Manitoba Hansard — 26 June 2001 (Sitting 53, 37th Legislature, 2nd Session)

37-2-53

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LI No. 53 - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 26, 2001 ISSN 0542-5492

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARREIT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY,Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie MURRAY, Stuart NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott, Hon. STEFANSON, Heather STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosano, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur- Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfield Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Tuxedo Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

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

3247 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 26, 2001 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Kenaston Underpass Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jack Blair, Roma Rajpal, Norm Cunningham and others, praying that the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer) consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Nikki Lonamuir, R. McNeil, D.

Nelson and others, praying that the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Kenaston Underpass Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest unseparated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at · this intersection bum up approximately $1.4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approximately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Madam Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest unseparated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection bum up approximately $1.4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approximately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. * (13:35) TABLING OF REPORTS Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to table in the House the reports of members' expenses for the year

3248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2001 ended March 3I, 200 I, in compliance with

section 38(1) of the Indemnities, Allowances and Retirement Benefits Regulation. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bi11 47 -The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that leave be given to introduce Bill 47, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 200 I; Loi d'execution du budget de 200 I et modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House.

I would like to table the Lieutenant-Governor's message. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh), that leave be given to introduce Bill 47, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 200 I, and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been advised of the contents of the bill, recommends it to the House, and the message has been tabled. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us Sarjit Kaur from Melbourne, Australia. Also, in the public gallery, we have, from Glenboro School, I6 Grade 6 students under the direction of Mrs. Marilyn Cullen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Also in the public gallery we have, from Ecole Regent-Park, 20 Grades 5 to 8 students under the direction of Mr. Alain Fradet and Madame Lucienne Lavallee.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). Also in the public gallery we have, from Red River College, the Language Training Centre, I9 students under the direction of Ms. Blanche Kingdon. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Family Services and Housing (Mr. Sale). On behalf of all honourable members, welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Health Care System Hallway Medicine Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, Manitobans are only too aware that the Premier broke his main election promise that he was going to solve the health care woes of Manitoba in a mere six months. Since improvements that were made in I999, the situation has only got worse. I would like to table these documents and read them into the record, if I might, please. On these documents I am tabling, it shows that from the Web site June 4 to I 0, in I999, there were three patients, average number of admitted patients in hallways; in 2001, there are seven; June I1 to June I7, in I999, there were five; in the year 200I, under the NDP, twelve.

This morning, there were ten in the hallways at Concordia; there were nine in the hallways at St. Boniface Hospital; and there is a number at other hospitals still in the hallways. * (13:40) My question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier is: When will he keep his main election promise that he committed to Manitobans? He committed to solve hallway medicine. When will the Premier keep that promise? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is on the Web site because we put it on the Web site. Members opposite have the statistics- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3249 Mr. Doer: The statistics are released on a weekly basis, and we certainly believe that it is important for the public to be able to evaluate over the period of time, over the first 18 months and moving into the next 18 months and the third 18 months the full record of improvement. The members opposite will know from information that is before them that, yes, there was an increase last week relative to previous years. There was also a major increase in the number of admissions to the emergency wards.

As I indicated in the House previously, we are quite concerned particularly about the situation at the Victoria Hospital, where the minister has indicated that capital investment is needed. We have been finding over the past short term the most acute problems we have had are at the Victoria Hospital, and we are addressing those shortcomings. Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have heard from this Premier time and time again that a promise made is a promise kept, yet we know he cannot be trusted for his word. He has broken his promise when it comes to health care.

He said that he would totally end health care, totally end hallway medicine in the health care system. That is what they said. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the 1999 Throne Speech, the Premier promised to implement, and I quote, a quote right from the Premier. [interjection] Well, I hope he gets it right when he answers because this is what he said. He said: A strategy for ending the treatment of patients in hallways. We must end the indignity of receiving treatment in a hospital corridor. Those were the words of the Premier.

Yet we still see people in the hallways. When will the Premier-Manitobans know what he promised-live up to that promise? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we made a number of commitments. There will be in the year 2002, based on the initiatives that we took in '99, implemented in 2000, it will be three times the numbers of nurses graduating in Manitoba than in 1999 when the members left office. We have increased the enrolment of doctors in our medical school.

The member may not realize it but it takes six or seven years to have a doctor graduate in Manitoba, but it is better to start today because we have to make up for the cutbacks in the medical entry in the early '90s. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. * (13:45) Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The entries of patients to the emergency wards in the week indicated by members opposite are quite a bit higher than in the previous couple of years. Having said that, we recognize that we believe patients should be treated effectively outside of the hallways.

Many of the patients that are in the hallways are released or given a bed within the period of time that they gain entry to the hospitals. I think the Minister of Health and I, on our review of this matter, it indicates to us that the Victoria Hospital has consistently and systematically been the biggest problem for us in the last number of months. Over those last number of months, though, in the last year, as CIHI has said, the 80 percent of patients in the hallways is the best result in Canada. Still more work ahead, but we know where some of the problems are, and we are addressing them. Mr.

Murray: When it comes to health care in Manitoba, we have a Minister of Health who says he has no plan, no grand scheme, commonly referred to as "Doctor Do little." Then on top of that we now have a Premier who on health care promises gets "A" for rhetoric, but Manitobans have to suffer the dour consequences of his lack of action. I make reference to the same Throne Speech in 1999. This is what the Premier said in a quote: We are committed to addressing the province-wide shortage of health professionals by hiring full-time nursing staff. Another broken promise.

3250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2001 Can the Premier explain why there are fewer full-time nurses working today than there were in 1999, why his nursing shortage has doubled under his watch, and why his Government is refusing to release more recent figures on the real situation on the nursing shortage? Mr. Speaker: Order. Prior to recognizing the honourable First Minister, I would just like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable members, when addressing each other, it is by constituencies, or ministers by the portfolio they hold. Mr.

Doer: I note that the member opposite did not raise questions in December, January. We were back in the Legislature in the last number of months over the winter. Instead of 60, 70, 80 patients in a hallway week after week relative to 1999 and 1998, we were down to 80 percent reduction in the number of those patients. I recall two weeks ago when the member asked about Concordia, the same day two years ago there were 45 patients in the hallway. Is it all solved yet? No. Is there an 80% improvement? Yes. We are committed to serving patients in the most effective way. You know what? The public knows it.

Secondly, the public knows that members opposite fired I 000 nurses and decreased the enrolment by one-third. Point of Order Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): The Premier knows full well that, of the I 000 nurses that were redeployed in the system, 830 were immediately rehired into other jobs. Accuracy, Mr. Speaker, is so important in this House. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): The member knows full well that there was tabled in this House a report from the Manitoba Nurses' Union, and that report said that 1000 nurses had been fired by the previous government. I believe them before members opposite. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised, I heard enough to make a ruling. On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Charleswood, it is not a point of order; it is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to conclude his comments. Mr.

Doer: On the issue of nurses, when you have a situation where you go from about 400 to 500 nurses graduating per year in the late '80s and early '90s down to 145 in 1999, you are going to have a shortage of nurses. * (13:50) In the year 2002 there will be over 400 nurses graduating, almost three times more in our first full year of office of nurses will graduate, over the Tories. When the member opposite in his Freudian slip says: We are out to end health care, he has it right. The public know where the Tories stand on health care, and that is to never trust them again. Health Care System Hallway Medicine Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): The public know exactly where this NDP government sits on health care. Members opposite were elected on a promise to end hallway medicine in six months with $15 million. Patients continue to lie in the hallways, providing more evidence they have broken their promise to end hallway medicine. Can the Minister of Health explain why hallway medicine in Winnipeg continues to persist while in fact directive is given to rural Manitobans not to send the patients to Winnipeg? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, first of all, we are not going to put in place the Tory plan to close rural hospitals. That is off. That is not Government policy. The second issue is that we put in place the most comprehensive hallway medicine program in the country. CIHI, the national reporting agency, assessed the program. It was recognized as the best in the country. It resulted in an 80% drop. might add that the Conservative government of Ontario took our hallway

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3251 medicine initiative and put it into their plans in order to reduce their hallway situation. It has been recognized the last two years have been the best. There are periodic problems. The members did not stand up in January, February, March, April and May. For three weeks out of the past six months there has been some problem, three weeks out of the past six months, compared to members. We will work at it every day, and we are continuing to work at it, but we are not doing what members opposite did and that was ignore the problem and pretend it was not there. Mr.

Dyck: And the problems continue to persist. This Minister of Health, is he instating a policy which is directing the rural hospitals not to send patients in for patient care when in fact they need it? What does he tell to the people of my constituency when they are told you need to have a heart attack first before you can move into Winnipeg? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, a couple of things in that regard. Members opposite asked that question before, the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), and I indicated that policy has not changed from the time when the members opposite were government, firstly.

Secondly, we continue to hire more nurses and open more beds. How much worse would the situation have been if we would have allowed members opposite to close Seven Oaks Hospital, as they proposed, because they closed Misericordia Hospital? It will continue- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Darren Praznik (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's 417 says that answers should be brief and not provoke debate.

When the Minister of Health gets up and tries to attribute policy decisions that were going to lead to the closure of the Seven Oaks Hospital, I can tell the Speaker in the two years I presided over that department there were no plans to close the hospital. Not only that, we enhanced Seven Oaks Hospital within our system. So the minister, by putting false information on the record, provokes debate in this House, which is against the rules. * (13:55 ) Mr.

