Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 5 (33rd Legislature, 3rd Session)

33-3-5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 17 February, 1988. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillipa: Pres enting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Pet itions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . . . MINISTERI AL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mi nister of Employment Services and Economic Security. HON. L. EVANS: Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to table the Ann ual Report of the Department of Employment Services and Economic Security for the fiscal year 1986-87. MADAM SPEAK ER: Notices of Motion . . .

Introduction of Bills . . INTRODU CTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Quest ions, may I di rect the attention of honourable members to the gallery , where we have from Aberdeen School eight Grade 7 students under the direction of Mr. Jim Carruther-Shan and Mr. Richard Buss. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Mem ber for Burrows. On behalf of all the mem bers, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. OR AL QUESTIONS MPIC - divisional financial performance MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is for the Minister resp onsible for the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation. Madam Speaker, we have been Informed over the past month or more of the loss of $63 million in the Auto Insur ance Division of MP IC, although we haven't been given adequate explanation as to why the loss occurred and where the money went. Madam Speaker, 1 wonder If the Minister can ind icate what was the financial position in the last fiscal year of the other div isions of MP IC, the Reinsurance and General Insurance Divisions. MADAM SPE AKER: The Hono urable Min ister responsible for MPIC. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition alleges that he has not been 87 given adequate explanation of the losses sustained by MPIC in the Auto Division. I wish to reiterate again, Madam Speaker, that the losses are a direct result of escalating claims costs in excess of $300 million last year. Those 249,000 claims In fact, Madam Speaker, were the largest number in the corporation's history and, as well, the cost of claims increased from an average of just under $900 a claim to the vicinity of $1, 100 per claim.

That is, in esse nce, the loss in terms of the corporation paid to motorists as a result of either damages to autos, glass, bodily injuries, and all those areas deal ing with the claims that were incurred by the corporation. Madam Speaker, I want to as well tell my honourable friend, notwithst anding their protestat ions about the corporation, that the administrative costs of Autopac remain the lowest of any insurance corporation in the country at just under 4 cents of every premium doll ar. So, Madam Speaker, I know what the agenda is . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please.

I remind the Honour able Minis ter to keep answers to questions brief. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Minister can tell the public, who are paying increases of between 24 percent and 109 percent, how well adminis tered the corporation is. They won't believe him either. Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister heard my question. The question is: Can he report on the financial performance of the other divisions of MPIC during the last fiscal year in Reinsurance and in General Insur ance? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I wish to advise my honourable friend that the report on all aspects of the corporation will be dealt with in the committee. The annual report of the corporation should be tabled very short ly. In terms of the audited financial statement, I'll take the specifics as notice but, if the report is ready, I will be tabling it in the House as soon as possible. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, is the Minister telling me that he doesn 't know whether or not the other divisions lost any mon ey, or what their financial performance was?

We are now four months, more than four months, almost five months beyo nd the end of their last fiscal year. Is he so ill-informed that he's not getting information as to the financial performance of those other divisions of the corporation? Is that what he's telling me? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, we know what the Leader of the Opposition Is after. He just said last night that he intends to privatize MPIC. He intends to get rid of the publicly operated corporation In this province.

His own people went to the legislative committee in Toronto and basically said that they did not stand with seniors, they did not stand with consumers on the demonstration . . .

Wednesday, 17 February, 1988 SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. HON. B. UAUSKI: They were not protesting . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please! Could the Honourable Minister please come to order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. MA. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I know that the Minister would not want to leave on the record a lie. 1 did not place on the record anywhere any Information that said that we would privatize the Public Insu rance Corporation.

I said we would privatize the General Insurance Division and the Reinsu rance Division, and 1 said we would introduce competition into the auto insurance ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please, order please. Order please! One issue at a time. First of all, a dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MA. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I have a further question, if the Mini ster is obviously not going to respond to my earlier question.

MADAM SPEAKER: Well, we haven't finished dealing with the Ho nour able Leader of the Opposi tion's accusation that the Honourable Minister was lying. First of all, it's unp arliamentary to accuse another member of lying. MA. G. FILMON: He can't have it both ways, Madam Speaker. Is he going to withd raw or admit that he's lying? MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the Honourable Leader of the Opposition that a dispute over the facts Is not a point of order, and two members can have a dispute over their opinion of certain facts without one accusing the other one of lying.

Accusing another member of lying is unparl lament ary . Would the Honourable Leader of the Opposition please make it very clear that he is not making such an accusation. The Honourable Mini ster responsible for MPIC. HON. B. UAUSKI: Madam Speaker, I want to Indi cate again to my honourable friend that I will be tabling the report and all the figu res will be there, and they will be brought to committee, as I said earlier.

MADAM SPEAKER: That is not the matter that's in dispute at the moment. it's not all right for anyone to get back to the original question until the matter is resolved. , The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MA. G. FILMON: What are you suggesting, Madam Speaker? 88 MADAM SPEAKER: I'm asking that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition kindly withdraw his accusation that the Honourable Minister is lying, and then perhaps we can have the. Ho nou rable Minister cl arify his statement that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is objecting to. MA. G.

FILMON: Wel l, maybe we could have the Mini ster clarify it and there would no -that's fine. I'll be happy to have him clarify it. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, in an attempt to be helpful, I distinctly heard you ask the Leader of the Oppo sition to withd raw his comments. He knows full well that, when requested to do so in this House after having used unparliamentary language, he is obliged to do so. And he is not obliged to stand up and give you or any other person in this House direction.

The job of maintaining order, decorum, and rules in the parliamentary procedures in this House is a job that falls rightly to the Speaker , and you have the full support of all members of the House, as you have always had in attempting to pursue - (Interjection) - We ll, Madam Speaker, they have comments that they wish to put on the record, please let them have the courage to stand in their place and put them on the rec ord.

If they wish to reflect upon any member of this House, or the authority of this House, Madam Speaker, they know that there are ways that they can do that, and the way to do that is not chirping from their seats. We ll, Madam Speaker, the Member for Arthur says he doesn't need to be lectured by anyone in this House. He certainly needs to learn the rules someh ow.

So, Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition follow the time-honoured traditions and rules of this House and, as a gentleman in this House and as an honourable member in this Ho use, take his feet and have the courage to withdraw those remarks that were obviously unparliamen tary. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm sorry. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MA. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, not only is the Member for Dauphin sorry, the whole lot over there is sorry. They're a sorry lot, I'll tell you.

Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Mini ster responsible for Autopac has neither the guts nor the integrity to withd raw what is clearly an incor rect statement ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MA. G. FILMON: . . . I will withdraw my comments about lying, not because it isn't true, but because it's unparl iamentary. MADAM SPEAKER: May I also remind the honourable member that clearly In Beauchesne, using the ph rase

Wednesday, 17 February, 1988 "hasn't the guts" is also unparliamentary? Could the honourable member please withdraw that? MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'll change that to intestinal fortitude. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, clearly I would ask my honourable friend, without reservation, to withdraw those comments. I would do the same thing. MR. G. FILMON: I withdrew them because they were unparliamentary . MR. A. DRIEDGER: That's right, and you're not getting anything more.

MADAM SPEAK ER: May I ask all honourable members, whether asking questions or responding to questions and certainly in their comments from their seats, to maintain the proper parliamentary decorum and use only parliamentary language? That way, I think we can proceed in an orderly fashion, and each side of the house will be able to achieve their objectives and the objectives of question period. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: With a question? MADAM SPEAKER: I asked the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comment. MR. G. FILMON: I did.

I said I withdrew it because it's unparliamentary, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The one about . MR. G. FILMON: Lying. Guts I changed to intestinal fortitude. I don't think that's in the list. MADAM SPEAKER: Okay, thank you very much. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, would you like to go over my questions to see if there's anything else? MADAM SPEAKER: it's a bit difficult when we go back and forth and back and forth. Now, does the Honourable Leader of the Opposition have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Yes, I do , Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Please place it. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I implore the Minister responsible for M PlC - we've been through this before, where we've asked questions in the House about information that he clearly had under his jurisdict ion, 'not to just this Minister but his predecessor, the Minister responsible for M PlC, the Member for Gimli , would not come clean and tell us when there were losses in other divisions at MPIC.

That resulted, Madam Speaker, in him having to make acknowledgements outside of the House against the privileges of this side of the House. 89 Madam Speaker, they might as well learn, they're not going to keep things hidden. They didn't on MTX; they haven't on MPIC and the reinsurance losses. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Just come clean. Tell us, what are the results of the other divisions of MPIC, the Reinsurance and General Insurance Divisions, in their last fiscal year of operation?

MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has asked that question, the same question or substantially the same question twice before. lt's repetitious. WCB - rehabilitation injured workers MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker, yesterday in reply to the questions I posed to the Minister reponsible for the Workers Compensation, he stated that their only concern was for the injured workers and that's why there were losses.

Madam Speaker, research has shown that, if injured workers don't get back to work within a year, their chances of ever going back to work are less than 10 percent. Madam Speaker, presently at the Manitoba Workers Compensation Board, there is a delay of anywhere from 12 to 18 months for workers getting into rehab. How can this Minister justify this inadequate and inhumane treatment of injured workers? Can this Minister now tell us if they are interested in the treatment of the injured worker? Are they really sincerely interested? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, it's very clear that the whole area of rehabilitation is the secret to the success of Workers Compensation. If we are ever going to be successful as Workers Compensation in getting injured workers back, the whole area of rehabilitation is one that's going to have to be working. We realize there was no rehabilitation during the years that the former administration was in office, but then that"s why the Rehabilitation Department was set up. We know it's not a perfect system. We have been making progress in that area, but we recognize there are further changes to be made.

We also recognize that there is going to have to be some goodwill on the part of the employers to take back injured workers. lt is not enough just to retrain the injured workers. The injured workers have to go back to a job. That is the responsibility of the employers. We are having meetings with them at this time to see if they can accept the responsibility to a greater degree because, very clearly, the rehabilitation program has got to be working. There have been some gains made, but we've got to make more improvements if we're going to be making the Workers Compensation a more humane organization.

w.ctneeday. 17 February. 1181 MR. E. CONNERY: lt is a breath of fresh air to have this Minister admit for once that there are real severe problems at the Workers Compensation Board. If this Minister really has an interest in putting injured workers back to work, he would ensure that they get to rehabilitation early. Will this Minister now commit himself to a program that will ensure early and adequate rehabilitation? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, very clearly that has been a commitment of ours for the last several years. Rehabilitation is a priority with the Workers Compensation.

We recognize that there need to be some changes, some improvements made in rehabilitation that is going on there. We are committed to bringing the rehabilitation of injured workers and to get the injured workers back to work. But as I said before, it takes a commitment from industry as well. We are having ongoing discussions with industry to see if there could be a greater commitment to taking the injured workers back. Very clearly, they've got a large, very critical role to play in this whole area of rehabilitation and bringing their injured workers back to work. MR. E.

