LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 28 April, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Madam Speak er, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again. Ma dam Sp eak er, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TA BLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Highways and Transportation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Madam Speaker, I wish to table the Highways Construction Program for 1987-88, and I understand there are copies available for the members. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I'd like to table the Annual Report for A.E. McKenzie. MADAM SPEAKER: No tices of Mo tion . . . Introduction of Bills . .

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have 28 students from Grade 9 from the Elmwood High School, under the direction of Mrs. Te rry Ga rther. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Elmwood. We have 29 students from Red Lake, Ontario, from the Balmertown Public School, under the direction of Mrs. Judy Mayhe w.

We have in the Speaker's Gallery, 23 members of the Peguis Choralaires High School Students from the Peguis Central School, who returned yesterday from the International Music Festival in Hawaii where they won the two Bronze Medals in the Small Co-ed Choir and the All-Girls Choir categories. The students are under the direction of Mr. Ken Perry, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS Gunn, N.D.- loan from Communities Economic Development Fund MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speak er, I have a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs. Can he confirm that he and his Cabinet approved a $350,000 loan in April of 1986 for one Mr. N.D. Gunn through the Economic Development Fund? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. E. HARPER: Yes, I can indicate that we provided that loan as indicated in this morning's meeting. Min. of Northern Affairs - rental of 41 Higgins as campaign office MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speak er, in view of the fact the Premier is now here, I have a question for the First Minister. In view of the fact that his Minister and the committee this morning were told that he and his government approved a $350,000 loan to Mr. N.D. Gunn in April of 1986, was the Premier aware that his Minister without portfolio at that time, the Member for Rupertsland - I appreciate questions of awareness are out of order, Madam Speak er. Did the First Minister know that the Member for Rupertsland, a Minister sitting in his Cabinet without portfolio, had used 41 Higgins, which is the add ress of Mr. N.D .

Gunn, as his campaign headq uarters or a portion of his campaign headqu arters? Did the Premier know this? MADAM SPEAKER: Could the honourable member please rephrase his question so it is in the administrative responsibility of the government? The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, to the First Minister, was the First Minister informed that the Member for Rupertsland had used the facilities at 41 Higgins Avenue for his campaign in the election of March 18? MADAM SPEAKER: In my opinion, a question about election proceedings is not within the administrative competence of the government.

The Honourable Member for Arthur. 1397

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, to the First Minister, did the First Minister know that his colleague sitting in Cabinet had used the facilities of 41 Higgins Avenue a month prior to the approval of the loan of $350,000 of taxpayers' money? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, it is not my information that the Member for Rupertsland rented the quarters in question from Mr. Gunn. It is my information that the quarters were, in fact, rented by someone else.

As well, Madam Speaker, I'm not aware of any conflict of interest on the part of the Member for Rupertsland. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, does the Premier not want to clear the air on behalf of his Cabinet colleague and indicate whether or not he had knowledge of whether or not the facility was rented, on behalf of or in the interests of the Member for Rupertsland? That's fairly straightforward, Madam Speak er. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Ma dam Speaker , I had no information pertaining to the qu arters on Higgins Avenue, but I want to say to the honourable member that those quarters were rented by the Manitoba New De mocratic Party, on beh alf of the Rupertsland Constituency Association. Madam Speak er, I see no conflict of interest; they were not rented. Madam Speak er, if we're going to start this, then I would suggest honourable members be ready to declare every piece of stationer y tha t th eir constituency associations bought, every office rental that their constituency associations rented during the process of the last election.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. Order please. May I remind honourable members that questions should be within the administrative responsibility of the government, not of a political party. The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The making of the loan is clearly within the administrative competence of the government. The questions are intended to elicit information with respect to the role, or any other matter, such as the use of certain premises played in granting that role, and they're perfectly in order, Madam Speaker.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Arthur with a question within the ad ministrative responsi bility of the government. The Honourable Opposition House Leader has correctly referred to the loan being within the administrative responsibility of the government. Min. of Northern Affairs - absence at meeting re loan to Gunn, N.D. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact - and I appreciate why the First Minister is so sensitive and touchy on these issues.

I mean, it's not the first one that he has had to deal with, Madam Speaker. There is certainly a reflection now being put on his government and a cloud over their heads. A further question, Madam Speaker, to the First Minister, in view of the fact that his Cabinet in April of 19 86 approved a $350,000 taxpayers' money loan to Mr. N.D. Gunn, Madam Speaker, the Minister who had the premises of Mr. N.D.

Gunn made available to him by the New Democratic Party for the Province of Manitoba, to the First Minister: Did the Member for Rupertsland, the then Minister without porfolio, absent himself from that Cabinet decision in April? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Spe aker, there certainly was no requirement by the Memb er for Rupertsland to do so. There was no personal conflict, no personal interest insofar as the Member for Rupertsland is concerned. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, we were told this morning at committee by the Communities Economic Development manager that all loans over $15 0,000 go to Cabinet for their approval. That fund helped to finance Mr. N.D. Gunn's facilities on the business which he carried out, of which the Member for Rupertsland had his campaign headq uarters for the 1986 election campaign.

My question to the First Minister: In view of all this shadow and the cloud that's over his and his colleague's head, will he assure us, Madam Speaker, that all information dealing with this whole case - the loan which was made, the questionable loan which was made by him of $350,000, the involvement of his colleague, the Member for Rupertsland, the Minister without portfolio, in use of taxpayers' money for possible political activity - will he assure us and the people of Manitoba that all, and I say all, documentation pertaining to this situation is made available to the members of the Opposition and the committee when it is heard again in the next week or so, All information for the people of Manitoba to know that their taxpayers' money is not being used improperly for political purposes?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, this matter was dealt with in committee this morning. I believe it would be appropriate to put on the record in the House what was stated in committee because, while there is not a direct inference that we were not going to provide that information, the comments from the Member for Arthur could be misinterpreted in that way. I know that he is certain that he would not want his comments 1398

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 misinterpreted by anyone, either in this Cham ber, the general public, or by the media. Madam Speak er, first I think the whole matter of providing information on these sorts of questions, and the way in which we have responded to these matters in the past should be put on the record.

I can recall, Madam Speaker, when there were discussions that took place in committee when they were government and when members came into this House, when members came into this Chamber to ask those questions, members opposite, most likely the Opposition House Leader now when he was Government House Leader or perhaps his colleague - in this instance it was Mr. Jorgenson - very clearly stated that the questions which are forbidden during daily question period - and one of them is to seek information about proceedings in a committee which has not yet made its report to the House.

So they wouldn't even answer the questions, much less provide the information, and I think that very clearly demo nstrates a difference between a government which wants the facts on the record in a � true and complete fashion, versus a government that, ' when they were in power, did everything they could to subvert that process of providing full factual information. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Min. of Northern Affairs - request for resignation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister.

In view of this unfortunate situation where taxpayers' money is in question, and I say in serious question, under his administration, in view of the questions that are brought about, about his colleague, a Minister of the Crown, a Minister responsible for Northern Affairs, a very heavy responsibility; in view of the shadows that have been cast upon him and the whole activity of he and his government, will he ask the Minister to step • aside from Cabinet until this matter is cleared up fully? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speak er, I'm really surprised at the depth to which the Honourable Member for Arthur is attempting to stoop. I suppose I ought not to be surprised, Madam Speaker, because we've seen their attempts to sling mud repeatedly over the last 18 months. Madam Speak er, the Member for Rupertsland was introduced to Cabinet some time subsequent to the expiry of the lease on these premises.

These premises were leased for purposes of the election by the Manitoba New Democratic Party, and were rented by the Manitoba New Demomcratic Party on behalf of the Rupertsland Constituency Association for the sum total of $300.00. Insofar as the Member for Rupertsland, he was appointed to Cabinet as a Minister without portfolio subsequent to the expiry of the lease on March 18 and, at that time, was not the Minister responsible for Communities Economic Development Fund, in any event. Lastly, Madam Speak er, there was no personal gain, no personal interest received by the Member for Rupertsland.

It would be the height of idiocy, Madam Speak er, to remove or - unfortunately, it is the height of idiocy for the Member for Arthur to even suggest the removal of the Member of Rupertsland under such circumstances. Sargeant, Terry - duties with Dept. of Northern Affairs MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is to the Minister responsible for Northern Affairs and Native Affairs. I wonder if he could inform the House what the duties of one Terry Sargeant, former M.P., are now with his department?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. E. HARPER: I believe he's director of the research and development services within Northern Affairs. Sargeant, Terry - position bulletined MR. D. BLAKE: Sorry, Madam Spea ker, I didn't catch all the answer. Could the Minister tell us if that position was bulletined? HON. E. HARPER: I'll have to take that question as notice, because I believe Mr. Sargeant has been in place for some time, so I'll take it as notice. Goertzen, Jeanette - duties with Dept. of Northern Affairs MR. D. BLAKE: Yes.

I wonder if the Minister could also inform the House what the duties are of one Jeanette Goertzen, the former special assistant to the Honourable Member for Brandon East. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. E. HARPER: I believe Mrs. Jeanette Goertzen is working in the Special ARDA office at this time, at Colony Sq uare. Gunn, N.D.- T4's for Gunn Const. prepared by Dept. of Northern Affairs staff MR. D. BLAKE: Yes. I wonder now maybe if the Minister can inform the House, Madam Speaker, if the T4 slips for the emplo yees of N.D.

Gunn Ltd ., or Gunn Construction were prepared in his office by his staff. HON. E. HARPER: I cannot confirm that, I'll have to take it as notice. 1399

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 Premier - criteria for removal of Ministers MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Spea ker, my question is for the First Minister. We've had examples of scandal, of incompetence, of use of political influence by members of this First Minister's Cabinet. I wonder if the First Minister could indicate to the members of the House and the public just what one of his Ministers has to do in order to be removed from Cabinet. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to clear the record, Madam Speaker, because what we've had since May of 1986, commencing with the Minister responsible for Energy and throughout, is a series of unfounded allegations. Madam Speaker, there has been not one iota - (Interjection)-The Honourable Leader of the Opposition talks about reinsurance. Let me point out that, insofar as the reinsurance issue is concerned, 65-70 percent of the losses took place while the honourable member and colleagues around him were, in fact, in government.

So let him not talk about scandal, about losses that took place during treaties written under the Lyon Administration of the Province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, if the honourable member would talk about scandal, then he'd better watch from whence he throws charges of scandal. Madam Speaker, just as the allegations pertaining to the Minister of Energy where they were muckracking, similar charges involving other Ministers, have been clearly demonstrated to be muckraking because this Opposition is afraid to discuss the issues of jobs, tax reform and agriculture.