Chomiak: I wonder why a thousand people attended a meeting at the Garden City Collegiate to discuss the closure of Seven Oaks Hospital and why 800 appeared on the steps of the Legislative Building to demand that Minister McCrae not close Seven Oaks Hospital. I do not understand. It was very clear. They managed to persuade the government not to do that. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to conclude his answer. Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, as I have indicated over and over again, we continue to invest our efforts in rural Manitoba. As I understand it, Winnipeg hospitals are utilized about 30 percent by rural Manitoba. We have doubled the EMS funding, that was the worst in the country, to rural Manitoba. If members are aware of the announcement yesterday about equipment, all across Manitoba, particularly in rural northern Manitoba, new diagnostic equipment for all citizens of Manitoba. Mr. Dyck: This Government continues to go down the track of broken promises.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether in fact he has misled Manitobans in creating these policies where he is not allowing those who need health care to come into Winnipeg. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), he asked me that question last session, the session previous to that. He has asked me that. I have checked. The policy has not changed from the time when members opposite were government. The one thing that has changed is we provided more funding for EMS transportation,

3252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2001 double what members opposite offered. We have also done something that rural Manitobans have been asking for for some time. More rural doctors are going to be trained as a result of our new initiatives. The diploma program is particularly welcome in rural Manitoba. Everywhere we go in rural Manitoba they welcome the diploma program that was opposed by members opposite and cancelled by members opposite. Highway 21 Upgrade Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr.

Speaker, in giving lip service to the needs of rural Manitoba, a major company wants to undertake a $15-million agricultural project in the Hartney area. This facility could also be built in Saskatchewan. The Doer government's failure to commit to the needed road improvements is jeopardizing this project. This is the same Government that recently cancelled a $5-million improvement to the Trans-Canada Highway in western Manitoba, failed to implement the Rose report and failed to address the outstanding issues from the 1999 flood. Will the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Ashton) today commit to the needed upgrade on Highway 21 north of Hartney in order to facilitate this and other rural development programs? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): The minister of highways and I met shortly after the meeting I had in Melita with the R.M. There is no question the Landmark investment is a very, very positive one, and I know members opposite feel it is important to locate it in Manitoba, southwestern Manitoba, preferably. Mr.

Speaker, I went back and met with the minister of highways, and the indication we had for the $10-million capital investment in Landmark, the highways cost would be up to $7 million at minimum, with the $4-million direct capital and $3 million in upgrades. That was slightly down from what we were first told of $10 million. I have agreed to meet with the member and the community representatives that I know are here today on the issue of what is affordable and what we cannot do. Road Restrictions Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): We look forward to that meeting.

Will the Minister of Transportation, since he will not commit or has not committed to date to the complete project in the expanse of the dollars that he feels his department is telling him this project is worth, instead agree to introduce road restrictions on this stretch of the road, knowing full well that would achieve nearly the same goal? * (14:00) Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I think the member opposite is aware from our discussions of some of the challenges the department is faced with, with its overall budgeting.

I will not go into any great detail in terms of that, but I can indicate to the member that we have had some discussions in regard to this and other suggestions. I can say to the member opposite the advice from the department, and these are people that have the direct experience, is that there are no easy fixes. In fact, a lot of the proposals that have been made would create damage to the road. So the only real option would be a significant upgrade. I certainly will be discussing this with the member shortly and the representatives here from Hartney, but there are no easy solutions.

Like anything else in Highways, it does take financial commitments. I can indicate, as well, there are many other proposals from the area, from southwest Manitoba, other communities that are involved as well and they have similar concerns. Prairie Grain Roads Program Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden) : Will the Minister of Transportation concede to the reeve and the members of the council that are here today from Cameron municipality that the road projects such as these should be funded as part of the Prairie Grain Roads Program, and can he give them any indication as to what part of the

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3253 process they would be involved in, in that particular venue? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): The Prairie Grain program is underway this year. It will be positive in the sense that there will be some federal money finally coming to this province. I note on the record again that when it comes to Hartney or other communities in Manitoba, it would make a real difference if the federal government was involved far more significantly in putting back some of the gas taxes it takes out of this province.

Certainly it will be one of the projects that will be put forward. I would remind the member it is a JOint federal-provincial program. Municipalities, KAP and others have a role to play in that as well, so it is not something that is directly within control, but it certainly would be one of the projects that would be eligible for the funding, however limited. I want to stress again, we need more money from the federal government so that communities like Hartney and others can see those kinds of road upgrades in the future. Arena/Entertainment Complex VL T Revenues Mr.

Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Today's Question Period seems to be about integrity and honesty. Yesterday, I tabled evidence that showed the Premier advising the people of Manitoba that the VL T revenue going to the new arena project would be capped at $1.5 million. Again, the Premier's quote: The VL T money is up to $1.5 million a year. After having a chance to review the tape last night, my question to the Premier: Is he continuing to deny he told CBC news that the VL T money is up to $1.5 million a year? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): In the same quote, Mr.

Speaker, it says that all the details of the whole agreement would be released on Monday. I was doing a verbal briefing on about 38 or 39 articles in a terms of reference sheet. That was provided. It is obviously confusing enough that the Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) said it was a minimum after he read the terms of reference sheet. The number utilized was based on lottery information and best average revenue per machine for the reallocation.

It was relative to the comparison of the Jockey Club and, at the end of the day, of all the 3 9 or 40 articles that we were dealing with when this information first became public, we are confident the overall package, the overall set of proposals is good for the community. If members opposite are-you know, maybe they can have a nitpickers convention. We are in favour of building a new arena. Mr. Tweed: I take the Premier's comments in that he is denying the fact that he made those statements to the people of Manitoba. My question to the Premier directly is, I mean, Mr.

Speaker, everyone makes a mistake from time to time. Why can the Premier of this province, the Premier of Manitoba, not stand up and admit that he made a mistake? He made the wrong comments that were quoted accurately by CBC television. Mr. Doer: Members opposite alleged that we were going to guarantee $50 million from the Crocus Fund. They also alleged that the amount of money that would be- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: The amount of money we indicated in this House and outside of this House we feel is very consistent with what we said in a verbal briefing to the media.

I feel very confident that the information is not only available to the public, the terms of reference did not change before an election versus after an election like other proposals in the past. The basic investment, public investment in the new entertainment centre is very consistent. We were talking about comparisons between the Jockey Club that has no cap and the proposed arena site. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, in the fall of 2004, you will know how much revenue is

3254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 I gained or developed or generated by the lottery terminals. Mr. Tweed: I wish the Premier would take the advice of the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale) when he says tell the truth. The Premier is misleading Manitobans. He put it on the record that the VL Ts would be capped at $1.5 million. I ask him again to stand and correct the record. That is all we are asking. We are not asking for the Premier to jump off a bridge. We are asking him to tell the truth. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, there have been a number of statements made about the proposed entertainment centre. The fact that we were guaranteeing $50 million from this Legislature of the Crocus Fund, the fact that in spite of a legal opinion the Crocus Investment Fund was illegal, we feel that the term sheet is very, very consistent with what we have said verbally. Obviously, it was not going to be in place, a system where you would unplug the VL Ts after it reaches a certain amount of money. Then we would be criticized for turning the lights off on the new entertainment centre.

The fact of the matter is members opposite are bitter because they could not put together downtown redevelopment and a new complex in the downtown of Winnipeg. Arena/Entertainment Complex VLT Revenues Mr. Jack Reimer (Soutbdale): Mr. Speaker, I noticed the First Minister has made reference quite frequently in the last comments about the term sheet in regard to the entertainment centre downtown.

I would like to just bring to his attention under Manitoba's obligation under the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation where the agreement, the standard agreement that will be entered into, the term "the annual gross revenues from the VL Ts" is mentioned five times. Is the First Minister aware that if he uses those figures and he looks at what the daily minimums are in regard to the VL T commitments by the Manitoba Lotteries Commission of $432 per machine per day at 50 machines, extrapolated over one year, it is $7.8 million?

Is this First Minister saying, out of that $7.8 million, $1 .5 million will be the maximum that the entertainment centre will realize? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I will provide a written breakdown for the member opposite, and it has been provided to members of the media. As I understand it, they were pursuing some of the same investigation. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated that the cap is $1.5 million. My question to the Premier is: What will happen to the other monies that are above the cap on these VL T terminals that are proposed for the Convention Centre?

As mentioned, if you extrapolate that over 25 years, that is almost $67 million that they will realize. The terms of reference for the commitment for the Government is 25 years, 25 years on that formula Is the Premier aware of that? * (14:10) Mr. Doer: You know, it is passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that 150 machines with a formula with no cap at Assiniboia Downs is producing a revenue of approximately $5 million a year. If you were to multiply that by 25 you would get a certain amount of money, but 50 machines under the same formula with a cap on the formula, obviously, the results are quite different.

Let me explain this: 150 machines at Assiniboia Downs without a cap produce over $5 million in revenue. The member opposite can do the math, and I will produce that, in writing, for him. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, as an extension of what the Premier has said then, what he is saying then that the cap he has mentioned of 1.5 really is not in existence for the downtown area, because if you are using that type of rationale of- Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you can ask

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3255 the member to ask a question without a

preamble. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable members that Beauchesne's Citation 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. I would ask the honourable member to please put his question. * * * Mr. Reimer: I will ask the Premier: Is he saying there is no cap on this amount of money that is going to the downtown venture? He has mentioned 1.5. Is that yes or no? If the minister would like to take it under advisement and come back with the truth, I will accept that too. Mr. Doer: Okay. Let me explain this.

Members opposite, when they were in government-now I am sure the member opposite was in Cabinet expanded the VL Ts in the Capital Region by 150, allocated them at the Assiniboia Downs and provided an uncapped formula that produces approximately $5 million a year. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The new proposed arena is reallocated VL Ts; 50, in the manner that has been tabled in the Legislature. So we have expanded 150, reallocated 50. We have obviously a $5 million revenue for the Headingley horse racing industry versus the revenue for this operation.

We believe in rebuilding downtown Winnipeg. We believe in this new entertainment centre. Members opposite may be so bitter that they want to nitpick this deal into the ground. We are in favour of it. We are going ahead with it, and it makes sense for Manitobans. Point of Order Mr. Darren Praznik (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's Citation 417 says that answers should be brief and not provoke debate.