CONNERY: Madam Speaker, my concern is to save the Workers Compensation system from being ruined by mismanagement. Madam Speaker, there is a report on long-term claims disability, called the Cormack Report. Madam Speaker, that report not only showed the millions of dollars we are losing through inefficiencies, it also showed how to get injured workers back to work soon. Madam Speaker, this Minister has b9E!n sitting on the report for a year. Madam Speaker, will this Minister now table the report in this House, and see If it's hatched? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, any reports that have come under my responsibility have been tabled. The Cormack Report which he refers to and which he has a copy of, because his Leader quoted from it extensively during last year's Estimates, so if they want - it's the property of the Workers Compensation Board. If they have no problem making it public, I have no problem. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie on a point of order. MR. E. CONNERY: Yes, Madam Speaker. The Minister is errantly saying that we have a copy of the report.

Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House do not have a copy of that report and so, when he makes that statement, he is . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, with a final supplementary. MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker, is the reason that this Minister is refusing to release the report the fact that it contradicts the direction in which this government 90 and this chairman of the board plan to go with Workers' Compensation? In other words, does efficiency in this operation not count? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, the Member for Portage la Prairie speaks about contradictions. I think he is the classic example of contradictions. He talks about rehabilitation, and yet he talks about reducing costs. You cannot have both. Very clearly, that's why we had the implementation team who were dealing with the whole cost of the Legislative Review Committee. We are committed to implementing that review committee, but we want to know what our costs are going to be before we move ahead with the Legislative Review Committee.

That legislation will be brought forward here during this Session, and we will be having the costs and we will have a plan of how we're going to be recovering from the unfunded liability as well. MPIC - mailing costs MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for MPIC. My office has had a number of inquiries about an unsolicited letter that individuals throughout the province have received from the Minister, signed by the Minist er, outlining the benefits of Autopac.

In a time when our honourable members have been told there's a limit on their mailing, how wide is the circulation of this particular letter and at what cost? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the honourable member should know that we have received calls from many Manitobans, received petitions and concerns raised as a result of the changes in the insurance rates that were announced in December. The government did take those concerns to heart and, in fact, made a number of substantive changes to those rates.

As well, we are responding to those people who have contacted us and a number of other people. In fact, Madam Speaker, I have no apologies at all for writing Manitobans who have voiced concerns, telling them that we have the best benefits in the country and amongst the lowest rates in the country and the most efficient insurance corporation anywhere in North America. MRS. S. CAR STAIRS: Madam Speak er, a supplementary question to the same Minister.

Why would this letter, this unsolicited letter, be sent to individuals living in a senior citizens' complex, many of whom do not even own cars and therefore have no complaints about Autopac? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, there have been many Manitobans, some of whom have had cars or not, have signed petitions and have been on petitions, names whom we have responded to and we have sent

Wednesday, 17 February, 1988 letters outlining the benefits of the publicly operated insurance system in this province. Madam Speaker, let it be very clear that the liberals of this province voted against publicly operated auto insurance. The New Democratic Party stood in favour of it. Madam Speaker, we know that there are difficulties in the insurance indus try right across North America, and we are working with Manitobans to make our insurance system better. lt would be interest ing to know where the Liberal Party now stands in auto insurance, Madam Speaker. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: A final supplement ary, in an attempt to get a straight answer. Madam Speaker, would the Honourable Minister responsible for M PlC tell the House this afternoon who is bearing the cost of this letter? Is it his department, a department in the government already running huge deficits, or is it M PlC which is also running huge deficits? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, it will be the same people of this province who pay for her mailings. WCB - Crown lnv. Act, exclusion MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon We st. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question is dir ected to the Min ister respon sible for the Workers Compensation Board. The Throne Speech places a new emphasis, Madam Speaker, on Crown accountabil ity, an emphasis that never has been needed before the election of the New Democrats of this province. But in view of the fact, Madam Speaker, that empl oyers in this province are being asked to shoulder huge and massive increases in Wo rkers Compensation premiums, can the Min ister tell us why it was that the Workers Compensation Board was excluded from the

schedule of Crown corporations and boards and agencies which come under the umbrella of The Crown Corporations Accountability Act? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister respo nsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, the Workers Compensation Board has always been an autonomous corporation, and it remains autonomous in relations this time. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speake r, to the First Min ister, if I can get his attent ion. Will the government be considering placing the Workers Compensation Board under that umbrella, and will it use the powers provided in

Section 11 to include WCB in the schedule, which would allow for the scrutiny that's provided in the act? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Crown Investments. HON. G. DOER: Wel l, Madam Speaker, I'm quite surprised at the honourable mem ber. The

schedule was 91 tabled last yea r in the commi ttee dealing with the legislation. We made it very clear what groups were covered by the act in terms of the commercial Crowns, as opposed to the noncommercial Crowns. Madam Speaker, at that time, I don't recall any requests from the members opposite that the Workers Compensation Board be included.

Madam Speaker , we will have four Crown corporations under The Crown Accountability Act that will appear before the public in terms of the services they provide and, further to that, for the first time ever, all the Crown corpora tions under The Crown Accountability Act will appear before the Legislature. So the Crowns never before that appeared before the Legislature as separate entities will appear before this Manitoba Legislature, Madam Speaker. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker, will the government include the Workers Compensation Board in the list of corporations, agencies and boards that are subject to the joint councils and the service committees as set out in sections 12 and 13? These things are needed, Madam Speaker, so that Manitobans and employers and employees across the province can understand where it is all their money is going. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Crown Investments. HON. G.

DOER: Madam Speaker, last year in the debate in this House on that bill, members across the way condemned the concept of emp loyer/employee consultations from almost ever yone that spoke against the bill . Now, Madam Speaker , they think it's such a good idea, they want us to expand the number of groups under joint councils. They better get their act together first, Madam Speaker. Farm income relief MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Mini ster of Agriculture, Madam Speaker.

Manitoba farmers, Madam Speaker, are in the third year of a very serious economic situation. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, so the Honourable Member for Virden can ask his que stion. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will repeat, Manitoba farmers are in the third year of a very serious economic situation. Because of serious neglect by this NDP Government, Madam Speaker, it has resulted in Manitoba farmers experiencing, on the average in 1987, the greatest percentage net decline in net realized income of any province in Canada. The projection by Ag.

Canada for 1988 is a further decline of 19 percent, Madam Speaker. lt's intolerable and unacceptable. Is this Minister of Agriculture going to do anything to offset that serious problem at the family farm level?

Wedneada ); 17 February, 1988 MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister for Agriculture. HON. L HARAPIAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address the very serious issue of farm incomes across Western Canada that the member refers to. To put it in the proper context, Madam Speaker, I think it's important to note where the average income of Manitoba farmers has been relative to our neighbors to the west. The average net income in the previous year for Manitoba was higher than Saskatchewan. lt is higher than that in Alberta, Madam Speaker.

Given that there are some very serious issues to address, there are declines which we would rather not see, but I think the level at which Manitoba farm incomes are relative to our neighbors to the west indicate that things have been done well in Manitoba. The programs that we have put in place have addressed the issues and maintained the level of farm income in Manitoba at a higher level than Saskatchewan or Alberta. MR. G.

FINDLAY: Given that the Manitoba Government has spent, on average, about $3,100 per farm in support, Saskatchewan, $5,800, and Alberta, $8,800, Madam Speaker, and Manitoba is falling behind the other two for those reasons, is the Minister going to address that situation? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I thought it was the members from the opposite side who always claimed to be able to manage money well. lt's not just a question of spending money, Madam Speaker, but getting some results for that.

What the member says with respect to the level of expenditure in Manitoba is true. lt's in the range of $3, 000 .00. lt is higher though, Madam Speaker, than Saskatchewan, which is slightly below, except if you want to start taking into account, as some of the members opposite have, loans to farmers. We don't count loans to farmers as that money. Further to which, in Alberta where the level of expenditure is some $4,500 per farmer, in excess of Manitoba's, in excess of Saskatchewan, the level of farm income in Alberta is lower than either Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

So it's not only a question of spending, but it's spending wisely, Madam Speaker. MR. G. FINDLAY: Farmers have spent wisely, Madam Speaker, and controlled their costs, but this Minister has allowed his government to increase Autopac substantially, hydro rates, telephone rates, has done nothing to help the farmers address the cost side.

I would like to ask the Minister if he considers that an average net farm income of $14,599 on which a farm family must live and pay for all capital expenditures on land, equipment, buildings, if it is government policy that that is an adequate level of Income for a farm family in Manitoba. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, clearly we on this side have never indicated that is an adequate level of income for a farm family. But it's important to note, Madam Speaker, that the question of farm price supports, the price for commodities is a responsibility 92 of the Federal Government.

We have participated in some of those price support programs but, if there are the kinds of shortfalls that exist, I think the member opposite should be addressing that to some of his federal counterparts. On the question of input costs, Madam Speaker, when he refers to the question of Autopac, I have done a comparison of farm vehicle costs on my farm compared with neighbouring jurisdictions, and those vehicles are less costly to insure in Manitoba than they would be in Saskatchewan, Alberta or Ontario. Agreement re beans and feedlots MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden, with a final supplementary.

MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, a final supplementary. I'm interested in hearing the Minister say that he is prepared to participate in cost-sharing stabilization programs with the Federal Government. I would like to ask him if that means that he's also prepared to sign an agreement for beans and for feedlot operators? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, as the Member for Virden points out, we are already participants in tripartite programs. We are participating in the hog program, which is a tripartite program.

We are participants in the sugar beet program. lt's interesting to note, Madam Speaker, having met with the sugar beet producers, I asked them why they did not ask to remain under The Agricultural Stabilization Act. They said that was our preference, but the Federal Government backed out of the program and we had no choice but to come to the province to save that industry. On the other items that have been mentioned, Madam Speaker, on the question of stabilization for beans, we have indicated to the producers and to the Federal Government that we are prepared to participate in that program.

We will provide the administration. They can share in the premiums. The producers have agreed to that. We have not yet had agreement from the Federal Government that they will agree to that. On the question of beef that the member raises, we have indicated our commitment to a feedlot program but it is not a simple issue, as the Member for Virden would suggest, because, in meeting with beef producers throughout the province and in my office, clearly some of the producers themselves have said, we don't want to be part of tripartite on beef. We want to be within the provincial program. I can provide the information.

People within the program have said there are benefits to be here. If the members opposite want to know the name, I will say yes. The Manitoba Cattlefeeders' Association has indicated to me in my office they would prefer to be with the provincial plan, rather than with federal tripartite.

w.dneede y, 17 February, 1988 Remand Centre site MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR. H. SMITH: My question is for the Minister of Community Services. With today's news story about the new Remand Centre, has your department or yourself given consideration for alternative sites other than an urban site, other than having the Remand Centre built in Winnipeg, Headingley, or other sites, for cost factors? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services and Corrections. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

Actually, Madam Speaker, we, like other jurisdictions that have recently built new remand centres out in British Columbia and in Edmonton, have made the decision to build the remand centre in the city next to the courts, adjacent to the courts. There are very good reasons for that, Madam Speaker. The greatest reason for doing that is securi ty. I want you to try to picture this, Madam Speaker. We process something like 100 to 150 inmates a day through the court system. Can you imagine us running a shuttle service from Headingley down to the court system?