But when they're in trouble, they constantly dig into the mud, Madam Speaker, and they only end up with it being stuck on thems elves. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the First Minister obviously can't remember McKenzie Seed s; can't remember MTX; can't remember the reinsurance losses at MP IC ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Question period is not the time for debate. Does the Honourable Leader of the Opposition have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Madam Speaker, we know the answer.

The answer is that under no circumstances will he remove a Minister for any wrongdoing of any kind in his government. Constitutional Conference - Man. Gov't Position paper re Quebec MR. G. FILMON: Madam Spea ker, my further question to the First Minister is, tomorrow he leaves for Meech Lake for a conference of First Min isters on the Constitution. He has made a commitment to lay before us the agenda of Manitoba, the position paper of Manitoba, with respect to that conference.

My question to the Premier is: When will we receive the information on Manitoba's position with respect to Quebec entering the Constitution? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, a first

preamble was permitted to th e Honourable Leader of the Opposition which I must respond to. Madam Speak er, during the term of this government, since 19 81, I am proud to say that not one Minister has gained personally from his or her dealings as a Minister of this government, and I'm prepared to ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: . . . challenge any other administration in Canada to demonstrate as scandal­ free a situation as this province has had since 19 81. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the Honourable Minister that answers to questions should deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, is the First Minister going to answer the question on Quebec and the Constitution? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speak er, now that the honourable member has asked a question without irrelevant

preamble, we will be making a statement tomorrow pertaining to the position that Manitoba will be taking to the Meech Lake discussion. MGEA contract - no-layoff clause MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that previous MGEA contracts that have been negotiated by his government have included no-layoff clauses in the contract; and given that negotiations will be ongoing for contract renewals this fall; will the government be renewing the no-layoff provisions of previous MGEA contracts?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The subject of any negotiations and issues that the government, or indeed the other party to th e negotiations, may place on the table are best left for tha t process once it commences. It will not be commencing until some time later this summer. I can say, Madam Spea ker, that overall our policy of working with our employees to look at ways of dealing with reductions and changes in the methods of 1400

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 operation has ensured, on one hand, that the overall level of Civil Service in this province is at levels that, on a per-capita basis, are at the average point or below the average point in Canada and on an absolute basis has seen an overall stability in terms of the numbers of civil servants. We've done it in a way, Madam Speaker, where there have been changes between different departments that may have seen reduction in programs, other departments that may have seen expanding programs, by not merely laying off employees, but by reallocating and retraining within.

I would contrast that with the position that's been adopted by his colleagues in Alberta and Saskatchewan where there have been wholesale changes and layoffs without any due consideration for employees. MGEA contract - no-layoff clause, hospitals MR. D.

ORCHARD: Well, Madam Speaker, given that with all this cooperation the Minister has indicated is present in the negotiations, the ranks of the Civil Service over the previous five years have swelled by 43 percent, almost half as many again civil servants as in 19 81; and given that last night in Health Estimates the Minister indicated that when beds are closed in the hospitals, that layoffs will follow, my question to the Minister of the Civil Service: Will contract negotiations allow those layoffs to take place as indicated by the Minister of Health last night in Estimates? MADAM SPEAKER: Excuse me.

Could the honourable member please clarify if he is talking about hospitals or the provincial Civil Service? The provincial Civil Service is under the jurisdiction of this Minister. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Spe aker, possibly if I could clarify on a point of order. The MGEA contract, which has been negotiated by the New Democrats over the last two terms, I believe, has included a no-layoff provision. That has been followed by contracts in the � hospital services, wherein those contracts have also , been no-layoff provisions, so that staff reductions cannot be made.

Last night the issue of hospital bed closures was discussed with the Minister of Health, and the Min ister of Health indicated last night th at accompanying those bed closures naturally would be layoffs. That is why I'm posing the question to the Minister responsible for the MGE A negotiations, whether no layoffs will be a provision they will allow to be retained in the next MGEA contract, which will prevent those layoffs to take place, as the Minister said would be necessary in the Department of Health. That's the nature of the question, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. l.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I'd like to set something straight. ft is true that we did discuss the question of bed closures or deinstitutionalizing in the hospitals. What I did say to the question was that, if there is going to be any savings, obviously when 75 percent of the costs of the hospitals is wages, that 1401 something would have to be done. I did say that.

As far as layoffs, I said that it would be by attrition to start with, which there wouldn't be any layoffs, I said, No. 1; and No. 2, that we would discuss with that particular institution to see if there can be a redirecting of staff, and also between institutions; and No. 3, I said that we would close those beds in an orderly fashion, if need be, only when services would be in place to provide another option to service the patients, for instance, in the community, and that these people would have the first chance to work in the community.

So, fine, we will definitely, if we're going to save funds, will have to have less people in the hospitals, less staff, but we will need more people working in health, in community health. MONA contract - Min. of Health to allow no-layoff clause MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Given that last night in Estimates - and Hansard will show that he did indicate that layoffs would be a follow­ through of bed closures in the orderly cutback that he is presiding over in the hospital system - given that the president of MONA has indicated their next contract negotiations will involve no-layoff provisions in that contract, can the Minister indicate to the House whether he will permit negotiators, on behalf of the hospital facilities, to include no-layoff clauses in the next MONA contract? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Health to the extent that's in his jurisdiction. MR.

D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: I realize that you appear to be concerned about this not being within the relevance of the Honourable Minister of Health's Department. Last night my colleague for Brandon East pointed out how the government had allowed and paid a $200,000 union supplement . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The honourable member rose on a point of order, I presume to suggest that this particular question is within the Minister's responsibility.

I'm asking the Minister to answer the question based on the areas of the question that were in his responsibility. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speak er, the Minister indicated across the floor that he had forgotten the question in view of the delay in answering. Madam Spe aker, the question very simply is, that no-layoff provisions are about to become, if the President of MONA is carrying out her intended statements today, that she will be negotiating no-layoff provisions in the next MONA contract. My que stion to the Minister is:

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 Will he, as Minister of Health responsible for the funding of all those facilities, allow no-layoff provisions in the next MONA contract to be negotiated? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Of course MONA, negotiating for the nurses, is free to negotiate as they wish. The people negotiating for the hospital with the help, in such cases , and if we establish a policy, if the commission or the government establish a policy, they'd have to go along with that. I would be very surprised if we could not get along togeth er.

We've had meetings, there is good cooperation. The nurses know what we're trying to do. They agree that it should be done in an orderly fashion. I would be very surprised if we can't reach a decision to work together to get the saving and protect the health care program that we have. Workers Compensation Board - coverage for mentally handicapped workers MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is for the Minister of Community Services.

Can the Minister inform the House whether the Workers Compensation Board provides coverage for the mentally handicapped adults who are involved in training programs in commercial and industrial work sites? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: I'll take that question as notice, Madam Speak er. WASO - re wee mentally handicapped workers MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: While the Minister is taking that question as notice, maybe she could find out, given that WASO Incorporated, a non-profit training centre and workshop for the mentally handicapped, has attempted to provide meaningful work experience to its handicapped adults, has found that the emplo yer does not have protection under the Workers Com pensation Board for itself and for th ose experiencing work there, will the Minister take some action to assure the safety and protection for the mentally retarded and the businesses involved? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I'll take that one as notice, too.

In general, I would just like to comment that the workshop situation is not completely equivalent to a work situation, but I think it is important that there is assessment and training going on, but I will take this question as notice, as well. Workers Compensation Board - coverage for the mentally handicapped workers MRS. B. MITCHELSON: My final que stion is for the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board.

Will the Minister responsible assure this House that an Order-in-Council or something similar will be passed to compensate the workers, in accordance with The Workers Compensation Act, to set up proper safety and regulatory measures to assure that these useful programs do not fail? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister responsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speak er, I am pleased that the member would have asked the question about Workers Compensation, because today, April 28, has been chosen as a day of mourning for killed and injured workers.

It is done because April 28 was the day that the first Workers Compensation was passed in Ontario. It is done in memory of workers who have been tragically killed and injured in our workplace. In 1986, there were 43 of our brothers and sisters killed in a workplace while performing their work, which may have made a major contribution in the workplace to make our lives better. But on the specific question of dealing with the members of those workshops, yes, there have been several examples of where Orders-in-Council have been passed to cover th ese workers.

If this particular workshop is not covered at this time, then we will certainly be passing an Order-in-Council and regulation to make sure that these people do receive the coverage that is required. WASO - WCB re coverage for mentally handicapped workers MRS. B. MITCHELSON: A final supplementary to the same Minister.

Given that WASO Incorporated has been writing letters and communicating with this government since last May, Madam Speaker, to try and get some coverage for the mentally handicapped, will the Minister not take some action now on behalf of the mentally retarded in the Province of Manitoba and ensure that something will be done so they can maintain these jobs and these programs will not fail? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, that problem is presently being add ressed and that should be resolved within a short period of time. Winnipeg Arts Club - closed MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H.

PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is to the Minister of Cooperative Development. In 1985, the Arts Club received a loan from the Credit Union Central for $10 0,000, guaranteed by the Province of Manitoba. It also received a $94,000 grant from the Jobs Fund. 1402 Would the Minister tell this House whether the 11 5 Bannatyne Avenue Arts Club is closed?

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co­ op Development. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. It's my understanding that certainly the Winnipeg Arts Club is closed. As the facility no longer operates, the Winnipeg Arts Club building, the facility, was sold, or the operation of that facility was turned over to a private sector operator and there have been discussions with that new owner on an ongoing basis in respect to the loan guarantee by the Provincial Government.

I am informed that we expect that we will fully recover the outstanding loan from that operation if that private sector operator is successful. We have every reason to believe that they will be so. So the indebtedness in the loan guarantees and the provisions were carried over to the new owner. We believe that the provincial financing, which was put into that operation through my own department and its agencies, is well secured at the present time. Winnipeg Arts Club - gov't loan gu aranteed MR. H. PANKRATZ: Madam Speak er, to the same Minister.

The $10 0,000 at this time that the - I was going to say the Steinbach Credit Union - the Credit Union Central has loaned the Arts Club, is that also guaranteed by the Province of Manitoba? HON. J.

COWAN: I can certainly provide all the specific detail to the member at a later time; but what I can indicate to him, and I'll confirm this to make certain that my perception of the situation is correct at the moment, but it is my understanding that the funding that was put in by the Credit Union Central and the financing that was put in by the government is secured and both organizations hope to realize and expect to realize the return on the financing which they provided to that organization.

Now having said that, it's important to note that when providing loans and dealing with any organization or any operation, conditions and circumstances change from time to time. So all we can provide now is a forecast based on our best available information. The latest information I received in that respect is that we should recover our financing, and the Credit Union Central as well, should recover their financing. Winnipeg Arts Club - Premier a member MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speak er. A new question to the Premier.

Did the Premier become a member of this Arts Club as he stated he would last year? SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: That question is totally out of order, it is not within the administrative responsibility of the government. 1403 The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Yes, Madam Speak er. We have just heard two questions related to the security of a loan made by the government. The Premier stated in this House last year that he was going to become a member; we're dealing with his membership in a club which the government loaned money to.