Members on this side of the House are asking the Premier a very straightforward question about the operation of a cap, a cap that he has publicly reported on CBC and with other media to have said that was the limit. Now he has indicated in a roundabout way that position is different from the reality of this deal. Members on this side of the House are trying to get the Premier to tell us exactly what the situation is. We are not here to rehash other battles. We want a straightforward answer. If the Premier cannot answer the question, let him admit it.

If he is going to try to raise other battles to avoid the question, then he is provoking debate and he is in violation of Beauchesne's. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of order. I would suggest that it is not even a point. The information was provided to members and to all Manitobans and the information speaks for itself. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba practice has been to allow leaders' latitude. I will continue that practice until I am given directions that are jointly agreed to by both House leaders.

Arena/Entertainment Complex Environmental Review Process Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Some supporters of the arena have expressed to me a concern that the provincial government may not be following the ordinary due process and thereby puts at risk the procedure as a result of potential court actions or injunctions which would halt it because due process is not followed. I would ask the Premier to clarify precisely what is the process for the environmental review of the True North arena proposal and the demolition of the Eaton's building. Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): We will follow all the laws of the province, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary: I would ask the Premier when he is going to set up the

3256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 I appropriate hearings under The Environment Act as it applies to Class 2 developments so that due process can be followed with regard to the arena and the Eaton's building. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier does not set the environmental licensing processes and application under the law. There is a director of environmental licensing. Surely to goodness the member opposite would not want political interference in that process. Mr. Gerrard: My second supplemental. I am pleased to hear that the procedure is proceeding.

I am sure that the Premier will be following the strategy that was tabled so clearly last year, the COSDI process, and ensure that this process is followed. I would ask for some assurance from the Premier that the out-process outlined in COSDI will indeed be followed as is mandated under his Government's strategic plan for the environment. Mr.

Doer: Whether it is this facility, the Red River community college, the Big 4, the Brandon generating station that is being changed or the Selkirk station that is being proposed to be altered from coal to gas, whenever the government is both a proponent-and we are a proponent. There is public money going into this, and we support it. The members opposite do not. There are laws to be followed, and we will follow the laws. Manitoba Hydro PowerSmart Program Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): My question is to the Minister responsible for Hydro. Mr.

Speaker, I was pleased to hear in January of this year the minister, along with Manitoba Hydro, announce a new residential PowerSmart energy saving program. This is especially important due to the increased cost of heat that has been going across North America. I know that many of my constituents have taken advantage of the program and was wondering if he could provide the House with an update on how this program has been received across the province. Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): The energy experts at PowerSmart have received over 3000 calls from Manitobans looking for advice on how to cut their energy bills. Over 550 energy audits have been completed for Manitobans living in all corners of the province. Over I600 loans, totalling about $5.6 million, have been allocated for energy efficiency work. This is all as the result of the new program which has been launched for residential homeowners for the first time in II years.

As well, Manitoba Hydro has also launched a province-wide PowerSmart initiative for churches, synagogues and temples, and a Summer Student Employment Program has been launched to assist seniors to save energy in their homes. * (14:20) Arena/Entertainment Complex Private/Public Funding Levels Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): On this side of the House. we support the construction of a new arena but we also support- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Loewen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the members opposite though, we support the notion that the public has a right to know the truth behind the financing of this project. The term sheet calls for $38.5 million in public sector contributions in cash and improvements and only less than $25 million from the private sector. The term sheet also calls for support of $6 I.5-million worth of debt primarily from funding from VL T revenue, from amusement tax rebate and from other tax rebates. My question is: In light of all these facts, why is the Premier still standing on his announcement that this project is 70 percent private sector backed? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there are about 2000 VL Ts in hotels that were allocated by members opposite. Some hotel chains are making more money than the

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3257 proposed new entertainment centre, all owned by private interests by decisions made by members opposite. This is a public asset for the whole community. Yes, it is a mix of private and public investment, but it is very, very clear that there is a public investment and, most importantly, the private sector will take the risk for capital overruns and the private sector will take the risk for operating surpluses or losses. This was very much part of the agreement that we wanted to have.

We did not want to have a situation which was negotiated by the member opposite to have the operating loss agreement of a hockey team carried on in perpetuity. I need no lectures from the member opposite, who had a $30-million infrastructure proposal publicly stated before the April 25 election and we found out later, in January ofthe same year, four months before, there was an application for $85 million in public money. This term sheet is publicly disclosed, publicly tabled in this House and publicly available to any Manitoban. I am proud to mail it out to anyone. Mr.

Loewen: This First Minister puts so much misinformation on the record, it is unbelievable. Mr. Speaker, in his last statement the minister said-[interjection] On a new question. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. For the information of all honourable members, I recognized the honourable Member for Fort Whyte on a supplementary question. Mr. Loewen: I ask the Premier: Given the information in the term sheet, does he still stand by his statement that this project is 70 percent driven by private funds and 30 percent public funds? Does he stand by that statement? Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite knows there is a capital investment; the breakdown is well known to members opposite. It is $125 million in its breakdown and then there is an operating component, and he can mix and match them all he wants in this House, but I think he will find everything is fully disclosed in this term sheet. I think the terms of the risk the private sector is taking on is very important for us. The most important number to me is once the agreement is publicly stated in terms of its actual capital investment for us. Now we have a $13 million, including a $1 0-million infrastructure grant.

Members opposite thought it was okay to build a fountain in the back of the building. That was their priority. Not the Kenaston underpass, not a new arena. We think redeveloping downtown Winnipeg is our priority. Fountains behind the Legislature was his priority. A downtown arena and other projects downtown are our priorities, and we know that 100 percent of the risk will be carried after that by the private sector. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS General Byng School Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a wonderful organization that has worked very hard to improve the learning and recreational environment of the children of General Byng School in Fort Garry. The Playground Improvement Committee held a ribbon-cutting ceremony on June 19 to officially open the new play structure and outdoor classroom. The task of replacing the existing structure has been two years in the making, and the result is credited to the tremendous efforts of many parents and volunteers. The design for the new play structure was drawn from ideas that children themselves submitted.

Children from kindergarten through Grade 6 were given the opportunity to submit their ideas about what their ideal play structure would include. Similarly, Mr. Carrol's Grade 6 enrichment students created the plan of the outdoor classroom, and their design ultimately won the Fort Whyte Centre's Wild Challenge during Earth Day 2000. Congratulations to all the students for the wonderful ideas. I would like to send a special thanks to the core members of the Playground Improvement

3258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2001 Committee. Cathy Batten, Monique Bourke, Kathy Burchill, Jan Gilchrist, Caryn Larsen and Kim Mardero have worked extremely hard to make these projects a reality, and the results of their labours will be appreciated and enjoyed for generations to come. Thanks again to everyone involved. Provincial Strategy on Disabilities Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, over the past month, I had the opportunity to travel to several communities to discuss the recently released paper Full Citizenship: A Manitoba Provincial Strategy on Disability.

These community consultations were chaired by the Member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and provided a forum for many Manitobans to respond to this important initiative from the Minister responsible for Persons with Disabilities (Mr. Sale). I was honoured to participate in this valuable process and I would like to personally thank all the participants for sharing their views, concerns and suggestions with my colleagues and myself.

In Winnipeg, Brandon, Thompson and Steinbach participants spoke of how glad they were to see a government that was actively interested in improving the way people with disabilities are treated in Manitoba. They were excited to hear that finally a government was taking the lead in ensuring that all Manitobans, regardless of their abilities, are treated as full citizens.

For example, the Steinbach branch of the Association for Community Living believes that, I quote: "This announcement has the potential to set a very positive tone for how government supports persons with disabilities, and through its example, sets a more positive tone for how the larger society views and supports people with disabilities." I have greatly enjoyed this opportunity to listen to Manitobans with disabilities. I hope that we can continue to work together to ensure that everyone in Manitoba has full citizenship. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Linda Omichinski Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to rise and offer congratulations to Linda Omichinski of Portage Ia Prairie for her innovative work in the area of dietetics. In recognition of Ms. Omichinski's accom plishment, the Dietitians of Canada and Kraft Canada awarded her the Speaking of Food and Eating Award at their annual meeting on June 9. Ms. Omichinski is currently serving as president of Portage Ia Prairie-based HUGS International, which she founded in 1987.

Through HUGS International, Linda Omichinski has been able to educate and assist people across North America with their questions on nutrition and proper diet. The award-winning program called The Celebrating Midlife Madness Workshop, carried out with the help of her partner, Becky Chase, has taught women from Alaska to Nova Scotia about health changes related to menopause, and provides helpful advice on how to lead a healthier lifestyle. *( 14:30) In addition to her work at HUGS International, Ms.

Omichinski has written two best-selling books on health and nutrition and has recently released her third book entitled Staying Off the Diet Rollercoaster. The dedication that Ms. Omichinski has shown towards improving the lives of people around her is truly commendable, and I sincerely congratulate her on her recent recognition and on her wonderful success in the area of dietetics. Thank you. St. James Anglican Church Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to celebrate an important historic milestone in my constituency. This month marks the 150th anniversary of the St.

James Anglican Church located on Collegiate Street.

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3259 One hundred and fifty years ago, the original Jog church was built on Tylehurst Street. In 1998, it was partially destroyed by fire but was restored to its original state in the year 2000. It is still used for small services. Today, this little church is the oldest of its kind in western Canada. The new church, built in 1922, is well known for its 14 beautiful stained-glass windows. These windows were funded by the congregation during the Second World War and are each dedicated to the loved ones of congregation members.

