericordia and what are now acute care beds. But it does allow for then acute care beds in all of the other hospitals to be able to decant people who are waiting for personal care home beds into the Misericordia unit, and that will be beginning I gather in a number of months as a few issues are worked out with Misericordia, which means that the remaining acute care facilities, the six in the city, will be able to better manage their acute care servi ces.

Madam Speaker, the creation of the palliative care program that was announced today and should be in operation very, very shortly, as one of the first initiatives out of this plan will again take away some of the demand on our acute care beds. Dr. Post!, I think, went into fairly great detail about their planning. The use of swing beds between medicine and surgery, taking into account seasonal varia tions and use of beds, again, will free up more resources for meeting our acute care needs. As I have said, this plan was developed by health care prof essionals in the system to deal with these issues.

I think we should have some confidence in them. *

(1345) Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister of a government who by their own figures have closed I ,400 beds, I ,400 beds by government figures, explain how the opening of 28 beds and the reluctance of the minister to indicate any proposal to hire more nurses in the system today, how Manitobans can have confidence that we will not have waiting lists in this province the next six months, the next eight months, the next year, and the next year and a half? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the member for Kildonan was this morning. I thought I saw him at the press briefing that we held. Dr.

Bria n Post! clearly indicated that the development of this plan will require additional nurses in that system, and I have indicated that this government is committed to ensuring the financial resources are there to do the job. So that is part of the plan. If the member is proposing that we just take a chunk of money and say go and do this without a plan, without a ra tional basis, without a targ eting of those

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3191 resources, that is the kind of health planning we have seen in Canada for 30 years and it does not work. Diagnostic Testing Waiting Lists Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister. Does the minister find it acceptable, with a waiting list of 8,000 people on ultrasound and 4,500 on CT scan, that his plan, as put out today, says that they are going to decrease those lists by 15 percent per year-that is the plan-w hether that is acceptable to the Manitobans who have to wait months and years to get these tests?

Does he accept the 15 percent per-year reduction that his plan, his grand scheme, envisions for patients who are on waiting lists of 8,000 and 4,500 respectively? That is not acceptable. Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, again I would ask-and I have offered to have a detailed briefing provided to the member for Kildonan, because what was said today, not that the lists would be brought down by 15 percent, but to reduce the lists. The number of procedures would be increased by 15 percent. The member is bringing information to this House that quite frankly is inaccur ate.

Now I appr eciate there was lots of information provided today in the course of the briefing, and it will take the member some time to digest it, but what Dr. McClarty was talking about was increas ing the number of procedures by 15 percent to bring down the waiting lists, not reducing waiting lists by 15 percent. The member is inaccurate. Misericordia Hospital Ophthalmology Program Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, for the last 10 years this government has treated the sisters, the board, the patients and the staff of the Misericordia in an unconscionable manner, facing them with daily uncer tainty about their future and about the future of the hospital. In March, the government ordered the closure ofthe hospital, and now the Winnipeg Hospital Authority has added some of the details to that, or at least we have this month's proposals.

I would like to ask the minister to tell us why in none of his press releases there was any reference to the ophthalmology department at the Misericordia. Will he confirm for us today in the House that ophthalmology will remain at the Misericordia? Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, I think what we have done with the Misericordia board is provide that certainty as to the future of Misericordia, and it was a brave step for that facility to change its role, but it is because the Misericordia board was prepared to take on a new role in its future that many of the much-needed changes are able to happen. With respect to ophthalmology, Madam Speaker, I can confirm that the plan for the WHA is to continue with ophthalmology at the Misericordia Hospital, and that accounts for about 50 percent of the surgeries performed there. Ms.

Friesen: Could the minister tell us how long that promise is good for? How long will Misericordia retain the ophthalmology services? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, Miseric ordia will maintain ophthalmology as long as it makes common sense for it to be there . That is the guiding principle of what we are trying to build, is a system that is flexible to deal with the demands of change, much of which we cannot predict today.

Ifl took the advice of the member for Wolseley and the members of the New Democra tic Party , we would carve everyt hing in stone, everything would be stagnant and within a short period of time would be out of date. But the commitment that I do make on behalf of this administration is that it has been our commitment to get the best use out of the facilities we have in Winnipeg, and the announcement that was made today does that.

It ensures a long-term future for every facility in this city, and the Misericordia-if she had been properly brief ed by her colleague, she would know that Misericordia already is being identified for some additional ambulatory services, like dialysis, for example. It is an excellent location for those programs, and I am sure it will have a long and successful future. *

(1350) 3192 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 Ms. Friesen: Well, I wish the minister would read his own press releases. The Miser icordia is being identified for exploratory ideas for new programs, not for new program s. I would like to ask the minister to explain why within the last year over a million dollars was spent on renovations at the Miser icordia to enable it to cover plastic surgery . Could he explain to us why that money was spent in that way when now, less than 12 months later, we have another program and the loss of that plastic surgery program? Mr.

Praznik: You know, Madam Speaker, there is a very fundamental difference between these two sides of the House. On that side of the House, they look at every little piece in isolation and really do not care about what is best for the overall view of health care. On this side, we are attempting to take a much larger view. Our operating theatres in virtually every other community hospital, which are much more modern, in much more modern facilities, have gone trem endously underuti lized. This gives us the opportunity to get the best use out of what we have.

I can tell the member, part of the problem at Miser icordia has been that there has not been a clear decision being made because everybody keeps debating around it. We now have one in which their board is supportive as they move into a new age. I can tell the member that they did some renovations there out of their foundation without any approval, direct approval of Manitoba Health. But, at the end of the day, we are trying to build a good system for the city of Winnipeg where patient care is No. 1, not the small "p" political interests of any single facility. Misericordia Hospital Breast Care Services Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I notice the minister has not made any announcement on hepatitis C. The breast care clinic at Misericordia Hospital is nationally known for its comprehensive program, including screening, diagnosis, surgery, treatm ent, reconstructive surgery and physiotherapy, yet the minister announced today that this program would be fragmented. There will be a diagnostic centre to be announced in three surgical units, one at St. Boniface, one at Victoria and one at Grace.

So I want to ask the minister: when consumer group after consumer group has come forward to speak about the advantages of a centralized breast care program, why has the minister chosen to fragment this program? Is this his idea of common sense? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, let us get some facts on the table in this discussion. First of all, in Winnipeg today, I understand there are four breast programs with surgery delivered in seven sites. In terms of breast health care for the women of our province and of our capital city, we have today a terr ibly fragmented program .

Secondly, the design for this program was not done by the minister; it was done by health care professionals from an overall perspective ofthe city. If the member wants to debate with them, she can be my guest to do it. They designed it and make the recommendations. I am accepting the recommendation with my colleagues of front-line health care deliverers who have a mandate to deliver a program, one program for the entire city.

What was announced today is that we will have, for the first time in the history of our province and of this city, one comprehensive breast care program with rapid diagnosis, which is what the women of Winnipeg and Manitoba want. Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, since clearly many women have come forward to voice support for the Misericordia program, I would like to ask the minister: which consumer groups did he consult with when arr iving at this decision? Mr.

Praznik: What is very interesting is the member for Osborne has totally ignored the fact that breast care in the city of Winnipeg today is terribly fragmented with four program s and seven sites for surgery. She conveniently forgets that to concentrate on one piece, rath er than thinking about care for all women in the city of Winnipeg. I can tell the member that, in the announcement that was made today, Dr.

Brian Post! indicated very clearly, as the details are put around the development of one breast care program, all of the var ious groups and organizations that have an interest in Winnipeg health, or women's health will be involved

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3193 in that process, and I look forward to them working with the WHA to build this new program. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne, with a final supplementary question. * (1355 ) Ms. McGifford: So, Madam Speaker, I presume the answer was he has not consulted. I want to ask the minister if he realizes that his wilful destruction of this program at the Misericordia Hospital is not only medically regressive but denies women the services which they tell us, which they know will promote their healing and health. Mr.

Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not know how many times one has to say it for people to at least acknowledge it or have it sink in, but all of this work was not done by the Minister of Health. It was not done by officials in the Ministry of Health; it was not done by boards playing turf wars. It was done by physicians, by nurses, by allied health workers and their administrators to build a system-wide approach to have one breast care program in the city of Winnipeg. In that process, I am aware that they talked to a number of these groups.

Some of my colleagues from within the city of Winnipeg were involved in those discussions and sat in them. There was a lot of work that has gone into them, and I am pleased to indicate that, as the new program is put into place, those same organizations and groups will be invited to be part of that consultation and discussion and planning. I prefer to have all of them at the table building this new breast care program , rath er than having it dictated by myself and certainly not from the member for Osborne. Manitoba Hydro Amalg amation-Winnipeg Hydro Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro. In the city of Winnipeg, we have, depending on what side of the street or the river or whatever it might be--determines whether or not you are a customer of Winnipeg Hydro or if you are a customer of Manitoba Hydro. In a private situation for profit, there might be some sense to having two, but what does not make sense is to have two publicly owned Crown corporations administering hydro.