Surely the question is in order, Madam Speaker, if you'd just . A MEMBER: We just want it repaid. MR. G. MERCIER: If I may, with respect, Madam Speaker, suggest that you just not interfere with the questioning and allow the questions to be put and the answers to be given, the question period will go much smoother. MADAM SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Opposition House Leader please withdraw those last remarks which are instructive to the Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

Would the Honourable Opposition House Leader please withdr aw those last remarks which were instructive to the Speaker. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, they were meant to be helpful. Madam Speaker, the comments were only made in an effort to expedite the business of the House, and to be helpful. MADAM SP EAKER: The comments were most unnecessary and, under our Rules, honourable members do not give instructions to the Chair in that manner. The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Mada m Sp eake r, I was not attempting to instruct the Chair, just to make some helpful suggestions.

MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. The question is out of order. A member's private membership in a private club is not within the administrative competence of the government. The Honourable Opposition House Leader on the point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: Yes, Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I challenge your ruling. MADAM SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Those in favour, please say aye; those opposed, please say nay. In my opinion the ayes have it. The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 The question before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Ashton, Bak er, Bucklaschuk, Cowan, Desjardins, Doer, Dolin, Evans, Harapiak (Swan River), Harapiak (The Pas), Ha rper, Hemphill, Kostyra, Ma ckling, Ma loway, Schroeder, Parasiuk, Pawley, Plohman, Santos, Scott, Smith (Ellice), Smith (Osborne). Uruski, Walding, Wasylycia�Leis.

NAYS Birt, Blake, Connery, Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Hammond, Kovnats, Mccrae, Mercier, Mitchelson, Nordman, Oleson, Orchard, Pankratz, Rocan, Roch. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Yeas, 26; Nays, 22. MADAM SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried. Forest fire conditions MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Could the Minister give us an update as to the forest fire situation in the Province of Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. L.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speak er, we are facing some very dry conditions in the southern part of the province. Precipitation has been much below normal, so we have had to action some 42 fires to date. They are all in hand. Conditions north of the 53rd Parallel are not in critical condition, but in the southern part of the province, given the dry conditions that we have and the wind conditions, we are asking everyone to cooperate and be very cautious. I should point out that all of the fires that have been actioned to date were relatively small; all were caused by activities of man.

Forest fire conditions - travel restrictions MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, to the same Minister. With the fishing season opening on May 9, is the Minister contemplating any restrictions in certain areas, so that people would know in advance as to when they make their plans or trips, etc.? HON. L.

HARAPIAK: Certainly, Madam Speaker, at this time, we are not anticipating that there will be but, depending on the conditions of weather between now and the opening of the season, if it were necessary for us to impose any travel restrictions, we would ensure that, through the House and through the other media, we would give ample notice of any restrictions. Business fund - time frame MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Business Development.

A year ago, in the Budget or the Throne Speech, it was announced there would be a new fund for businesses in Manitoba. The Minister said she was working on it. Can she give us an update as to when we will finally see the details of the fund? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development and Tourism. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Quite soon. Western Canada Games, 1990 - location of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West . MR. J. McCRAE: The 1991 Western Canada Games will be held somewhere in Manitoba. Where?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister responsible for Sport. HON. L. DESJARDINS: It'll be in 1990 probably. So far, if the City of Winnipeg makes the final arrangements, it would be held in Winnipeg. Western Canada Games - application from City of Winnipeg MR. J. McCRAE: The Minister has given us a hypothetical answer and said that, if the City of Winnipeg comes through. Has the City of Winnipeg applied for these games? If the Minister's mind has been made up, why has he kept the committee from the City of Brandon waiting since his meeting with them last June? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I haven't kept anybody waiting. I told them exactly what the situation was last June. In the meantime, yes, the City of Winnipeg has made an application, and that is being discussed at this time. MR. J. McCRAE: When did the Minister receive the application from the City of Winnipeg? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I think it was February 3 or 2, early February this year. 1404

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 Western Canada Games - advise Brandon of location decision MR. J. McCRAE: Would the Minister extend at least a modicum of courtesy to the City of Brandon and let them know what his decision is? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'd be pleased to, when I know. Sugar beet industry - tripartite agreement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Madam Spe aker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he be willing to update us as to the position of the tripartite agreement with the Federal Government in regard to sugar beets?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, we have had discussions with the Federal Government. I have no news to report in terms of what they will be coming back with in terms of our discussions earlier. As soon as I have something to report, Madam Spe aker, I certainly will make it available. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Would the Minister of Agriculture be willing to put forward what position he has taken, or what agreement he is prepared to accept? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that, on March 20, the Province of Manitoba made a proposal to the Federal Government which moved a considerable way above the agreement that we had with them which called on the province not to put any money into the industry beyond the 1985 crop. There was no response from the Federal Government until our telex a week and a half ago, Madam Speak er, by now it's almost two weeks ago, at which time we asked the Federal Government to meet further .

Our staff worked up a number of proposals for consideration of both governments, which we have accepted the majority of those proposals. However, we have not had a response from the Federal Government as to how flexible they have indicated they are prepared to be. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, our bottom line is we will not sign a blank cheque. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. Order please. If honourable members want to carry on private conversations, they can do so elsewhere.

The Honourable Government House Leader has the floor. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, on a matter of House Business, I believe there's an inclination on the part of all members to dispense with Private Members' Hour tod ay. We would continue on with th e consideration of Estimates. We will be beginning Natural Resources in the Cham ber and continuing on with He alth in the Committee Room. Accordingly, Madam Spea ker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented. MAT TER OF GRIEVANCE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speak er, I wish to grieve. I was on my feet, and you had not noticed me, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur then. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speak er. Madam Speaker, I want to say that I find it extremely difficult, the situation in which we see ourselves and the Legislature sees itself in tod ay, and that this government has again seen come upon it.

How many more, Madam Spea ker, how many more issues, how many more activities of which either his Cabinet or members of his government are involved in which are questionable, which brings to the mind of every one of us here how difficult it is to make sure that everything is carried out well? I know the First Minister of the Province of Manitoba is going to point fingers at the Member for Arthur. He's going to go all through the Alcan scandal that the press perpetuated, my colleague for Lakeside, that total involvement, but that's okay, Madam Speak er. That's okay.

I lived through that and the First Minister won the election. He had the golden opportunity to have a full investigation, but he forgot that it was an issue. And I have no difficulty, Madam Speak er, in standing here today and letting my total record of my political history, my whole activities be fully scrutinized. That is not what I'm rising for. I'm rising, Madam Speaker, because again we see in the Province of Manitoba the squandering and what appears to be the misuse of taxpayers' money.

Whose money are we appointed, whose money are they appointed, are they elected to look after, hard-earned money, yes, by the labourers, wage earners and the union people of this province; yes, by the people who have invested and worked their lives in this province for a better future for their children, Madam Speaker; yes, people who wanted to have better health services, to have better social services, and all those things that are essential to a higher standard of life. That's what their taxes are supposed to be used for.

Yes, Madam Spea ker, and in certain situations, it is the responsibility of government to use the taxpayers' money to help those who are less fortunate in society 1405

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 and business; yes, to help those, whether it be a farmer, where in fact there are not sufficient funds from other sources to make a viable operation carry on. Yes, and it seems to become a socially accepted thing, before any business starts up or before any activity takes place that in fact, Madam Speaker, we have people calling on the government to put money in. (Mr. Deputy Speak er, C. Santos, in the Chair.) We have the Communities Economic Deve lopment Program, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is not, by any means, new.

It's carried out a series of loans, I guess probably $2 1 million is what the corporation is responsible for. Loans, yes, I'm sure that have carried out the responsibilities that the mandate was given to the corporation. But then, we have many loans that are coming under question. You know, one can even back off if there were some advancing of funds. If in fact it was a judgment call, one could be less harsh. But, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, we cannot be less harsh when we see the advancement of a $350,000 loan which, No. 1, is questionable because, if a credit check had been run by the government, by the Communities Economic Development Fund, they would have found out that the individual, a year earlier, couldn't have repaid any of the money. But we come to April of 1986, the Cabinet, the Premier no less and all the front-bench people were sitting in, saying we'll give them another $350,000 in loans or loan guarantee. Well, that's questionable.

But the other point that really is bringing a shadow - and I'm not after the Member for Rupertsland in a personal, slanderous way, not in any way, shape or form. In fact, I have learned from the Minister and the member something about his way of life and his people, and I, in no way, shape or form, will stand here and be accused of being a racist because I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he is a Manitoban and a Canadian as equal as anyone else here. But where the question rises, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is his activity and involvement with his campaign headq uarters being in - or I shouldn't say, campaign headq uarters - but part of his campaign headqu arters being at the location of which Mr. N.D. Gunn is at on 41 Higgins in Winnipeg. One has to question why would he be approved for a loan in the first place, because it's for northern businesses, it's for northern Native employment. Yes, we were told by the manager all the locations of the loans. Do you know where N.D. Gunn was listed as? Listed as Norway House.

Well, interesting, Norway House, so a researcher went to do some research to check, to call Mr. Gunn's business, to see, legitimately find out what was going on with the business. Strangely enough, Mr. Deputy Speak er, no number for Mr. Gunn, no business, address unknown. We were misled to some degree by the committee that this was the headquarters of Mr. N.D. Gunn Company. What do you do next? You proceed to find out what other activities. Why would this all be?

Further indications have come to us, we find that the Member for Rupertsland, Minister, sitting in the Cabinet, elected on the 18th of March, a part of approval of a Cabinet decision in April to give this individual where he had his office - by the way, I understand the arrangement of the office was made by his executive assistant. I'm not sure of the individual's last name, but I'm sure it's Elaine. I know her first name; I know that she has been certainly working for the New Democratic Party and and this Cabinet Minister's office for quite some time, so she apparently made the arrangements for this.

The Premier comes back with the argument, well it's okay, the Minister really doesn't have anything to worry about because it was done by the central office, by the ND Party of Manitoba. But on whose behalf? It doesn't make it any less important because they do it, but it was done by his executive assistant, yes, maybe paid for by the election offices, but it was in fact carried out by the Minister's executive assistant on behalf of the Minister. Oka y, let's clear the air, let's get that information confirmed or denied. But I think it'll be confirmed - $300.00. Everybody talks about the $300.00.

What's the issue? Have they paid for it? Well, there's an issue there. How, in fact, and why -(Interjection)-That's right. The question is, did they? The question is, why - so interested in this whole political connection. None of the $350,000, we 're not accusing the $350,000 went back to the party for the political campaign. We're not saying that at all.

