Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 72 (33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-72

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 18 June, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Prese nting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pres enting Reports by Stand ing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENT S AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Department of Community Services, for the year 1986-87. Our 1985-86 Report was tabled toward the end of last year's Session, so this is the 1986-87 Report.

MADAM SPEAKER: Not ices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I dir ect the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have 54 students from Gr ade 5 from the Burntwood School, under the direction of Mr. Arlan Dale. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Thompson. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this aftern oon. ORAL QUESTIONS Deeter Report - amalgamation of MHSC and Dept. of Health MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My qu estion is for the Minister of Health. I understand that he has received the report of Michael Deeter, the former senior bureaucrat of this admin istrat ion, into the reorganization of the Department of Health, and I wonder if he could indicate whether it has recommended the amalgamation of the MHSC together with the Department of Health, with the establishment of new Assistant Deputy Minister positions - thr ee of them as I understand - and one new Associate Deputy Minister position. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, if my memory serves me right, I think that I gave a copy of this report to the Health critic during the Estimates. I think you have that. Proposal to reorganize the Dept. of Health MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether or not he has put forward a proposal to reorganize his department along those lines, with the addition of Assistant Deputy Ministers and a new Associate Deputy Minister position. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Surely, Madam Speaker, if I give a copy of the report to the Opposition, they don't expect me to go and read it to them at bedtime also? You've got the information. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. D. ORCHARD: No, we haven't got that information. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, that is a recommendation of this Minister. Is this Minister proposing to add three Assistant Deputy Minister positions and one Associate Deputy Minister position in his department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The three Assistant Deputy Ministers - an associate Deputy Minister for the time being, yes.

The present Deputy Minister intends to take an early retirement, in about a year or so, and I've reco mmended an Associate Deputy Minister who can im media tely take over the planning and the communications and so on of the department and be in line to step in the Deputy Minister's place. Yes, the other recommendation that I made was the Executive Director of the Commission, which we had the present Deputy Minister holding that position. I'm at a loss to know where the two Assistant Deputy Ministers ... MR. D. ORC HARD: It wasn't in the report you had given us? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Now, he's asking a straight qu estion. Before that, he was asking me about the . . . Why did you bring in the question about the Deeter Report? MR. G. FILMON: No, I asked if you had made a proposal, let's get the facts straight. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, all right, I'm answering you. You asked me about the report of Deeter. MR. H. ENNS: How about trying to be straightforward for a change, Larry. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You wouldn't understand. MR. D. ORCHARD: You're right we wouldn't, because we never get it. 3195

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 Dept. of Health - cost implications of reorganizing department MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could indicate the cost implications of his reorganization of his department. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, we're at the reco mmendation yet. When and if it becomes a fait accompli, I'm sure that we'll be able to give you the salary, if anything. We are not creating - there'll be one extra person. In fact, there's no extra person, there's no extra staff year at all. Final offer selection - interference with free collective bargaining process MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, my qu estion is to the Minister of Labour . Madam Speaker, today, as we have had for successive days, we have indication of yet another major union organization lining up against the final offer selection bill. In addition to MONA, CAIMA W, ILGWU and CUPE, we now have the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professi onals. Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister is all of these organizations have said that the bill represents a gross interference with the free collective bargaining process. They have said that it's ill-considered and it's unwarranted.

Will the Minister listen to these people and withdraw the legislation? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Labour . HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the provisions that we have introduced for final offer selection are merely another option, another mechanism of reso lving labour-ma nagement disputes. Despite the fact that there are some differences of opinion in union cir cles, the majority of unions represented by the Manitoba Federation of Labour believe that this legislation is responsible and should be introduced.

Madam Speaker, the bill provides for a period of time, a five-year period, in which there can be a sufficient trial of this innovative system. We're confident it will add, and not detract from, good collective bar gaining, and we believe that in the interests of workers in the Province of Manitoba, to have option . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind Honourable Ministers, this is not the time for debate. Final offer selection - proceeded with without response from Labour Management Review Committee MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, in resig ning from the Labour Management Review Committee, David Newman, a former member of that committee, stated that this Minister proceeded with the final offer selection bill without waiting for a response from the Labour Management Review Committee. Madam Speaker, why would this Minister not have waited for the response? Why would he proceed headlong without having the advice of a committee that he says he respects and play a vital role in labour management relations. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I met with David Newman, along with mem bers of the Labour Management Review Committee, some days ago, some weeks ago, and pointed out to him tha t wh ile I understood his concern, the fact is that we referred the question of final offer selection to that committee almost two years ago, and had had no formal response indicating what disposition the Labour Management Review Committee had made of that matter. I recognize that Mr.

Newman has been critical of this government; he has been critical of every piece of labour legislation that has been introduced by this government, labour legislation which produced an excellent labour relations environment, despite his protest. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, will the Minister indicate whether he was informed that the reaso n the Labour Mana gement Review Comm ittee and its subcommittee that looked into final offer selection could not report to him was because the two labour representatives, Mr. Bernie Christophe and Mr.