Madam Speaker, there are a number of Issues here, the cost of transporting and running buses from Headlngley, but certainly the public would want the security of our having them adjacent to the court system. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. May I remind Honourable Ministers to keep answers to questions brief? Youth - employment training MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. M. SMITH: I apologize, Madam Speaker. - (Interjection) - I'm not wearing my hearing aid.

On February 15, I took as notice a question from the Member for River Heights having to do with apprenticeship. Madam Speaker , because it is a program of which we have been very proud, which has had an excellent record, I was really concerned to hear about the alleged difficulties that one Michael Allemeier had. Now In investigating, Madam Speaker, the facts of the case are this: Michael was in a new trade, that of cook.

In line with our new policy of allowing people to challenge for credit at Level I, he and four other young people were able to achieve their Level I status without taking the instructional courses. Now, apprenticeship is a combination of work experience hours and instructional hours. The courses are set up when there is a sufficiently large class to justify it. In this case, because these young people, five of them, were a year ahead of the larger number of 93 people, the course was not available as frequently as is normally the case.

However, in the interim, he is able to accumulate his work experience hours, receive his pay and in fact is not losing any ti me. We now have a tentat ive commitment that Level 11 courses will be available in April of this year. So again, I think that his needs are being met with, and that is the background to that situation. Freedom of lnfo. bill - proclamation date MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

The Minister responsible for MPIC has once again demonstrated the need for the proclamation of The Freedom of Information Act, Madam Speaker. I would ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the bill was promised in 1982, a draft was circulated in 1983 and it was passed in July 1985, and the then Minister promised to proclaim it within a couple of months, can the Minister now indicate when the bill will be proclaimed, or will it continue to be deferred, or have not sufficient records been destroyed? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. HON.

J. WASYLYC IA -LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first thing that needs to be done in responding to that question is to categorically reject the premises of that question and the falsehoods that continue to be spread by members opposite about the shredding of any documents. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that I sometimes wonder why members opposite keep pushing for proclamation of this legislation when they don't accept the facts as presented.

I stated very clearly in the last Session that this government was working as quickly as possible to put in place the necessary mechanisms to ensure effective proclamation of the legislation. We have not gone back on that word. We are working frantically and as expeditiously as possible to do that, Madam Speaker, and I would hope that the Member for St. Norbert would, for once, listen to those words and accept them as fact. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister. I believe the archivist has publicly stated that records have been destroyed.

I wonder if she would speak to him and advise this House what records have been destroyed. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I suggested that the premise of the member's question was false, in that he suggested that there was some sort of deliberate shredding of documents.

Weclnu4My. 17 February. 1981 Madam Speaker, as addressed in the last Session of this House, the facts were presented, the situation described, the Auditor's Report clarified that matter, and I would hope that members opposite would read that report and ask questions on the basis of that report and not on the basis of unfounded allegations. MR. G. MEACIE A: Madam Speaker, can the Minister give the Hou9e a definite date as to when the act will be proclaimed? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, as I said in the last Session, we are committed to proclaiming that legislation.

We are working quickly towards that goal, and as soon as all of the mechanisms are in place so that the proclamation of the Freedom of Information legislation is done on a meaningful basis, the legislation will be proclaimed. Madam Speaker, the members opposite will realize, from their very short term in government, that the records of governments going back many, many decades had not been managed.

Madam Speaker, we should take pride in the fact that we are moving as quickly as we are with respect to proclamation, given the fact that it was only in the latter part of 1981 that a process for record management was put in place. That compares with four decades of work that happened on the federal scene prior to their proclamation of Freedom of Information legislation and approximately 22 years in the Ontario case. So, Madam Speaker, given the state of the records that all of us are responsible for, we are moving on course.

We are sticking to our goal and we are as committed as ever to the proclamation of this legislation. Compensation re lost elevator MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MA. C. BAKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Highways. Recently the farmers in Lac du Bonnet lost an elevator and they're forced to haul greater distances. The Senior Grain Transportation Committee recommended that these farmers be compensated for the extra haulage distance. Is there anything being done to implement that particular recommendation?

MADAM SPEA KER : The Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Senior Grain Transportation has in Manitoba held a number of meetings, specifically in the Riverton area and the Pine River-Cowan area, to Inform the public of their recommendations. Basically, what they are recommending is that compensation be provided only to those farmers that are being inconvenienced.

They are not taking into account at all the additional cost to the province of highways and to the municipalities for lost assessments or increased highway cost, nor are they looking at the impact on many of our smaller communities. Certainl y, from the province's position, we are not at all supportive of the recommendations of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. 94 MA. C. BAKER: Elementary, Madam Speaker. Both the two rallroads are offering farmers discounts at certain locations. Can you tell this House what the effect of that will have on smaller points?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation, if that's in his jurisdiction. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That's a very timely question in view of the question raised by the Member for Virden. In fact, we are so concerned, if we are concerned about the loss of income to our farming community, this is a good reason why farmers are having a lesser income. The Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway have proposed that certain elevators be designated so that, If a minimum number of carloads are delivered through, there be a discount.

We are supportive of lower transportation costs, but we would want that to be available to all grain producers at all delivery points and for grain destined to all ports, whether it be Churchill, whether it be Thunder Bay, or whether it be the West Coast.

The fact Is that the proposal from CN/CP would not assist Churchill because it does not apply to the old style car. lt would apply only to the grain hoppers. lt has the potential of steering most farmers towards larger communities and therefore there are additional highway costs, there are additional costs to the producers, and certainly there is a concern again about the viability of smaller elevators. So with respect to the request to the Canadian Transport Commission by CN and CP, we do not support that.

As a matter of fact, I have, as the Minister of Highways and Transportation, advised the CTC of our concerns, have written the Federal Minister of Transportation and regretfully have not heard back from the Minist er. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Vital and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, standing, by leave, in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MA. G. MEACIEA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I didn't have an opportunity to respond to the Throne Speech at the last Session of the Legislature, but I'm pleased to have the opportunity this time because my constituents are simply furious with this government, as are, I think, the majority of the population of this province, Madam Speaker. I would like, in the few minutes alloted to me, to review the activities of most of the Ministers in this government, to show how incompetently this government has been run and is being run, and why my constituents are so furious with this government. Let me begin, Madam Speaker, with the Honourable Attorney-General.

Never in the history of this province,

Wldneedey, 17 Februery, 1188 I think, has the administration of justice been in such poor hands. I'm so hard-pressed that I might even congratulate the former Attorney-General on the way he handled the portfolio. But, Madam Speaker, we have an Attorney-General who has virtually disbanded the Law Reform Commission, an independent body to review the laws of this province, and which has done an admirable job through the Schreyer administration, through the Lyon administration, and up to this point in time. He stands up in this House, Madam Speaker, and says the government has to make the tough decisions.

You know, we've got to cut back money, and he cuts back $22,000 in honorariums. Meanwhile, he neglects to point out, Madam Speaker, that the former Attorney-General - and he is continuing it - have developed a research and planning department that spends $400,000 a year under his political direction. That is supposed to be the independent body that's substituting for the Manitoba Law Reform Commission. Well, that is not acceptable.

That is not acceptable to many members of the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, or the Conservative Party, Madam Speaker, and that was only one of the first decisions that he made. He has subsequently said that he was going to consult with the Manitoba Bar Association on the appointment of judges, and he did consult. He submitted a list, and the Bar Association executive unanimously reject one of the persons who he subsequently appoints. Well, Madam Speaker, can you imagine the relationship that now exists between the Attorney-General and the Bar Association?

Madam Speaker, when a person consults, surely - and I agree with him that the Bar Association of the Law Society are not the people who are going to appoint the judges of this province. lt will be the Attorney General. But when you consult as to basic competence and fitness to serve in that position and the unanimous rejection of a person, then I think it's simply terrible for the system that he has appointed that person, whoever it Is. Madam Speaker, I wish he were here today.

I was going to ask him some questions about the statements of his Deputy Attorney-General, who apparently speaks for his department most of the time, who said the court delays in the setting down of criminal trials in the Provincial Judges Court that now amount to 10 months is no cause for alarm. That's the policy of that department, appa rently. That is absolutely horrendous to the system, as his own Crown Attorneys are saying, Madam Speaker. When we assumed office in 1977, there was a six month delay, and that was horrendous.

We dealt with that as a priorit y. lt was reduced to three months when the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge took over the office of the Attorney-General. He will recall the number of times that I raised that . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I'm having difficulty hearing the honourable member. If members would like to have private conversations, could they do so elsewhere? MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, you will recall the number of times I raised that Issue with him during 95 consideration of his Estimates. He unfortunately allowed that delay to get up to six months.

Now it's 10 months, Madam Speaker, and for the Attorney-General to allow his Deputy Minister to say that is no cause for alarm in this province is totally unacceptable, and the system cannot allow that to continue. But this Attorney-General has accepted that. He's accepted, Madam Speaker, delays at the Land Titles Office. His department, either himself or through his Deputy Minister, are implementing a change in court reporting to an electronic system which is unacceptable to many people in the courts. Madam Speaker, there was consultation from us. That consultation has not taken place.

Madam Speaker, that is the first department that is in worse shape than it has ever been in the history of this province. Then, Madam Speaker, we have the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance , as an example of what is occurring in each and every department, introduced a land transfer tax at the last Session of this Legislature, which was to apply to the sale of shares, a controlling interest in shares when there was an interest in land involved. Madam Speaker, they're now going to have to withdraw that whole section. lt was not well considered, well-thought-out, and it will have to be withdrawn.

But more importantly than that, Madam Speaker, this Minister of Finance, I think, initiated this whole chain of events which has culminated in the reaction to the MPIC premium increases. When he imposed that 2 percent tax on net income, when he increased the sales tax and expanded its base, when he increased the payroll tax, Madam Speaker, that was the start of the events that have led to the recent polling which has shown this government in such disarray, because people's pay cheques, starting in July of last year, were reduced even though many of them had pay raises supposed to be implemented as of July 1.

But he started that whole reaction. We have seen, Madam Speaker, the increase in the debt that has occurred under this government, a doubling of the debt of this province. Interest charges, which formerly in 1981 took up about $97 million or $98 million growing to $500 million a year. We've seen the foreign exchange losses which this government has been warned about on a continual basis, and we have an absolutely noncompetitive taxation system in this province, Madam Speaker.

I can tell members of this government that I am continually receiving calls from people in my constituency who are leaving this province because of the tax regime in this province. We then have also under this Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker, he created a large uproar last summer when he told every department to go through a 5 percent cutback exercise over three years and what the effects of that would be. The departments all did that and were very upset about it. Then what happened?