My question to the minister responsible is: what has this government done in the last 10 years to deal with the issue of duplication and the justification of why, today, we are still being served by two public utilities serving one city? Hon. Glen Findlay (Acting Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): I thank the member for the question. I will take it as notice for the minister responsible. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will then the Premier make any sort of a commitment to any degree in terms oflooking at the need for looking at our public utility of Winnipeg Hydro and Manitoba Hydro, and what sort of justification is there to allow both of those public Crown corporations to continue on? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am sure the member opposite knows that that has been the subject of ongoing discussions for certa inly this past decade, but it is a matter that has to be decided by the two utilities.

They are utilities that are owned by two different levels of government, and obviously this is not something that can be done unilaterally by our govern ment. If, as the member indicates, there are all of those synergies and advantages to be gained-and I am not necessarily arguing that he is right or wrong on it, but there has to be both partners who are persuaded of those synergies and those advantages. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, can the Premier then explain to Manitobans, in particular people who live in Winnipeg, how they benefit by having two publicly run hydro companies serving one city of the population base that Winnipeg currently has? How does the consumer actually benefit? Will he not concede that in fact they would benefit if it was one publicly owned company? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have certa inly seen economic analyses that would suggest exactly the circumst ances that the member opposite indicates.

Winnipeg City Council and the people who run Winnipeg Hydro have a different point of view, and I have seen many letters to the editor and also analyses to the contrary. So, if he has that perspective, then he

3194 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 obviously should be taking it to Winnipeg City Council and to the people who run Winnipeg Hydro to make his point. Shaken Baby Syndrome Reduction Strategy Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, since 1990 there have been 30 documented cases of shaken baby syndrome, and 25 percent of these tragically ended in death. In the last month, a six-week old girl died, and a nine-month-old is on life support.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services what she is planning to do, what her government is planning to do by way of prevention so that in future there will be no more tragic deaths of this kind. Will her government appoint an independent commission of inquiry, as we recommended in October 1996, so that all of the causes and all of the remedies can be identified so there are no more future tra gedies of this kind? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question.

I would love to be able to guarantee Manitobans that not another baby would lose its life as a result of shaken baby syndrome.

I am not sure I can make that guarantee, but what I can do is indicate that I have asked the Children and Youth Secr etariat to pull together all of those people that might be responsible for working with new moms, whether they be public health, whether they be babysitting courses, whether they be the programs that are run like Nobody's Perfect, ensuring that we try to have an overall strategy and ensure in every program dealing with the care of children that there is a component around the dangers of shaking babies.

Madam Speaker, I do know that the new program s that we have intr oduced like Baby First, new program s and strategies around adolescent pregnancy and working with young moms will certa inly have a component that creates and specifically speaks to the issue of shaken baby syndrome. *

(1400) Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of Family Services acknowledge that experts in this field such as Dr. Debbie Lindsay, associate director of the Child Protection Centre, are saying there have not been a lot of program s which target these high-risk groups, although a two-hour program is not going to fix all these problems, and that what we need is for the government to act decisively in areas within their jur isdiction on areas that prevent these problems such as eliminating child poverty? We have the highest rate of child poverty in Canada.

This is something that is a direct result of the policies of this government. What is she going to do to end this and prevent future deaths? Mrs. Mitchelson: I know that in many of the instances where we have seen deaths as a result of shaken baby syndrome, they have been in fact young males that have been in charge of or caring for these infants. Madam Speaker, again I have to say to you that everything that we are doing as a result of the National Child Benefit and our ability to reinvest dollars in families of high need have been focused towards reducing child poverty.

We know that the best form of social security is a job, and if parents have jobs and are working in the system and have the additional support like the National Child Benefit and other programs that are available through government, it will break the cycle of poverty, and families will have more money and the ability to make better decisions for their lives and for their children. Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, we will be working with all of those that are providing program s to ensure that there is a component around shaken baby syndrome and what the implications will be.

We will continue to focus our energies and our efforts in reduction of child poverty around program s that will help to move people into a cycle of independence, not dependence. Mr. Martindale: Will this minister acknowledge that the child tax benefit is being clawed back from the poorest of the poor? None is going to families on social assistance, and we know that poverty, poor education and a high rate of teen pregnancy, the highest rate of teen pregnancy per capita in Canada, are all contributing factors to this very serious problem. What is this minister and what is this government going to do about it?

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3195 Mrs. Mitchelson: All of the programs that we have announced over the last couple of months certainly are dealing with the issue of poverty and families in high risk trying to prevent neglect and abuse. Our Baby First program is one ofthose very specific projects that has intensive working with young moms, with single parents, to try to ensure that they understand what good parenting is all about, how to feed nutritious meals to their children and how to learn to parent.

Obviously, shaken baby syndrome is one of those issues where parents do need some support and some tools to help them learn to parent in a better fashion. Madam Speaker, our announcement around fetal alcohol syndrome and Stop F AS is exactly one of those initiatives that is working with high-risk families to try to help ensure that children are born healthy and that parents have the parenting skills to deal with those children when they are born. Madam Speaker, our Earlystart program that we have just announced will deal with children in the child care system.

And all of the additional money that we have put in through Taking Charge! and Making Welfare Work will ensure that people have the opportunity to work and break the cycle of poverty. Capital Region Strategy Ministerial Responsibility Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, on March 19 of this year, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) finally announced a task force to deal with the important issues facing the Capital Region, the names of which have not yet even been made public.

Now, just as he did earlier with his bullying of Winnipeg over the sale of water to Headingley, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) has subverted that process agre ed to by the province, the City of Winnipeg and the other Capital Region communities to provide long-term planning for the development of the Capital Region. I would like to ask the Premi er: who is in charge of the Capital Region in that government, the Minister of Urban Affairs or the rampaging Minister of Rural Development? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Wellington for her colourful question. The issue is that we need to provide services. We need to provide sewer and water services to what is the largest unserviced urban-ty pe development in the entire province ofManitoba. Those of us who walked in Headingley in recent weeks, as I have, know that there is a significant requirement for water supply and sewage treatm ent. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, the issue is not about the nature of future development in the ex-urban areas around the city of Winnipeg, which is the subject of the task force that has been announced, but it is about providing services for urban development that currently exists without the benefit of services in the way of sewer and water. That is an area of neglect that has existed for decades. It goes back to the time when Headingley was a part of the city of Winnipeg, and those services were not provided for-th is is not about houses that have been built since Headingley seceded from the city of Winnipeg.

This is about urban development that has existed for decades and in fact goes to the days when it was part of the city of Winnipeg. In the interests of a clean and sustainable environment, those services need to be provided today or in the near future, and that is not to be used as a bargai ning chip; that is not to be used as a means of dealing with future development; that will be the subject of the review and study that has been announced. This is about what exists today and has existed for decades and definitely requires servicing by way of sewer and water. Ms.

Barrett: The issue definitely is that we need to look at a plan for the entire Capital Region rather than just ad hocking. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wellington, to pose her question, please. Ms. Barrett: Why should we even have a task force on the Capital Region if the Minister of Rural

3196 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 Development (Mr. Derkach) can hijack an agre ed-to process, apparently at will? Mr. Film on: Madam Speaker, clearly there is a lack of understanding on the part of the member for Wellington, which is why a lot of people do not give them a great deal of credibility on that side of the House on issues ofthis nature . This is all about- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the planning is required for future development decisions.

The servicing is required for those homes that exist today and have existed for decades in that area. I know that is a difficult concept for the member for Wellington and her colleagues to get their heads around, but even if there was no future development allowed as an outcome of the planning process that is going to be decided by virtue of the task force that has been announced, we would still have to deal with providing the servicing to all of that housing that was constructed while Headingley was a part of the city of Winnipeg for decades. That is the issue that has to be dealt with.

That is the issue that is being dealt with by virtue of the announcement made yesterday. *

(1410) Ms. Barrett: I would like to ask the Premier: why should the residents of Winnipeg trust this government when the latest takeover by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) shows how planning issues vital to the city of Winnipeg and the rest of the Capital Region are trampled underfoot by an out-of control Minister of Rural Development? Mr. Filmon: I know that the member opposite has had the three questions written out for her and she feels obliged to ask them, but the fact of the matter is- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Ms.

Barrett: I wrote the questions myself, unlike the members opposite who have their questions scripted. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to bring the Premier to order and ask him to answer the question that was put and not get involved in personal vendettas. Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): The honourable member makes the same specious point of order, I believe, that she made yesterday or the day before, and I make the same response.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington did not have a point of order. * * * Mr. Filmon: I repeat that there are two separate issues here. One is the planning for future development, and a process has been announced, a process to which this government is committed, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) is committed, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is committed. The fact of the matter is decisions will be made as to whether or not there will be further expansion of ex-urban housing developments or not through that process.

But it is intolerable, for what is an urban density development that exists today, that has existed for two decades, including during the period of time when Headingley was a part of the city of Winnipeg, that that should remain unserviced by way of sewage treatment and water supply, and that is a process which must be addressed and is being addressed by this government. Short-Line Railways Government Position Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, anyone who has had the pleasure of tra velling in rural Manitoba in the last month can attest to the horrible conditions of the roads in the rural communities, and this is only going to get worse with rai l line abandonment. We know that CN is planning to discontinue more services in rural Manitoba. Since one of the answers to this is short-line ra ilways, can I ask the Minister of Highways whether he is prepared to lobby to ensure that short-line ra ilways can function properly, rath er than be held at the mercy of

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3197 the railway companies who are not co-operating with these short-line companies. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I am sure it comes as no surprise to the member for Swan River that we strongly support the concept of economically viable short lines. In many instances, we have supported people who promote the concept of setting up a short line.