Wilt Hudson, would not partici pate in preparing their side of the story on that particular legislation? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I heard the concerns of members of the Labour Management Review Committee when I met with them, and I pointed out to them then, and I respond to the Leader of the Opposition now, this government, and previous governments, have not made formal demands on that comm ittee. They have not put time lines on and demanded that they reach agreement in respect to matters that were referred to them.

It is a useful sounding board, it is a useful committee, a very partisan committee that meets and exchanges views. But we don't make a formal demand on that body to come to specific policy agreements for reco mmendation to government. And what disagreements existed within that committee is for the committee to answer, not this Minister. Final offer selection - Min. to withdraw MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that all employer and business groups have indicated their opposition to final offer selection; given that every day new union groups indicate their opposition, we're now up to the point where over 32,000 unionized people are represented by their unions who say they're opposed to it; given that all of them state that there are major problems with this legislation coming into being in Manitoba, will the Minister admit that he has made another major blunder and forget his IOU to Bernie Christophe and withdraw the legislation? HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the honourable member refuses to recognize the fact that the Manitoba Federat ion of Labour that is composed of a broad cross- 3196

Thursday, 18 June, 1987

section of labour unions in this province, by an overwhelming majority, approve of final offer selection as a further dispute resolving mechanism that should be advanced in labour relations law in this province. That was a decision of organized workers in this province and we recognize that decision and accept it. Community Services Estimates - reason for using last year's report MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services.

During this year's Estimates which have just been completed we used a report which had been tabled almost a year earlier, so the information that we were dealing with was one year old. My question to the Minister is this: Can the Minister explain why a report that was a year old had to be used during Estimates when obviously an up-to-date report could have been available? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I think I might get a calendar and a filing cabinet for the member opposite.

The annual reports that are tabled in this House are, currently for this Session, people are tabling their'85- 86 report. We, in fact, tabled ours at the end of last Session and, therefore, that information is available. In addi tion , Madam Speaker, there was a Supp lementary Information Report tabled at the time of Estimates and very many pieces of information tabled during the Estimates procedure and, of course, in the many hours of discussion, so I really cannot see where the questioning member has any grounds for criticis m. I think, if anything, we should be congratulated for being ahead of the game.

Community Services - up-to-date report tabled before next Estimates MR. A. BROWN: Madam Speaker, my question is to the same Minister. With the annual report being tabled today, and it's obvious that we again will be dealing with Estimates which are one year old during the next Estimates, will the Minister table an up-to-date report before the next year's Estimates? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I think the member did not listen to the answer I gave. We will be tabling annual reports when they're ready. In this case we are a year ahead of many departments.

We will be tabling Supplementary Information, as has now become the general practice for all departments prior to our Estimates, and we will be very generous with our time and additional information during the Estimates process. I really don't know, Madam Speaker, what more can be expected of a department. MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. The new report has statistics that say that child abuse cases are up by one-third, and there were six deaths within Child and Family Services.

Is this the reason why the report was not available during the Estimates, so that the Minister could hide these statistics from us during the Estimates? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Would the honourable member please refrain from imputing motives to an Honourable Minister? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: With these statistics, Madam Speaker, we were wondering whether this is the reason the report was not dealt with during the Estimates, why this report was not made available earlier. HON. M.

SMITH: Would the honourable member please make it clear that he is not imputing motives to the Honourable Minister? MR. A. BROWN: Why were these statistics not released dur ing the Estimates, when we were working on Community Services? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I'm not sure that the Opposition ever used to table those statistics, but we in fact did. We tabled statistics on the abuse during the Estimates. In fact, I think we tabled some right in this very House during question period prior to the Estimates.

If the member has not compiled all his information and have it available so that he knows what information we have made available, I really can't take responsibility for that, Madam Speaker. International Baccalaureate Program - students forced to pay fees for MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. Over the past seven years , certain school divisions in the City of Winnipeg have offered the International Baccalaureate Program as a viable alternative for students who wanted an enriched academic experience.

This program has proven itself to be valuable over this period of time, and yet students who live in areas in which they cannot access that system thr oughout their own school division, are forced to pay fees of up to $1, 100 in order to take this program because the Mi nister refuses to remove the designation of pilot program. Why does he insist on leaving that designation when this program has proven itself for seven years? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I think the Member for River Heights also knows that there are several other programs that are currently on 3197

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 pilot status and, of course, divisions are free to investigate the potential for enrolments in the 1.8. Program.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I believe the member raised in Estimates this question last year; we discussed it at length and I said that, although this is a particular program, individual school divisions offer enriched courses, enriched high school programs, in different ways throughout the province, and that as part of the High School Review exercise, I felt that it was important that we examine the whole question of how we offer, on a provincial basis, programs which offer encrich ment opportu nities for high school students, and I think it is something that needs to be addressed.

International Baccalaureate Program - removal of discrimination MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a supplementary question to the same Minister, Madam Speaker. When will this Minister reduce and remove this blatant discrimination which makes it possible for children whose parents have money to attend these programs, but children who come from families with limited income are prohi bited from attending these programs? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, divisions are free to emba rk on programs as they see fit.