He enters into a three-year contract with MGEA for three percent increases in the first year, three percent increases in the second year, cost-of-living and no lay offs. Madam Speaker, what was the original exercise all about if you're going to enter into a contract of this nature? Madam Speaker, one other point that again has to be mentioned is that this government did substantial damage to the Civil Service by the partisan political appointments that have been made throughout the Civil

.. .. .. ,,. 17 February, 1188 Service, not just to the Order-in-Council appointments but to dlr ectorships and managers throughout the Civil Service. Career civil servants are extremely upset with what is happening. Madam Speaker, we then get to the now Minis ter of Labour - thank God she's no longer the Minister of Community Services! - and one has to ask what is this woman doing stiH In the Cabinet? What is she doing still in the Cabinet?

Madam Speake r, there is so much evidence that the mi stakes th at occurred in her department have been responsi ble for the deaths of Infant children, the mutila tion and maiming of infant children. lt's not jus t me that's now saying this, Madam Speak er. The Sigurdson-Reid report said it; the report on the Northwest that was released last fall said it; and the new Minister of Community Services said it, Madam Speaker . She said it.

When the report on Northwest Community Services was released in Octobe r, the now Minister said: "Two babies who died of child abuse last year might have been saved if the child welfare system had been tightened up." She admitted the government had failed to provide adequate direction to child welfare agencies, leaving many workers unable to do their jobs properl y.

The report spells out that there should have been better procedures, better policies, better systems, better ways of eva luating and monitoring. it's not just us who are saying it. it's not just some outside consultants who are saying it. it's another Minis ter in that Cabinet who is now saying that about her, Madam Speake r. That's not the only criticism that the new Minister of Community Services has confirmed, Madam Speaker . Do you remember, Madam Speaker, when the now Minister of Labour sent her "Swat team" into the Winndell Homes to revoke the licence and upset 24 elderly persons living in that home.

She said: "We have substantiated reasons for this." What did the new Minister say? After investigation, she said, "lt was a mistake." A mistake? The former Minister didn't follow proper procedures and lacked the necessary information to make a proper decision. So, Madam Speak er, it comes from another Minister within this government, conde mning the former Mini ster of Community Services. There's been another tragedy , Madam Speaker, the death of Russell Smith in a group home. The former Minis ter said eve rything was okay when the parents expressed concerns. What did the new Minister say?

She issued a press release ordering immediate changes to residential care home operating procedures. Madam Speaker, the former Minister announced an increase in the grant in August to Child and Family Services agencies throughout the province. The new Minis ter, after it was seen that there was simply not enough money for the agencies to carry on, that they were spending more time trying to deal with budget cutbacks within their agencies than on the job they were supposed to do, had to call another press conference in November to increase the grant.

Wel l, Madam Speake r, we have said she's incompetent; outside people have said she's incompetent. Now another Mi nister in her own government has said that she's incompetent. Why don't they throw her out, Madam Speaker? But can you imagine her? She's now the Minister of Labour. At least, 96 to a certain degree, there are no longer human lives involved. We can change the legislation later on. We can establish a better climate, Madam Speaker, but one can only wonder at the leaders hip that she will give to that particular department.

Then we have the Prem ier, Madam Speaker, the so called Premier, the puppet of the manipulators and image-make rs and communi cators on that side of the Hous e and in the offices throughout this building. He doesn't make any decisions, Madam Speaker. They have avoided, in any way, him taking any accountability or respo nsibili ty for this government, Madam Speaker.

But at this Session of the Legislature, he's going to have to because our Leader and our caucus have decided that, in the order of the Estimates that we choose where we pick the first two, the first one in the House and the first one outside the House, the first one we're going to pick in the House, Madam Speaker, is Executive Council, and this Premier is going to finally have to answer for the activities of this government. He may be there a very long time, Madam Speaker, because he certai nly hasn't taken any responsibility so far. But he will this time, Madam Speak er.

He'll have to take respons ibility, Madam Speaker . You know, what does a Cabinet Minister have to do in this government to get removed? Apparently, there's nothing. He's going to have to take respo nsibili ty, Madam Speaker, for this horrendous waste of money on commun icators, 11 6 communicators. There are some 23 people employed in that capacity when they took office, and they're now up to 11 6. Can you imagine lt?

You see them hovering around the doors to this Cha m ber , Madam Speak er, pushing the press, manipulating the press, throwing in answers, standing there, listening to a critic from this side of the House. Taxpayers' money is being used for that purpose . it's unbelievable. While they're closing beds and doing ev erything else, Madam Speaker, and using taxpayers' money for polling, which when they were in Opposition before 19 81, they didn't want to see and we didn't spend a cent on polling. We move down the line to the Minister of Health who, in the Throne Speech, says our health care system 's in great shape.

Madam Speaker, if it's in such great shape, why is the Manitoba Medical Association spending $500,000 in advert ising to tell us it's in bad shape? This is the Minister who says to the doctors: "If you don't like it, leave." Well, that's terrific. That's a great attitude, Madam Speaker. Then we move on to the Minister of Municipal Affairs responsible for MPIC. I want to say to him, as I said to him across the Hous e, Madam Speaker, you know, I welcomed his appointment as Minis ter of Mu nicipal Affairs because he was Minis ter of Muni cipal Affairs in 1977 when they lost the following elect ion.

So his appointment to this position bodes we ll, Madam Speak er. He's been working like heck to make sure they get defeated ever since he got appointed. He's giving $90,000 or $98,000 - which is it, $90,000 or $98,000.00? - but he's giving $90,000 or $98,000 per year to Mr. Silver. He doesn't have to. There's no minimum re quirement as to what he has to do to earn that money, Madam Speaker. The people who are paying the increases in Autopac premiums, paying more for less coverage are not going to be very happy about that, Madam Speak er.

Wedneeday, 17 February, 1888 There's no question, Madam Speaker, that there should be political res ponsibility for what happens. The Ministers have been the chairmen of the boards. They can't avoid political responsibility by continually firing members of the Civil Service who work for them. When do they take respo nsibil ity, or do they ever take responsi bility? The people of Manitoba are going to have to make them responsible in the next election, Madam Speaker, because they won't offer to take any responsi bility.

We move on to the Minis ter of Educ ation and one of his first pronouncements, increases in education financing. We're going to change the way municipalities have to the remit the money to the school boards. But did he talk to the city, or did he talk to the mun icipal associ ations? No, he didn't. He just announced it; that's it. That's this caring, listening, sharing government, Madam Speaker. He didn't even talk to them. Then we move on, Madam Speaker , to the Minister re sponsible for the Workers Com pensation Board, average asses sment increases in premiums of 109 perce nt.

That's what has occurred since they took office, 109 percent in six years, plus a $4 million grant from the Treasury a few years ago. What is the deficit going to be, $194 million now? No, but they are adding $10 million, because they're not collecting enough this year. There's another $10 million with a $1 94 million deficit. lt's not only illegal. What do you say to futur e people who want to invest and develop plans and employ people in Manitoba? Welcome to Manitoba. Here's a $1 94 million deficit in Workers Compensation you're going to have to pay for when you come. So hu rry up and come.

Do you think they'r e anxious to come? Now the irony of it all is, because of this mismanagement, they go to the hospitals and say you've got to pay an extra 37 percent per year. The Minis ter of Health says that has to come out of your fixed grant. So you reduce hospital services even more to pay for the incompe tence at the Workers Compensation Board. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny, Madam Speak er, but it's absolute ly tragic what's happening. Of course, what happened to the former chairperson of the board? Did she get fired, thrown out on her ear for this terrible record? No.

She got a $64,0 00 job in the Health Department. This government obviously thinks incompetence is so good that they pay you even more the more incompetent you are. lt's phenomenal, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Energy and Mines comes in the House and tells us we spent $589,000.00. - (Interject ion) - There are a lot of people in here who don't want to get in the question period for a few weeks, Madam Speaker .

Then we have the Minister of Energy and Mines who tells us that he made a good investment spending $589,000 - I believe it's higher than that, but let's settle for $589,000 - in attempting to acquire a gas company that this side of the Ho use and the public of Manitoba told them for months they were insane to attempt to proceed with. That's supposed to be a good inves tment.

What kind of a reputation does that set for this province, Madam Speaker , when we we have the government moving to acquire or expropr iate private busi ness when it would do no good, when they have the Public Utilities Board in any event to regulate prices? So, Madam Speaker, they not only wasted money, they have done serious damage to the reputation of this province. 97 Now we have another story un folding, Madam Speaker, und er this Minister, the Manitoba Hydro and its rates. We all know how Limestone was advanced two years for political reaso ns, for some short-term economic and political gain.

The NDP since they've assumed office have increased rates, according to my calculations - and I'm probably low - some 36 percent, with another 4.5 percent in 1988. Where, Madam Speaker, is the Heritage Fund that we were suppose to have? Where is the money in the Heritage Fund? lt appears now, Madam Speaker, that there have been slight changes in calculations. We 're not really going to have a Heritage Fund. What we're going to have is a $40-million loss from 19 90 to 1992, which is going to be added on to further increases in the rates.

We're going to have a real shocker of an increase in rates after the next election if this govern ment's returned to office. That's going to be monstrous, Madam Speaker . They have bungled again that whole area and, regretfully, the taxpayers and ratepayers of this province are going to pay heavily for that mi stake in mismana gement, probably much greater than the Auto pac increase that people are worried about right now, when those hydro rates have to go up as a re sult of the bungling of this government. We move down the line a little bit to the Minister of High ways, the Member for Gimli.

Will taxpayers ever be able to forgive this government for building that $20-million bridge that goes to nowhere? Somebody's going to have to pay for the roads to the bridge. Madam Speaker, they talk about tough decisions on spending and it's tough to be in gove rnment. They keep making mistakes like this. Madam Speaker, it's going to cost millions of dollars to do that. We've seen, in any event, how partisan their spending is when they spend three times as much in NDP constituencies on rural road construc tion, even though we have by far the majority of the mem bers, Madam Speaker.

I was astounded today to hear the answer from the Minis ter of Culture and Recrea tion. I'd wanted to ask the Attorney-Ge neral a question but, when he wasn't here, I thought I would ask the Minister of Cultu re a question about freedom of information because I thought she was really going to stand up and say we're ready to implement The Freedom of Information Act, it will be proclaimed Apri1 1, we now have all the records in store. But she didn't even give a commitment, Madam Speaker. I don't think they're ever going to proclaim it now.

I'm convinced that they won't proclaim it, that they don't have the courage to proclaim it, that there's some thing they want to hide. What else can be the rea son, Madam Speak er, when you promised it in 1982, when you circulated a draft act in 1983, which was passed in July of 1985? The Member for Fort Rouge then said, it will only be a matter of a few months before it's proclaimed. lt's still not proclaimed, and there's no evidence it will ever be proclaimed.