Whether it is in the Interlake or whether in southern Manitoba or southwest Manitoba, we support the people who come forward and make pres entations and proposals to CN and CP to take over those short lines. So our Legislature supports it, and in principle and practice the department supports it in the actions we undertake on behalf of people who propose short lines, so we know the merit of keeping freight on rail as opposed to roads. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expir ed. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Film Industry Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Madam Speaker, as we have seen in the hallways of the Manitoba Legislature this week with the taping of the Jane Seymour-James Brolin movie, the film industry is booming in Manitoba. The film industry has come a long way in the last decade. In 1986, revenue from the film industry was Jess than $1 million. In 1998, it is estimated that production may reach as high as $60 million. This is a 600 percent increase. In order to further develop the industry in Manitoba, our government has intr oduced the Manitoba Film and Video Production Tax Credit.

The success of this tax incentive is apparent . The National Screen Institute and its 23 members have relocated to Winnipeg. Cheryl Ashton, executive director of the Manitoba Motion Picture Industry Association commented: There is no doubt the government tax incentive played a role in our decision. As well, in the first half of this year some 30 film scouts have visited Manitoba, triple last year's total. Madam Speaker, as more films are produced in Manitoba, I have every confidence that those Manitobans who dream of Hollywood will have a chance to see their dreams come true right here in Manitoba. Thank you.

Alternative Education Programs Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne) : Madam Speaker, as a parent of a child who from Grade 7 to Grade 12 attended an alternative or flexible learning program, I was annoyed to hear alternative parents dismissed by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) as "yesterday 's people." Even more distressing was the minister's ref usal to take the opportunity afforded her by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) and offer a public apology to the parents she had maligned. Perhaps the minister does not understand the position some parents have taken.

Perhaps she does not under stand that whether she personally likes that position or disagrees with it, their position is founded on- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing difficulty hearing the honourable member for Osborne. I would ask that the honourable members having private conversations do so in the loge or outside the Chamber, please. Ms. McGifford: I was saying that perhaps the minister simply did not understand that these people's positions were founded on deep conviction and principle and not on whim and not on a disregard for all forms of evaluations.

Some parents simply think that the evaluation and testing methods, which the minister favours, are bad pedagogy. Perhaps the minister does not understand that when parents disagree with her, they have every right to voice and to act on their disagreement. Indeed, most of the dissenting parents probably feel they have a higher duty than subservience to the minister, responsibility to their children. Probably these parents also think that the Education minister should listen with grace and not dispense insults.

3198 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 As the parent of a child who thrived in an alternative program, I advocate that the minister find out more about these programs, the dedicated teachers who work in them, the children who attend them and the parents who support them. Perhaps this kind of outreach work would broaden the minister's horizons, tame her tongue and encourage her to support Manitoba parents. *

(1420) Golden Falcon Sport Competition Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): For approximately 20 years, every May long weekend has seen communities in Manitoba and northwestern Ontario host the Golden Falcon sport competition. This past weekend the town of Morden once again outdid itself as an accommodating and gracious host community. On Saturday, I had the opportunity to review the Wing Parade and Drum Head Ceremony, and I was most impressed with the attention to detail presented by all cadets.

As well, I attended the Air Cadet League of Canada's provincial effective speaking contest featuring prepared and impromptu speeches. The young men and women who presented speeches focused on two main themes: patriotism and self-discipline. They spoke with wisdom and energy well beyond their ages. Air cadets have a proud and long tradition in our country. The young men and women of today's air cadets will go on to be the leaders of tomorrow. Their experiences in air cadets wiii help shape them and prepare them for the future, whether that future is with the military or in civilian life.

It is my hope that the hundreds of partici pants this past weekend enjoyed their time in Morden. Although not everyone received medals for their achievements this past weekend, I believe that everyone in attendance was a winner. The memories of a well-played baseball, soccer or volleyball game, the friendships forged and the chance to represent their squadron to the best of their abilities have ensured that all cadets came away with something they can cherish. I would also like to thank Mr.

Kenneth Gibson and Lieutenant Richard Helps of the I 79th Royal Canadian Air Cadets for their generous invitation to the parade and closing banquet. Thank you very much. Vision Quest Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Vision Quest, the second annual conference on aboriginal economic development, is currently being held in Winnipeg at the International Inn. Last year more than 70 businesses and organizations had booths at the event. From what I saw today, this year's event promises to be even bigger in numbers of businesses participating, the numbers of workshops and incr eased attendance from across the province.

The conference is about building partnersh ips and business relationships. It is a forum where aboriginal people from across the province can exchange ideas, business plans, proposals, with those businesses who want to work with aboriginal organizations and individuals. It is a chance for potential entrepreneurs to get advice from and access to experts in various business fields. Neither the provincial nor the federal government has fully acknowledged the ecotourism potential for First Nations communities. This must change.

Aboriginal people are not looking for handouts; they are looking for the chance to operate on their own. For a hundred years the patern alistic Indian Act has hampered economic development; that is changing, thankfully. Increasingly, the future of this province will be deter mined in the growing Fir st Nations communities across Manitoba. It is time that First Nations people from these communities had the same opportunities to develop that exist elsewhere. Vision Quest celebrates the many aboriginal success stories and points to new dir ections and possibilities.

It is a recognition that aboriginal people are taking their own destinies in hand and moving towards true self government and independence. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Shaken Baby Syndrome Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on shaken baby syndrome which is a very serious problem in our city and our province. We know that since 1990 there have been 30 documented cases of shaken baby syndrome, and 25

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3199 percent or seven of these ended in death. In the past month, a six-week-old girl died and a nine-month-old was and possibly still is on life support. We have some experts who have commented on this very serious problem, such as Dr. Debbie Lindsay, associate director of the Child Protection Centre. It has been noted that the child poverty rate, which is the highest in Canada, combined with a high teen pregnancy rate, makes for a potentially deadly combination.

I would also like to quote Vema McKay, executive director of North End Community Ministry, who said: I believe more and more young parents are strug gling. Young people today are under a tr emendous amount of pressure, and that takes its toll. That fits with a report titled Trends, Issues and Innovations in Winnipeg's Human Care Services, a report on discussions amongst United Way of Winnipeg member agencies, who talked about shrinking resources and cuts in government services but increasing demands on United Way agencies for their services.

One of the problems that they point out is a higher incidence of unemployment and poverty. So we have some contributing factors to shaken baby syndrome which I believe this government could have a positive impact on decreas ing, such as the child poverty rate, which is the highest in Canada, and teen pregnancy rate . We have asked for the govern ment to do something about these problems and to initiate an inquiry into the causes and means of preventing these deaths. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call bills today, Bill 13, Bill 36 and the remainder in the order you find them in today's Order Paper, unless we come up with some other plan of action later in the afternoon. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 13- The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second readings on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), Bill 13 (The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aide a l'achat de medicaments sur ordonnance), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Also standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), who has 32 minutes remaining. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): It has been some weeks, if not over a month I think, since I first began to speak on this. It has been I think a sub ject of considerable concern to many of my constituents.

Many of my constituents, as you know, Madam Speaker, are on low income, many of them on tra nsfer payments and parti cularly those who are amongst what are commonly called the working poor. They find that the issue of drugs is one that faces them quite often on a daily basis, particularly those who have seniors for whom they are responsible or for children in their homes or those of their relatives who are required to take a number of drugs. Madam Speaker, it is something which I encounter when I talk to constituents,

part icularly those who have children who require drugs on a regular basis. The cost of many of those drugs has risen, I would say in some cases quite astronomically. It is a double-edged sword in many ways because the drugs which they depend on, the ones which, in fact, keep them alive, the drugs which enable them to live relatively independent lives are also the ones that cost an enormous amount and they cannot do without them. Their families know that and their doctors know that, and those drugs have to be bought sometimes at the expense of other things.

I am not just thinking of food or clothing but often at the expense of the health of other members of the family, and those are terrible choices for a family to make but they are often made. I have met families who have told me that in order to buy drugs for their children, they have, in fact, gone without meat themselves. They have gone without fruit and vegetables in the winter in order that that first call upon their household budget can be paid.

3200 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 So this bill dealing with the prescription drugs, The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act, is one I think which is of interest to all Manitobans. *

(1430) Madam Speaker, I had my first experience of the dreadful impact of the cost of drugs many years ago in the 1970s when I was campaigning in eastern Ontario. The riding was partly urban, partly in Ottawa, but it was also partly a rural riding and the conditions in the rural part of eastern Ontario in those days, in the late '60s, early '70s, were ones that perhaps now seem almost unimaginable. I encountered people, adults, for the first time, whom I found were illiterate. I had not encountered that before. I was quite young at the time, but I also encountered one senior and I still remember her.

She invited me into her kitchen, and she laid out the drugs that she was required to take. This was the 1970s when the drug industry certainly had not expanded the range of drugs available. Research in the late 20th Century has expanded enormously and given us a much wider range and a more significant range and indeed more expensive range of drugs to be taken. But in the late '60s, early '70s there were still high priced and many drugs which were prescribed for seniors.