The fact of the matter is if you live in certain divisions you have access to this program and the whole qu estion of the appro priateness of the 1.8. Program versus some other approach to enriched programming is something I've said we're addressing. Continuing Education for Seniors - re-establishment of funding for MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, a final question but on a slightly differe nt topic, to the same Minister. This government is reduc ing, unfortu nately, its commitment to the continuing education of our senior citizens.

As examples, $20, 700 has been removed from the Senior Citizen Centre's Education Program, and the Age and Opportunity Program have been told that their $11, 000 grant this year will be their final one. Will his department reconsider and re-es tablish this funding towards continuing education for our seniors, which permits them to live not only healthier, but happier lives? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I'd like to take the specifics of that question - I'm not aware of the latter issue that was mentioned by the Member for River Heights. I do know that the Winnipeg School Division has reduced some funding.

I'm not aware of the impl ications of reduced funding as far as the Department is concerned. The member also knows that in terms of continuing education we have had to set some priorities to make sure that continuing learning and life skills programming receive the maximum of support.

We have done our own studies within the department and they have been done across Canada which show that the majority of people involved in up -gr ading and professional development actually come from backgrounds where they have one or more degrees - so it is not a que stion of the disadvantaged having access to the program, but the relatively more advantaged. The intention is not to cut funding at all to adult and continuing education -(I nterjection)-but to target more directly. Mulligan Report - release of report MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, I direct my qu estion to the Minister responsible for Transportation. Yesterd ay, in response to my question as to the status of the Dr. Mulligan study, that study looking into the effectiveness of mandatory seat belt legislation within the province, I inquir ed of the Minister as to the status of th at report. He indicated it was pr epared in preliminary form. My question to the Mi nister: Will this report, including its executive

summary, be released in the fashion that it was written by Dr . Mulligan? Will there be any change directed toward that report or will it be released in its entirety as written? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I think, Madam Speaker, the staff who were reviewing that report have reviewed that report and as well, as I indicated yesterday, federal offici als. There will be a review done and consultations done with Dr. Mu lligan for clarification of some portions of the report.

However, I think that the report is going to - as I indicated yesterday - demonstrate clearly that the seat belt law in Manitoba has been effective in reducing serious injuries and costs to the government. Certainly, it will be something that the members will be very interested in receiving. I look forward to that opportunity. As a matter of fact I would hope that we would have at least a

summary of that report available when the .i seat belt resolution is discussed in the House later on. � Mulligan Report - was critique done MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, given the answer by the Minister which seems to suggest the executive

summary that we may receive in due course may be altered, can the Minister responsible for Transportation indicate - when he says the Department did an analysis - can he indicate whether his department or a member of his department, whether they did a critique; and secondly, can he indicate whether that critique can be made public? HON. J. PL OHMAN: As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I believe that is the critique, the information that I hoped would be available, the

summary that the department had done as a result of the study, so it would be available for my perusal before the debate on the resolution here. I feel that it is very important to get that information to the House and to the public because it has been, I think, a rather exhaustive study 3198

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 over a period of years. It has taken much longer to do than we had hoped and therefore I'm very anxious for the results of that information. I do think it is a positive study, a supportive study to the law that has been in place, and look forward to its release.

I might remind mem bers just in elaboration to what I indicated yesterday to the House, that there has been a drop, despite the fact that deaths had increased in the province, that there had been a drop in serious injuries over the three year period, something that the member did not refer to in his statements yesterd ay, a 22 percent drop, from'84 to '86 in serious injuries. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, the Minister didn't answer my qu estion as to whether or not the critique done by members of his staff will be made public or not.

Would the Minister care to answer a third question, or attempt to answer one of my questions? Will he share with us the essence of the critique he is not prepared to share or not to table? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't know, Madam Speaker, that there is any formal critique. I do have information from staff on various subjects, Madam Speaker, from time to time. The fact is that there is a

summary that was done, that I said that I would be prepared to share with the members, and I think it will be quite illuminating to them to have that informat ion. The fact is, Madam Speaker, that these members across the way, despite the fact that their leader voted for this legislation in 1983, are trying to undermine it and therefore to undermine the credibility that people place in this legislation in the use of seat belts, that will result in greater pain and death and suffering in this province through the efforts of this Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speake r, a final supplementary, a very direct question to that Minister. Was the critique done or not by mem bers of his department, or somebody within government, critiquing the Dr. Mulligan study? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I've indicated there has been anlysis and summar ies done for my information and there is ongoing discussions with Dr. Mu lligan on this, and many of the points that were pointed out and discrepancies in the report were agreed to by the people who did it and they have agreed to make some revisions to some portions.

Of course that is not unusual when major studies such as these are done. I have indicated as well that as a result I have a

summary of information that I would like to make available, notwithstanding the fact that in order to have the complete report released, I have to have federal agreement because it is a report that was done under the subagreement by both levels of government and once we have that, the complete report will be made available. 3199 Lap-belted rear seat occupants - deaths from seat belts MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my qu est ion is to the Mini ster of Hig hways and Transportat ion.