The amber glass that was taken from the windows and doors when new stained glass was installed was transformed into beautiful candleholders, angels and more by local artisan, Peggy Chapman, whose family has long been members of the parish. Anniversary celebrations began on June 17 and included a pancake breakfast, the Mary Wright Lilac Tea, tours of the old church, a banquet featuring local entertainers and three special services. Two of the services were held at the log church and one was conducted by the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

Former parishioners came from all parts of Canada and from England to join in the festivities. In addition, representatives from all levels of government lent support and respect with their presence. I was pleased to participate in a few activities and was deeply impressed by the historical knowledge and pride shared by all congregation members. I would like to congratulate the congregation at the St. James Anglican Church for the hard work they have done in preserving and celebrating this wonderful piece of Manitoba history. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Dennis Giesbrecht Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of all members of the House to an individual in my constituency who has dedicated a number of years and a great deal of energy to the enhancement of education in our province. Dr. Dennis Giesbrecht was recently honoured by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees with a long-service award for over 20 years of public school board service. Doctor Giesbrecht has served the students of the Hanover School Division with distinction and is deserving of the recognition he has received. Members in this Chamber know the importance of education.

Indeed, there is no tool we can provide our children with that better opens the door of opportunity and success. We often hear much about the pace of change in today's world. Education provides our young people with the ability to respond to the challenges of change and to succeed in an international environment. Mr. Speaker, the success of the education system is directly associated with those individuals who serve as trustees and in our schools.

Personally, as a member of a board of governors of a post-secondary school, I can appreciate the challenges that are a part of delivering high-quality education from the board level. However, I also know the rewards that one feels when they are able to provide young people with an asset, an education, that will serve them the remainder of their lives. Doctor Giesbrecht is representative of the many education officials in our province who give of their energy to benefit the future of our province.

On behalf of all members in this House, I would like to extend my congratu lations to him and to thank him for the difference he has made in the lives of young Manitobans. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY * (14:30) Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Happy Birthday. [Happy Birthday sung] Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr. Mackintosh: For other business, Mr. Speaker, could you please call debate on second readings of bills in the following order: 31, 32, 34, 43, 48, 25. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bi1131-The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Mr.

Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 31, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act,

3260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2001 standing in the name of the honourable Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). Is there leave for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Gimli? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on Bill 31 prior to its passing on to committee, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act. This bill makes a very significant change to the way that the appeal process is undertaken with regard to property assessment and taxation.

In particular what it does is it allows the Board of Revision, the Municipal Board, to increase at their discretion the assessment that is dealt with on appeal. This has not been the case in history in Manitoba. I think it is important to note that this is a very, very significant change and will have some far-reaching effects on the process.

Particularly people who are taking their property tax assessments to the Municipal Board or to the Board of Revision are doing so because they feel that they are being taxed at an unfair level, that their property assessment is too high and they are going to these bodies to argue for a reduction in the assessed value of their property. We have seen a substantial amount of that being done not only in the city of Winnipeg but across this province in the last few years. In fact, in a large number of those cases the appropriate body found that the assessments were too high and in its wisdom decided to reduce them.

In particular, the City of Winnipeg, I think, was stung quite badly by this, not only on residential, but on commercial property to the point that there are some companies in town and some individuals who have set up practices and set up offshoots of their business to deal with the unfair assessment activities, particularly within the city of Winnipeg.

It has been in the best interests of property owners, residential and commercial, in the city of Winnipeg to take a close look at the assessed value of their property when they get the notice and seek advice from those who are more familiar with the workings of the system and in fact in many cases proceed to appeal the assessed value of their residence or their commercial property.

I would say that it is safe to say that in the majority of those cases they have been successful on appeal and have had the values reduced. * (14:40) Now the point here is that by changing the nature of what the Municipal Board or the Board of Revision could do, it will have an effect on people's attitudes about fairness and, possibly, impartiality.

Particularly given that for the City of Winnipeg these boards are appointed, in the City's case appointed by City Council, one can certainly understand that council may have some self-interest involved when it appoints the members of the board of revision and that in fact we could see a board that will take a hard line against people who appeal their property tax simply to prove a point so that council can see its revenue base maintained.

It would only take five or six rulings where the board of revision decided to up the assessed value to have a substantial discouraging effect on people's ability to see their way clear to take their appeal forward. So we are looking forward to hearing from presenters on this bill.

We believe that the onus should be on the assessors, people within the department, both at the City of Winnipeg and within the provincial jurisdiction, to get it right the first time, to do the assessment in a fair and equitable fashion, to do it in such a way as to reduce the number of appeals by the fact that, when people do receive their assessment, they will understand that it is not only fair but it is in fact equitable.

This legislation will lead to exactly the opposite situation, where the assessors can just put down a number without giving a lot of thought and due diligence to whether it is the right number, because they know that on appeal it can always be raised by the appropriate body. Our preference would be to leave the bill, leave the law of the land the way it is, and to force the assessors to do the job right the first time, and to give an opportunity for those in our province who feel that their values, the values of

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3261 their property, have been wrongly assessed to appeal the process for the right reason and to not enter the process with that cloud hanging over their head, that in fact the value of their property may go up according to the whims of a board that was approved by the government in power. I remind you the government in power always has a vested interest in maintaining its revenue base, and that is the concern that we have with this bill. I think we will express that concern at committee.

As well, I am sure, a number of the presenters can determine at that time what the process will be with regard to amendment. Having said that, we are pleased to have this bill moved forward to committee. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): appreciate the remarks of the honourable Member for Fort Whyte. I just want to place upon the record one particular section,

section 60(1 .2), and that is in respect to: The Municipal Board shall not change an assessment with respect to any matter that was not put at issue by a notice filed under subsection 57(9). The reason I bring this forward is that I have a question and have yet to have the opportunity to research this.

I am concerned that potentially, if one property owner that has their assessment reduced, that in fact those properties either adjacent to or very near proximity to, that are of equal or similar construction, similar vintage, would not have notice that one individual has been in fact successful in reducing their assessment. The Municipal Board is hamstrung by this particular section, that they cannot make public the successful appeal and that all homeowners, unless they in fact appeal their assessment, will go unknowingly overpaying their taxes. So this particular

section does concern me, if I interpret it properly that this is restricting the information of a successful appeal and reduction of assessment when similar property owners will not have knowledge of this reassessment, and in that light, I do disagree with the Municipal Board not having that ability to make public, so with those short words, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 31, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bili32-The City ofWinnipeg Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on Bill 32, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Fort Whyte. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, similarly with this bill we look forward to moving it on to committee to hear presentations and representations from the public on this bill.

We do have concerns with the bill, although it does serve to clear up some technical issues and in fact does clarify the process under which the ward boundaries will be set in the city of Winnipeg and, in particular, sets out a time frame for that. We are very concerned that the variance in the population base is being moved from its current rate of I 0 percent up to 25 percent, and this could result in very, very significant differences in the sizes of the wards that result from any boundary review and redistribution.

While the stated intent of the Legislature is only changing to the effect that the commission is being given explicit instructions to wherever possible include all of any particular historic community or a neighbourhood in the same ward, it is also being given the freedom to make this very large variation in ward sizes. I do not believe that the people of Winnipeg would find it fair if they were caught in a situation where the ward they were in was 25 percent higher than the ideal ward size, and the ward next door was 25 percent lower, which is what could happen under the conditions prescribed in this act.

So we could see very, very large and significant discrepancies in the size of these

3262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 1 wards, which leads back to the original premise of when is a vote a vote, and in fact, why would we allow the commission to determine wards that could see someone being in a ward that is possibly as much as 30 percent, 35 percent higher than a neighbouring ward when in fact the very premise of the commission should be to the extent possible, ensuring that all wards are relatively about the same size. That surely is the underlying factor when determining any boundaries for any elected body.

That should be the case with The City of Winnipeg Act, and it should be the primary premise that is followed by the commission that will be re-examining the boundaries. * (1 4:50) We do believe that this bill should be revisited and that, while we do agree that, to whatever extent possible it would be ideal to include all of a neighbourhood, particularly those historic neighbourhoods that are recognized throughout the city of Winnipeg, we do believe that with careful consideration by any commission that these boundaries could be fixed in such a way as to not vary by more than 10 % plus or minus and, in fact, they could at the same time include historic communities and whole neighbourhoods in the same ward.

We will speak to this at the committee, and we look forward to hearing from members of the public at the committee stage. We will be seeking an amendment to this act to maintain the variation at plus or minus 10 percent, as opposed to increasing it to plus or minus 25 percent as is indicated in Bill 32. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 32, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr.

Speaker: Agreed, and so ordered. Bill 34- The Municipal Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Fort Whyte. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): We are also prepared at this time to move Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment Act, on to committee. We are again looking forward to hearing from any members of the public who may want to make representation at committee regarding Bill 34. I have reviewed the minister's comments with regard to this bill that she made in the House on June 4.

We will look forward to discussing this bill at committee. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed, and so ordered. Bi11 43-The Auditor General Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on Bill 43, The Auditor General Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman. Mr.

Denis Rocan (Carman): I took this bill under my name the other day to have an opportunity to peruse it. My caucus and myself had an opportunity to look at it somewhat, and now we are prepared to move it on to committee. Thank you, Sir. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 43, The Auditor General Act.

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3263 Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed, and so ordered. Bill 48-- The City of Winnipeg Amendment (Pensions) Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading Bill 48, The City of Winnipeg Amendment (Pensions) Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Seine River. Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): Mr. Speaker, I believe our critic wants to put a few comments on the record, and we will be prepared to pass this through to committee. Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): As indicated by the Member for Seine River, we are prepared to pass this bill on to committee. At this stage, we will be interested in the discussions at committee with regard to this bill and in particular we will be looking for clarification from the minister as to why under

section 79(2) the legislation proposes that the surpluses that may be withdrawn from this fund are not subject to prior written consent of the Pension Commission of Manitoba, which is as it stands right now.

So, with that one proviso, we are prepared to move this bill on to committee, hear public representation, and enter into dialogue with the minister regarding that one particular aspect of the bill and in particular try to have a better understanding of why, in her opinion, it is not to the advantage of both the City of Winnipeg and the employees union and non-union that are covered under the existing legislation, why it is not in their best interests ensuring that the Pension Commission of Manitoba has reviewed any attempt to take surpluses out of the pension plan without their opinion and written consent.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading ofBil1 48, The City of Winnipeg Amendment (Pensions) Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 25- The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 25, The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Consequential Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Charleswood. Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of rising to speak on Bill 25, although I am somewhat disappointed to see such a bill having to be put forward in front of Manitobans at a particular time when we see health care so seriously challenged in this province. Something really struck me in remarks made by Dr. Albert Schumacher, who was the president of the Ontario Medical Association. In March he was speaking to the Canadian Club of Toronto. I would like to quote a few of his statements.