But there is something very strange when you've got a company that's in a very serious financial situation which, by the way, we were told by the Communities Economic Committee, by the Chairman, that they get a monthly report on every loan, the status of it, that every loan over $150,000 has to be approved by Cabinet, that in April, a month after the election of which my friend, the Member for Rupertsland, had his campaign office in, in Higgins - I mean, he's from Rupertsland. Why it would be in Higgins in Winnipeg, for the life of me, I can't figure that one out and, a month later, he gets a $350,000 loan.

The Member for Swan River has hard-working people who put that money up. The Member for The Pas has people who work hard and put that money up, and goodness' sakes, the Member for Lac du Bonnet knows how hard his constituency works, and the labourers in the Member for lnkster's constituency work very hard to earn for the taxpayers to have spent in this manner. It's wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have the funds used in this manner, if in fact they have been used for the betterment of the Minister and his election. The First Minister said, so what, he didn't benefit from it. I tell you, Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, who benefited from it, the electiori of the ND Party probably was part of it, deprived the Progressive Conservative Party, my leader, Gary Filmon, from becoming the Premier of the province and running what is called a responsible government. Tha t's where the deprivation came.­ (lnterjection)-That's right. And the public have seen $350,000.00. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Deputy Speak er, has to put money, has to collect taxpayers' money; he has to increase the payroll tax; he has to increase the sales tax; he has to increase the personal income tax; he has to increase everybody's tax. Why?

Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That's one small example. We've got the $28 million in MTX; we've got the $100 million in Flyer Bus; we've got all these areas that they're continuing to put money, but they won't take ahold of their responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they won't take ahold of their responsibility. 1406

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 Mr. Deputy Spea ker, I want to as well address the whole question of why I've asked the Minister, possibly the First Minister, to take the Minister and say, look, until this matter is fully cleared up, maybe it would be just as well to not be a part of Cabinet decisions. It's going to have to be discussed, I'm not saying make the decision, you're out, let's get the information, but I think precedent has been set. Look in the House of Commons, and who makes more to-do about what's happened in Ottawa, whether it's Mr.

Coates going to a night club in Germany that wasn't quite right, whether it's the Minister who was looking into their election irregularities. There are some election irregularities here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I'm trying to say, there is a direct comparison. There is a question now being raised about irregularities in the election expenses and the privileges given, or the funds given to a supporter or an individual who got $350,000.00. There is substantial evidence, that's the case I'm trying to make to this Assembly here today.

There has been a precedent set where a Cabinet Minister in Ottawa, because of what was apparent or appeared to be some election irregularities, he said, I will step aside until the air is cleared. The Premier today has had a golden opportunity to say it was done in Ottawa - and let's look what happened in Ottawa. The Minister is back in his Cabinet position. And I say, the same thing could well happen here. And I think it is being unfair to the Minister for Northern Affairs and Native Affairs not to be given that opportunity. I think it's only a responsible action; a precedent has been set.

Now they've taken the other approach. At the end of committee today, the Minister made a brief comment, thinking that because the central party paid for it, that it would get him off the hook. The Premier said in the House today, the central party paid for it, so it made it okay, that there is a direct connection with Mr. Gunn and the party, even though it's Mr. Harper's campaign office, it was in his facilities and, in fact, it's okay. The public, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are fed up. They're fed up with many politicians, and they're upset about certain things politicians do.

And they're particularly upset when they don't get the full information about what's happening with their money. And that's where we're at. The Premier didn't give a very satis factory answer today; the Minister of Northern Affairs hasn't given a very satisfactory answer; there is a multitude of information that has to be brought forward, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to clear the air. Why, for the life of me, would the First Minister and the Minister involved not step aside, and have the air cleared?

I think back - it's very difficult - I can remember when I was accused, and I'll talk briefly about that, of having some involvement or knowing where the Alcan smelter was going to be placed, and here I am out, bought a piece of ground it was going to be placed on. Had I known, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where the Alcan smelter was going to be built, I wouldn't have been five miles one way or the other from it, I'd have been right underneath it.

Nobody has told me yet what benefit it is to be five or six miles beside an Alcan smelter with all the stuff spewing out of it, the acid rains and the acid aluminums and all this. I have yet to be told what benefits I would have received from that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.- (Interjection)- fluorides. The Member for lnkster helped me out. It would have been fluorides. But the whole point is, it's hard, it's difficult, but Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was no substance to it. There was absolutely no substance to it. The Premier said we should call a public inquiry.

That's before he got elected, should call a public inquiry, an investigation. He became elected, all at once he forgot about it. For some reason, it wasn't of any import any more. Two reasons, No. 1, he won the election; No. 2, there wasn't any substantiation to it. And he knew it. But Mr. Deputy Speaker - and I don't have any notes, minutes, I'm sure I'm causing some problems for members who want to get into committee, but I felt compelled to rise. But there's one issue that I want to touch on, and touch on because it's really an important part of the area that I represent.

We have seen this kind of activity by the Premier who, with the Attorney -General, with his other colleagues, has made a major decision for the constituency of Arthur, nothing to do with conflict, nothing to do with anything other than the protection of the livelihood, the lives and the properties of my constituents. They made a decision - and note this, Mr. Deputy Speaker - they made the decision because they said they were going to save money for the taxpayers. They were going to cut the RCMP services in Reston by three to no detachment at all, and the same thing in Deloraine, cut it by two.

That was in the interests of saving money, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That's the point I want to make. We have the Premier and his Cabinet literally throwing money away through Crown corporations, through questionable loans which have a certain amount of question about them and the involvement of his Cabinet Ministers. Yet, the constituency of Arthur gets the reward of losing RCMP protection in the interests of cash or savings for the taxpayers - absolutely bloody ridiculous, Mr. Deputy Sp eak er, tha t we'v e got this ki nd of irresponsible government carrying out that activity.

It's rape and pillage of the people of the Province of Manitoba and their money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we've had enough of it! The taxpayers have had enough of it. We've got a Minister of Community Services who has been continually challenged and charged by my colleague from St. Norbert, from the Member for Portage la Prairie in her incompetent handling of lives of people. What have we had? More rhetoric and platitudes. Yes, my colleague from Gladstone says more platitudes from the Premier. Well, enough is enough, and the taxpayers are saying let's clean this mess up. We have a mandate, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, from the people of Manitoba. Yes, we were defeated in 19 81, and we lost again in 1986, March, of which the Member for Rupertsland used a very nice constituency office in Winnipeg, of which a month later the individual they rented it from received a $350,000 loan, even though he was probably $500,000 in debt with other creditors the year before, and they knew all this. Yet, yes, we'll give him another $350,000.00. The Premier says to pay for it, we'll take the RCMP out of Reston and Deloraine. Those lives don't matter for those people. Their property doesn't matter.

We'll shake the confidence of those old pioneers who worked and saw the RCMP all their lives to give them the security they needed in their years of retirement. We'll take that away just to cushion some of those areas that we think are important. 1407

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 Well, as I said, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, if he thinks the people - I don't care whether they're, yes, union supporters. I know very well that union supporters in this province are traditionally supporters of NOP. But I can tell you, I know a lot of union people who don't support their position on abortion. They've got high moral standards, those same people, and they won't tolerate the kind of activities that we've seen time and time again by this government. You know, we -(Interjection)-Well, the Minister doesn't understand it.

Well, I told him the other day, he's quite prepared to take an innocent, unborn baby's life by abortion, yet he won't stand up and support the capital punishment and the taking of a criminal's life because they took someone else's. That just doesn't square with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a philosophy like that. Is it any wonder we've got Ministers that we had that should have resigned from MTS? My goodness' sakes, yes, he resigned from MTS, shouldn't be sitting in Cabinet. Goodness' sake, what kind of system have we come to in this province, in this country! Yes, the Minister of Finance, I have to be honest, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, with the Minister. You know, when he started in that portfolio, I looked upon him as maybe being the one person who would shoot straight, would come forward and give the kind of information, and he was. But you know, all at once, there was a deviation from that path, whether it was because he changed or whether he was forced to change by the Premier because the image that he was portraying was a little different than he wanted.- {Interjection)-The Member from where? Said get my mind out of where? Out of the gutter.

Oh, yes, we've got the former city councillor, former Conservative, but I don't say that my mind's in the gutter. I don't consider my mind in the gutter if I stand up and speak it and say the honest truth. I've never been penalized for telling the truth. I've been penalized if I deviated from it as a young person growing up, but that was one principle that I was raised with, and that's that you tell the truth. But my colleague from Charleswood, here's where we're really at with this government.

My colleague from Charleswood, the other day, points out what the Minister of Cultural Affairs is up to - again, remember whose money it is, taxpayers' money. The NOP don't just go and take it out of the shelves, they take it from the pockets of our taxpayers. Everybody should understand th at. They don't get very much money from our resources. In fact, they spend more money in the Crown corporations trying to take advantage of the resources than they ever make out of it.

The Minister thought it was justifiable to give money to a group in society that the majority of people say are highly questionable about the practices that are carried out by those individuals, but because it's supported by the arts groups of some kind, that legitimizes it. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Legislature or nobody can legitimize in our society what is wrong, wrong, wrong. You can try all you like but a Legislature -(Interjection)-for some reason, the Member for Ellice seems somewhat sensitive on this particular issue. I wonder why. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I said you cannot legislate a wrong right. And what is wrong in society will always be wrong.-(Interjection)-The Minister of Finance says I'm sick, I'm sick. Well, if I'm sick -(Interjection)-The Minister says who am I going to attack next? Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's interesting to note that she's now listening. She says I'm sick. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can understand why they're getting upset, because it is our job as an Opposition to disclose what they're doing with the taxpayers' money.

Why would they get upset? If they're doing everything that's copacetic and aboveboard and everybody would support it, why would they get upset? Why am I sick because I'm disclosing what they're doing? The Minister of Autopac - my goodness' sakes, you know, here we have the Minister responsible for Autopac, who does what? Oh, he's got a memory problem, oh yes, but then all at once some records of his happen to get shredded that went over to the Archives. I'll say -(Interjection)-now he's getting upset with me, Mr. Deputy Speak er. It seems that it's a sensitive day for the New Democratic Government.

I will review in Hansard what I said, but I don't think I said anything that hasn't been put on the record or said publicly. But one has to que stion why his records were shredded. Yet for the convenience of the government, my colleague from Lakeside's records, all at once, happen to show up. It's a matter of coincidence, that all at once, my colleague's records show up. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are far too many things that are appearing to be coincidental. Mr. Deputy Speaker . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. D. ORCHARD: Stand up and put it on the record. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member wants to have the floor, he can have the floor sometime. The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Deputy Speak er, we're talking about the taxpayers' money and I know that there's a sensitivity on the part of every Minister over there. I want to address something else, and you know it's quite timely that we got the Minister of Highways' allocations or their program on our desks at this particular time. Why do we now have the taxpayers of Manitoba investing in a bridge - yes, whose property is it on, or whose property is involved?