This woman laid out on her kitchen table for me all the drugs that she was taking, all prescribed by a doctor, all of them which enabled her to deal with physical complaints and enabled her to stay in her home, in her farm by herself. Madam Speaker, she laid them out and she put a price tag on each one, and then she showed me her budget and she showed me how little she had left for food and how at the end of the month the choice for her was between food and drugs, and she chose the drugs.

But what an awful choice to have to make, and you could tell, I think, from her physical condition that the reduction of her food was certai nly having an impact on her health, but that was the choice which she was forced to make in Ontario in the late '60s and early '70s. I wonder, really, if things have changed for people. They certainly did I think for some people in some provinces in the years of the '70s and '80s.

There were some provinces, and Manitoba was amongst them, as was Saskatchewan and indeed as was Quebec, where Pharmacare and drug plans and assistance to seniors, to young people, to people on low income, indeed to the population in general, where assistance was extended to enable them to live healthy lives, to enable them to purchase the drugs which their doctors had prescribed and which enabled them, I think, to pursue an independence which might not have been possible before.

In Manitoba, people are well aware I think that the first of the Pharmacare plans came in under the Schreyer government, and I believe it was cert ainly the kind of thing that when people elected Schreyer they had expected to see. They had expected to see that expansion of public support for individuals who needed drugs, expensive drugs for their families, for their seniors and for their children. They expected to see those kinds of changes under a social democratic government and they did.

They got them, just as they did in Saskatchewan and in many ways, in an extrem ely generous way, in the province of Quebec, as well, particularly in the Province of Quebec's plan for seniors. Since then, Madam Speaker, we have had 20, 30 years of many changes to the pharma ceutical plans of different provinces.

In particular, I remember very clearly when I moved to Manitoba, I think it was not long after that, that the Pawley government brought in the plan requiring pharmacists to prescribe the generic drug rather than a brand name drug, and that was a very progressive move I think and one which many other provinces, if not all provinces, have subsequently followed. So changes to the drug plan-obviously, there are many impr ovements that can be made, there are changes which will bring benefits, but this bill, Madam Speaker, allows the minister to delegate responsibility to determine coverage for drugs.

It is only one of the powers which the minister is delegating responsibility for, and I must say that this is one of the areas where I do have some serious concerns. We notice in many of the bills that the government has introduced, in this session in particular, that there are areas where the government is devolving responsibility to groups which are not as accountable as a cabinet minister should be, although I might say in parenthesis, today when I listened in Question Period to

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 320 1 the Minister of Health's (Mr. Praznik) responses to questions about decisions made by the Winnipeg Hospital Authority, I thought that I saw a clear abdication of responsibility for decisions which remain and should remain always with the minister. I think what we are seeing, and it is a pattern of that kind of activity on behalf of this government, the special operating authorities operate in a manner unto themselves.

They may well be operating in an appropriate manner, but what they have become is much more distant from this Legislature, much more distant from the full accountability which Manitobans have the right to expect. I think the Minister of Health is going to find that as he moves along in this direction of abdicating and avoiding responsibility for the decisions reached by the Winnipeg Hospital Authority. So, in this bill, Madam Speaker, Bill 13, I think that that area,

Section 4 which allows the minister to delegate responsibility to determine coverage, that is one of the key elements: who is covered by such a bill, not just in medical terms but in terms of who within the general population will have access to coverage for certain drugs . So I think that is one area that I do want to alert the government to and to alert this House to, that this is an area I think which needs further discussion, partly because it is an area of general abdication of accountability by the government.

If it were an isolated event, I think we might look at it perhaps in a more narrow way, but it is not. It is a general principle and a general approach that this government is taking, and so we have serious concerns and here is a very specific example. I look forward when this bill goes to committee to discussing that with the people who I hope will come to present and who will give us their advice on the future of this bill.

I would hope that those people who do come to offer their advice on this bill are also people whom the government have consulted, because one of the things that continues to appal me about this government-and I will not say I am surprised anymore because I am not; I am simply appalled at the absence of consultation with groups who will be affected by the passage of certain bills. I can give refere nce, and I will be when I speak on The University of Winnipeg Act later on in this session, some examples of that.

But we could go back to last session--or was it last session but one, Bill 32, the bill which managed to take away $1 1 million from colleges and universities by transferring the taxing responsibilities to the individual institutions. That bill was introduced and passed without any reference, consultation, information, advice, acknowledgement of the position that those institutions would find themselves in.

Here is a government which is responsible for post-secondary education and did not even have the common courtesy to pick up the phone and call the presi dents or the chairs of the board of any one of the six post-secondary institutions in the province, and yet here was a bill which was going to cut them by over $1 1 million. So, Madam Speaker, I do hope that the government has done the appropriate consultation with the seniors groups who have always expressed their concerns about changes to prescription drugs. I hope the government has consulted with the medical profession.

I gather there is a fairly close relationship at the moment with the medical profession and this government, and I hope that those appropriate consultations have been done.

I hope that the consultations have been done with the midwives and that it has been done in a formal way so that all of those people who were interested in midwifery and came to make presentations on the bill that the government presente d last year, all of them are aware of the changes in this act, for, Madam Speaker, I do not think we can take that for granted with this government, and we want to ensure that that has been done and that those people are aware of the changes and understand their effect upon them.

It is seniors, in particular, Madam Speaker, who I think will be most interested in any change to the prescription drug act. They are the ones who have been most affected, I think, by the availability of a wide range of new drugs, and I think probably all of us being of a certain age perhaps, all of us have family who seniors' families, who are affected by the expansion in the range of drugs . Sometimes I am not always sure it is for the best, but certainly there are many seniors who have been able to live much more independent lives.

I think that probably is the most important thing, their independence and the quality of life that has been able to be maintained by the introduction of a range of new drugs, particularly, I would say, in the area of mental

3202 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, I9 98 illness. As we know, Alzheimer's, in particular, and many forms of dementia can be assisted for a long period of time, not forever, but they can be assisted by a number of types of drugs, and it has enabled people to remain at home. It has enabled them to be independent. It has enabled them to live a life that has a much greater quality than would have been thought possible even I 0 years ago. Madam Speaker, we should look in that sense also at the benefits of research. I know that the government let me put it this way.

I know that the government believes and claims that it has continued the policy of Howard Pawley in expanding the role or attempting to expand the role of a generic drug manufacturer and drug research in Winnipeg. I am not convinced that the progress has been as great as it could have been. I am not convinced that the connections with universities have been as well developed as they should have been over a period of I 0 years.

I am certainly not convinced that the destruction of the Manitoba Research Council and its replacement by an innovation council has been particularly helpful to furthering the cause of research and the extension of research to industrial products as it might have been.

I have always thought that that was a very shortsighted and ill-planned move of the government and one which certainly did not benefit the laboratories, the people who worked in the laboratories and the job opportunities that might have been made available to Manitoba students, and which might have enabled us to bring to Manitoba young graduate students interested in pursuing work in well-supported laboratories with an economic and an industrial future. *

(1440) I think over I 0 years the government really has let the ball slip on that. It is true, yes, there is an enormous competition from Montreal, the area of Montreal, the west island of Montreal where the big drug companies welcome Glaxo and Merck Frosst- all have their headquart ers. You drive through it as you get into Montreal, and it is building after building, industrial park after industrial park of pharmaceuticals. Yes, it is, from the economic perspective of Montreal, in which I think we all have a great interest and concern for, of enormous benefit.

It certainly has been given added advantage by the actions of the federal Tory government of Bria n Mulroney. So, yes, Manitoba has faced competition, but we did, you know, in the 1980s, have a very important centre here in laboratories, in research, in medical facilities.

I think the way in which the government has dealt with health, the many changes, the flip-flops, as we sometimes call them on this side of the House, the lack of a clear sense of direction, the many stops and starts , the many turning off of the tap and the turning on of the tap, the instability of a future for those people who are working not just in surgery, not just in family medicine, but those who are working in the research end of pharmaceuticals and the research end of health, those people, I think, are far fewer on the ground in Manitoba than they were.

I remember I used to raise this issue with the Minister of Education when it was Mr. Clayton Manness. I used to get the astonishing reply from him. I would say: why are you not supporting research? Why are you not developing graduate student fellow ships? Why are you not putting money into the generic drug industry, as Howard Pawley did? Why are you Jetting all that fall? Why are you allowing the competition with Quebec to be so overwhelming? I talked about the advantage of research to Manitoba in bringing in federal dollars. In those days there were some federal dollars to be brought in.

There are cert ainly much less now, and the case might not be as strong now, but Manness was quite dismissive of that. It always surprised me- well, no, it should not have surprised me because Manness did have a clear ideology, a very clear market-driven ideology which said that the private sector essentially was the only game in town and that public money did not matter. In fact, that was really his answer. I think it was as clear as that. Well, it is only public dollars, he said.