As I sat reading them, I was quite affected by the words of somebody in another province who was feeling the same things I was feeling here. He said, and I quote: There is a crisis in health care now, and the future looks even more daunting. I want to make my case by outlining three propositions. The first is that our health care system faces an unprecedented crisis.

The second is the need for dialogue about the kind of health care system Canadians want for themselves and their families, and the third is the urgent need to develop and implement the solutions needed to ensure a stable and sustainable system of care in future needs. End of quote. Mr. Speaker, this is what the Tories are proposing in terms of addressing health care in Manitoba. We must invite and engage

3264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 I Manitobans into a dialogue. We have a health care system whose sustainability we worry about. We do not support the fact that the NDP government has not promoted any dialogue with Manitobans in any way whatsoever. That is something that we very, very much believe in, because we feel it is extremely important for self-examination, serious debate and ultimately, meaningful reform. Instead what we have in Manitoba is a health care system that condemns ailing people to long waiting lists.

I think as politicians we have a very, very serious obligation to address that issue. * (1 5:00) In addressing that issue, however, it is interesting to note that scaremongering has taken the place of honest discussion over problems about our creaky health care system, that when people get up and want to talk about innovation and want to talk about health care reform, instead what we hear from this NDP government is nothing but scaremongering. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, health care is in trouble, not just in Manitoba but right across this country.

What we do need is honest, open discussion in a search for innovative ways to save medicare. At the time a physician from British Columbia was thinking of coming into Manitoba and introducing a new clinic into Manitoba, we had a Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) that was introduced by the Winnipeg Free Press. In an

article in that paper on February 7, 2001, it indicates in this particular interview with the Minister of Health that he has said he will block plans by a Vancouver health care firm to set up a private hospital in Manitoba. It is interesting to note that this particular minister keeps choosing to throw out the words "hospital," "private hospital," when, in fact, the doctor from British Columbia had absolutely no intent that his clinic, his surgical centre would ever be considered a private hospital. That was not his intent. Those were not words that he ever used. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, this Minister of Health continued then and continues now to infer quite blatantly that this particular physician was setting up a private hospital. That, in fact, is not true. Mr. Harry Schellenberg, Act ing Speaker, in the Chair The Minister of Health also went on to say that such a centre would allow patients to jump the queue for insurable service. That also is not true. There is no queue jumping in publicly funded private clinics in Manitoba. The minister knows that full well. Yet, he has continued to always put this information forward about jumping the queue. That really again, Mr.

Acting Speaker, is part of the problem with the scare mongering, the fearmongering that we see put forward when anybody new wants to come into Manitoba and provide health care to patients or when anybody even talks about the issue of innovation and much-needed reform in health care. We have this Government jumping forward with misinformation and scare mongering to the public. In this particular article, February 7, 200 1, I would like to just quote a couple of paragraphs from that.

It says, and I quote: Health Minister Dave Chomiak said that is wrong, and he is prepared to bring in legislation, if need be, to block the company's plan. Chomiak declined to go into specifics, but indicated that could involve changing the definition of a private hospital. Chomiak said he is trying to reduce times for waiting lists, but he said moving to a user-pay system is not the way to do it. That was never part and parcel of any of the intent of the physician wanting to come into Manitoba and set up service to take care of what he said were some of the longest waiting lists in Canada.

Right from the beginning we can see that this minister was fearmongering on the issue, putting a lot of gross misinformation forward and, in fact, skewing the whole debate in a way that I do not believe will ever be healthy or helpful to what is needed to be looked at in Manitoba I think what he has done is tremendously a disservice to Manitobans.

So we can accurately see now that Bill 25, based on the minister's comments from February 7, 200 I, is a direct result of this minister's ideology, that he has absolutely no intent to address whether or not there is any possible good that can come from publicly funded private clinics. We certainly see from his comments that

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3265 Bill 25 is a knee-jerk reaction to this whole issue, this whole situation of the physician from British Columbia wanting to come into Manitoba. What a sad day for Manitobans when this particular Health Minister has not over many, many months even agreed to meet with this physician from British Columbia to find out if there were any opportunities to look at any form of collaboration. Instead, they immediately slammed the door on the debate, and they have refused to budge in any way whatsoever to looking at this particular situation. Mr.

Acting Speaker, this bill asks more questions than it actually answers. It causes me serious concerns, which I hope I can effectively articulate over the next short period of time. I think this bill is a very serious compromise in Manitoba to try to look at ways we can address improving health care for patients in this province. Mr. Acting Speaker, publicly funded, private clinics have existed in Manitoba for years. They are not new. In fact, in 1998, legislation was passed in Manitoba, and it was passed for a particular reason.

Back in 1979 and onward, we had three clinics, the Pan Am, the Western and the Midland, who had set up and were charging facility fees. In 1995, Ottawa decided this practice violated the Canada Health Act and fined the province $68,000 a month in reduced transfer payments. Therefore, our Government passed amendments to The Health Services Insurance Act in 1999, preventing physicians at private clinics from claiming payment under the act. Therefore, Mr. Acting Speaker, since 1998, we have had publicly funded, private clinics providing service to Manitobans.

Manitoba Health now provides operating contracts to these private surgical clinics to replace revenue lost from the elimination ofthe facility fees. In fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, in the year 2000, private clinics performed 3500 surgeries in Manitoba alone for which they received $2.8 million from Manitoba Health. Manitoba Health has capped the number of surgeries the clinics are permitted to perform annually and has the ability to renegotiate this cap annually depending on need. It is totally controlled by government to ensure that costs are monitored and controlled.

It is also up to the minister to determine if he will or will not enter into a contract with a private clinic, thus agreeing to publicly fund services. Of the approximately 16 private clinics in Manitoba, only 3 are publicly funded, which means they are allowed to provide insured service. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, we do not have a situation here where, as the minister has claimed a number of times, private clinics, although they are publicly funded, compromise medicare.

In fact, I would love him to be able to explain, and he has trouble explaining this, how 3500 procedures being done to alleviate pain, alleviate a lot of stressful situations for patients, which only cost $2.8 million on an annual basis, how in fact that compromises medicare. The whole situation with publicly funded, private clinics are fully controlled and regulated by government. In doing so, cost can be controlled in the system. So for the Minister of Health (Mr.

Chomiak) to talk about $2.8 million out of a $2.4-billion budget compromising medicare is such a stretch it is almost laughable if it was not such a serious issue. * (15:10) In looking at the discussion too that the minister puts forward on the issue of publicly funded, private clinics, he continues to throw out the words "user fees" and "queue jumping," and I take huge offence to that because in Manitoba that is not happening. User fees in these publicly funded, private clinics are not charged, and there is no queue jumping, particularly if we want to look at the issue of cataract surgeries.

The whole waiting list for cataract surgeries is centralized and controlled by the Misericordia Health Centre so that everybody who needs cataract surgery is on that list. Nobody has an opportunity to queue jump, and nobody is asked to pay a fee. So for the minister to be putting forward such information is very much a disservice to this whole debate. When we look at this issue of publicly funded, private clinics performing 3500 surgeries for which they received $2.8 million from Manitoba Health, we have to wonder why

3266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 I this Government would then move forward to take the whole Pan Am Clinic out of this particular system, nationalize it and actually take away the efficiencies and the ability it had to add to the positive aspects of what was happening in health care. Certainly I am sure a number of my colleagues will want to address this issue further with this particular Government as well. To reiterate, publicly funded private clinics have existed in Manitoba for years. They are not new.

Another clinic coming into Manitoba to provide service to Manitobans would have been fully able if the minister had been willing to speak with him at all instead of rudely ignoring the doctor's phone calls for a discussion with the minister, would have seen a situation where the minister, should he choose to develop a collaborative relationship, he could have.

The Government then would have been in a situation where they had set up a collaborative relationship and in fact the clinic would in fact have fallen under the same rules as other clinics in Manitoba which are fully controlled and regulated by the Government. Certainly what the Government did to try to address the issue of private clinics because of an ideological distaste for them, they decided that what they were going to do was change the definition. By changing the definition of a private clinic they have now made it so that private clinics are now considered private hospitals.

In fact that is a very deceitful way to address the situation. It certainly skews the debate because private clinics, private surgical centres are not private hospitals. For the minister to change the definition of a private hospital so that private clinics with overnight beds are considered to be private hospitals, the Doer government is being deceitful and absolutely skewing the debate and creating a fearmongering situation in this province. Mr. Acting Speaker, patient safety should be this Government's first priority.

Allowing those few overnight beds would certainly ensure patient safety in the event that post-op care, which might only mean nausea lasting a little bit longer than normal, having the overnight bed there would certainly provide for the comfort and safety of the patients so that these patients could be allowed to stay a short while longer than would be anticipated. One has to ask, is the Doer government so opposed to overnight stays that they would endanger patient safety to ensure that their ideology is not compromised? What we see is compromised patient safety.

This Government will not do anything that might compromise their ideology. What a sad situation we have for Manitobans. Bill 25 is so ideologically driven because of this Government's absolute distaste for private clinics and the opportunity and innovation and collaboration if they would choose to go down that road and what it could do to help Manitobans and the impact it could have on patient care. In fact, this particular bill will compromise access to care. I do not doubt that for a minute. It will compromise access to care by maintaining lengthy waiting lists.

The NDP government appears to be very unwilling to consider any form of public-private collaboration in the delivery of health care, interesting when we see almost every other province in Canada looking to this kind of innovation. When we look at other jurisdictions throughout the world, looking at this collaboration, Manitoba seems to be stuck in a time warp with an NDP government that is so ideologically stuck that they have such a narrow view to what good health care is all about. They have such a narrow-minded view as to how to address this issue of improving health care in this province.