The former Member for Lac du Bonnet, coincidence again, another coincidence, just happened to be. Whose constituency is it in? Well, it's next to the Premier's, you know, another coincidence. What's happening while all this money is being spent, Mr. Deputy Speaker? That money being spent is the money that should be going, yes, for the road in my colleague's constituency in Gladstone, Minnedosa. My colleague from River East needs a

section built on the Perimeter Highway, and I'm sure the majority of people in Winnipeg, and they should have this reported to them, would like to have four lanes joining them with the United States so that they could enjoy some beneficial commerce of people coming to the racetrack. 1408

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 But our priorities - no, it's not to help the majority of the people of Manitoba or to put another piece of good road out there to haul some resources on, our priority is to build a $20-plus million bridge, yes, property that the former Minister of Highways was involved in, yes, next to the Premier's constituency. I don't particularly think the taxpayers like to have their money spent in those ways. I don't particularly like giving a speech like this, but I don't have any other material to speak about with this government.

If I were to stand up and give them some positive things, what could I talk about, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I challenge them to tell me what I could speak about. Could I speak about the Minister of Agriculture, who says he's not going to give the sugar industry a blank cheque? Yet he's prepared through th e Communities Economic Development Fund to give Mr. N.D. Gunn a blank cheque. Even though he's in financial trouble, he says, go and spend some more. You know, the $350,000 guarantee in April of '86, that's more money for one person than 400 farmers were going to get in one year for support.

More money than 200-and-some full- and part-time workers were going to get in the sugar beet industry, and more than 60-some workers were going to get to support the sugar beet industry in Manitoba. One person gets it. Who was that person? Well, that person seemed to have some magic way of getting this money from the government. Again, Mr. Deputy Speake r, the government doesn't need to get mad at me and tear me to pieces for disclosing what has happened in their shop. I mean, are they that sensitive?

Are they that concerned that they've done something wrong, that they have to get mad and say I'm in the gutter and I'm throwing mud? That's not the intent of what I'm doing, Mr. Deputy Speak er. I want members like the Member for Lac du Bonnet to be fully aware of how my constituents feel; I want the Member for Swan River to know how his and my constituents feel; I want the Member for The Pas to have some sensitivity as to how, whether it's the railway workers. the Ma nfor workers, the farmers, some knowledge and sensitivity as to how they're using the taxpayers' money.

You know, the one that really hurts me the most, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the loss of the RCM P in two communities. The reason they're closing it down is because they haven't got any money.- (lnterjection)­ Oh, yes, my colleague from Gladstone says they close hospital beds for the same reason. You know, the Minister of Health comes in with his big, big story about, we want to spend more money. No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we don't want to spend more money, we just want to take that hard-earned money of the taxpayers and use it in a proper manner. That's all. It's not that difficult to figure out.

You don't have to be - the Minister of Finance, I'm sure can understand it and figure it out. But he comes out and says what do you want us to spend more money for? You want more services, so we have to spend more money. Yes, we want essential services provided and we want to use that hard-earned taxpayers' money for that purpose, not for the kind of political support which is appearing to be prevalent in most of the activities that are spent, whether it's Crown corporations within government. Could you tell me, Sir, how much time I have left? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member has 10 minutes left. MR. J.

DOWNEY: 10 minutes. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to go back to the issue which encouraged me to rise today, and that's the committee this morning where we asked, first of all, didn't have the total story told to us about Mr. N.D. Gunn and where his residence was, and the fact that the Minister couldn't come straight forward and say, no, he didn't have any involvement in a Cabinet decision that gave him $350,000.00. You know, those are the kinds of answers that clear the air. Direct, concise, decisive answers clear the air.

T here was too much question. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) The Honourable Government House Leader had to get involved in the action. Old "damage control" had to move in. You know, when my colleague from Emerson asked about forest fires, it's strange, it seems to me that's what the House Leader has been doing all through this Session and the Session before, putting out fires, trying to put out fires. But after awhile, Madam Speaker, it starts to stick on the government, and I think it's sticking. As I said, I hate to have to give this kind of a speech, I really do.

But I tell you, Madam Speak er, I haven't been given any other information to deal with. You see? That's the reason I have to give this kind of speech is because I haven 't been given any other kind of information that I can deal with. Madam Speaker, we have more information which we hope to get out of the Economic Development Committee. You know, the Minister may think that this will blow over tod ay.

From what I can tell, Madam Speaker, it won't blow over today and it won't blow over tomorrow, but there will be a continual examination not only by the Opposition, but I'm sure the media have now somewhat of an interest in this whole activity. That's one loan, Madam Speaker, that we're asking about. There are a series of more loans, which I'll give the government notice right now and the First Minister, which we're going to want some information on.

You know, I can refer to them, if the Minister would like, but maybe I'll leave it till next committee meeting because there'll be more opportunity, and I can complete my remarks now. I'll leave that for a later time, and we'll have the opportunity at that committee meeting to deal with some other, what we would consider, questionable uses of taxpayers' money. Madam Speak er, we had an unfortunate situation develop here today. We had an unfortunate situation develop when my colleague, the Leader, the Member for Pembina, spent so much time to disclose what was happening in the Manitoba Telephone System.

We have seen - I know the Member for Ellice kind of crinkles up his face. He doesn't like to hear those words. The Minister responsible for Labour gets upset because it's bad news when this kind of thing comes about. These are the letters that are starting to come in, and they aren't coming from Conservative supporters. They're saying how long do we have to wait? Is there any way that we can recall a government who are so bad and so incompetent as the one we have? That, 1409

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 of course, is a campaign of one of the political parties that are trying to make some noises, that they have a recall. It's these kinds of people in government and their incompetent handling of provincial or public affairs that ask people to put recall instruments into election acts or constitutions.-(Interjection)-Yes, it's that kind of government that requests recall, because it's so bad that's the kind of letters I'm now getting.

I plead with the government, Madam Speaker, I plead with you, I plead with the government, to clear the air on the matter that deals with the Communities Economic Development Fund, and the Minister who is responsible for Northern Affairs. I ask the air be cleared. I pointed out that there has been a precedent set in Ottawa where a Minister stepped down because of what was perceived to be some election irregularities. It's an election irregularity that appears here, plus a $350,000 loan to follow. They cannot divorce the mselves from the public attitude that is now held about government.

They perpetuate the case against Ottawa, as a New Democratic Party, they perpetuate the case against Ottawa. Now the y have to reap the rewards of the same kind of policies and principles that they advocate in this regard. Let's let them carry out, for them selves and on themselves, what they have asked for other people. It's only fair. I have to be honest, Madam Speak er, I haven't touched on a couple of other areas. I'll touch on them briefly. McKenzie Seeds is going to come again before the committee. Well, we know the history of McKenzie Seeds; it hasn't been a very pretty picture.

We're seeing the employees of the province having to pick up the deficit of a Workers Compensation unfunded liability, to use the term of the government, but an $84 million deficit which developed since 19 81. Yes, there may have been some workers who maybe weren't treated fairly and maybe there had to be some changes made, but it didn't have to go to an $84 million deficit. Are you sure the workers are the ones who got all the benefits, the injured workers got all the benefits, or did somebody else? Let's have a look at it.

I hope the injured workers got the benefits of that deficit, but for some particular reason, one has to question it.- (Interjection)-I disregard the Member for Ellice. His record is yet to be written too, as far as his activitie s are concerned, and we 'll watch his performance over time and his activities.

I'm going to conclude my remarks today, Madam Speak er, by saying to the people of the communities of Reston and Deloraine that I, as a member of the Legislature for those communities, am not going to rest until we get into government and replace the services of the RCMP that were taken away by this irresponsible government. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that I'll be taking the funds away from those people, those ill-conceived projects and programs and patronage handouts that this government has perceived in its best interests to carry out. That's where the funds will come from, Madam Speaker.

The people of Manitoba, not only in Reston and Deloraine, can be assured that the members of the Conservative caucus do believe in the safety, in the health, in the lives of people, in the protection of property and that it is a government's responsibility to carry that out, the senior government's responsibility that the transfer of that cost to municipal people, to municipal taxpayers, is not fair, and we don't subscribe to the principles that this government does. It's unfortunate that the Minister of Northern Affairs finds himself today in such a situation.

It's unfortunate that the Premier hadn't agreed to do the honourable thing and ask him to step aside from Cabinet until the air was totally cleared. But until, and I say until, the air is totally cleared and all suspicions and all doubts are removed, Madam Speaker, then we will continue to question. The Opposition will continue to question, the people will continue to question, and the electorate won't rest until they have turfed this incompetent, this money-squandering group of people out of office, Madam Speaker.

In most people's minds, that can't come soon enough, and I'm going to put every bit of my energy and strength forward, Madam Speaker, to see that happens in the next few months. Thank you, Madam Speak er. MOTION presented and carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be gr anted to He r Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Natural Resources; and the Honourable Me mber for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for th e Department of Health. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: Committee, come to order.

Mr. Minister. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, as I promised yesterday, I'll give the Health critic of the Official Opposition a copy of the Master Aircraft Lease as requested. The Home Care Orderly - I'll give you the number of orderlies that we had in '84, '85, '86 and '87 and what the clients were in the same year. In August 1984, we had 20 orderlies with 12 0 clients; in July'85, 40 orderlies with 420 clients; March '86, 45 orderlies with 450 clients; and April 15, 1987, 66 orderlies with 780 clients.

The total cost, that is the travel and the fee, the pay - the wages - and for those 20 orderlies, it was $406.7 thousand. Excuse me, that's for'82-83, that was $406.7 thousand, when it was still operated privately, and now what is anticipated for this year is $1 .024 million. That gives us over three times the number of orderlies, six times the number of clients and it's costing us about two-and-a-half more than it cost us before. The average unit of services, that is a unit of services, one hour of client activity, in'84-85, it was 4,059; in'85- 86, 6, 187; in '86-87, the average was 7,028.

Last week there were 2, 785 visits made by Home Care orderlies. The reasons for that, for the big increase, more hospital discharge requiring heavier care, more active younger physically disabled requiring service in more locations, that is, the home work and social settings, increase in hour services, weekdays 6:00 a.m. to midnight, and weekends, 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., increased number of specially trained staff who move around the city with particular clients. The Home Care orderlies are part of the Home Care attendant staff. They are paid the same and both provide personal care homes. 1410

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 So I'll just give the information and I won't comment at this time on the answers. The Home Care orderlies make more frequent and much shorter visits with clients who are generally more active. Home Care orderlies are managed out of one region, Winnipeg North, where they are dispatched city­ wide,

whereas all other Home Care attendants are managed in each of the three regions and assigned within those regions. That's one. The number of the supervisors and the people who - is there something wrong? Am I going too fast or what? The people who were authorizing expenses, the signing authority, that is, every expense has to be signed, and in 19 85-86 there were 22 signing authorities in the Winnipeg Region; in '87-88 there are 26 signing authorities in the three regions - not forty-something, the supervision.