Madam Speaker , I think one can refer to the Federal Gove rnment, and I think one should look at the experienc e they had, because that legislation was passed and proclaimed relatively quick ly. The other as tounding fact Is that, when we consider this legisla tion, the then Attorney- General, the Member for Fort Rouge, he'll well remember the represe ntations

� 17 February, 1• that were made that said the time for complying with a request for information was too long, was 30 days, and people wanted it to be reduced to 14 days. He made the argument, which seemed rather sensible at the time. We agreed to it. We're going to bring the act in, people are going to be new to the situation. If we make it 30 days, it wiH give them time to comply with the requests for information. We said, sure, go ahead, we'H reYiew it In three years and see how it develops and said, maybe then we can shorten the time.

Madam Speaker, we accommodated aH of their requests. 1t seemed reasonable lt should be brought in, 30 days to find a letter, a piece of information, respond to lt. I think that destroys the argument that they're making if, in fact, it's correct the records are supposedly in this bad shape. Madam Speaker, I must admi t I'm astounded that the Mi nister and this government would not give a commitment today, 33 years later, to saying that they would proclaim the act at some near date in the future without giving any indication that it will ever be proclaimed at all.

Madam Speaker, we have the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, and that tourism

part is the most ironical. Where are we going to be looking to for tourists, Madam Speaker? From Russia, from China? Su rely, I guess our whole program of attracting American tourists is out the window with this Minister. What were the geniuses over there thinking about when they made him Minister of Small Business and Tourism? The guy who stood in front of the U.S. Consulate when they burned the U.S. flag, the guy who goes to high school students in the City of Winnipeg and tells them that the Marines are going to invade Canada over the Free Trade Agreement, and he is our Tourism Minister.

Again, Madam Speaker, if it wasn't so serious, it would be tunny, but it's just absolutely amazing. Of course, the Small Business part of it is just as bad. This left-wing socialist, against private enterprise, tx.wns his Eaton's credit card, and he is going to help small businesS? This follows upon his final offer selection that every business organization in the province opposed and they make him Minister of Small Business and Tourism. What must have happened, Madam Speak er, would be something like, I guess, the redistribution that took place for 19 81.

They made all the decisions, they finally got down to one little area left on the map and it became the Gimli constituency, as my suggestion, because it didn't make any sense at all. That's just like the appointment of him as Minister of SmaH Business and Tourism. lt doesn't make any sense at all. Next , we have the new Minister of Agriculture, and 1 thought, Madam Speaker, that he might do some credit to that job.

But after hearing him today when the serious questions are put to him about the level of bankruptcies in this province as a percentage of the farms and our high, high rating in that area, and the record we haYe had in bankruptcies and the decrease In net income In this province, to get pure political answers. They must have a script that the former Minister left because those were the kinds of answers he used to give to serious questions on agriculture from this side of the House. I want to warn him.

He'd better stop that and treat agriculture seriously, Madam Speaker, because those kinds of answers are not going to make any person 98 involved in agriculture very happy in this province. The least he could do, Madam Speaker, was to empathize with the province, at least be sympathetic to the province. To attack them in the way he did does not bode well for the operation of agriculture in this province, Madam Speaker.

We have of course the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System after he is finished with his responsibi litieS as the super Minister responsible for the Crown corporations in getting involved in these decisions and the president of the MPIC and all of these things, in consulting with 27 professional financial people in that department. That's a great big job he has over there, Madam Speaker , with a lot of responsibility. We're awfully worried about his health. We wish him well. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MR. G.

MERCIER: But, Madam Speaker, he increased the telephone rates 11 .5 percent last year to pay for this dis aster in Saudi Arabia. The question is: What is he going to do for this year? When do we get the good news? - (Interjection)- Good question, he says. Is it 50 percent? A MEMBER: Pardon? MR. G. MERCIER: Is it 50 percent? Fifty. A MEMBER: Fifteen. MR. G. MERCIER: Fifteen. Well, Madam Speaker, here it is again.

That's why my constituents and our constituents and the majority of people in this province are extremely unhappy, because there's going to be another big increase to pay for their incompetency and mismanagement in Saudi Arabia. Madam Speaker, what the people in this province want is an election. I have never seen the people in this province want an election more. They want it now and they want to get rid of this government. So in the public interest, Madam Speaker, of this province, if they have any feeling for this province and its well being and its future, call an election.

Then you'll be turfed out and we can turn it over to a government that has some common sense, because that's all that's required. Some proper decisions, some proper management, and this province can once again prosper. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Municipal Affairs. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to participate in the debate on the Throne Speech and indicate my congratulations to you in assuming the high office of this Legislature to try and keep us members in some order.

I know that you will continue to do that in the finest fashion and do the best job that you can. I want to, as well, congratulate the Mover and the Seconder of the Speech from the Throne . . .

Wedn .. day, 17 February, 1988 A MEMBER: Particularly the Mover. HON. B. URUSKI: . . . Madam Speaker, particularly the Mover, who wants to indic ate some of the feelings and has indic ated some of the feelings of dis content and concern in people's minds about the various costs that they face and issues that he's raised. I certainly have no difficulty about that. He's expressing, certainly, concerns that people do have.

Madam Speaker, I participated in this debate to ind icate that I am quickly losing patience with some of the antics of the members opposite over the last number of months and days, and particularly today with the Leader of the Opposition who ind icated that somehow their party is not going to dismantle MP IC and then he qualified those words - we'll provide some competition. The fact of the matter is the moment that you say we will allow competition into the basic ins urance, you have sold public insurance down the drain, Ma dam Speaker. This is, in effect, what is being said.

Madam Speaker, just yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was qu oted in the Free Press as saying we want to privatize. Filmon said his party would open Autopac to private competition, Madam Speaker. What does that mean? Does that not mean privatization? Madam Speaker, the Member for Ste. Rose, the critic, on February 3, and I quote, "If Autopac is not saveable, that's the only alternative we have to get real profit oriented or, if you will, low cost because of competition back to the insu rance indus try in Manitoba." Madam Speaker, if that isn't privatization, what is?

What is with respect to public Insurance, Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker, leopards don't lose their spots very easily. In 1979, dismantle Autopac, government told. Madam Speaker, they spent almost .75 million dollars . A MEMBER: Nonsense, $300,000.00. HON. B. URUSKI: . . . in excess of $600 thousand, Ma dam Spea ker, to tell the government how to dismantle the insurance corporation. Madam Speaker, they did not have the political will to do it then. Madam Speaker, they will do it by the back door by doing exactly what they've been doing in the last num ber of weeks.

They talk about political interf erence in the corporation. Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is, in 1977, rates didn't go up. In 1978, they were in office. If there was political interference in the '77 election, Madam Speaker, we lost the election. In 1978, they didn't raise the rates. Weren't the rates politically motivated in '77 and '78? Madam Speaker, one year we were in office, one year they were in office. We'll say no, no, Madam Speaker. They will say, no, they didn't politically motivate. Why did they hold the rates down to zero?

Why did they hold the rates down to 0 percent for two years? - (I nterjection) - Madam Speaker, that's what I said. Madam Speaker, I'll repeat for my honourable friend, that's what I said. We did not raise the rates in 1977 and, in 1978, you were in office, and what happened to the rates? Zero. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Will the Honourable Min ister please address his comments through the Chair, and the Honourable 99 Member for Lakeside will have his opportunity to participate in the debate at a later point? The Honourable Minis ter, to continue his remarks on the motion before him. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the Member for Lakeside, who in fact was the Mini ster responsible for a period of time, does not remember that there was no rate in crease in the corporation, not for one year running but, for two years running, one when we were in office, the second year they were in office, Madam Speaker. They accused us of politically maneuvering and politically changing the rates, Madam Speaker. - (I nterjection) - Oh, so you can hold the rates to zero when you don't call an election and it's okay and, when there's an election and you hold the rates to zero, it's not okay.

Madam Speaker, that's the Tory logic of how you deal with insurance rates in this province. When there isn't an election, you can hold the rates to zero. Madam Speaker, in 1986, we had $72 million of reserves in the corporation. They said that we were overcharging motorists. They made auto insurance rates an issue in the election campaign. Madam Speaker, they came out and pledged that we would reduce the reserves by $20 million, in effect a 10 percent decrease. Right? Talk about polit ical opportunism, Ma da m Speaker - (I nterjection) - Baloney!

Madam Speaker, if the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek wants to make that statem ent outside of the House and say that someone cooked the books, go outside and make that sta tement. Let him say that to the Provincial Auditor; let him say that to the outside auditors; let him say that to Mr. Silver. Stand up and have some intestinal fortitude. Make those statem ents outside of the House and be liable for those statements. Let's see any one of you do it. You haven't got the guts, because you know that you're wrong.

You know that the Provincial Auditor has, in fact, looked at the books, has audited the books and has agreed with the stat ements, Madam Speaker. In fact - (I nterjection) - I want to relate to something that the Leader of the Oppositi on's special assistant just said. Ma dam Speaker, the Conservatives are now admitting that they made a mistake in offering motorists a 10 percent reduction in the premiums. Ma dam Speaker, the fact of the matter is they had the same information as all members of the House. They had all the information.

The information on the claims level, on the expense level has not changed one iota, not one Iota. They have those claims and they have the claim numb ers, and they used an outside actuary, they said, an experienced insurance consultant, to say look, a public company doesn't need those kind of reserves. Let's bring those reserves down. So Filmon said, let's cut those reserves. We're overcharging Manitoba motorists. - (I nterjection) - I'm sor ry, Madam Speake r, the Leader of the Opposition. I apologize, Madam Speaker, for naming a member by his own name. lt is the Leader of the Opposition.

Clearly, Madam Speaker, what really they are after is the privatization of the corporation. Madam Speaker, I want members opposite to go to every municipa lity, to every hospital board, to every school division that has debentures and loans with the corporation at the best rate anywhere, Madam Speaker, $300 million

W!dneact,r. '1.7 February, 1988 dollars of investment portfolio in hospitals and schools: Neepawa Hospital District, $2 1 7,000; McCreary-Aionsa Health Centre, $83,000; Dauphin-Ochre River School Division, $1. 6 million; the Town of Neepawa, $342,000; the Rural Municipa lity of Ste. Rose, $1 6,000, just to name a few In my critic's own constitu ency, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the rates that they are receiv ing, those debentures, they cannot receive anywhere If they went out on the open market.

What the members opposite are saying to municip alities and school divisions is, go out on the world market and borrow from Tokyo, from New York, wherever you want, and get the best deal you can. Well, Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that there is no better deal than the provincial borrowing rate of what the provi nce borrows and passes on to municipalities. The whole issue of deb entures over the last 15 years, Madam Speaker, has become nonexistent. Most muni cipalities are already well covered, Madam Speaker, and that provides In excess of $30 million.

That provides in excess of $30 million of investment income back to motorists. Madam Speaker, If this was a private company, $30 million -and $300 million were the claims - is 10 percent, automatical ly, a 10 percent increase on rates because that Investment income would not be available to motorists. That's what the Conservatives are advocati ng, Madam Speaker. That's what you call privatization, Madam Speaker. That's the issue In this debate.