What they have done is they have reduced patient choice when it comes to meeting health care needs. In fact, I would even go so far as to say they are breaking the Canada Health Act by preventing access to care for patients in this province, because publicly funded private clinics are allowed under the Canada Health Act. They can help provide patients with health care options and choice, but instead what we have is a government that has absolutely slammed the door on any opportunity here. We will continue to strongly support publicly funded private clinics as we have for the last several years.

We feel that there is a role for public-private collaboration in health care to strengthen and sustain our health care system. These three clinics in Manitoba, for the last few years, have served Manitobans well, and

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3267 certainly we will continue to support strongly the publicly funded, private clinics that have existed in Manitoba. There are a number of concerns that we have related to this bill. The changes in the definition, outside of ideology, this takes us into a whole other arena, because the changes to the

definitions here really add to the vagueness of the act and ask far more questions than they even answer. For instance, the definition of a surgical service, which has never been defined in Manitoba before, now leads us to ask a number of questions because, if we were to interpret it the way we have, we will see that it will limit the ability to provide home birthing services. I mean, what is this going to do to midwifery in this province? If you were to take the definition as it stands for surgical service, it certainly will limit the ability to provide home birthing service. It affects midwifery directly.

It affects the development of birthing centres. It affects palliative care at home or in a hospital because, if, for instance, you had a bed sore that needed debridement and you were to use instruments to debride a wound and in debriding a wound you alter the shape of a person's body, you are actually doing surgery by this definition. A huge question that is out there right now and of concern to physicians in this province is the outpatient procedures conducted in a doctor's office. Mr. Acting Speaker, we see a number of physicians performing scopes in their offices.

When they do a scope, they take a small tag during their scope to send for analysis, so in fact they do a biopsy. If we were to look at the

definitions within this act, it lays open all of the questions related to outpatient procedures conducted in a doctor's office. Home care is another question that is just wide open here with tracheostomy suctioning, wound packing, urinary catheter insertion and care, care of and removal of a hemovac drainage tube, peritoneal dialysis. If we look at all of these things against the new definition, the newly minted definition of surgical service, all of these procedures may fall within that category.

I am not sure the minister has fully done his homework on this issue because it appears that every one of these could now be considered a surgical service. It also appears with this act that surgical procedures done in doctor's offices that have tray fees involved make it so that tray fees are now illegal through this particular legislation. Yet the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) has argued that tray fees will not be affected by this legislation.

However, if that is so, then the Minister of Health, in effect, by saying yes you can keep tray fees, actually has endorsed user fees, and thus he has endorsed two-tier health care in this province. So which way is he going to have it?

He is either going to support tray fees, or he is not going to support tray fees. * (15:20) The answer within this bill to this, the definition of this is so sloppy that in fact we have a situation here where we have doctors in this province who are so worried about this that there have been threats out there that we will have doctors leave this province if in fact the tray fees are tampered with. Then we have the Minister of Health saying, no, they will remain in existence.

Well, if they do, we certainly do have user fees being promoted by this Government, and that seems to be a whole new line we have not heard from them yet. The other issue of concern is the prohibition of overnight stays in surgical facilities. We certainly feel and I, as a nurse, feel that having that option-you may never use it-of a few beds in a centre so that you can ensure patient safety and you can ensure patient comfort is absolutely critical to providing good patient care, and how in the world do a few overnight beds in the minister's mind compromise the issue of medicare? That is such a stretch, Mr.

Acting Speaker. So now we have in the bill post-op care in a facility is not allowed after 11 p.m. at night. So we have a patient that maybe needs two more hours to get rid of their nausea, because they have taken a slightly more adverse reaction to anesthesia than some people, but eleven o'clock at night, you can bet that any physician who is afraid of a $30,000 fine is in no way going to allow that patient to stay there after eleven

3268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2001 o'clock at night, even if the mm1ster is now giving some assurances that well, maybe once in awhile it is okay. You can bet that doctors in Manitoba are not going to have any confidence that a government minister is saying well, that is okay; this time it is all right.

I guarantee you there will not be a physician in Manitoba that is going to be willing enough to brave this, to allow a patient, even if they have to stay one more hour to comfortably get over their nausea, because they are not going to risk a fine that can be fined upon them at the snap of a finger by this bill of $30, 000, and think that they are just going to sit there and allow that to happen. So what happens to the patient? They end up having to go to a hospital. How do they go to the hospital? Do they go by an ambulance? Who then pays for that ambulance?

Is that patient then going to have to pay several hundred dollars in an ambulance fee to go to a hospital? When they get to the hospital, is there going to be a bed in the hospital? I think not. We are going to see this patient sitting in an emergency hallway, as we have seen today, where we have 10 patients in one hallway. We have 9 patients at St. Boniface Hospital this morning. The last two weeks, we have had more patients in hallways in Manitoba than we did for that same period of time in 19 99, and we do not have a flu epidemic right now.

So what happens to these patients who end up having to leave the clinic for one or two hours and then end up in a hospital? The minister then goes on to say we have enough bed capacity so the hospitals could accept them. Well, he says that out of one corner of his mouth and from the other comer of his mouth, he chastises us for closing beds and therefore we do not have enough beds in Manitoba, when in fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have more beds in this country per capita than almost every other province in all of Canada. On April 3, Dr.

Brian Post! has also acknowledged that the Pan Am Clinic might have overnight stays. Well, why is it okay now for the Pan Am Clinic to have overnight stays? Is it now going to be considered a hospital if they have overnight stays? The College of Physicians and Surgeons have indicated that if a private clinic meets staffing criteria, then in principle they support overnight stays. Just for the record, Mr.

Acting Speaker, The Maples Surgical Centre has 25 physicians signed up to work there and 20 nurses; 20 nurses, when we have a shortage in this province, wanting to work in a facility, I think speaks to both professions wanting to provide service to patients in Manitoba. Why then does an NDP government not respect and support these experts? It really boggles the mind that, on the one hand, the minister says: We will listen to the experts, and when it does not suit him, he walks away from what the experts are actually saying, that in principle the physicians in Manitoba support overnight stays.

I think that says a lot about their commitment to improving health care in Manitoba and the direction the minister is taking says a lot about his commitment in Manitoba. Mr. Acting Speaker, this is truly an ideologically driven piece of legislation. The Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) states in his news release that an important goal of this legislation is to close the door on two-tier medicine in our jurisdiction, but maybe if the Health Minister had done his homework, he would already realize that 30 percent of health care in Manitoba and in fact across Canada is already offered through the private system.

That has been in place for 40 years. That is not new. Also, it is worth noting that the World Health Organization has ranked various countries in their provision of health care. The American health care system is rated 39th by the World Health Organization, Canada is ranked 30th, France is rated No. 1, and Italy is rated No. 2. Certainly, when we are looking at strengthening our system here in Manitoba, we certainly are going to be looking to Europe and to what kind of a system they had set up.

You never know what you might be able to learn if you open your mind to some of the changes that could actually improve patient care. Mr. Acting Speaker, if we were to look at the French system which is rated No. 1 in the world, it is based on competition and the freedom for patients to choose their own doctors and treatment centres. Their compulsory health

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3269 insurance plan finances or reimburses for health care and pharmaceuticals. The French government has created a framework for health care in which public and private hospitals and clinics co-exist to provide the population easy access to required services. Both public and private hospitals and clinics are subject to government approval for their location, their development and major medical equipment. There is an accreditation evaluation process in which the results are published. The results of all of that, Mr.

Acting Speaker, there are virtually no waiting lists in France. In fact, three to four weeks are considered long. Instead, what does the NDP government in Manitoba find acceptable? Well, months and months and sometimes years, as we see with cataract patients. How can anybody condone waiting lists like that and not be willing to look at some of the innovation that could help fix our health care system? The French health care system costs them $200 per person per year less than the Canadian system.

It achieves a higher disability-adjusted life expectancy, and their system is fairer to the poor as French citizens personally pay less through private insurance or out-of-pocket payments. It is unclear to me why we have a government of Manitoba that is so embedded in their outdated, narrow-minded ideology that they would not even be willing to look at what France might have to show us, why we would not even be willing to have a closer look at what they have and find out whether what they have there is in any way something that we can bring to Manitoba?

It certainly does not hurt us to look, and I would encourage this Government to consider not going forward with Bill 25. Have a look at ways that other countries are succeeding so well in health care where we are not succeeding. This act preserves the status quo which is currently failing Manitobans. What does the status quo in Manitoba look like right now, Mr. Acting Speaker? We have a nursing shortage in Manitoba right now that has doubled under this Government from 600 to 1100 nurses. Those are numbers of a year ago. I would be very interested to know why the minister is not releasing more current numbers.

My only feeling is that those numbers could be so far higher than that that the minister may be afraid to actually tell people what those numbers are in Manitoba right now. The minister had promised to create more full-time nursing jobs in Manitoba. Instead, we have seen that go down under this Government. Nurses have said morale has never been this low ever in this province. Nurses have also told me that in the last 20 years they have never been treated in such a disrespectful manner as they have been by this Government. * (15:30) Doctors continue to leave.

This is our status quo here that the NDP government seem to be satisfied with. We just heard that four physicians have left Brandon. In my own constituency, I have one physician per 4500 patients in a clinic, and I have two to three doctors in this particular clinic working with ratios like that. A lot of these patients of theirs are elderly and it is so hard for them to explain how this Government can condone the status quo when they are working in this kind of situation. Other health care professionals are leaving Manitoba. Ultrasound technicians have indicated that the situation has never been this bad.

I have heard from many of the other professions and they are also stating very serious concerns about what is happening in health care in Manitoba right now. Hallway medicine I have already touched on, and certainly it was the biggest promise in the last election. It is the biggest disappointment from this Government, and now they have the gall to tell Manitobans that Manitobans misinterpreted their promise. Waiting lists have not been slashed despite the promises of this Government. In fact, waiting lists continue to rise in Manitoba.