All supervisors in the new system are expected to know about and authorize expenditures of staff directly responsible to them, scrutinize and authorize expense accounts and mileage reports. The main change in supervisory patterns are as a result of reorganization is that all staff have one supervisor to whom they are totally accountable. In the former system, most staff were accountable to two senior people and the one who has operat ional responsibilities, you dominate the area directors, generally scrutinize and approve staff accounts. The total number of senior people in Winnipeg remains the same.

So the senior reople remains the same. Everyone reports only to one and these people are, instead of signing and authorizing 40, for 40 people in some area, that they hardly knew what they were doing. Now these people are working with their own staff and that has to be signed anyway, so we think it's an improvement. The Health Education tax levy - Manitoba Health Services Commission, Administration - that's the health levy, that's the increase, $90,000; Cadham Lab and X­ ray units, $77,700; and the facilities, $4.539 million, for a total of $4. 706 million.

Hydro - Manitoba Health Services Commission, $5,000; Cadham Lab, $23,000; facilities, $650,000 for a total of $678,000.00. The telephone, that is a guess, that's not finished yet; there's no decision. We put in the Manitoba Health Services Administration, 1. 5; Cadham Lab, 1; and facilities, 34. Now that would be an increase of 1 percent, would equate to the amount shown above. In other words, 36.5 would be for 1 percent. They got 1 percent for telephone - $36.5 thousand for each 1 percent. MR. D. ORCHARD: For each 1 percent of telephone rate increase, it's $36,500.00. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D.

ORCHARD: So we got 11 .5 percent, so we're at ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: We don't know that yet, whatever. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, fair enough. HON. L. DESJARDINS: And the Hydro, that includes 5 percent effective April 1, 1987, plus one-time increase of 4. 7. That's what I heard. 1411 MR. D. ORCHARD: The one-time forever increase. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, one time. If you take it off, then it's gone, that's not one time any more. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's what one time used to mean. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Based on an increase of 1.5 and 2.2, that is the health education. Okay.

I'd like to make a correction, as yesterday we talked about Pharmacare, I'd like the record to show that the correct projected increase in Pharmacare claims for the benefit year 1986 over the previous year will be approximately 2,300, not 20,000; 2,300 and I think we had 20,000. The Northern Patient Transportation Program, the warrants issued for calendar year, January 1, 1985 and '86, that's effective transport are controlled and funded through a budget allocated to each region, these being Flin Flon, The Pas, Thompson, Churchill and Winnipeg for the area east of Lake Winnipeg, between the 53rd and 51s t.

Emergency transport are controlled and funded from Manitoba Health Commission, Winnipeg office. I will give you the 1985 to start with, the region, the number of elective, the number of emergencies and the total.

Thompson, 5,939; emergency 1, 127, for a total of 7,066 - that's the Northern Patient Transportation Program, I don't know if I mentioned that - The Pas, elective 2, 711, emergency 550, for a total 3,261; Flin Flon, 2,310 elective, 399 emer gency, total 2, 709; Churchill, 184 elective, 77 emerge ncy, total 261; Winnipeg, elective 1,17 2, emergency 275, total 1, 447; the totals, elective 12 ,316, emergency 2,428, and total 14,7 44.

Now, the same thing for the next year, in '86: Thompson, elective 5,707, emergency 982, for a total of 6,689; The Pas, elective 2,332, emergency 292, total 2,624; Flin Flon, 2,206 elective, 242 emergency, 2,448 total; Churchill, 109 elective, 66 emergency, 17 5 total; Winnipeg, 1, 191 elective, 290 emer gency, total 1, 481; emergency, 11 ,545; elective, 1, 872; in total, 13, 417 . The payments for the Health Services Commission, that is the external audit, the facilities audit fees, that is the institution, $650,000.00.

The Manitoba Health Services Com mission, the internal audit, tha t's $13 3, 17 5; the financial consultants, that is $588,757, for a total of the Manitoba Health Services Commission of $72 1 ,932.00. That's for the audits. Do you want me to give it to you again? MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Ok ay. Facilities audit fees, that's payments by hospitals and personal care homes to external auditor for the audit of their operation, $650,000.00. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's for all facilities, hospital and personal care homes? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes.

The Manitoba Health Services Commission, first, the internal audit - that's the internal audit staff. There are three of them of the commission which undertake ongoing audit and review

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 of the commission's internal opera tion, th at is $13 3, 17 5.00. The financial consultant, that's commission financial consultant on officers who review hospitals and personal care homes, budget appeals, year-end approval costs, monitoring of commission payment, facilities and so on, those are the consultants, there's $588,757.00. The total for the commission is $72 1,9 32, and the total for the commission and facilities, $1, 371 ,932.00. Brandon and Selkirk Mental Health Centre, staff to patient ratio, average daily patient census, 1970, was 1, 508.

In five years, the next five years was 891 in '75; in'80 was 916 ;'85, 783. The number of staff went down to 1, 278, a ratio of .85 in '75, 1, 204 for a ratio of 1. 35; 1980, 1,0 47, for a ratio of 1. 14; and'85 number of staff, 1, 056 for a ratio of 1. 33. This represents a five-year moving average for both staff years and number of patients. In '87-88, 14 staff years are transferred from the Selkirk Mental Health Centre complement of staff to the Winnipeg Region. This is in keeping with the administrative realignment recommended in the report of the mental health working group.

The increased ratio of staff to patient reflects the requirement for part of it anyway, for the additional staff to cover holiday relief and maternity leave but highlights the possibility to transfer additional staff years to support the Community Mental Health Program. Ho wever, to facilitate this transfer successfully, negotiations are under way and require the retraining of workers to meet community mental health needs.

Finally, staff committed to outpatient caseload to service the community mental health needs of Brandon and Selkirk and outreach activities in the seven rural health and social service regions are reflected in the inpatient staff complement of the two mental health centres. Comp uters - number of computers with the dep artment of th e Ma nitoba Health Services Comm ission. The dep artment, Ma nitoba Health, presently has a decentralized computer environment consisting of 9 mini-comput ers and 16 personal computers installed in various areas of the department.

In addition, the department also uses Manitoba Data Service, MOS, for processing and storing other data, that is, public health nursing statistics and so on. These computers are used for a variety of functions, including immunization monitoring, homemaker payroll, word processing and other support functions to departmental programs. The first one I was just talking on was the department. Now, the Manitoba Health Services Commission - the commission has an agreement with Manitoba Data Services whereby almost all of its data processing for the programs the commission is responsible for is done at MDS.

Data is transmitted to and from MOS through a mini-computer and various display terminals are located at the Manitoba Health Services Commission office. As well, a very small portion of the commission's computing requireme nts is done on 10 personal computers. Additional information about the red-circling question for regional staff - letters were sent to all potentially affected people. The 11 positions might potentially be affe cted, that is seven presently in Health and Social Services, specialists, six jobs; and four in resource coordinators, scheduling clerks' job, etc.

No red-circling instruction has yet been sent to the Civil Service Commission - none. There will be no change of relative pay level for any employees, at least until a new MGEA contract is struck this fall. It is anticipated that all job classification reviews will be completed by the end of June and staff advised of the outcome. Now, red-circling called over-range provision of the Civil Service Commission are standard practices when change occurs and are taken to ease the change transitio n as opposed to immed iate downward reclassification.

The term "red-circling" indicates that, at a certain date, the individual's salary would be frozen but not reduced for a two-year period pending reclassification review. I think that's all. If there is anything else, we'll probably give it to you as soon as possible. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, yesterday when we were talking in terms of hospital funding, I believe we came to a figure that in the increase this year of $60- some-odd million, $2 1 million of that is in effect new dollar funding or increased dollar funding for existing hospital facilities.

So, if we take the year-over-year of identical facilities, we've got $2 1 million, I believe, in rough figures of additional dollars. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, do you have a similar figure that you can pull on personal care homes wherein there is a $13 .6 million increase, comparing identical facilities, no new additions, etc., etc.? Can you pull that figure for me as well, please? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I hope it's a comparable figure, not a similar one - I'm being funny, it's not that much. MR. D. ORCHARD: Only John Bucklaschuk gets into confusion over how it should be worded.

It was the magnitude of the . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Two million, eight six - will you quit flapping your gums when I'm giving you all this information? MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Wait a minute, Don, $7.6424 million. I can give you that in proprietary homes. Do you want that divided into nonproprietary homes and community therapy service, drug programs, adult day cares? Do you just want the total? MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, that's fine. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oka y. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, as long as I'm understanding correctly, and I hope I am because we're running out of time this afternoon but, if we take the Personal Care Home and Hospital lines, we have a funding of roughly $800 million, and I'm rounding substantially. Assuming that on the identical facilities, 1412

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 no new beds, no new facilities, we got - and I'm willing to round the new monies up to $30 million between personal care homes and additional funding for the identical last year's facilities - we got a $30 million increase which, if I can do a quick calculation, is about a 4 percent increase to the facilities, assuming all $30 million was able to be used to cover increased costs.

But the point I want to make with the Minister - and I'm glad to see the Minister of Finance is here - because, of that $30 million in new money to fund the existing program in last year's identical personal care homes and hospitals, we've got rough figures, once again, because the total for payroll tax, hydro and telephone in the MHSC is approaching $5.7 million, $5.75 million, and I'm using a telephone rate increase of only 10 percent, not the 11 .5 percent that they've applied for.

So I say that roughly $5 million of that is probably applicable to the hospitals and personal care homes, which is ballpark I will admit. So that you've got fully one-sixth of that increase or one-sixth of the 4 percent increase already eaten up by measures brought down by the Minister of Finance. The proposition I will make to you, with the Minister of Finance here, is that you, as Minister of Health, will do one of two things.

You will see, within the personal care homes and the hospitals, a decrease in the level of service offered to accommodate that $5 million of additional cost through the budget and through the Crown corporations that provide services to those homes; or you will be going back to the Minister of Finance for Special Warrant which will increase his deficit, either lowered services in the facilities or a sizeable increase to the deficit. Mr. Chairman, that impact, as I say, is applicable in all of the hospitals, personal care homes.

It's applicable to Eden Mental Health Centre, Brandon Mental Health Centre, Selkirk Mental Health Centre, as funded institutions. It's applicable to the Alcohol Foundation of Manitoba where they didn't get a 4 percent increase. They got almost a 1 percent decrease in funding. They' re expecting to substantially increase recoveries, but the increased taxes, payroll tax and telephone and hydro are probably going to amount to two of those vacant positions that they won't be able to fill to deliver additional programs.