Madam Speaker, there the Leader of the Opposition's own special assistant to the legislative committee in Ontario admitted tha t the demonstration was not protest ing the high rates as far as the Conservatives were concerned. He even said, I'm saying that it was a seniors' group and the Consumers' Association that asked the government to defer, and I think they would be insulted if I said they were part of the Conservative group. Madam Speaker, what he was really saying im further testimony - (Interjection) - No, Madam Speaker. Do you want me to read on? I will go back.

I want to say basically in support of the concepts in the absence of legislation, refusal to go to the PUB to use the public's influence, say hey, public wants to know where th ese losses went, given your last year's explanation of why you hit $36 million before an elec tion and revealed it afterwards. lt is much a problem of faith as a problem of numb ers and rate increases.

So if you will not go of your own volition before the Public Utilities Board or before the standing committee of the Legislature where we can have an opportunit y, as you have today, where the executors can answer detailed questions, we do not even get that opportunity. Perhaps with the public pressure, you can enhance some accountability into the province. Madam Speaker, that was his statement before he made the statement that the seniors' group weren't on his side.

Madam Speaker, what they are saying is that there is no accou ntability in the corporation, so let's have a demonstration to bring out - (Interjec tion) - Madam Speaker, the assistant of the Leader of the Opposition said that seniors and consumers have every right to demand a reduction in rates. We were not demanding it, and he was speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party to the Ontario Legislature, Madam 100 Speaker. He says to the seniors: "We're not standing with you." He's saying to the consumers: "We're not standing with youl" Madam Speaker, we listened to those people.

We did make changes, and I want to say that I'm proud of the changes that we made to the insu rance rates. We recognize that Manitobans have said that they do not want the increases to be as high as we had announced them earlier , to level off those incre ases over a period of years. Madam Speaker, that's not what the Conservatives are saying. They're saying we're going to fool you. We'r e going to bring you to a demonstration and tell you -oh, you can yell about the high premiums, but we're not standing with you because we don't believe in what you're saying. All we want is political accountabilit y.

Madam Speaker, there is political accou ntabil ity. I take respon sibility for the decisions that have been made on behalf of the government in that corporation. Not only that, we are not acting defensively on some of the procedures and policies of the corporat ion. That's why we have appointed an ind ependent review of the corporation's activities, of the corporation's policies, all the areas on the cost side of insurance claims, Madam Speaker, which members opposite don't even want to acknowledge. They want to hide their heads in the sand and say the losses are only as a result of political inter ference.

Madam Speaker, when you have $306 million worth of claims, which is in excess of the premiums, you have a loss. There is no magic to it. Is that Conservative hocus-poker y, Madam Speaker? Is that what they'r e saying? Madam Speaker, I think members opposite, if they don't like my comments, they should listen to the comments of the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

Madam Speaker, when he came to that same committee, he said that the auto insurance, and I quote: "The auto insurance Industry has not been profitable in Ontario in the last several years, mainly because the cost of se ttling claims has risen faster than premium income. Between 1982 and 19 86, total prem iums earned increased by more than 55 percent, while losses and loss adjustment expenses ... " A MEMBER: You were the guys that was going to keep them down in this province. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I will deal with that question.

Madam Speaker, and I go on: ". . . expenses increased by almost 68 percent for the bodily injury side of the business. Under third-party liability coverage, premiums increased by roughly 63 perce nt, while losses incr eased by almost 84 percent." That isn't Robert Silver , that is not Bill Uruski or John Bucklaschuk, Madam Speaker, that is Jack Unden. What does he say is the solution, Madam Speak er, to some of these costs? I want to quote him earlier: "In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have said earlier that Bill No. 2 does not solve the problem of the present cost of operating auto insurance business.

If Ontario consumers are to receive any real price benefit, the government must give priority to the introduction of a modified no-fault Insurance program, along with tort

Wednesday, 17 February, 1988 reform in order to contain costs within the system. I cannot empha size too strongly that the real problem facing automobile insurers and consumers today is the cost of settling claims. Until those costs are reduced, there can be no sig nificant control of the cost of auto insurance in this province." Madam Speaker, that's their buddies and they are right. I have to agree with them. I agree with Jack Linden. Do you agree with Jack Linden? No. you don't agree with Jack Linden. - (Interjection) - Madam Spea ker, that's what the Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek is.

We know where your friends are, Member for Sturgeon Creek. We know which companies give donations to the Conservative members. We know what buys in insurance they had prior to the last election when M PlC was ordered to give a reinsur ance contract to Bison Reinsurance, which members of this House received hundr eds and thousands of dol lars of donations in their election campaign. We know who in fact are the friends of the Cons ervatives.

We know they have friends in high places, Madam Speaker. it's very clear what the agenda of the Conservative Party is by whatever means, whether it's through the front door or whether it's through the back door. Let's get rid of it, Madam Speaker, because our friends want in. If we have to allow some cream ing, if we have to allow other methods to get rid of it, we will do it, Madam Speaker, by whatever means. That's the agenda of the Conservative Party. MA. G. CUMMINGS: Would the Minister entertain a question? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honou rable Mem ber for Ste. Rose, on a point of order. MA. G.

CUMMINGS: I wonder if the Minister would entertain a question. I wonder If he would care to substantiate which company donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Conservative campaigns. I missed my share. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I did not say any company donated hundr eds of thousands. I said there was hundreds and thousands of dol lars to Individual members. it's recorded in the House. I'll get the figures for my honourable friend. The Member for Lakeside got donations.

The former Member for Aiel, the former Leader of their party got a donation, about a half-a dozen members got donations from the same company, Madam Speake r, just from one. I'll get it for you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MA. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will defer to the honourable member if he's prepared to speak. I hadn't seen him stand. Madam Speaker , if, by leave, I will not lose my position, I will allow the Member for Rhineland to speak - I did not see him stand - if that is agreed? MADAM SPEAKER: I did not see him stand either .

The Hono urable Mem ber for Rhlneland, if the Honourable Member for Kildonan doesn't Jose his opportunity to speak. (Agreed) 101 MA. A. BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for allowing me to speak at this time. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Ministers in their new portfolios and congratulate my fellow caucus members in their new responsibilites. Madam Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes to you, and may I say that you've never looked better. I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.

As you know, the constituency that I represent , Rhineland, is primarily an agricultural commun ity, but we do have a lot of diversification and have considerable indus try, also. The farmers that we have in the Rhineland constituency have the same difficulties that all farm communities have, mainly that the prices of the commodities are low and the cost input is high. This is nothing new. This is what is experienced by everybody.

But this leaves farmers with very little money to spend in their communities and this, of course, is reflected in the business communi ty, as it is througho ut the entire province, in rural Manitoba that is. The farmers in Rhineland are very aggressive and they're always looking for alternate crops to grow. The entire farming community in Manitoba has benefited because crops such as corn and sunflowers certainly were pioneered in that particular area, and they have been grown quite extensively throughout the province.

There has been a considerable contribution to the income of farmers through crops such as this. (Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) Crops such as sugar beets, beans, peas and all special crops give an option to the farmer of growing other crops than grain, of which there is a world surplus and price is below the cost of production. Mr. Deputy Speaker, many acres are diverted from grain production, and this means that areas not suitable for special crops do not have nearly the amount of grain to compete with as they would if these special crops were not there. One of those special crops is edible beans.

There must be around 60,000 acres of beans grown in Manitoba at the present time, and there is room for expansion. I am sure that expansion is going to occur if we can get the cooperation from the Provincial Government, from this Minister of Agriculture. The market has been fairly good and the prices have been reaso nable most of the time.

Now, every once In a while when prices slump and every once In a while they do get quite low, it's quite a fluctuating price and, as a result of this, the Federal Government decided to protect the grower from the slump In prices and put in a stabilization plan to be paid back by the producer when the prices are good. Mr. Deputy Speak er, Ontario, Saskatchewan. and Alberta have signed a tripartite stabll lzation agreement for beans with the Federal Governme nt. The only one who has not signed Is Manitoba.

If this agreement is not signed, Manitoba growers will not be able to compete with other provinces, and this will elimina te a very important pulse crop and many dollars of reve nue both to the producer and to the government in taxes. Mr. Deputy Speaker , this makes no sense. We cannot continuously fight the Federal Gove rnment just because we do not like some of the programs which they are implementing. The Minister says that he does not like

w,dn eadal! 17 February, 1988 tripartite agreements. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are a lot of things that I don't like about this government either. I don't like the 2 percent sales tax or a tax on salary, and I don't like the payroll tax but, in spite of the fact that I don't like these items, we still comply. We pay these taxes and we go along with whatever the Government of the Day decrees. We really have very little alternative. This tripartite agreement is the only option there is and, whether he agrees with it or not, it is in the best interests of all Manitobans that the bean Industry be re tained.

Saskatchewan not only signed this agreement but they committed themselves to a $500,000 program of research in the bean indu stry to encourage farmers to produce beans in Saskatchewan. Mr. Deputy Speake r, that's a far cry from the kind of cooperation which we are receiving in this province from this Minister of Agriculture. Rather than help farmers grow pulse crops, go into different areas, this Mini ster decides that he's going to stand in the way. I would like to say that this is not going to be appreciated, and I'm sure that the farmers are going to let him know about this in no uncertain terms. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this Min ister, when he is being asked questions, has been extremely arrogant so far during this Session. He's under the, I suppose, pretense somewhere along the line that he knows just a little bit more about farming than the fellows do on our side who are actually engaged in it. This is certainly the attitude which he seems to permeate (sic). Somewhere along the line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he is just acting like a smart aleck. I hope that he is going to show a little bit more concern and compassion for the farming commun ity. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, his attitude so far puts forward an example, I'm sure, of a feeling of incom petence or an extreme case of naivete, because he would not act In that particular fashion if he knew what he was talking about. I would like to dir ect my comments now to some other areas. The areas of responsibility that I am now working in mainly are concerns for the senior citizens of this province, concern for Crown Investments, and the Jobs Fund. Since I have not been in this for all that long, I am learning a great many things as we go along.

One of the things Which we have to address ourselves to Is that, by the year 2001, 20 percent of Manitobans will be over the age of 65. Now we already have a problem in housing. What are we going to do in the year 20 01? Institutionalized care at the present time is very limited and the private sector has to help. Private sector, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is doing an excellent job, by and large, and there are tremendous savings to be achieved .

When you compa re private sector care which gets no subsid lzation whatsoever and the same level of care provided in an institution, then you're talking of savings of up to $60 a day per person. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this transmits into a saving of anywhere from between $1 ,200 and $1, 600 per month from Institutionalized care as to private care. The private sector at the present time receives no subsidies. They could provide even more care and a higher level of care if they were to receive a small subsi dy, let's say, a subsidy of $10 a day.

This would allow them to hire extra nursing staff, and they would 102 be able to look after hig her-care persons. I already have demons trated that they can do this at a much lesser cost than what we can through institutional ized care. There is room for institutionalized care; there is no doubt about that. We do need personal care homes. But we found ourselves in Manitoba in the position where we no longer can afford to build personal care homes, so we are forced to look to another direction of care.