It did not matter to him that you could generate with an investment in Manitoba research, in our hospitals and in our research laboratories, that you could generate, with a relatively small proportion of provincial money, you could generate a much greater influx of federal dollars. With those federal dollars would come rese archers, people who have the incomes that are going to generate other spin-offs. I mean, I would have thought for a man who believed in the free market economy and who believed in the trickle-down effect, that when you believe that, he might, in fact, have paid

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3203 some attention to what his own investment could have generate d. But his ideology came first, and his ideology said this is federal money, this is government money, it is not priva te investment, hence it is not what we are looking for. So, in my view, Madam Speaker, if you go to the medical research laboratories now, you will find people who are on extremely short-term contracts.

You will find people who do not know from one six-month period to the next whether they have a job and they are trying to run long-term research projects that will be of benefit ultimately to Manitoba and to Canada on that kind of basis. They are ru nning those kinds of research programs often with very little new equipment. They are not able to compete, and we saw in the last round of grants from the Medical Research Council as well as the engineering research council that Manitobans are not faring as well as they could have done and certainly not as well as they could have done in the past.

Albeit we know that the federal government has reduced research money in all areas, but even so, one of the things that Manitoba could have advanced upon was the very basic, but more than basic, infrastructure that we had here in terms of knowledge, of universities, of a network of specialists amongst all our universities and federal research agencies that had a presence in Manitoba.

We could have made that an important base, but this is a government which has put ideology first and which has chosen not to invest in the same way that we did in the 1970s and 1980s in that area of Manitoba's economy, and we will pay the price for it. In fact, I would say that in agricultural research we have already paid the price for it. We know the advances that have been made in Saskatchewan.

We know that they put money very early into undergraduate degrees in food and agricultural research at a time when we did not have them, at a time when the dean of agricu lture was coming begging to the government trying to get a hearing. He came to the opposition because he could not get a hearing. A�d, yes, now, eight years down the line, the government is listening to those kinds of things. It is listening to those kinds of arg uments, but it missed the boat. It has gone to Saskatoon. It has gone to British Columbia.

It has gone to Alberta, and the two-tier levels of research that are occurring across this country are occurring with Manitoba in the bottom tier. The research council that we had when this government came to power, the research council representa tion, the research council synergies that were being brought together and being supported by government simply disappeared for the first six or seven years of this government's office.

What we saw, in fact, was a council which devoted its attention to other areas, devoted its attention to innovation, as it said, and nothing wrong with that; very useful to focus people's attention upon the role of innovation, particularly at low level and intermedia te technology. That is an area that across Canada is attr acting attention. But what we saw out of that was one very well-produced and well-written bulletin, document on innovation in Manitoba and nothing else-over 10 years, nothing else. A gra nting system which was not based upon peer review-but I digress.

I should be focusing my attention on Bill 13, The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Act. Madam Speaker, you have been very tolerant of my digressions. I appreciate that. I got carried away. In health care, Madam Speaker, what every report, every royal commission-and there have been a number over the last 30 years.

All of them have talked about the importance of seamless service in health care, the importance of having the home care piece, the importance of having a drug piece, the importance of having efficient and well-run hospitals and in some communities, such as Quebec and Saskatchewan and British Columbia, of having well-run and very effective community clinics. That is one of the ways in which we have to look at Bill 13, that it is one piece of a much larger area of health care. It is one piece, like a number of others, that this government has chosen to reduce.

I think members are very well aware, even government members must be well aware, of the impact in the reduction of Pharmacare support on their own constituents, a reduction by instituting a 2 percent or a 3 percent minimum before the 100 percent coverage comes in. That really does have a serious impact, again,

part icularly on seniors, and those who are about to face, as a result of federal changes and federal cutbacks, relatively well-hidden federal cutbacks.

3204 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, I9 98 Those seniors are about to face another large income tax claim upon their incomes. So those who, I 0 years ago, might have thought that they were well supported, well provided for, for their later years, for their post-retirement years are beginning to understand, beginning to wake up to the impact that the federal changes in pension legislation are going to have upon their incomes, and I look forward-! hope the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) is going to speak on this, although I think it is relatively unlikely.

Sorry, the minister responsible for services. I said it is relatively unlikely because I do not mean to single out this minister, and so my apologies, Mr. Minister, on that. I am not singling this minister out, but so very few government ministers speak on any bill. It was a general application. I would, however, hope and look forward to a Minister for Seniors (Mr.

Reimer) speaking on drugs, speaking on Bill 13, and giving us a sense of why it is important to tra nsfer the responsibility for decisions on the coverage of certain types of drugs to a board, which is less accountable to this Legis lature ra ther than to one that is more accountable. That minister, more than others, is responsible for the impact of so many changes, and many of them are federal changes, but not all of them. Many of them are federal, and I am speaking now particularly about pensions and the impact that is having, literally already having, upon seniors' incomes. *

(1450) So it is not going to be a question of how well you planned I 0 years ago. It is not even a question of how much time and energy they, and many seniors do, devote to maintaining their health and maintaining their quality of life, because in many ways once you have passed a certain age, and perhaps I will not say which age that is, but after a certain age it does become the primary task in life, in fact, to maintain oneself and to maintain, insofar as one has the individual capacity to do that, the individual quality of life.

The minister must well know that the seniors' incomes are being seriously affected. Some of them are being affected by changes to CMHC grants or absence of grants, I should say, that the opportunities or the choices in housing are being grea tly reduced for many seniors, par ticularly those below a

part icular income level. The minister must be well aware already of the impact on seniors' incomes of the clawback features of the federal income tax, and he must be well aware, from the deputations that he must have received from seniors, of the impact of the expected changes to pensions over the next five to I 0 years. I would say that those changes are going to af fect everyone in this Legislature as I look around at the general age level, that this is not something which will affect seniors of today.

So, Madam Speaker, that is cert ainly one area that we are concerned about, the impact upon those on fixed incomes, those who are classified often as the working poor, those who have seniors in their family to look after, those who have to look after children or others who are disabled, all of whom depend upon drugs, not just for survival, but for a par ticular type of independence and quality of lif e. There is one

section of this bill that also extends the ability to write prescriptions to midwives, and this, I understand, was what the government had promised over 12 months ago when it introduced, and I might say at long last, the bill on midwives. I remember, I think it must have been before---{;ertai nly before the last election-in fact, it might even have been during 1990 when I was first canvassing, and I remember in my constituency a number of people approaching me about the issue of midwives. It is of par ticular interest to a number of my constituents, some of whom did appear at the hearings on this bill last year.

But there I was in the Legislature for five years, Madam Speaker, and never heard hide nor hair of any bill on midwives, and yet there they were. There seemed to be a group of people in Manitoba who anticipated it, if not daily, but certainly yearly. The government sat on the bill. It appointed committees. It consulted, and fair enough, I would have expected all of those, but seven years later a bill, Madam Speaker?

One would have expected that this might have moved a little more quickly, perhaps five years, particularly when Ontario had already introduced such a bill, particularly when Ontario had already shown the way in midwifery and had begun the trai ning program put in place that is one of the first steps that is

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3205 required in the introduction of midwifery in Manitoba. In Manitoba, in fact, I believe that we are still some ways behind Ontario. This piece is one small piece of this, but there are many more steps that the government needs to take before the system of midwifery and the full trai ning that needs to go into that will be available to Manitobans. So that section, Madam Speaker, I think has some merit, much belated, much awaited, and I think when we go to the hearings we may find that it is much welcomed.

But there are other parts, particularly that was delegating responsibility, with which I have some concerns, and I also have a number of questions which I want to ask the minister when we get to the discussion in committee about the

section which allows the government to prescribe charges for drug companies to have their products covered in the formulary. At first glance, that appears to be a very unusual procedure. It is not a licensing procedure. It is a procedure, essentially a payment for selection, as I understand it, and I find that a very unusual component of this bill, and I look forward to hearing explanations from the minister when this goes to committee. Thank you. Madam Speaker: As previously agr eed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).

Bill 36- The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on Bill 36, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg et modifications correlatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes. Leave has been grante d. The honourable member for Wellington, and I must advise the House that I have received notification under Rule 38.(2) that the honourable member for Wellington is the designated speaker on Bill 36 and, as such, will have unlimited speaking time. Ms.

Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker [interj ection] All humour aside from my colleagues across the way, when The City of Winnipeg Act, Bill36, at this session was first announced, I immediately asked and received permission of my Leader and caucus to be the designated speaker, because I knew that it was going to be a very important piece of legislation. "Important" is a word that has both positive and negative connotations, so before members opposite get too excited about our final position on this piece of legislation, keep that in mind, please.

This bill and the context within which it was brought forward deserves and requires a great deal of discussion, and I know that not only myself but other members of our caucus will be speaking to this piece of legislation before it goes to committee and perhaps even after it comes back from committee on third reading. First of all, Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is to outline the areas that I will be speaking about in my discussions today and as we carry on my time on Bill 36.

I am going to provide first, after brief introductory remarks, an overview of the current situation in not only in Winnipeg in the context of where we are at the end of the 20th Century, but also some comments that the minister made in his introductory remarks in introducing Bill36 for second reading. I think it is very important that we discuss this bill in the context of Winnipeg today in 1998, over 25 years after the first implementation of Unicity.