Spending in Manitoba has gone up dramatically in the two years this Government has been in place, almost 22 percent. That is almost half a billion dollars. That is almost 40 percent of the provincial budget. It is the highest

3270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 I amount of money spent per capita in Canada, and yet have we seen an improvement in health care? I think not. We still have all of the status quo situation that has been in existence for the last couple of years and no improvement in any of those areas. We have rural health authorities in Manitoba who were set up by this Government to believe that they were going to see funding to the degree that they were promised by this Government.

The promises were very obviously made to the RHAs, and then, when their budgets finally came in, they realized that they were deceived by this Government, that deficits were built into the amounts that were being forwarded to them, again not a very direct and open and integrous way to treat the rural RHAs. Then, on top of that, you see the WRHA midway through their year receiving $75 million more, and then, lo and behold, they do not have to address a deficit. Well, why are we seeing these discrepancies within the system? All we are looking for is fairness in how the system is managed.

We have seen the challenges in health care continue to grow under this Government, and yet they seem to be so content with the status quo. They introduce a bill, and I would like to just briefly comment, oh, there are so many editorials in the newspapers that I am not even sure which one to address, but, if I was to just pick up one called "Blocking Reform" in the Winnipeg Free Press, May 25, 200 I, it indicates, and I will put some of this on the record from this editorial: The Health Minister knows better than anyone else what is best for Manitoba patients.

The rest of the country, even fellow New Democrat and former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow is at least looking at ways that private health care providers could play an increased role in the provision of improved service but not our Health Minister. He already knows that private health care solutions will destroy health care as we so well know it, which, despite runaway costs in waiting lists, is best. Ask the Health Minister.

Survey after survey finds that most Canadians, and this is a continuation of this editorial, think they should have access to private health care services should they want them but not this Health Minister. He knows better than anyone that providing the same old health care with the same old philosophy is what is best. How the Health Minister knows this is unclear.

It likely, however, was a conviction he acquired during those many long years that he sat on opposition benches and decried every effort to reform health care in Manitoba on the basis that change is dangerous compared with doing everything the same way as it has been done but with more money. In Government, he has acted accordingly, opening the coffers but not the debate. Now, just to prove that he knows what is best, he is introducing legislation that will outlaw private hospitals in Manitoba. Unable to win the debate on private health care, he has chosen to simply cut it off.

In doing so, the Health Minister is making Manitoba the Canadian bastion for doing the same old things the same old way at increasing costs in the absence of competition to the monopoly model that has failed to meet expectations both in quality of service and value for money spent and spent and spent. It may eventually prove to be that this Health Minister, alone among Health ministers, has all the answers. Right now, however, stifling debate and outlying competition are not what is best for Manitobans, only what is best for the Health Minister and his outworn theory. Mr.

Acting Speaker, we certainly are not in support of this bill, not only because of the ideology but because of the many aspects within the bill that we think are going to seriously impact health care. This bill is such a reckless and irresponsible way to move forward. The minister has said he has no health care plan. It becomes more and more obvious with a bill like this being put forward. Thank you. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste.

Rose): I do believe that this bill is one that puts the current Government in a position that I presume they want to be in because they proposed the bill. It seems to me that by introducing this bill and ultimately enforcing this bill that they are going to portray themselves as ideologues. They are

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3271 going to do long-term systemic damage, in my view, to the delivery of health care services in this province. I hear a little chattering already. The fact is that in changing the rules under which public-private relationship may occur in fact will have a long-term systemic impact. Now, you could argue, is it a good impact or is it a bad impact?

I intend to make the point that by closing this door they have intentionally, I believe, decided that they think this is a defining moment in Manitoba history in delivery of health care and they are going to be on one particular side of this issue. They are going to be on the side of the public and publicly funded, publicly owned, publicly run health care system. Fine. That is where they want to be. Then let me ask a couple of questions about: Why do they want to be there? Is that the only answer and the way in which they intend to manage it?

I believe that the job of government in delivering health care services is all encompassing, frankly. It does not bother me in the least that we have a fully funded medicare system in this country that should provide, and I use the word "should," it should provide access. It should provide quality service. It should be unrestricted according to a person's station in life, in other words, the amount of-and that is the wrong term, according to a person's wealth and their willingness to spend that wealth on their health care.

Those are grand and laudable goals and ones which should not be undermined, but the current Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) and I would suggest his entire Government, the entire Government bench, have lined up behind this thinking, as I described, about how they see Bill 25 and why Bill 25 has to happen. I just worry that they have lined up there because they think this is the politically astute thing to do, or are they lined up there because they believe this is the right thing to do for health care? * (15 :40) I am afraid that I have some suspicions, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that it is the former, that they think that by taking this political stance, the public will embrace them and they will all go marching off hand in hand together to the next election. Right? I see some nods of agreement across. That seems like a laudable goal if you are a member of the NDP caucus and that is where you want to be in the next election. I would suggest that governments have a larger responsibility. That is to do what is the best for the long-term delivery of health care services to the citizens of this province.

It is not just what happens in Manitoba that will determine the future of health care in Canada. I appreciate that. When Roy Romanow muses out loud-or I think he was past musing; he was in response to a direct question-that Bill 11 which Ralph Klein introduced was not on further examination and in its current iteration nearly as scary as first conceived, then I ask myself: Has Roy been fooling us all these years, or does Roy still thit\k that the public health care system is the flagship of how we should deliver health care services in Canada and the rest of the world is emulating us?

Or is Roy changed, as I hope and I believe? I use the term "Roy" endearingly, I guess, even though he was not of the political stripe that I support. He did have a reputation as a bit of an independent thinker, even though he was certainly to the left of the spectrum on many of his plans. But he is now charged with a very large responsibility that I think this bill is going to put this Government on the wrong side of.

If the Government has to introduce this bill, maybe they would be better off to have said: We believe that this is what should happen, but we are going to wait and see how this fits with the report that Roy Romanow is going to bring down, the national report, because after all, much as we would like to brag about how health care or education or agriculture, for that matter, in Manitoba can be marketed as of high quality, the fact is we are not imaginative, we are not progressive in some respects in how we look at the health care delivery system. I think this bill is a manifestation of that.

When I look at the fact, you tie this to the fact that the Pan Am Clinic has just been purchased, which the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the minister proudly proclaim that this is a new way

3272 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 1 of doing business. It is the new wave. There is a private entrepreneur out there, we will buy him out and we will make it a private but not for profit, independent clinic, whatever words they want to attach to it, but essentially they are taking them into the public system under this new category of not for profit.

Well, when I look at what has happened over the last 10 or even 15 years in delivery of health care services in this province and the fact that Ottawa cut back on billions of transfer payments during the '90s, and everybody, I think, who gives any kind of sensible, rational look at cost and financing of delivering health care in this country understands that at the very time when the demands were beginning to peak, the very time when people were critically assessing their health care system and the very time when there needed to be some reform, Ottawa was in fact driving that reform by starving the system, particularly those who were looking for the transfer dollars and did not have access to the surplus of dollars of their own.

Who am I talking about? Obviously the province of Manitoba was one of the prime examples, but we did not have our own sources during the '90s to easily turn to to offset those dollars that we were losing. In fact, the very time that we lost $600 million worth of revenue we put an additional $600 million into the expenditures in health care in this province. You could argue that is a billion-two we put into health care, because we ate what was being cut back on the transfer as well as increased the expenditures in the province. That is a billion two by anybody's calculation.

I know the teachers across the way there are frantically trying to figure out if this works with Grade 8 math or calculus. I am telling you, when you are counting the dollars and cents, that amounts to double counting. It was a painful realization that the citizens of this province and this country went through at that time. When I take that as a background against Bill 25, why would this Government then simultaneously be taking out of the system operations that were businesses that were prepared to provide service where there were, indeed, waiting lists?

Why were they prepared to take them out of the system, because that is what they are doing? They are compounding it with Bill 25. You do not have to like Doctor Godley. We do not even have to use him as an example, but the fact is he is probably a very skilled and intelligent practitioner of medicine. He has just received, as my colleague said, licensing, I believe, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which says that he has met their qualifications to operate in this province. But there is one problem.

This Government says, no, no, you can do a little bit around the edges, but we are going to quietly tell the Workers Compensation Board, but do not do business with this guy, because he might be successful and make us look bad. Now that has got to be the most nearsighted, backwards approach to delivery of health care when people are demanding a shortening of the waiting lists. Well, I would think there were a number of members over there who would be embarrassed to be associated with that in principle, but yet, in this bill, they are inadvertently doing it.

They are holding this bill up, Bill 25; I have got it right here. They are holding it up as an example of how they are defending the public health system. If they really believe that, then move over, folks, because you are not even in the game. This is just ideologically driven crap. [interjection] Excuse me, you do not need to call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I withdraw that statement. I am sorry. I thought I was back home for a minute there. We were talking about Assiniboia Downs earlier.

I was thinking about some of the side product that comes from there, and frankly that fits this bill pretty well, as well. This bill, if it is the right thing to do, then I challenge this Government to say, okay, we believe so strongly in this, but we want to have it vetted against the national proposals and recommendations that will undoubtedly come out of Romanow's review. When Romanow opens up his itinerary-where is he these days? Does anybody know where Roy is? Is he in Sweden? I hear the Swedish countryside is quite-! am not sure that is why he is there. He is there looking at their health care system.

If he is going over to look at their health care system, why would he be going over there? We believe,

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3273 and I say "we" collectively as Canadians. We believe that we have one of the best health care systems in the world, and we keep laughing at those dumb Yanks. I mean, we keep saying, ah, they all wish they had our health care system, but this Premier, just to verify that, he played it out in the election. The Premier went down and put a cover over the sign, the road to Grafton. This will be permanent.