With a little help from the govern ment, many more seniors could be accommodated and the savings to the taxpayer would be very, very significant. By private sector care, for instance, they provide their own buildings. You do not have to build a building in which to house these people. All that the government really would have to do is do the licensing, make sure that the premises were the type of premises which were suitable for looking after seniors and provide the Inspections. These things of course are necessary in order for us to assure that they would be receiving the quality of care.

But I hope, I sincerely hope that the government is going to get away from their attitude, their paranoiac attitude, towards private care and not be so concerned that somebody might make a dollar somewhere along the line by looking after seniors. Who cares if somebody makes a dollar if he can provide care per person per month for $1 ,200 less than we can in institutions? There's nothing wrong with that.

The experience to date has been that really these people are only working for a wage, and one of the reasons that they can provide care at a much lesser cost is because the admin istration they do all of that the mselves plus they do many, many jobs. In institutionalized care, your admini strator will only look after admin istration. When you're running your own home, you will take care of patients, you'll look after admini stration and you'll do as much of the work as you possibly can. That is the reason why they'v e been able to operate to date, because they are willing to work.

So we should be giving seniors this option of private care. We have to give them the option of private care because institutionalized care just is not available. When I think of how some of these private care homes have been handled, when I think of Windell Homes, for instance, where all of a sudden we seemed to have a life-threatening situation, the Mini ster moved in and removed some of the people in spite of the fact that they wanted to remain there. Upon inves tigation, it was found out that the situation really was that they were really running a very good home and the people were returned.

But this is the type of thing which this government is doing, making it tremendously difficult for people to give private care to seniors. If ever you want to see a good set-up, a good private care home situation, then I would advise you all to go and take a look at the facilities that Herman Thorvaldson is providing for the seniors, but he is finding it very difficult to give the kind of service which he would like to give. The reason of course for that is that the seniors that he has had with him for a numb er of years, as they get older, they need a higher level of care.

Ye t, the government will not provide any subsidization whatsoever. He assured me that, if he were to receive $7 a day, not even $1 0, but let's say $10 a day, he could hire

Wedneed ay, 17 February, 1• the kind of nursing care which is required to look after these seniors who need a higher level of care. This is a very Important area because this is the area where the province is going to run into the most difficult y, looking after seniors, and I hope that this government is going to address themselves to that situation. I have been following Community Services and the apprehension of children through child abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or whatever type of abuse, and we still see no change in spite of the fact that we've had very unfortunate circumstances.

There is still a great deal of Jack of professionalism when children are apprehended and, still in many cases, the parents are the last ones to know. To me, it is imperative that the parents be talked to, first of all, that they should know what is going to happen to their child if certain situations are not changed. This is certainly what is being done in other provinces. There is always consu ltation with the parents, but over here we choose to ignore this. We go over in a heavy handed sort of fashion, apprehend these children and let the parents look for them. This, to me, is intolerable.

We still have a lack of direction within Community Services. There's a lack of consultation. There's a lack of knowledge of how to conclude or resolve a case. All of these things, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cost the taxpayer a lot of money because of all the confusion, of all the running around needlessly, a lack of grouping, lett ing all social workers know that this is your responsi bility, that is your resp onsibil ity. We have their money all over the place, and this is why we are having so many problems within Community Services.

I've told the Mi nister a number of times that there is an organization, the Child Welfare League of America, who specialized in problems within Community Services, and the Province of Manitoba is not the only one with problems. lt is a difficult area to provide the type of care which you would like to provide and it's very difficult to get everybody working together and knowing where everybody's place of work is. But the Child Welfare League of America, they set themselves up to do this and they are the only organization which can give credltation to a departme nt.

They're the only organization which has the capabilit y, the personnel, to see that these departments are run properly. I would urge this Min ister to get in contact with them. I know that this is going to cost quite a bit of money but, if we don't do this, the cost Is going to be ever so much greater. We will not be able to provide the kind of care that we would like to provide for the unfortunate children who come under the care of this department. So I hope that the Mi nister is going to pay some attention, because other provinces are.

Alberta already has contacted these people, and I believe at the present time they are negotiating with them and hoping they're going to come and organize their Communi ty Services. We know that Ontario is looking at them, and I've heard that British Columbia probably is going to follow suit because, like I say, this is an extremely difficult area to manage. Many, many millions of dollars can be spent needlessly and the care not given that ought to be given if you do not have the proper kind of management to see that all of these areas can be looked after. I would just like to briefly spend some time on health.

We are trying to save money at the present time by 103 shutting down some wards. This really saves very few dollars, because most of the staff, if not all of the sta .f, are still kept on at that particular hospital so there is no great sa vings, not really. The only way, if the government is intent on following that line by shutting down beds, the only saving that they can do is shutting down entire hospitals, because administration is a great part of your cost. From the experience that we've seen, from the shutting down of wards, the savings have not been all that great.

All you do have is longer lines of elective surgery. I would like to talk about elective surgery for a while. A case was brought to my attention two years ago by a young woman who needed an operation on her foot. She could not do her job anymore, and she was told that there was a waiting list of three months, but a doctor told her that it was going to be likely up to six months before he'd be able to find a bed for her.

Now what happened in the interval, this lady had to be put on unem ployment insu rance and, as a result of the long waiting period, they would not keep the job for her, so she lost the work that she was working in and was unemployed for a long period of time. Now why did this happen? Why were all these costs incu rred? They were inc urred because she couldn't have that operation. Now where is the saving making someone wait six months and having them not being able to work? Where is the saving? lt's the taxpayer who still has to pay for that person, no matter what.

And isn't it the taxpayer who we ought to be concerned about and take a look at every area from department to department and see what is happening? Some of these things which we are doing just do not make any sense whatsoe ver. We have heard quite a great deal about preventive medicine and how this government is going to go into preventive medicine. Well, the best preventive medicine that I know of, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is early detection of mental disorders. When a child at an early age starts rebelling against society and, if it's been detected at an early age, treatment is relatively easy.

This incr eases with more difficulty as the child inc reases with age until you arrive at such a time during adult life where it is almost impossible to treat these people. That's a grave area in which we could be preventive, and that could be practising preventive medicine. But what is happening in this province? We have now had 16 psychiatrists leave. We already were short of psychiatrists , but we've had 16 psychiatrists leave and the stampede is about to leave. We have now, I understand, only a part-time practising psyc hiatrist In the Brandon Mental Hospital with inma tes of over 200 people.

We are not giving the kind of treatment - again, we are not reso lving the situations so that people can again start working on their own. So that means, of course. that they have to keep on clinging on the system which is very expensive. The government seems to be going about trying to make savings in health care in a very funny mann er, as far as I'm concerned, because they're really not approaching the problem at all. They are not approaching the problem at all. CAT scans are still a long waiting list. I had a case in my home town not long ago where a person was put on the waiting list for three months.

He died after six weeks because he had a brain tumour. He could f

not get into the CAT scan. This, of course, is the type of thing which happens because health care is not available. I would like to, for a while, talk about Corrections and especially the item which is very topical at the present time, the Remand Centre. I welcome the Minister's announcement that the Remand Centre is going to be built this year. Hopefully, that is going to be the case. We had this announced four or five years ago and nothing ever happened. We didn't hear anything more about lt until now.

Recently again, this has come up, and I hope that this time the government Is serious and that they are going to build the Remand Centre, because the conditions that we have in the present centre are absolutely atrocious and somet hing has to be done. I question, however, the fact that the government has not looked at any alternate site other than the one right beside the Law Courts Building.

When you take a look at the value of that propert y, when you take a look at the cost of building an eight -storey building, then you have to weigh that against what the cost of construction would be in another area where you have a lot of space and where you need not put up such an expensive structure, where you could have a low structure which would be much less costly . Plus when you consider that some of the people in the Remand Centre stay there for up to 18 months, you will still not have any space over here which Is going to be available for them for outside recre ation.

So all of these things must be taken into consideration. We know what the pros are for building it in the downtown area. lt can be conne cted with a tunnel to the Law Courts Building. Security problems are not going to be there. There Is going to be less transportation. Although, from what I hear from the people who have talked to me from within the system, transportation really is not a problem. There is continuous transportation between Headlngley and Winnipeg anyway, so this is really not all that much of a problem as what maybe the Min ister would like us to believe.

If you take a look at some of the new technology which Is going to be coming in shortly -well, it already is there. lt's being used in some areas where you have closed television monitoring where a lawyer and the inmate could be in The Pas or Thompson, wherever, and the case could be heard in Winnipeg. This is coming and you're going to be eliminating an awful lot of transportation and it's going to be a big saving to government. That's a big pro. So transportation is not such a big factor as what we might believe. AH I'm really asking is, take a look. Is there an option?

If there isn't, well fine, but at least let's take a look. Some questions have to be asked into the John Bigtletty case, the 17 -year-old from Pukatawagan. I am vetry concerned and everybody in this province Is very concerned. I've had a number of telephone calls on this. The chap's blood alcohol level was three times the legal driving limit. The Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba took him to The Pas to gain custody of him through the courts, but the case was put off. Why was that case put off? There probably are many reasons for this. But they took him back to Puka tawagan by cab.

Presumably, they took him from Puka tawagan to The Pas by cab. lt's a five-and-a-half hour drive. So 104 why, after we spend all that money, if we spend all that time, why then does that case have to be put off? That is a question that has to be asked. Obviously, there is mismanagement of the utmost around there someplace. There are some more concerns about this. I suppose that they left The Pas around ten o'clock at night because they didn't reach Puka tawagan till two o'clock in the morning. The boy was found a couple of hours later. He was frozen to death.

Did the taxi driver wait at the house to make certain that his parents were home, that he got inside the building safely? We don't know. lt's a question that has to be asked. Why was he taken home at that time of night in the first place, at ten o'clock at night, and getting there at two o'clock in the morning? These are ridiculous hours. Night driving, I am sure, is dangerous in the North when you're in these cold temperatures, and it would be much better to transport during daylight. Is there no other option but a taxi? All these things have to be asked in this particular case, and it's a most unfortunate case.

I believe tha t members of the department administration have a lot of things to answer for. Mr. Deputy Spea ker, yesterd ay, I asked some questions of the Mi nis ter in charge of Crown Investments. He says, well, haven't you read the Auditor's Report? Ye s, I have. I imagine that he was alluding to this particular paragraph that I am going to read, and I quote from page 6: "There has been a sign ificant impr ovement in th e Govern ment's accounting policy for recog nizing in creases in the valuation allowance for losses of Crown entities and other loans and advances.

When the new policy is implemented in the 1988 fiscal year, losses incu rred which are not considered recoverable from operations will be incorporated into the Gover nment's expenditures in the 1989 fiscal year. " Now that's good news that they are going to be incorporated in 1989. We really welcome that. But recently, the Min ister has been going all over the place and saying, oh my gosh, you kn ow the Crown corporations are really doing very well. We made $14 2 milli on in the Liquor Commission and Hydro came up with a profit, and really we have been doing very well in the Crown corporat ions.