There are some very positive things about the city of Winnipeg that I think we need to remind ourselves of, and there are also some very negative things about the city of Winnipeg that are also important for us to be aware of and cognizant of as we discuss the elements ofBill36. Bill 36 is a culmination, Madam Speaker, of decades of reports on the city of Winnipeg. I do not know the answer to this, but it would seem to me that the city of

3206 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 Winnipeg has been, along with Toronto, perhaps one of the most reported on communities of any size in the country, partly because of its unique position as the single focus of the majority of the activity in the province of Manitoba. No other province in Canada, certainly none of the 10 provinces-the North West Territories and the Yukon perhaps are different, but of the I 0 provinces, no other province has the unique configuration of demographics that the province of Manitoba has and the city of Winnipeg within that province. *

(1500) In addition to that, Unicity in 1970 and '7 1 provided another level of uniqueness, if you will, to this situation. We need to go back, I think, in order to thoroughly understand the context within which Bill 36 is presented and perhaps the outcomes of Bill 36, at least from our perception. They need to be looked at, I believe. Seeing as how I have unlimited time, I can do that very thing, and I will.

The next section, after we have gotten a I ittle bit of a history lesson and a historical context, is I would like to talk about the current situation as it relates to the city of Winnipeg in its political component. Earlier I will have spoken about the socioeconomic demographics of the city of Winnipeg, the positives and the negatives. Then I will get into the political situation that resulted in the Cuff report and, ultimately, in Bill 36. Then, Madam Speaker, we get to probably the heart of the matter, and that is discussion first of the Cuff report.

There has been a lot of public information through the media about George Cuffs report to the city of Winnipeg, and the Cuff report led, if not in its entirety certainly in the vast majority of its recommendations, to the request from the City of Winnipeg to the Province of Manitoba that has resulted in Bill36. The Cuff report is important not only because it is the genesis of Bill 36 but because of the premises, the ideology, the process and the conclusions ofthe Cuff report. A report is never just the paper it is written on. A report is always a product of a number of elements that go into it.

Consultants' reports, in particular, are never objective. I will get into, as I said, the premises, the ideology, the process and the conclusions of the Cuff report, and, as I am sure will come as no surprise to members opposite, not very flattering comments about the Cuff report and the whole concepts and processes that engendered it.

Then, next, Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about, within the context of second reading, where we cannot discuss specific sections or items of the bill, but we can discuss the principles of the bill, I will be discussing those principles using the minister's own words and the minister's own framework in his comments of May 6, where he introduced Bill36 for second reading.

I will be talking about the various elements in Bill36, within the principles of the elements in Bill 36, again the process that ended with Bill 36, particularly the concept of consultation, a concept which is sadly lacking not only in the Cuff report but in Biii 36 itself. But we will not just be negative, because the govern ment has accused us over the years of being only negative and only criticizing without coming up with constructive options and alternatives.

That, Madam Speaker, is not a fair criticism, I believe, because we have in vir tually every area that we have raised, every area of concern that we have raised, provided constructive alternatives in the areas of health care, in the areas of Education, in the areas of Justice, Housing, Family Services, Status of Women, Rural Development, Agriculture, Urban Affairs, Northern and Native Affairs. I am going through the list of the departments.

In virtually every department, every area of activity of this Legislature in the almost eight years that I have been a member of this Legislature, we have been very good, I believe, in presenting not only constructive criticism but also constructive alternatives, alternatives that may not have and in virtually all the cases were not accepted by the government, but they were there and, in many cases, those constructive alternatives have been accepted by the people of the province of Manitoba.

There are many examples in many departments, many areas of concern to the people of Manitoba where our suggestions have been greeted and received with a great deal of positive feedback.

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3207 One

part icular area that I will briefly talk about at this point, because it does reflect on the city of Winnipeg in particular, although it is not an issue that is only or solely the concern of the city of Winnipeg, that also is impacted by Bill 36 or the impact of Bill 36 if enacted without-as it stands will have potentially a very negative impact on this. That is the whole area of youth gang activity.

Now, the government has talked a hard line over the years, the provincial government, the federal government as well, hard line about getting tough on young criminals, on dealing with the gangs in the city of Winnipeg, in parti cular. The results have been all talk and virtually no action. Gang membership has exploded in the city of Winnipeg and it has been an export, albeit a very negative export to many of the communities in the rest of the province of Manitoba, into many of the communities that are represented by members opposite.

The current provincial government does not represent the inner city or many of the older neighbourhoods in the city of Winnipeg. It does not represent at all the North of the province, but it does represent constituencies in the newer areas of the city and the suburbs and the southern parts of rural Manitoba. In virtually every one of those sections of the province and of the city we have problems with youth gangs.

Now, Madam Speaker, in our role as constructive criticizers and constructive alternative givers, as we will in Bill �6, we have also produced a very good, constructive alternative to the do nothing, words but no actions, talk but no walk, of the provincial government, and that is our Gang Action Plan, which has 18 recommendations.

Virtually half of those recommen dations deal with the need for a speedy, effective efficient justice system, and the other half of thos� rec �m� endations talk about and understand the reality, which IS you cannot deal with young offenders, you cannot deal with the problem of youth gangs if you do not deal with the causes that lead young people into gangs in the first place. So half of the Gang Action Plan deals with providing programs, specific programs that have been formulated and used to very good effect in other communities in Canada and across North America.

So, Madam Speaker, the alternatives that we will present, that I will present, in Bill 36 follow along in a long, honourable tradition of the NDP in opposition in the last 10 years in this Legislature. That is providing good, positive, constructive criticism and at the same time good, positive alternatives to the actions of this government. Those alternatives also reflect the differences in ideology and view between our two parties and our two views of the role of government and what a civilized society looks like.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I will, as all good speeches do, whether my speech is good or not, but the form will conclude with conclusions in which I will recap what I have said in my speech as a whole and hopefully provide some preliminary views on a dialogue that I hope will take place in this Legislature. * (15 10) The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) touched on an interesting thing when she was speaking about Bill 13, where she said that virtually no cabinet ministers, other than the minister responsible for the legislation in introducing it for second reading, speak on the government's bills.

Casting my mind back over the last eight years that I have been in the Legislature, and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has been in the Legislature for 10 years , and the member for Brandon East (Mr. L Evans) has been in the Legislature for a great many years, 31 years in June, I do not have the historical context that the member for Inkster or, for sure, the member for Brandon East has, but it seems to me that this government does not often debate the legislation that comes forward.

Certa inly in this session and the last couple, the minister responsible will make opening remarks and then maybe one or two others from the government side will comment. An Honourable Member: Well, sit down, Becky, and I will get up. Right now. Ms. Barrett: The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) has issued me an invitation that I am afraid I am unable to accept at this time, which is to sit down and he would get up and debate Bill 36. I am more than prepared, Madam Speaker, to have not only the member for St.

Norbert but the 30 29 other sittin� m�mbers of the government to get up,and speak on this piece of legislation. I know, historically,

3208 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 sometimes governments tend not to speak too many times, parti cularly on second reading, because it is an opportunity for the opposition to put their views on the record.

I think that by and large that is not a bad thing, but I think in the case ofBill36, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, it would really be helpful for the people of the city of Winnipeg and the people in the province of Manitoba as a whole to have more MLAs on the government side, both cabinet ministers and upper benchers, put their views on the record on this piece of legislation because it is so critical to the future of the people of the province ofManitoba. I think that while the Minister of Urban Affairs' (Mr.

Reimer) comments on May 6 were very clear and they were very concise, they do not necessarily reflect the view of every other member of the government, and they would not in their entirety because we all, whether we are ministers, upper benchers on the government side or critics in the opposition, represent our own constituencies. So our focus and our views on an issue or a piece of legislation will all be slightly different depending on where we come from not only personally in our own backgrounds in our own histories but also the constituents that we represent. So the views of the member for Fort Garry (Mrs.

Vodrey) might be slightly different than the views of the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay). Springfield is not part of the city of Winnipeg, but I used the member for Springfield, because I think that this bill has an enormous impact not only on the voters and the residents of the city of Winnipeg but, by definition, on the reside nts of the Capital Region, and by extended definition, the residents ofthe province of Manitoba as a whole because of the unique charac teristics of the population and socioeconomic elements in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, before I get into my brief overview, I would like to say also that in reading Bill 36 and reading the minister's comments and reading the Cuff report, the media coverage and the background material that I have in prepara tion for this speech, several themes run throughout. I will be reflecting on them as I speak and others of my caucus will follow as well, and I am just going to use the word not whether it is positive or negative, because I think that will come clear as I speak.

The theme of democracy runs throughout the whole of the history of the city of Winnipeg, the politics, the structure of the city of Winnipeg. Everybody who has ever talked about the city of Winnipeg and how its political structure should be formulated uses the words and the theme and the terms of democracy. Now, our position on this will become clearer as I begin to discuss it, and I believe that my colleague the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has already begun that dialogue with a question to the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer).

If he believes in democracy, why is he beginning to destroy it, proceeding to help destroy it? That is the position that we will be taking, that Bill 36 does democracy no good at all. Another element of democracy, Madam Speaker-and this goes back to the Greek origin of the concept of the western concept of democracy and that is "demos," the Greek word for "people," I believe, and the city state of Athens was the first example or the first-the word escapes me-example will have to do, of democracy in action at least that we know of.