So the point I want to make with the Minister is that this Budget, which was the largest tax grab in the history of the province, is going to see reduced services in our health care facilities. When we get to Education, the same thing is going to be evident there. Either you will reduce services, or you will go and drive the deficit up further by asking for more money, one of the two. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is confirming pretty well what I said yesterday, that we were negotiating.

Of course, if we are allowed to get the money to allow to add this money to the facilities and so on, well then, fine. It's either higher taxes or the deficit; in this case, it would be a deficit. Or it could be that we will recoup some of that and maybe not all of it, so that is still, as I said yesterday, being negotiated, discussed with the Department of Finance and also Treasury and the facilities. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, as we talked about last night and maybe we'll get time to reaffirm or get into the discussion briefly, these contract negotiations that are currently going to be entered into with the MGEA, previous contracts have been, I must say, quite generous and lucrative. I gave the Minister a copy of an analysis I did in terms of the block of additional monies that has been included in each and every year's deficit from rather generous MG EA contract negotiations since the Federal Government's 6 and 5 program. Those contracts have been negotiated and are trendsetters in your health care facilities.

You can't get away from it. When there's an extra week in MGEA, it affected Brandon and Selkirk, and additional staff is required to cover off. You alluded to that in your answer. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the contract settlement in MGEA has, as I say, been the target that CUPE and other support services, MONA, and other groups in the health care facilities will target on.

That's why it's important, after having the discussion last night, if you come to the option in the health care facilities, the hospitals, that bed closure is the remedy to budget control, after having presumably studied whether there are management efficiencies to be achieved, etc., etc., you come to the conclusion that bed cuts are the only reason, then the natural follow­ through, as you said last night yourself, would be that there would not be the staff necessary if your beds aren't being utilized.

That means that if the Minister of Finance negotiates another no lay-off MGEA contract, you're in serious trouble, because that will set the precedent as the President of MONA has already said today. That's going to be one of their negotiating features, and this is a time when government has to show some leadership. And it's not only incumbent on you, Mr. Minister, but the Minister of Finance who's here today. He has a great deal to play in a leadership role in the next series of negotiations that you're going to be very highly impacted by in the health care system. Mr.

Chairman, what I'd like to do now is ask some questions in a rather rapid order on the Personal Care Home line but, before I get into that, I want to deal just briefly with the Medical line. Can the Minister indicate to me what is - you had your arbitration award which granted 6 point-some percent, in the final analysis it was 6 point-some percent. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Which one? MR. D. ORCHARD: Your binding arbitration . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Binding arbitration. MR. D. ORCHARD: Six point-some? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, it's more than that. It's approximately $1 1 million.

It was 5.7, I think, yes, it was 6.5, all together 6.5, wasn't it or 7.5? It's 6.5 isn't it? Yes, that increased the fees by 5.6 percent. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, Mr. Chairman, does my memory serve me corre(:tly in that that was retroactive back into last year's fiscal year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, it was for last year. 1413

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay. Does the adjusted vote reflect that in the Medical Program? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The adjusted vote of last year? MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, just this year's Estimates, because last year that was only - what? - practically at the end of March when that was paid. MR. D. ORCHA RD: That was my qu es tion. The settlement was a retroactive settlement, and did it not have impact on the '86-87 fiscal year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: And that was $11 million of impact? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. That's not paid out yet though. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Oka y, but is that included . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's included in the '87-88. It'll be paid out in '87-88. MR. D. ORCHARD: That stems the question then, is that part of the Main Estimates expenditure request of $234. 75 million? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It will be Special Warrant for '86-87. It's part of that 234 that you have in front of you, which is what I said. MR. D. ORCHARD: The Medical Program is increasing by $26 million, ballpark figure; $11 million of that is the retroactive payment to cover the binding arbitration settlement with the MMA for fiscal year '86-87. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Right. MR.

D. ORCHARD: Then an additional $15 million is presumably to accomplish (

a) fee increase, and (

b) volume increase for the MM A payments under the Medical Program line for fiscal year '87-88. HON. L. DESJARDINS: There is a sum of $7 million for price increase and volume increase for this year, roughly. MR. D. ORCHARD: Pardon my confusion, Mr. Chairman, but if $11 million - the increase in Medical Program, adjusted vote is the correct one because that factored out - the community health facilities were factored out of the Medical line and put into the Hospital Program, so therefore the adjusted vote of $208 million is a correct adjusted vote which was short, I understand it, by $11 million. Right? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Because of the retroactive binding arbitration settlement. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now the total increase is $26 million that you're projecting to increase spending by. Now, if $11 million of that is last year's settlement on the binding arbitration, there is $15 million in addition to that in the $26 million requested increase. You're indicating only $7 million of that is required for price increase and volume for fiscal 1987-88. What is the other $8 million to be used for? HON. L. DESJARDINS: You forget, it's the volume last year.

What we need is $19 million for the price increase and the volume for last year. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then the figure you gave me a few minutes ago of $11 million is not correct? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, that's the figure that you used for price. That's correct for price, but I'm saying that there is a volume also. It is that $11 million plus the price, which gives you $19 million or around the $19 million. You know what, you're getting set to find out what is in there, and me to make this public. It would be a hell of a way to negotiate with the medical profession for this year.

I've never given those figures before, you know that. MR. D. ORCHARD: I assure you, I'm not negotiating on behalf of MM A. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I know, but they read Hansard also. MR. D. ORCHARD: A lot of people read Hansard. Mr. Chairman, I've already done the calculation before the Minister's comment, but that means you've got an allowance for fee and volume of some 3 percent then, year-over-year. The Minister doesn't have to answer that. The binding arbitration, was that just for last year, '86-87, and you're going through the process again for '87-88, or have you withdrawn from binding arbitration?

What is the government's position? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm glad you mentioned that. What we did at the request of the MM A a few years ago, they started talking directly with the Minister. So we've had meetings and I agreed on the understanding that we wouldn't be just talking about the fees, because there was no point. Then it would be like the union and it should be done with the people negotiating for them. They assured me that, no, they were interested in helping us with the reform and so on, so we have a very good relationship at this time now.

One of the agreements that we signed was that it was a four-year, call it pilot project, whatever it was. It would be a program that, of course, you could tighten up or change. It was for four years to see ii we could get along; it could be changed every year, so that was done. We at one time felt that when we first discussed it, it was a Letter of Intent that I think I tabled in the House a few years ago between the MMA and the government and our office and then there was an 1414

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 agreement that we had. It gave binding arbitration and it was going to be reviewed. Nobody on either side said anything; that contract would have continued year after year for four years. We had said that we wanted a policy. Binding arbitration was all right. We weren't that crazy about binding arbitration. It was given to them and so on and they were recommending thems elves to cooperate and work with the nurses and with the groups, and they did in many ways. All right, I'll try to make it shorter.

Anyway, when we wanted to have some control over volume, you saw the difference in volume and there's not much point in having binding arbitration if you can add what you want to the volume. So we said we want a handle on that and so on, so we tried. While we were deciding on the award, and at no time did we refuse to pay the award - at no time. What we did say, our solicitor and our negotiator, that is the way we interpret the ruling. We said, all right, we'll go and find out. We went with what the solicitor said and then we paid it immediately without any argument at all.

So the decision then was, we said do you want to delay that? It came in around Christmastime; they de layed it for one month. In other words, we agreed that we could go another month without giving notice, so we wouldn't give notice if we could straighten it out. They said, well okay, we'll need more time now, so we said, all right Well, then we served notice that we want to terminate this agreement, we'll renegotiate it. We didn't want that. We were ready to go along to keep binding arbitration but under certain conditions.

There is no way - and I'll say very clearly, they want binding arbitration now, but there is no way if we can't have some kind of control on the volume because it would be ridiculous. So they're at the table negotiating now; there hasn't been too much action for this current year. There hasn't been too much action, because we're talking to them on the question of the possibility of decreasing or controlling the number of new doctors or whatever with legislation or some action by university or what ever.

We 're meeting with a group of representatives from MM A, the College of Physicians and Surgeons at the university, and the interns and the medical students. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, then I take it that you're back at the table. Is it still binding arbitration on the fee

schedule aspect of it, i.e., if you can't . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Right now, th ere is no agreement. You see, the thing is it took so long to go to arbitration through nobody's fault. Then the first we heard was I think a day or two days before Christmas, and we worked on that. We had to give them notice by New Year's Day. MR. D. ORCHARD: They gave you the extension to allow that to happen. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, there was an extension for one month or so, and after that . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, what I want to establish is, right now, when you are negotiating with the MMA, are you still under the provision that if you don't come to a mutual agreement on price to go to binding arbitration? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, there is no contract right now. There is no contract. MR. D. ORCHARD: Ok ay. So you're back to the same old method of negotiation that binding arbitration was theoretically to replace. Is that correct? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. Binding arbitration was part of the agreement for that year and then, when there was no contract, all that goes by the board.

I'm not saying there's never going to be confrontation, but there is no confrontation at this time on that. We're just trying to negotiate. You see, the MMA took the stand, we are not going to talk about the future until the award of the arbitrator is paid. We said, all right, as soon as we find out what that is and, if there's a misunderstanding, the contract provided for that, we go to court or whatever. If there was any confrontation, it was at that area. They felt we shouldn't listen to our lawyer and so on, pay right away. We said, well, we're certainly going to ·do that, whatever it is.

In fact, we asked them to go back to the main arbitrator, the chairman, who then said, well, I haven 't got the authority or something to give you that. This is what I said the award was. We said, all right, pay it; that was it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Just a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman, and then we'll move on to Personal Care Homes. There are several things now impacting on our ability to del iver med ical services, parti cularly through physicians. We're under legislat ion, federally and provincially, which has the entire income of the medical profession coming from the government.

There are no external sources available. That's outlined, no extra billing. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh, no extra billing. I see, but there are some who are being employed. MR. D. ORCHARD: All that I mean is fee for service, it's whatever the government's fee for service is. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Right. MR. D. ORCHARD: There is no option. Now, having closed that option of income supplement - whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant, but that option has been closed. Then the next option I perceive that is troublesome to government as the funder is the volume increase.

Where the fee for service has not increased sufficiently to cover costs, then physicians may have a tendency to see more patients. So the second option is then volume of business. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Some extra volume could be justified - now I want to make that clear - but not the way it's going now. MR. D. ORCHARD: But that avenue is now in the stages of negotiation to be closed. The third option that is being asked to be looked at is the option of physician numbers, where we may be 1415

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 going to the med ical faculty and say, entries by legislation may be restricted, etc., etc. We don't know what the Minister is going to propose, etc., etc. But we now ha ve the medical profession completely subordinate to the will of government. Now, we don't have time to debate the philosophy of that and where that will lead today, but that's essentially where we are heading with Medicare in Canada now. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You're talking about fees. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Yes, and I mean, as far as fees go, the option for a physician is to completely opt out of the program and charge entirely outside the program, but he can't even do that. A physician now is probably like no other person in Canada, where he cannot do anything unless government approves. Now we're even talking about determining how many of his colleagues he may have to work with. I mean, this has fairly significant implications and will be, no doubt, the subject of debate at later years.