People will never see this sign again, because they will not go down this road to Grafton again, except maybe to go fishing or on a holiday or visit their American cousin, but not for health care. They are not going to go to Grafton anymore for health care. We are going to fix that. * (15:50) Well, he is not going to fix it with Bill 25. He is not going to fix it with the expenditures distribution of dollars that has come in relationship to dealing with the implementation of the national program for additional high tech equipment.

We see in today's paper that there is a sort of a distribution of some more of these dollars, and, to some extent, every one of those dollars can be justified. We can be pleased that they are going where they are being designated, but I am puzzled by the approach that this Government is taking to deal with the $36 million that was allocated to this province. First of all, it was a big deal made about [interjection] I said the dollars. The member across the way is thinking that I am being critical of expenditures of the dollars.

I said the purchase of the equipment is needed and appreciated, but why is it that these monies were drawn down months, months before there was ever even a request sent out to the facilities about what equipment they needed or were looking for? That strikes me as maybe the Minister of Finance just needed a little extra to jingle in the kitty, and he was able to delay some of these announcements until they are getting a little closer to that next election window. Now, I would not say that that is necessarily the truth, but the timing strikes me as being a little bit suspicious.

Now, getting back to Roy Romanow and his travel plans, why would he be in Sweden? To look at their health care system. I mean, that is undoubtedly why he would go there. I presume he will also go to France, maybe Italy, because where are those countries listed on the delivery of the best delivery of health care in the world? France is No. 1, not Canada. Italy is No. 2, not Canada. Do you know what? We always have great joy pointing to the Americans and saying: We have a better health care system than you do. We are 29 and they are 30. An Honourable Member: No, 30 and 39. Mr. Cummings: Oh, 30 and 39.

It is not 3 or 9, that we know, it is a multiple of 10. So he is in Sweden, and the Swedish health care consumers are now in a situation where they can use the Internet to compare facilities and availability between public and private clinics to choose for having a service or procedures done. If their system is working as well as they appear to have been rated, then why is it that they are allowing these dreaded private clinics to be involved in the delivery of service? Information is an important thing. The Premier (Mr.

Doer) talked today about the fact that he had been quite prepared to provide certain information about numbers in the hallway. That is good, but he does not provide us with the numbers of nurses' vacancies right now. For some reason that is some kind of a confidential piece of information. I am not sure whether he is afraid there will be an influx of nurses from other jurisdictions if he actually lets it be known how many nurses are needed in this province. We hear daily, open and transparent and willing to share information.

Well, there is an important piece of information that is not being shared, and yet in Sweden where they are No. l apparently, they can even flip onto the Internet and find out how long the waiting lists are at various facilities. If it happens to be within a reasonable distance for them to travel or if they choose to travel or if it happens to be the one around the comer and down the street, they can make that decision. In Canada, we do not have that choice, and particularly, I believe we are losing that choice right here in Manitoba.

When I referenced the fact that we were now starting to spend some, and I emphasize "some," of the dollars that Ottawa set aside a couple of

3274 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 1 years ago now for purchase of equipment in our hospitals, I wonder if Mr. Chomiak has ever thought-and I suspect he has not. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member has to be referenced by title. Mr. Cummings: Apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am getting far too familiar with the ministers across the way. I should be referring to him as the Mini ster of Health, and I apologize for that slip-up.

But the Minis ter of Health, it seems to me, is getting far too ideological in his approach, because if he has thought about the shortage of equipment-and believe me, it was only about three years ago that this type of delivery of service came to my attention, but, in fact, there are companies who will bring in a CAT scanner and set it up. They will finance it. They will staff it, and they will provide the service at a fee for service.

I would be willi ng to bet that this Minis ter of Health has never even considered that for more than a millisecond as being an alternative way of delivering some of those services in this province. I am not necessarily an advocate of doing it because the limiting factor might well be the volume that is required to be guaranteed. Maybe we do not have the population. But I know it works in other parts of this country, let alone the United States. It works in other parts of this country.

So I worry that this Government is making an ideological statement that is in the long term going to impinge upon the ability to deliver health care in this province, because as I said at the beginning I believe in delivering health care. The responsibility of government has to be to provide access, to provide quality service and make sure that it is quality, but the public today is also demanding that there be timely service. Let us look at the Workers Compensation files.

I am very familiar with some of the files that used to show up in Manitoba Public Insurance where people are debilit ated, where they are injured in such a way that it requires a lot of rehab to get them back into the workforce.

But it is now widely accepted, in fact it has been accepted for decades, that if you provide the very best rehab to those people, if you allow them to receive treatment for pain, well, first of all, to eliminate the pain, if you allow that they receive appropriate rehab for the injury that they have, allow them to return to an active lifestyle, not only does it, from the crass point of view, reduce the cost to the system, it in fact enhances the communities and the families where those people live and work because they can get back to a normal lifestyle.

It appears with the actions that are being taken with this bill that this Government is not seized of that high a standard in terms of how it wants to deal with access in this province.

If waiting lists are only measured in who is waiting to get in for your standard procedures in a hospital setting, that is one thing, but to arbitrarily, because of a philosophical or ideological approach, use the Workers Compensation Board as a lever against an entrepreneur who would establish here and not allow that independent body, and they are independent in the main, to access the very best of service, whether it is public or private, then I suggest that not only are they allowing their ideology to get ahead of their thoughtful governance of the province, they are allowing their ideology to cause downright pain and hardship to the citizens of this province who may be waiting for services.

Bi ll 25, to the eyes of, I would suggest, the majority of people in this province is an illogical, unnecessary piece of legislation, but it will be used in a manner which says that this Government believes it has done what had to be done to protect medicare.

Well, rather than protecting medicare, I continue to feel that they are in fact denigrating the opportunity for this country and this province in particular to continue with an actively growing and healthy service delivery in the health care field. * (16:00) The Pan Am Clinic, the minister has argued that there were limitations on the number of services that could be handled. So now that he has bought it, of course, he can raise those limitations. Well, the fact is he did not need to buy it to raise the number of services that could be provided at the clinic. All he had to do was lift the cap, raise it.

He did not have to lift it off,

June 26, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3275 just raise it to an appropriate number. [interjection] Well, the member says could he keep paying facility fees. Maybe he should take a look at the impact of what you are doing. You are buying bricks and mortar which is fairly well depreciated. You are buying the services of doctors that you were already getting their service, and you were getting it on a fee-for service basis. There was a service, so there was a facility fee attached to it.

Is anybody in this room saying that those facility fees were going to exceed what the maintenance, upkeep and depreciation on the facility would be? I am not so sure that anybody has even figured that out. Nobody has brought those numbers into this Chamber for debate, that is for sure. I do not think that they will ever be here in dollars and cents. We will deal only with the principle that here is a private clinic that is now going to be a not-for-profit facility. It sounds nice. I mean, I come from rural Manitoba I am a Co-op member. I am a Manitoba Pool member. I am a member of the United Grain Growers.

All of them were established as co-operatives, not for profit, I think, or swing the slogan around, Manitoba Pool Elevators was service at cost. But you know what? It is a changing world. Perhaps it is not a perfect analogy, but Manitoba Pool, UGG, are both now share-owned corporations to do business in today's world.

I am not advocating that that needs to be the direction taken, but is it not unusual that at the very time when most of our economy is freeing up its entrepreneurs to deliver what they know best-in this case it would be health care services or procedures that they are expert at, delivering what they would know best and what they do well-all of a sudden our Government, on behalf of the people of this province, is changing that so that it is now embraced within the bureaucracy? I have a high regard for those who work in the bureaucracy and deliver services in this province.

The very nature of bureaucracy, however, is that it takes a while to make a decision. It takes a while to move infonnation through. There are so many checks and balances on occasion that it raises a question about efficiency. We have taken that private facility into the system and said: No, no, do not work out there freelancing for profit. You come into the system and you are for-profit now.

I suggest that this Government has not yet demonstrated that facility being operated for profit was any more costly to the people of this province than it will be when they pay for the facility, pay for the upkeep of it and pay all of the other attributable costs, unless of course it is going to be something like the VL T arrangement that we see for the True North. I mean, it sounded pretty good when they said there was a cap on the revenues. But, you know, the Premier (Mr.

Doer) today skilfully avoided answering the question, and avoided answering it in what I consider a very deceitful way, when he compared it with the VL Ts at the race track, which is an entirely different agreement. The agreement has that 80- 20 split, not a total revenue. Again, I am arguing that this Government is doing what it is doing in order to assume a position in the debate in this country about health care, and at the same time it is not able to defend on an efficiency on a dollars and cents basis and on delivery to the public. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Cummings: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I think I am losing it here- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Cummings: I apologize to my colleagues, but what I really am concerned about is, in the delivery of what is considered a cornerstone of Canadian life, the national, portable health care delivery system, accessible, and, frankly, the accessible is starting to be challenged under the loads that our society is putting on health care today.-the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale) uses third parties on almost every fonn of delivery of the services that the Department of Family Services delivers.

The Department of Family Services uses community groups, they use private groups, they use private individuals. They embrace in many

3276 LEGI SLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 200 1 respects-so it is called one of the more socialist thinking departments of government in many cases-the private entrepreneurs and the private system to deliver the services they have to deliver. Why should we be any less so in health care? The fact is, a good percentage of the health care delivery system is private today and the one thing this Government will not admit, not only is there a good percentage of it that is privately delivered, there is a difference in how people with money and those without get health care in this province.

It is a simple fact, and unless this Government gets away from the kinds of arguments that are associated with Bill 25, they are going to continue to perpetuate the fact that those who have some additional money that they are prepared to put into looking after their own health care will be able to jump the queue. It will continue and continue, and you know where they are jumping the queue is outside of our borders. Mr. Speaker in the Chair Go outside of the province with some money in your pocket and get your health care.

That is what people who have some wealth in this province are saying when they become unwilling to wait any longer on the waiting lists that are there, and that is al

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-2-53
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 2nd hansardpdf 53.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	76f048390af87fbe4f97d1a43ff4cd648e073d22

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