Perhaps in the matriarchal prehistory there were-and I would assume if it is a matriarchal society, that is, by definition, a more democratic society than what the developed world has come to know, but that I believe is getting far beyond the context in which I want to speak. But the city state of Athens provided for direct democratic parti cipation by its citizens. Now, one of the problems with the city state of Athens from our time frame several thousand years later is the definition of citizen. We have come a long way, baby, maybe, but in ancient Athens only men were citizens.

Only free men who had a certain amount of property, much of that defined as slave property, could vote. But there was the concept of democracy. Now there is still the concept of democracy. We all talk about democracy. I imagine the President of Indonesia talks about democracy. I could go on about examples of dictators who have, over the years and the decades and the centuri es and the millennia, said that their reigns were democratic. [interjection] Yes, we did. Thank you. We talked about democracy during the MTS discussions and debate, but that definitely is getting a little far afield.

May 20, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3209 But the whole concept of democracy is essential. It is pivotal when you are talking about the city, and I think that there are some real problems in this concept, the concept of democracy in Bill 36. As I said, citizen participa tion going all the way back to ancient Athens-a democracy only works if the citizens are allowed and encouraged to participate. You do not have a democracy if you do not have citizen participation. Now in ancient Athens, those people, those men who were defined as citizens, had direct democracy. They met in the marketplace.

They spoke, they discussed. they debated and they came up with an answer. Town halls, town meetings in New England in the early part of the 19th Century were direct democratic structure s. Direct democracy works in a small setting, but in a city the size of Winnipeg, or even much smaller communities, direct democracy is very difficult to achieve. So what over the millennia we have come up with is representative democracy which allows for citizens to have representation so that their needs are addressed or at least recognized. This is a very clear connection and corollary of the whole concept of democracy.

Our position in debating Bill 36 is that the citizen participa tion element of democracy so critical to an effective functioning government is missing. It has been taken away. It does not exist to the extent that it did before. That is our position. *

(1520) Then there is another theme, if you will, that runs through this whole discussion. This is a theme also that has been stated in this Legislature time and time again by members ofthe opposition, members of my party, not just in the context of urban affairs or any other specific thing. It is the whole concept, the whole theme of consultation. This government in its 10 years has twisted the meanings of so many words, and the whole concept of consultation is one of those words, one of those concepts, that has been twisted, pretz elized if you will, out of all meaning by this government.

I am positing today and will show, I believe, through my comments, that the process, not only of Bill 36 but of the Cuff report before it and of the current situation at City Hall, which is reflected in Bill 36, shows a diminution of the concept of consultation. It may be there on the surface, but in any meaningful way it did not take place. Frankly, Madam Speaker, ifBi1136 passes, the whole concept of consultation will be further diminished. There will be less need and less ability for the City of Winnipeg to consult with its residents on what is best for those residents. The timing.

Timing is another theme that runs through not only the Cuff report and Bill 36, but going back and talking about the history of Unicity from 1970-and I will talk about the concept of consultation in that context too-but the whole issue of timing is interwoven into this whole Bill 36. It is also connected to consultation because if you do not have consultation, if you do not care about real, open consulting with people, then your whole timing process can be truncate d.

That is what had happened in the Cuff report and what has happened with Bill 36, in contrast, in sharp contrast with the other reports that had been done, the reports that created Unicity and the two or three other ones that have been done since Unicity. The timing situation also reflects back, as all of these visions do, all of these themes reflect back, on the concept of democracy.

If you do not have openness, if you do not have consultation, if you have a very short time frame for the production of a piece of legislation or a vision such as this one is, then you are subverting the concepts of democracy and citizen participation. The Cuff report and Bill 36, in consultation and in timing, go against, fly in the face of, the other history of the reports that have started from Unicity on to this day. So the government cannot use, well, this is the way it has always happened, when talking about the timing of Bill36.

Accountability and tra nsparency are other themes that run through this bill and the history behind it. I am sure that the ministers used-after my time is over today, I might just go count just how many times the minister used the words "accountability" and "transparenc y." I think Mr. Cuff and the City Council used those concepts too, and, again, these are concepts that this government, over its 1 0 years, has subvert ed. There are a number of bills in this legislative session alone that

3210 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 take away accountability and transparency through the very simple means of streamlinin g, which means, in effect, taking a decision away from an Order-in-Council and giving it directly to the minister. Now, that may on the surface seem like a technicality, just as the Minister of Justice tries to tell us that his suborning of the legislation regarding the independence of judges is just a technicality.

Madam Speaker, there is a reason for having an Order-in Council process, and that basic reason is to provide the people of the province with open, accountable decision making. Now, I imagine that not one person in 10,000 in the province of Manitoba has ever seen an Order-in Council, and maybe that number would not even know what an Order-in-Council is.

An Order-in-Council, however, is the door through which the decisions of cabinet are seen by the rest of the citizens; and, even if they are not seen by anybody else but the opposition members, that at least is a window, sheds light on a decision made by the cabinet. So if you say that the process for a decision is by Order-in-Counc il, that means that the minister and the Premier have put their signature to a decision, that that decision is laid out in the Order-in-Council and that it is a matter of public record.

When you remove the Order-in-Council process from the decision making, you may be "streamlining" the process, but at the same time you are also shutting the door to an open and accountable government process. When you give the minister, of whatever political stripe that minister is, the authority on his or her own to make a regulation, to make a change that formerly was done by Order-in Council and is no longer required to be done by Order in-Coun cil, you shut that door on accountab ility and transparency and you shut that door on democracy. Why do you shut that door on democracy, Madam Speaker?

Because not only do you have to have citizen participation but, as an element of citizen participation, you have to have an educated citizenry. Now, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), our Education critic, can and has waxed quite eloqu ent on the whole issue of citizen education, of our children and our citizens being educated to be good, constructive citizens, not educated simply to be cogs in the wheel of a vast private company, not merely to be consumers, but to be thinking, productive citizens. If you do not have that kind of an educated citizenry, you do not have democracy.

If you do not have access to information about what the government does, which is what the Order-in-Council process allows, then you have lost a whole bit of democracy, you have lost accounta bility and transparency. If the minister can make rules and regulations without coming back to the Legisla ture as a whole for discussion and debate like we do with legisla tion, or at least without that public notification of an Order-in-Counc il, then you do not have accountability. Accountability is only effective if it is combined with transparency, citizen participation, and an educated citizenry. *

(1530) Madam Speaker, you may think that I am going far afield here, but I am not, because there are elements of Bill 36 which parallel exactly what is happening in this Legislature with pieces of legislation, "housekeeping" pieces of legislation. In some cases, these bills are three sections long. They take five inches. But one of the elements of those pieces of legisl ation is a suborning of the democratic process, and this is what is happening in Bill 36 as well.

It is what happened with the debate around the Cuf f report. it is what happened with City Council when they engendered the Cuff report, and it is something that did not happen with the other large reports that started with the creation of the City of Winnipeg and have gone through until this time. So the minister and the government cannot say it has always been done this way in this regard, because it has not. This is a sea change, a ma jor sea change, and it is not something that we should be surprised at, because it is a continuation of what this government has done over the past 1 0 years.

Transparency, another element that is essential, and I have touched on that when I have spoken about the fact that if you take away the responsibility of the elected representatives, if you take away the ability of the citizenry to see and learn about the operations of government, then you take away the transparency and, again, democr acy is held ransom .

May 20, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 321 1 Madam Speaker, why do we have a media gallery in this legislative Chamber? Why do we have a public gallery in this legislative Chamber and legislative Chambers throughout the western world? Why do we? Bec ause it is not only a symbol, but it allows for the public to participate in the democratic process. Now, you will not see very often many people in either the public gallery, sometimes not even in the media gallery, but at the very least those galleries are accessible. Today we have Hansard.

We have practically instantaneous reproduction of virtually every word we say here. We have television. We have audio coverage of what goes on in this Legislature. Again, the vast majority of what we say and do here are not words of wisdom, they are not words that will stand the test of time.

They are not words or concepts- well, there are some concepts but not words that are going to end up on the next Legislative Bui lding in the province of Manitoba, the way the words of Conf ucius and Lycurgus and Alf red and Justinianus have ended up on our beautiful Chamber here, but the mere fact that we have and allow our citizens to have direct access to what we say and do in this building as legislators is an essential part of the democratic process. It is what provides the transparency that we require if we are going to have a democratic system.

Finall y, Madam Speaker, another theme, and perhaps this along with a theme of democracy is the most important one or the most basic one that runs throughout this whole process, and it really is not a theme, it is a concept and it is the concept of vision. What kind of a city does this government envision as a result of Bill 36? What kind of a city do Winnipeggers envision generally? What kind of a city did they envision when they began the Unicity process?

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, and I will discuss this more thoroughly, that there is a very dark, dark vision that comes out of a thorough analysis of Bill 36 and the process that has led up to Bill 36. It is a vision arguably that turns a blind eye to many of the concepts of democracy, citizen participation, consult ation, accountability and transparency. It is a vision again as in many other elements of this government; it is not just a vision that is seen in Bill 36. It is a vision that we have seen throughout the legislative agenda of this government in its over 10 years in existence.