But those are the three steps that we are now taking in the drive to keep the medical costs of Medicare within "reasonable limit." HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, it's not just the medical costs, that's an important thing. To me, it's not the most important thing. The important thing when we're talking about numbers of doctors, it is the impact that the doctors practising here in Manitoba have on the whole plan, all right. Now, the Federal Government, the three parties involved, three political parties went along and said, this is what we want and that's ready.

It wasn't a factor in Manitoba, and you know that I always said that this government agrees with the principle, but we weren't pushing it because it wasn't a factor. It was only 5 percent or whatever, it was a small group, okay, No. 1. No. 2, they asked for binding arbitration. Now we said binding arbitration, fine, but you'v e got to remember that binding arbitration - I kind of agree, to be honest with you, with Sherman on that, to say you're abdicating your responsibility up to a certain point.

But they felt it was a hell of a thing for the Minister of Health, being in confrontation constantly, in any Minister of Health including Sherman. So we didn't have an agreement for close to a year or over a year, so that goes for everybody. If you're going to have that kind of thing, you're going to have a confrontation. So this is something they wanted badly and we said, all right, with cooperation, let's try it. But let's remember that you're serving Mani tobans, you 're paid by Manitobans. Let's have a policy that we can strike out, made in Manitoba, and that hasn't been done.

That hasn't been done really - and the awards. Who do you choose? You take somebody who will work for a couple of weeks or a month, make an award and that's it. He doesn't have to answer to anybody, and that's the same concern that I share with Sherman but, if it can improve the relationship especially at this time when you need so many changes, we bend over backwards to work with them. So that's No. 1, binding arbitration. Now we met with this committee. We want to bring legislation only if we need to.

I can tell you now that they've offered, and they are reducing the number of young students that they will take in the Faculty of Medicine right now, voluntarily. They are working on that now. Now, another thing that will have a factor on this is the interns. We're working on that and, if we can discuss some of those other things, we have a concern over the question of walk-in clinics, some concern. We haven't got enough facts now to tell you exactly what the score is. We're discussing that with the medical profession and, if we can arrive at a voluntary thing, well then we'll go ahead, but you're right.

Now there's another thing that I think, if we bring in legislation, certainly it will have to be looked at, the point that you made that now they can't even say we want to opt out and to heck with the plan. That might be reinstated, if we do that. That might be reinstated in this way, because you could do that. You can have them write out, the act will permit that, but I can tell you now, that would be allowed only if the geographical situation, if there are only five doctors in an area and they all want to do it, that couldn't work. But then, what is so different with other professionals and so on?

These people still bill so far up to $900,000 and so on, so you know it's not that bad. We're not trying to control them, we're trying to get a reasonable price. With the same population, we don't want to keep on going and going and going. You know that we're going to try with some of them to explore the possibility - and we've had the first meeting. Some of the staff have met today with some clinics, and we're looking with the other departments to have a co-op clinic. That would be capitation, that would be another form that we would be willing to try as a pilot project. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I don't know whether it was Newsweek or whether it was Time - I forget which - but they ran a very extensive

article . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Newswee k. MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . and there was some very insight ful information in that. They had the same problem in the U.S. medical system of growing numbers of doctors, and really money was no object. The system was driven by, every time there was an increase in demand, the money was there, and the system just grew enormously, physician numbers grew enormously. Now that the system is under contraction, that great number of physicians is in fact turning out to be something of an advantage, wherein you have competing groups bidding for service to keep costs down.

There is actually marketplace discipline in the incomes that physicians can demand for their services. I mean, that is happening. HON. L. DESJARDINS: But it's not the same setup as we have here. MR. D. ORCHARD: Exactly. The Minister says that's not the same setup that we have here, and that's exactly correct. Their system, under these market forces, is appearing to settle itself out in a lot of ways without legislation controlling or restricting numbers. I have to tell you, we could really get into a lot of discussion on this. When you have the current crop of 1416

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 medical doctors in the province saying, yes, we will agree to restrict resident entry to medical programming, I say you're getting awful close to the kind of decisions that marketing boards make - and this is a very rough analogy - of new entrants into production of controlled commodities in agriculture, because the ones who are in there are guaranteed a level of income and any newcomers only dilute it. Naturally, you're going to have the existing numbers of physicians in MM A say, yep, we'll restrict this . . . HON. l. DESJARDINS: Oh, they're fighing that. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Oka y, they're fighting but, in the system across the 49th Parallel, the competition has actually driven the costs down and certainly hasn't jeopardized the quality.- (Interjection)-Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Community Services wants to get into this debate, she might do it in the House some time but, right now, we're on rather a restricted time element.

There are going to be a number of people in Canada, whether it's 30 million which is whatever percent, 10 percent or 15 percent of the U.S. population, we're going to have people in Canada who don't have access to medical services through our state-controlled system. That's happened in Great Britain, it'll happen in Canada. So one system or the oth er, there are going to be rationing and deficiencies and unavailable services in the system. I have to tell you that certainly my eyes were opened as to the way the U.S. system is evolving having some market discipline forces placed on it.

That's why I made the suggestion to the Minister earlier. Don't throw out the possibility of bringing in an administrator of a major U.S. hospital who has gone through the contraction in demand for acute care beds to see whether that individual can offer you some insight on where efficiencies can be achieved in the health care system in Manitoba. I think it could well be there, could well be there. HON. l. DESJARDINS: But, Mr. Chairman, surely my honourable friends see the problem that we face. When you're talking about the situation in the United States, you're forgetting one thing.

It was completely out of control; they had to come down somewhere. The situation was allowed to go. Let me give you an example. When they're spending way more money than we are and we have a universal program and they've got 30 million people who have no insurance at all, another 20 who have very little. So let's not compare the United States. If you're talking about the type of service and so on, there's no comparison. I'm not talking about the elite, I'm talking as a universal plan. Now the situation, you talked about everyt hing. It is a government plan.

I agree that we would have to look at the possibility of maybe, in certain areas, letting some practice where neither the patient nor the doctor would be covered if we do that. But the situation - are we wrong? Are you telling me that I shouldn't worry about the numbers? I shouldn't worry of just trying to keep the number for those who are retiring or leaving or dying, and are we going to keep on adding more and more doctors all the time?

If that is the case, you would be the first one, I'm sure and I would agree with you, to say to any - let's say, somebody in th e 1417 manufacturing game or something or in an area where they're oversaturated, you'd say, all right, you want to protect your people. You want more jobs, you want more of them. We'll go ahead, we won't fire anybody, but the volume will be the same.

I'm saying, fine, if we can control part of the volume or at least get a handle on it - I don't think my honourable friend, I've never heard him say that this is not a problem or that we should forget about that until the doctors the mselves go down. Unless you change the whole system completely, they won't. Right now, it has certainly some advantages but disadvantages also. You take a doctor, you can take - and, thank God, we haven't got too many of them in this province. But you can have a real nincompoop. He can go ahead and make a living with the setup that we have now.

Instead of having so many clients, he can have five and tell them to come and see me this afternoon, come and see me this evening, and he sends the bill to the commission. That's a concern. So we're saying we don't want to start bringing all kinds of legislation, but we're saying there has to be cooperation. It might be that there has to be and there will be some confrontation at some stage. We've got to make some changes. We've done everything to say, what do you propose, but hurry up. I mean, it's your program also. We can't say yes to everything.

We're ready to give you some incentive and so on, but let's have the number of doctors that we need, especially when they all want to stay in the city. That's why I gave you the tables in my opening remarks about what the situation is now. We're ready to go ahead on a voluntary reduction and so on, providing that we can do something to control some of the volume and providing the administration in the hospitals change. They all need the impact, and that's what's happening in Brandon. With the doctors that they have, they used all the beds there. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, let's move into the Personal Care Home area. What are the current per diem charges per resident in personal care homes, and has the Minister received approval for a

schedule of increases for this fiscal year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: In 19 87-88, residental charge will be increasing by 30 cents per day and each quarter, effective May 1, 1987. It is estimated the '87-88 average minimum monthly disp osal income for a single pensioner will amount to $118 .95 per month or 17 percent of monthly based income. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, H. Smith: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: What's the fee rate now? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yeah, that's what I'm going to give you. It's $18 .40; on May 1, it'll go up to $18 .70.

It would go to $19 on August 1; it goes to $1 9.30 on November 1; and $1 9.60 on February 1 of '88. MR. D. ORCHARD: This time next year, in one year hence, you're going to be at $19 .60 per day.

Tuesday, 28 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Right. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's a 6.5 percent increase in costs. Patients are going to pick up a 6.5 percent increase of the cost for per diems, year over year. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The y're paying about 25 percent of the actual cost. MR. D. ORCHARD: And it's now 25 percent. Is that an increasing percentage with the per diems going up on a schedule? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It pretty well remains the same. Lately for a long time, we were spending more and more subsidizing it, because we weren't putting any increase at all. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Now how many panelled patients are currently waiting for a personal care home bed? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Was the question, those who are now in the hospital either in acute - no, all those who are panelled. MR. D. ORCHARD: I want to know how many are panelled for placement in personal care homes. My next question was going to be: How many of those are currently occupying hospital beds? MR. DE PUTY CHAIRMAN: Are you asking th at question now? MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, we've got to, anyway. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Ok ay, in the rural, there were 592 in December of '86; and in the Winnipeg Region, 830, for a total of 1, 422. MR. D. ORCHARD: Of those numbers, Mr. Chairman, can the Minister indicate how many currently in both rural and Winnipeg are occupying hospital beds? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Now the figures won't be exactly the same, to give you an idea, now I have the average for the year, if that's acceptable. I gave you the actual waiting list as of December of '86, okay? MR. D. ORCHARD: At a given time, yes. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Now, those who are in Winnipeg in acute hospitals, there are 237, on average; and the non-acute hospitals, 229; and in the rural regions, there were 252; for a total of 71 8. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oka y, so better than half of the panelled patients are currently occupying hospital beds? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Right. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, that brings us to - well, maybe I'll ask some of those questions later on. Now, what I would like to do is just - every year I bring this up. We've got out of the Health Services Commission, you can go through and the assumption is - I'll give you the assumptions.

When you go to the amount of funding, the net MHSC payments to the personal care homes, what I've done is I factor out generally the very high-cost homes and the very low­ cost homes because there are special circumstances mitigating their costs in each case. The low-cost homes often have a lot of hospital beds which aren't indicative, so I generally try to choose a middle band of beds and I make the assumption that (

a) the occupancy rate is very high in all th ese circumstances, like probably 98 percent or 99 percent because that's been the figure that's ge