Given that the Minister refuses to table the Mulligan Report in its entir ety and refuses also to table the critique of that report, Madam Speaker, can the Minister indicate whether or not lap-belted rear seat occupants of cars have died as a res ult of wearing seat belts? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Highways and Transportation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, there has been a substantial amount of information included in that very lengthy report over a number of years .

It has reached conclusions on various aspects of the legislation, of the requir ements - different kinds of seat belt assemblies, different kinds of results. Certainly the issue of back seat belts, lap belts only, would demonstrate that they're certainly not as effective in preventing injuries as shoulder and lap belts. That was known, that was something that was discussed during the time this legislation was introduced - something that everyone should be able to understand. It seems to make sense.

I would like to see that there would be shoulder belts required at the same time as lap belts, even in the back seats of cars instead of just lap belts. But those matters, in terms of the specifics and the numbers, will all be part of that report when it is released. Mulligan Report - recommendation to alter MR. G. ROCH: To the same Minister. Within the critique done by the Minister's depart ment, was there a re commendation that Dr. Mulligan's report, or I should say, Dr. Mulligan's executive

summary be altered? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I've just answered this question in response to the Member for Morris, who asked precisely the same question. I indicated, the Member for Springfield obviously wasn't listening in this House, wasn't paying attention. I indicated at that time, there were some ongoing discussions and some revisions that would be done as agreed upon by both parties. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, again within that same critique, is it suggested that the Provincial Government knew that its seat-belt legislation could res ult in fatal injury, subjecting the province to potential losses?

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That qu estion seeks an opinion, if the honourable member would care to reph rase it. MR. G. ROCH: Does it state in th;it report, Madam Speaker, that the province's seat-belt legislation could result in this province being subjected to potential lawsuits? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I said I was going to release the whole report. I have not got involved

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 specifically in the details of the report as to whether it said that or not. I can tell the member that my staff have been working with the consultants in that regard, and they will be agreeing on whatever revisions are required, and clarifications in that report and it will be released in its entir ety at that point in time. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield with a final supplementary. MR. G. ROCH: Will the Minister table the report and the critique immediately? Because if the Minister is not prepared , I am prepared to make public an overview of Dr. Mulligan's ...

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister if he is not prepared to table the report and the overview and the critique, I am prepared to make that report public. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That is not a question. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, did the Minister not receive a copy on May 20, 1987, which was circulated to all NOP caucus members on May 22 of the same year? Is he prepared to make that public, because if he is not I'll make it public, Madam Speaker? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I don't recall whether this was distributed or whether I had sent copies.

I have not indicated that I have not received copies of the initial report. What I'd said is that the staff are working with the consultants, with Dr. Mulligan, and working through the report with him. I am not involved in that process, and that is clear, Madam Speaker. MACC - Interest Rate Buy-down Program - purchase of interest deductible MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you. There was a question taken . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister of Finance has the floor. HON. E. KOSTVRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had taken a qu estion as notice, along with the Mi nister of Agriculture, reg arding the Mani toba Agricultural Credit Corporation Buy-down Program which was announced in the Budget and subsequent details announced by the Minister of Agriculture as part of this government's efforts to assist the farm community.

There was a qu estion raised by two mem bers opposite with regard to the situation as to how the interest, given that is allowing for a change in the way the interest is dealt with under that program, how that is going to be dealt with under the provisions of The Income Tax Act. It's our opinion that will be al lowed in the normal fas hion as is other charges for interest. We have contacted Revenue Canada to get tha t confirmed. Revenue Canada indicated to us that they are not prepared to confirm that verbally and would want a specific written request from the government for a ruling.

That is in the process of being done asking for the specific ruling from Revenue Canada. Continuing Education for Seniors - re-establishment of funding for MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Further to the questions raised by the Member for River Heights earlier in question period, I can indicate that - and in fact I do have correspondence from the Age and Opportunity Centre indicating - the Winnipeg School Board has made a decision to reduce funding and eliminate funding by the year 1988 to the Age and Opportunity Centre.

I can also indicate that the funding that has come by way of support from the New Initiatives Program from the department is being considered at this time and it's anticipated that they will receive the same level of funding although that decision has not been finally met for 19 87-88. Frontier School Division - expected to accommodate loss MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I dir ect a question to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

In doing so, I acknowledge, I'm sure, the relief felt by the community at Leaf Rapids that there seems to be a little longer life proposed for that .. .. Madam Speaker, included in that arrangement is the specific additional government assistance of relieving the new owners, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, of approxima tely $750,000 of the Foundation Educational Levy as a form of assistance in making that deal possible.

My dir ect question to the Minister is: Will the School Division - I believe it's Frontier School Division - be asked to accommodate itself to that $750,000 loss, or will in fact the Provincial Treasury be called upon to replace it? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to answer that question. 3200

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 This was done in the context of, I think, a resp onsible effort on the part of the Government of Manitoba, Sherritt Gordon Mines and Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, plus the community and all people involved, to try and do ever ything possible to keep the Ruttan Mine operating and keep the community of Leaf Rapids operating. I think everyone acted in a resp onsible and visionary manner.