It is a vision that says people do not really know what they want. People do not really know what is best for them. It is not important that people have access to the legisla tive process, to the governing process. Only certain kinds of people can really govern. The vast majority of people, as I have said before, do not care about government. They do not care about what happens to their communities. It is only people "like us," that should be given the authority to run the show. Frankly, Madam Speaker, it is a corporate vision. It is a neoconservative vision.

It is a vision that has found credence throughout the world unfortunately today, although there are many places in the world where the pendulum is swinging back or frankly where it never swung in this direction in the first place. The vision envisioned in Bi ll 36 is not the vision of The City of Winnipeg Act when it first came into being in 19 70 and 19 71. It is not the vision that if the citizenry of the city of Winnipeg or the province of Manitoba had time to look at Bi ll 36 they would want for their city or their province or their capital region. Madam Speaker, as I said, it is a dark vision.

It is an antidemocratic vision. It is a vision that I believe very strongly Winnipeggers do not want, and if they had had the ability to be consulted, if there had been transparency and accountability in the process, they would have said no. There is a reason why the consultation process and the timing process of the Cuff report and Bil l 36 were as they were. That relates directly back to the vision thing, that is, people are not important. What is important is that our vision of what is right is encoded and carved in stone.

We feel that is wrong, that goes against everything that a democracy should say and should do. So that is kind of the outline of where I will be going in my comments. I would like to begin my actual discussion of Bill 36 and the concept with a paragraph from a man that many of you here will know. If you do not know him by name, you will know him by reputation. His name is Greg Selinger. Greg Seli nger is currently a faculty member at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Social Work, works with the Winnipeg Education Centre.

He was a former city councillor, and he ran I am sorry to say unsucce ssfully for mayor in 19 92. I would posit, Madam Speaker, that

32 12 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 19 98 had Mr. Sel inger come in first in 19 92, I would not be standing here today talking about Bill 36. [interjection] No, no. Let me clarify that for the Minister of Urban Af fairs (Mr. Reimer). I would not be standing here talking about Bill 36 , not because I would not have been an MLA, but because Greg Selin ger as mayor would never in a million years have countenanced this kind of democratic aberration. I think Mr.

Selin ger's contributions, which are many and will be extensively quoted in my speech, will continue to be very important in the provincial and urban situation. He is a remarkable human being, and he has a way with putting things together. So what I would like to do is quote the first paragraph of a paper that Greg Selin ger presented to a forum held a few months ago, I believe last September, about a retrospective of Unicity 25 years later, and I think his first paragraph sort of encapsula tes kind of where we are at the end of the mill ennium. *

(1540) I am quoting here: "As we enter the 2 I st Century, effective urban governance will continue to be problematic in a federal state such as Canada. Provincial governments are unlikely to yield the authority and resources that cities need to address the problems they experience. Federal government spending will be targeted to cash credits or transfers directly to individuals and families in order to increase federal government legitimacy with Canadians and to by-pass provincial governments.

The corporate globalization agenda will demand tax concessions and greater privatization of services del ivered by urban governments. Cities will prioritize their strained budgets to stimula te economic development by attracting new corporate investment. Technological innovations will create job losses as computers displace low-skilled workers. Urban issues such as poverty and inequality, saf ety and security, inner city and downtown deterioration will lead to exurban citizen flight.

As a consequence, healthy neighbourhoods will be difficult to sustain." Now, in a paragraph, Greg Sel inger has beautif ul ly, I believe, summarized where we are today as a city, as a capital region, as a province, as a country. How the various levels of government, how the nongovern mental multi nationals and transna tionals, how the globaliz ation concept is impacting on cities, on provinces, on neighbourhoods and on individuals.

I could go through every single sentence in this paragraph and show, just through Question Period in this last week, examples of ever y single thing Greg Sel inger is talking about here. I will actual ly be talking about many of those things in another section.

Ano ther sort of overview is some of the things that the minister said on May 6, when he did his second reading in the Legislature about Bill 36, not the same concept and not a global overview, but a kind of-it sort of sets the tone for what the government's view of the context of Bill 36 is, again using some of those same words that we have been talking about. Here I am quoting: "Bill 36 marks a significant step in the evolution of the unicity model of civic government." I would say parenthetically, it certainly marks a significant step. I am not sure it is evolution or devolution.

It certainly is not convergence; it may be divergence, which is about all I remember from my high school biology. But it is not an evolution. Evolution, to me, says you are moving forward, you are progressing, you are modifying in a positive way the current situation so that you can more effectively deal with the future. That is not what Bill 36 is al l about from our view. I continue with my quotation: ·'Our community today is not what it was I 0 years ago or even 20 years ago." I have absolutely no quarrel with that statement.

Our communit y certainly is not what it was I 0 years ago, and it bears virtually no resemblance, in many cases, to what it was 20 years ago. I will give example s of how that is true in my next section. I belie ve what the minister is saying here, he probably, if he were to expand on that sentence, would talk about the positive things, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stef anson) did in his comments in response to its being the child poverty capital of the country. At any rate, we all agree that the city of Winnipeg is not what it was a while ago.

Back to the quotes: "Accordingly, we need to respond to the realities of our times by putting in place a new and enhanced political and administrative organization that can effectively respond to the

May 20, 19 98 LEGISLATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 32 13 challenges of the 21s t Century ." We do need to put in place those organizational components, but Bill 36, I am sorry to say, Mr. Minister, does not do that. As a matter of fact, I will go through, in my discussion of the principles of Bill 36, example after example after example of where it does exactly the opposite. Again, we are talking about democracy here. We are talking about citizen participation, or we should be. Bill 36 is the ana thema to those concepts.

Now back to quoting: "More than ever, citizens are aware of the importance of good financial management on the part of a government because of the impact it has on their quality of l ife." That is true. Now, I am not at all sure what parts of Bil l 36 will help to increase good financial management. We can discuss that at more length when we talk about the elem ents of the Cuff report, but I do not see where in Bill 36 those amend ments have necessarily any impact on improving good financial management.

I am back quoting the minister: "Value for money, accounta bil ity for decisions, managing performance and long-range planning are the expe ctations which citizens today have of government." Now, I mean, I could go on, on this paragraph, for quite a while. Do you know what? You could read this sentence: Value for money, accountab ility for decisions, managing performance and long-range planning are the expectations which stockholders have of the bottom line for their corporation. It would make just as much sense-as a matter of fact, it would make more sense than this sentence in the context of Bill 36.

We are talking about civic government here. Point of Order Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Spea ker, on a point of order, this member has been in this Legislature long enough and realizes that all her comments should be made through the Chair. She is in discussion and a little bit of an exchange with the honourable member across the way here. I would ask you to bring her to order and ask her to make her remarks through the Chair, which is the proper parliamen tary procedure. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek, indeed I think most members on occasion get wrapped up in debate and have exchanges across the way. I would remind the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) indeed that her comments are to be addressed through the Chair. * * * Ms. Barrett: On this occasion I agree with Madam Speaker. It has not always been the case. I take her admonition to heart, and I hope I do not stray again.

Madam Speaker, I think the point that I was making through you to the minister was that the minister's comm ents about what the citizens of the city of Winnipeg want go back to what I said earlier about the corporate vision that this government has. Of course citizens want accountab ility, they want good govern ment, they want long-range planning. But if you ask the citizens of the city of Winnipeg what they wanted, they would say they want my potholes fixed. They want my garbage picked up. They want my city councillor to respond to their telephone calls on occasion.

They want to have a sense that the level of government that is closest to them is responding to them. They would not use language like the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) used in his comments on May 8, corporate language. It again goes back to what I said earlier, that this government has a vision that is corporate and in the extreme.

Again, Madam Speaker, to quote the minister's comm ents on May 6, he says: "To respond to these challenges" -th ose are the challenges that he talked about earlier-"at the local level, the structure of the city government needs to adapt to new ways of providing services, need to explore and implement it where appropriate. Essentially, Bill 36 tries to position the city of Winnipeg to function as a first-rate capital city." * (155 0) Now, Madam Speaker, none of use would disagree with the words of the Minister of Urban Affairs on May 6. Of course we want to position Winnipeg as a first rate capital city.

But Bill 36, and, of course, we will not get into the details because it would be inappropriate for me to do that on second reading.

3214 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1998 Nowhere in Bill36 does this come through. It does not come through that we are focusing on making it a first rate capital city. It does not come through that we are trying to respond to the needs of the new millennium. It certai nly does not address the needs of the citizens of the city of Winnipeg even if we were to accept what the minister said, which is that the citizens of Winnipeg want managing performance, accountability, and long range planning.

I agree with those because the citizens of the city of Winnipeg do want accountability, as I talked about in my introduction, and they do want long-range planning. Actually, it is quite remarka ble, I think, how city governments actually function because-this is a personal aside, Madam Speaker. I know there are several members of the government benches who have been city councillors in the past-and that is another whole story that we will not get into, the incubator of City Council. That aside, Madam Speaker, being a city councillor has got to be one of the most difficult jobs in public service, I believe.

The people who are the best city councillors, I beli

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-50
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 50.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	48c7e9b6baf72c3bc399e70e80a4c27b7dc56f3d

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