But what that story does not tell -and here's the Order-in-Council, No. 13 - is that Manfor received $1 28,5 03,000; the Manitoba Developmental Corpora tion, $37, 163,2 13; the Manitoba Energy Autho rity , $1, 411, 905; the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, $12,7 25,925; Leaf Rapids Town Properties Limited, $595, 19 9; Tantalum Mi nin g Corporation of Canada Ltd., $2,544,825; Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd ., $1 ,974,6 93; Winnipeg Bible College, $1 50,000, for a total of $1 85,068,760.00. Now these figures, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, have not been available to the Auditor, so the Auditor can only report on the figures that he receives, which was so evident when the Minister in charge of Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation chose not to divulge that there was a $12 -million loss. The Auditor can only report on the figu res that he is given. So when the Auditor makes statements that everything seems to be okay, your accountants, I'm sure, are smart enough that they can make the figures presented to the Auditor look all right. But there is another side to the story, and we are pleased

WldnHdaJ . 17 FebruarJ, 1888 that in 1989 this practice is going to be dis continued. We hope it is going to be discontinued. This is really an intolerable situation that has arisen, and I hope that the accounting practices of this government are going to improve. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. lt's nice to see you back in the Chair. lt is also nice, when she is available, to see the Speaker looking well and impartial, and also able to handle the House in a manner that I think is statesm anlike, statespers onlike.

Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this is my third Session in the House, and I'm now reaching a point where I'm almost beginning to enjoy seeing some of my friends when we come back in here, particularly the now-senior Member for Lakeside, who I have not heard speak yet, but I'm looking forward to his remarks because I always get a great deal of pleasure out of listening to the wisdom and experience of the Member for Lakeslde, even the cheery demeanour of the Member for Sturgeon Creek. lt brightens up my days constantly to just look across the House at the Member for Sturgeon Creek who can brighten up a room by just leaving it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Throne Speech that I wish to dis cuss, I sometimes, as I see some of the members opposite and some of our people, have a difficult time abstracting from the Throne Speech. This Throne Speech is about health care. This Throne Speech is about the continuation of progress in human services. This Throne Speech is about jobs, as it has been since this government was elected in 19 81. This Throne Speech is about the Mulroney-Reagan deal, about Mr.

Reagan's lap dog once again adhering to the whip from south of the border, saying, yes sir , no sir, three bags full, sir, as they did in Bill C-22, which gave away patent rights to drugs in this country. We won't talk about that in great detail, but the essence of this Throne Speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is fairness. lt's fairness for consumers, it's fairness for workers.

I would like to talk about this in relation to the people who live in my constituency, ind ividual problems that I see, that other members of this Hous e see, that the Honourable Member for Rhineland who just spoke pointed out that he sees in his constit uency, and how the individual problems faced by workers, consumers, people needing health care in this province are dealt with by the Throne Speech and how people respond and some of the unfinished busin ess that we, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as legis lators, have to do in this House, and I would hope that there is some cooperation. Let me describe my constit uency.

I have the largest constitu ency in population in the Province of Manitoba A MEMBER: Not in area. . MR. M. DOLIN: Not in area, that's true. At present, it · would be approximately 25,000 voters. The constituency , makes up Garden City , Old Kildonan, which is the North . Main area, and The Maples, all of which are growing I suburban, busi ness communit ies. There are even a few 105 farms in the constitue ncy, but city taxes are forcing them out of busi ness. What you have is 1,5 00 new units built, according to the Post Office, in my constituency last year; 3,348 units have been approved for this year.

Certainly, this is a boom area. If people have driven up the McPhillips strip to Leila Avenue, they'll see a business boom that you probably do not see in any other part of the city, including the ln kster Industrial Park where there is a boom. This government has had a lot to do with that boom. This government has had a lot of respon sibil ity, but there are concerns. Let me tell you some of the concerns that you have.

Living in a suburban community like this, I'm sure the Member for Niakwa, the Member for River East, which are similar types of communities, have similar problems and similar concerns that they have to be careful about. One of them is, in order to purchase a hous e in the suburbs in this city now, you need two inc omes in a family . You can no longer do it on a single income. The prices of houses do not allow that. We no longer have a society, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we had 15 or 20 years ago where somebody , even being facetious, could suggest that a wife was working to pick up pin money.

The wives and husbands in my constituency who are working now are working to pay the mortgage, put food on the table, pay for clothing and pay for the basic expenses of life. There Is no such thing as frivolous, secondary pin-money kind of second income thing. This is what is happening in the suburbs, and I'm sure it's happening in other parts of the city. The other thing that is the problem when you have a boom community like this is the matter of schools and adequate schools to be able to serve the needs of the children of the families moving into new suburban areas.

One of the problems that is interest ing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not have in a central city area is the major complaint I have gotten in the last three elections is the lack of trees. People do not have trees. In Garden City, which is the older part of the riding, people have trees. People in new suburbs do not have trees and you can see a difference. lt makes it look bare; it makes it look stark. The city Is planting trees. Certainly we're trying to keep what trees there are alive, but it does create a different kind of starkness than a community which creates some kind of mood.

We do have advantages though. We do not have the crime problems maybe because people don't hide behind the trees, but we do not have the kind of personal violence in the area that you would see maybe in some other parts of the city. We are having increased break and enters, and I'm sure the other suburbs are facing that. I think this is a problem we are all going to have to look at as members representing suburban areas. I would like to give one problem.

When I mentioned about the boom area, that relates on an individual basis to, I think, some of the pipe dreams, the idealism, the blind faith with which I hear members of the Opposition talk about the Mulroney trade deal, and that it will create "X" number of jobs. lt will create "X" amount of investment. lt will be the best thing that Canada has ever seen. Well, let me tell the Honourable Member for Virden who was saying, oh, it's wonderful stuff, and what I've heard from the Honourable Leader of the Opposition,

w.dneeday, 17 February, 1• syco phant that he is to the Prime Mini ster of this country who is being crassly political in pushing this deal for no other reason than to try and get himself and his colleagues re-elected in Ottawa, which is a pipe dream. The fact of life is, I was at a dinner with Philippine teachers. This was the Philippine Teachers' Associ ation. One would think teachers would have no concern.

Well, as a matter of fact, the entire evening people were telling me, were telling the Mi nister of Community Services who was there with me, their concerns about their community - this is a very large commu nity, as I'm sure you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker - and about their concerns about the garment industr y. The fact is that thousands of people in this city work in the garment plants in the ln kster Indu strial Park. They're highly mechanized, very sophis ticated garment plants there, as I'm sure people from the Young Presidents' Association have told the members opposite and have told my colleagues.

These people are concerned in an open border situation about union jobs, about their families, their jobs, their ability to pay their mortgages with those plants moving direct towards states in the southern United States. This is not something that we, either myself or the Mi nister of Commun ity Services, brought up at the meeting. This is not some thing we told the people at the Philippine Teachers' Ass ociation. This is what they told us. They said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are frightened.

And what I have heard is the blind faith that I have heard from the Opp osition and from the people on the other side of the House, because the Economic Council of Canada says there will be 350,000 jobs. But where will they be? How many jobs will be lost? They also say - and I have not heard this mentioned on the other side - there will be jobs lost. There will be dislocations. You know that; we know that. The people who work in the garment plants know that and they are concerned that they do not want to be dislocated.

They do not want to see their jobs go in favour of somebody else who might get a job, and that's underst andable, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I'm sure you can unde rstand it; I'm sure your constituents are expressing the same concerns. A MEMB ER: How would you feel about being dislocated, Marty, because that's what is going to happen to you soon? MR. M. DOLIN: Well, I hear the comment that I will be dislocated.

I think it's unfortunate that members opposite do not realize and do not take seriously the fact that there will be many of us in this society dislocated, not only members of this House in an election but people who work in the rail yards. What happens when the trains start moving in from Min nesota from the yards there? What happens when they start getting serviced In the United States ins tead of here? What happens to the rail yards here? That's a dislocat ion. Where will those people work? Mem bers oppos ite say, well, there will be other jobs created.

I grant you, there will be other jobs created in this scenario, but where and for whom? I think the Federal Government and members of the Opposition have a responsibility to tell the people of this province 106 where they are going to be working, how they will be paying their mortgage, and how they will be putting food on the table if they have specific skills in one area and cannot trans fer those skills. Mr. Mul roney, the Prime Mini ster of this count ry, has set up Jean le Grandpre- Jean the big field or whatever Grandpre means - Jean le Grandpre to look at industrial dis location in this country. Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am not particularly concerned about in dustrial dislocation. I am concerned about worker dislocation. I don't give a hoot, to use a parliamentary term - 1 was going to use another one - for plants moving south. 1 do give a hoot about what happens to the workers, the Manitoba workers who were working in those plants, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would also like to comment on another problem that I've seen from an individual constituent.

A man was going out of his shop to a truck to get a sandwich - you know the sandwich trucks that pull up in front of various plants - and a coffee because there is not a coffee shop in that plant. A MEMBER: Ham or cheese, Marty? Ham or cheese? MR. M. DOLIN: Hmmmm? Ham or cheese, I was not aware. But let me tell you - the honourable member asked what kind of sandwich - what the man did not expect - he expected maybe a ham or cheese sandwich - what he did not expect is, standing under the door to get the sandwich, for the door to come off the hin ges and crack him on the back of the head, permanently disabling him.

The fact is I hear always the members of the Opposition talking about the cost that employers are paying for Workers Comp. and how terrible it is for 20 percent extra cost to the employers. Well, let me tell you about what happened with this man. This man is dis abled for life. He is eligi ble for compensation because this was considered a workplace accident although he was just outside of his plant getting a sandwich from the sandwich truck. I would like to read to members, in case they are not aware,

section 10 (1) of The Workers Compensation Act.

Section 10(1) says: "Compensation to be in lieu of other rights. 10(1) The right to compensation provided by this

Part is in lieu of all rights and rights of action, statutory or otherwise, to which a workman, or his legal personal representative, or his dependants, are or may be entitled against the employer, for or by reason of personal injury to, or the death of, the workman occasioned by any accident which happens to him arising out of, and in the cou rse of, his employment; and no action in any court of law against the employer in respect thereof thereafter lies." In simple language, what that means to me and to this gentleman who is disabled for the rest of his life is that, in spite of the fact there were two bolts missing from that door, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, two bolts missing which were fixed, and the owner and operator of that sandwich truck admitted to negligence, total gross negligence, this person has no recourse, not because he got compensati on, but because he is e�en eligible for compensa tion. This is not a Workers Compensation Act with this clause. This is an employers protection act. What the employers of this province are paying -

Wedneaday , 17 Februa

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-3-5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 3rd hansardpdf 5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	95a2f848c3a8132dedd98bb3a4f6e06db6d67007

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