With respect to the specific question, the amount would be $769,000, which is a special levy that is only levied on this one particular mining company in relation to the Leaf Rapids town site and school district, and the monies would be provided if there was a shor tfall from the Mining Community Reserve Fund, which is a fund that was set up by government many years ago for purposes of ensuring that if there are these types of transitions or shor tages with respect to communities themselves that monies can be drawn from that fund for the purposes of ensuring that the services are maintained within the community.

A previous example of the Mining Community Reserve Fund being used was in the example of Lynn Lake. When they went through an adjustment, funds were drawn from the Mining Community Reserve Fund for purposes of providing additional reve nues that were req uired because of municipal and school tax shortfalls. MR. H. ENNS: I thank the Minister for that answer. A supplementary question to the same Minister, Madam Speaker.

The additional $500,000 that is involved in additional exploration to hopefully secure a still longer life for that mine, I take it that that money is being advanced by the Provincial Treasury and not the Mining Reserve Fund. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I think it was probably about a year ago in our discussions with the previous owner, Sherritt Gordon, we indicated that the province was prepared to put up $500,000, along with $500,000 coming from the company to explore a mineral area called the west anomaly (phonetic) which is adjacent to the Ruttan Lake mine, to determine whether in fact there was sufficient economic ore to provide for continued operations of the mine beyond 1990.

That offer was made to Sherritt Gordon; they didn't take us up on it, but when Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting had their discussions with Sherritt Gordon, they asked us if that offer would stand through them, and we indicated, yes. That money will be drawn from the provincial Jobs Fund and it will be drawn when the company, having got in there and run the operations for a period of time, makes the decision within the next, say six months, nine months or a year, that they would proceed with that exploration and develop it.

Continuing Education grants to seniors for credit courses only - continuation of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Education. Is it still the department's intention to continue, in fact enhance, continuing education grants for credit 3201 courses, rarely taken by senior citizens, but to eliminate or reduce funding for all other continuing education courses in the province, as of September 1? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Education. HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Speaker, I'm not sure what the member meant by "credit courses." The department certainly will be supporting other than credit courses. If the member is ref erring to credit, by that meaning courses that relate to upgrading skills, literacy skills, those kinds of things, I've said before that those are the prio rity, but I don't think it would be accurate to say that the department is only funding credited courses through its Adult Continuing Education Program. Clearly, that's not the case.

What we have said is that recreat ional courses, those courses that are of a less urgent nature, more of a personal nature, will no longer be funded through the mechanism of the grant program that's in place in the Adult and Continuing Education Division. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: To the same Minister, Madam Speaker. The department has indicated that it will increase grants to courses for high school credit; it will reduce payment to courses which upgrade skills; and it will eliminate funds for courses which do not meet either of that criteria.

Are those rules presently under review and will be, hopefully, changed by September 1? HON. J. STORIE: I believe that the member was essentially correct the last time she ph rased the question. The answer is no, those guidelines are not under review by me. There have been indications, I believe, to school divisions that specific courses that were funded previously, that are in the grey area between upgr ading basic skills, initiatives, will be reviewed. But the general intent of the program, if that's what the member's question is, is not under review.

There are a limited number of dollars, and clearly the dollars need to be spent on individuals who are upgrading their basic skills to allow them to compete. I should indicate to the member, and I believe the member is aware of this, that our universities and our community colleges, do offer courses to senior citizens, tuitio n-free in essence, that those courses are available and have been for some time. So I don't want the member to leave the impression that somehow seniors are being ignored in this process.

There are opportunities available for them, and they are supported by one way or another through the government and have been for some time. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Orders of the Day, I have a Speaker's Ruling to present to the House. One June 15 , 1987, the Honourable Member for Pembina rose on a point of order respect ing whether

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 or not time spent on points of order during debate is to be deducted from a member's total speaking time. This matter is not dealt with by the Rules of the House. It is the practice of this House to extend the Oral Question period by the time taken on points of order raised during it. However, the research carried out on this matter did not reveal any rulings, precedents or long-standing practices with respect to points of order raised during debate. Our subrule 1(2) refers us to the House of Commons of Canada in unprovided cases.

I have, therefore, investigated the practices followed in that House in this type of situation. I find that each case is assessed on its own merits by the Speaker or other Presiding Officer. Compensating time is added where a member has been interrupted by frivolous or unwarranted points of order , but, where in debate a member has blatantly provoked the raising of legitimate points of order, no time is added. I am, therefore, ruling that generally speak ing, time will be added unless a member has blatantly provoked the raising of legitimate points of order.

I wish to thank the Honourable Member for Pembina for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Madam Speaker. Before moving the mo tion to move us into Committees of Supply, I'd like to indicate on the matter of House Business, that through agreement with the Opposition House Leader, we will be calling two committees on Tuesday evening, at eight o'clock, June 23, to deal with bills referred to them.

The Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders, and the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations and, as well, those two committees or either one of those two committees will meet on Thursday evening at eight o'clock, if it is requir ed to carry on the work that they have before them. I also understand that we will be proceed ing into Private Members' Business today as well. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G.

MERCIER: Just by way of clarifica tion, Madam Speaker, perhaps the Government House Leader would like to indicate then that the House will debate Bill No. 61 tomorrow, and all afternoon and evening on Monday. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, it will be my intention to call Bill No. 61 tom orrow, and as well to be gin the proceed ings on Monday, by calling Bill 61. We have an agreement that we will use our best efforts to finalize the debate on Bill 61 by Monday evening, so that it can be before committee on Tuesday. There will be speakers from both sides of the House, I'm certai n, on that bill.

We expect that bill will be before the committee on Tuesday. Of course , Madam Speaker, if we do complete all of those who wish to speak or do have opportunity for all those who wish to speak on Bill 61 on Monday, we would then carry on into Estimates. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented. MATTERS OF GRIEVANCE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A.

KOVNATS: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present my grievance, my first grievance that I've ever presented in the Legislature. I feel compelled at this time to present this grie vance, inasmuch as it will be dealing with the decorum and the manner in which the members acknowledge and respect the Chair and the Chairman of Comm ittees, and the Ru les and Regulations of the House, Madam Speaker. It's been an exciting week inasmuch as . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Can honourable members please carry on private conversations elsewhere so that we can continue with the business of the House?

The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you very much for your consideration. I would, at this time, just like to advise that it has been a very exciting week inasmuch as I have seen things that have happened that have never happened before, Madam Speaker. It disturbs me, and that is what really initiated my grievance here today. I see the actions of a desperate government, Madam Speaker , a government that is riddle d with mismanagement, incom petency and ineptness.

Yesterday in committee, when we were discussing the Mi nister's Sal ary, Committee of Government Services, we were discussing the Minister's Salary, we had occasion where I was acknowledged as the speaker in a particular line of questioning, and the rules were changed at 4:53 p.m. in the afternoon. Just seven minutes before the adjournment hour, the rules were changed, Madam Speaker. Now, I'm not against changing rules, and this government can do whatever they like -(lnterjection) lt's unparliamentary? Well, I'll wait for a ruling from the Speaker.

But I'm not against rules being changed as long as they are done in the proper manner. The rules were altered, rather than changed, if tha t is unparliament ary. I think that I was embarrassed . I did have the floor and the chairman of committee saw fit, when it was my turn, when it was my line of questioning, to not allow me to continue my line of questioning. 3202

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER : . . . caution the honourable member, it's unparliamentary to reflect on a presiding officer, and would he please tread very carefully from here on in, in the line that he's taking? MR. A. KOVNATS: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I was try ing to explain the situation rather th an be unparl iamentary and, if I step too far, I would hope that the Speaker would let me know.

When we get down to the situation, it was that I did have my turn at speaking and I was in a line of questioning, and the Chairman of Committee ruled that I was not the next speaker, even though the regular routine is that we follow, and whoever is in the speaking order has the opportunity to continue their line of speaking. The Cha irman, at thi s point, acknowledged the Minister of Education. I thought that the Minister of Education was going to say something on a point of order, Madam Speaker , so I allowed him to start and then, when I found out that it wasn't a point of order, I did raise a point of order .

Am I in trouble again? SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable mem ber, I recog nize that he has risen on a grievance and he has some concerns that he wants to place before the House. However, there are many mechanisms for raising those concerns, particularly at the time the matter happens. May I refer the member to Beauchesne 316 (

i) which says, while speaking, a member ". . . must not reflect upon the past acts and proceed ings of the House." So in terms of the way a point of order was raised, dealt with, the conclusions or the outcome of those kind of proce edings, the time to deal with those is when it happens, not after. We ought not either to criticize, incidentally or straight out, the presiding officer of a committee, or the past acts and decisions that were made procedurally of a committee.

So that's particularly why I'm having some problems with the direction the honourable member's taking, and I do want to caution him to be very circum spect in what he's raising. MR. A. KOVNATS: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I do have some knowledge of the rules and I'm at a loss on how to explain a problem that is a real problem, because the Chairman of the committee did make a ruling at the advice of the - well no, he made a selection of speakers, rather than a ruling.

He made a selection of speakers at the advice of the Minister who was sitting beside him, which was contrary to the manner in which we normally follow the rules and reg ulations. POINT OF ORDER MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: I'd like to rise on a point of order. I was at the meeting, and I think it would be grossly unfair to say that the Chair made any selection on the basis of advice from a Minister or anyone else. The 3203 Chair indicated at the time, ind icated this in Hansard, that he had kept a list, and that he made that choice.

There are no rules that cover that, Madam Speaker, just as when you recognize three supplementaries to a qu estion or four supple mentaries or five supplementaries, even though other people might be standing. I don't think that would warrant rising on a grievance and saying somehow that the presiding officer changed rules by recognizing people on that basis. So, Madam Speaker, to get up and say that people change rules is unparliamentary. Secondly, to say that the pres iding officer made a selection on the advice of a Minister is clearly unparliamentary and out of order.

SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Both on the Honourable Minister's point of order and in my cautions to the honourable member, where I've pointed out Beauchesne 31 6(i), may I also remind the Honourable Member for Niakwa that, where this is ref erring to the Speaker as presiding officer, it also refers to presiding officers in committee, other presiding officers of this House.

It says, very clear ly, in 11 7: "His actions cannot be critic ized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceed ing except by way of a substantive motion." So the Honourable Minister does have a point of order, and the Honourable Member for Niakwa is out of order by continuing in this line of debate about proceedings of a committee and the actions and decisions of a presiding officer. The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Madam Speaker, I'm at a loss of words, where I thought that I, as a representative of the people of Niakwa, would be able to get up and speak my mind.

I wasn't intending at all to condemn so much as to bring out a point that was bothering me, where I felt that I was being censored and censured, and this was my whole intent. If I am speaking out of order in this regard, I will just leave that part of my grie vance and I'll go to the next part of my grie vance, Madam Speaker, rather than embarrass you so that you will not have to make a ruling to censure me for making statements that are out of order.

Madam Speaker, I guess it was last Monday or Tuesday when the Member for Fort Garry got up and asked for a leave to make a non-political statement, presu ming that it would be granted and advising that the leave was being asked to make a non-political statement on Seniors' Day. Seniors' Day was at the Legislature, and here's a letter that we have from the First Minister advising about Seniors' Day. It says: "In recog nition of Senior Mon th, the Government of Manitoba will be hosting the fourth annual Seniors' Day at the Legislative Building, Monday, June 15, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Member for Fort Garry was refused leave, and this isn't a ruling of the Chair . It was a ruling of the members of the government, because they did not allow a non-political statement to be made. It disturbed me very greatly, because I have always believed that this is a Legislature of cooperation, of understanding to one another. I am so disturbed because the members were aware that it was just a welcoming for the seniors and absolutely

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 non-political. This government, in their wisdom, has felt -(Interjection)-What the Minister of Education is saying is that one good turn deserves another. Now, if we're going to get even for every thing that happens in this House - we don't get mad, we'll just get even. That's the attitude you people have. That is not what the intent was. We were talking about seniors, the most respected group in our society, and you're going to take advantage of another situation to get even. Well, I think that's pretty lowly, pretty dastard ly, for them to not have granted leave.

You know, Madam Speaker, this government and this group of people who represent this NOP Government have, in the past, tried to make Seniors Day political. Last year, they were handing out literature at the door, handing out NOP literature at the door which, when it was brought to their attention, we got, so sorry. We got an apology, we won't do anything political again concerning Seniors' Day. Well, one year later, again political, refusing to allow our member to make some welcoming gestures to the seniors, absolutely non political. But if it's a matter of getting even, let's say that they're even.

Are you even now? I remember so vividly the opportunity of making remarks. We had an incident where an American flag was burned at a demonstration, and this is the first time that I've ever made a remark about it, and that's a lot of years ago, Madam Speaker. But there was no reason for me - maybe some of the other members might have taken personal exception and I did take personal exception that an American flag was burned, but I made no accusations and today I still will make no accusations. It's not a matter of getting even. You just don't do those sort of things.

This group of people, this New Democratic Party Government, they have the members. They can do anything that they want within reason. They have the members and they can do it. The people of the province have elected them, and I respect the people of the Province of Manitoba for electing them. And I'm going to do everything I can to see that they don't have the opportunity of being elected again. But, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to bring that to the atte ntion. I felt very badly that leave had not been gr anted. It was a das tardly act , and I just want everybody to know those were my fee lings on it.

Madam Speaker, I've got to bring out one other incident that upset me beyond all rea soning. When we had a vote on the Budget - and I'm not refle cting on the Chair. I'm refle cting on some of the remarks that were made by the First Minister, and I think that I am entitled to contradict his remarks and the Government House Leader, who stated that the reason that we delayed the voting on the Budget was to embarrass the First Minister and make him late in attending a very important conference in Ottawa which was to discuss Native problems. I and my group were accused of being insensitive to Native problems.

There can be nothing more from the truth, Madam Speaker, and I've never asked for an apology, but I felt that I was unjustly accused in being accused of being insensitive to Natives. Madam Speaker , I was so upset that I decided that I would take my own personal poll. I did take a poll, and I found out that 100 percent of the poll that I took stated that I was not insensitive to Native problems and Natives.

I just want that to go on the record, that I was falsely accused and we'll just let it be on the record that I was falsely accused, as the way that this New Democratic Party Government is getting more daily in making false accusations. Madam Speaker, these people are fighting out of desperat ion. They have been shown up for the manner in which they run this government, incompetent, and it's like a cornered rat where - tha t's not unparliament ary, Madam Speaker. I'm not calling them rats.

I'm just saying it's like a cornered rat where, when you've got them in the corner , they fight back and they'll fight back in any which way. They fight back, not following the rules, because they are fighting for their lives, they're fighting for their political lives, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I'm at a loss because I've never gone through - this is the first time that I presented a grievance. I've listened to grievances before, but I don't know how far I can go and how far I can't go, but I've got to bring up one other point.

A little while back - I guess it was last December - • I had occasion to send out an informativ e brochur e , from myself to my constituents, advising some of the shortc omin gs of the New Democratic Party Government. The First Minister was able to get hold of one of these brochures and he was making some reference here in the Chamber about this brochure. He di dn' t seem to agree with some of the condemna ti ons that I had made conce rning the government, and he was pointing that out.

From his seat after he was finished he, in a very, very meaningful manner, sat in his chair and took this brochure to show me that he had the brochure in his hand and he ripped it up, piece by piece, to show me his disdain. Madam Speaker, I can understand him shredding my brochure to show his disdain. It was just after the time that the Minister for MPIC had to admit to some shredding of some important documents that was done by error. Now if the Minister is going to say that those documents were done by error, I accept that, Madam Speaker.

I accept it, because I have no reason not to accept it, but I have some doubts. But, Madam Speaker, might I mention to the Minister responsible for MP IC • that he doesn't have to send his documents over to , Government Services to be shredded. All he has to do is send them over to the First Minister's Office, because the First Min ister is very competent in shredding documents. I had a stamp made, Madam Speaker, and I was going to bring it here, but it would have been an item that I would have had to display.

I thought that it would be wrong of me to bring in any kind of an item and show it as an exhibit, so I just took a print of it. It's just a rubber stamp. I would hope that the New Democratic Party Government would see that each one of their dif ferent departments got one of these stamps. And all it says on it, it says, do not destroy. Just a simple instruction, do not destroy, just so that we can't have the same problem again of having a document destroyed that was not supposed to be destroyed . Now, Madam Speaker, I have it in both languages.

The trench version would say: "Ne detruisez pas," which I believe to mean the same, do not destroy. So it's just a word of caution so that we will not have this sort of a problem again. 3204

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 Madam Speaker, before I sit down, I've just got to make some remarks that some of the things that have been bothering me, and one of the remarks of one of the things that were bothering me when I see signs and signals coming from that side. Now, Madam Speaker, it might happen from this side too; I can't see from this side, I can't see. Maybe it happens from this side too. I'm open to accept that it could happen from this side. But I see some signs, and some of the signs are vulgar and very uncomplimentary, Madam Speaker.

I think that there's got to be a little bit more respect for the authority of the Chair , and that these signs should not be allowed. If I see them happening again, I will bring it to the Speaker's attention, and maybe the Speaker at that point will be able to have these cease and desist so that it doesn't happen.

I saw in the paper the other day where ther e was a group of students here, and they couldn't understand the actions of the members of the Legislature, Madam Speaker, because the actions just didn't seem to be acceptable - the speak ing, the questions, the answers, the actions of all members of the House, I think mostly on that side because I can't see on this side. I really don't want to be too condemning, Madam Speaker, but just before I close, the thing that really riled me - and I want it to go on the record. I had spoken to the member previously about - and I think maybe it was done in jest.

But it was a salute that I attribute to a Nazi salute, and this was in response to some remarks that were made from this side of the House. Madam Speaker, I bring this to the attention of the House because, if it ever happens again, I'll take action even if it means my elimination from the House. Madam Speaker, this is not a thr eat. I'm just making a statement. I thank you for your consideration, and I'm sorry that I caused you some embarrassment at the beginning. I'm going to have to find another way to show my displeasure at being rebuked and losing my speaking order when we are in committee.

As a matter of fact, I would think that, during today when we go back into committee and on Minister's Salary, I will have an opportunity of expressing my views in this regard and I will do so. I thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Yes, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I'd like to say that I'm not sure that ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Is the honourable member rising on a gr ievance? MR. C. BAKER: Yes, I rise on a gri evance, in answer to a grievance, I suppose, if you wanted to put it in the proper context.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Thank you. Madam Speaker, the episode which the Member for Niakwa alluded to at the beginning . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. If the honourable member is going to refer to past proceedings in a committee, I've ruled comments on that out of order . MR. C. BAKER: Okay, Madam Speaker. You'll haul me up short, I suppose, if I do not stick to the rules because I don't know why I shouldn't be able to talk to something that just happened. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I do hope the honourable member is not reflecting on a ruling of the Chair. MR. C.

BAKER: Not at all. I'm just talking about the rules in general, Madam Speaker . But at the beginning of the honourable member's grievance speech, he alluded to the fact that, at least as he saw them, the Chairman of a particular committee was being unfair . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That particular topic, it is not appropriate to discuss that topic in the House. MR. C. BAKER: Well, Madam Speaker, I suppose then that I should put it this way. I was the Chairman to which the gentlemen spoke to in the beginning of his grievance and -(Interjection)- sorry? I just would like to tell my side of the story.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That topic when raised by the Honourable Member for Niakwa was ruled out of order. The proper place to deal with any points of order is when they happen, and not reflect on past proceed ings of either the House or the committee, nor reflect on the presiding officer. I ruled that out of order, the matter is closed. It is not open for debate in the House in any form. So if the honourable member wishes to carry on with a grievance on another topic, that would be in order . MR. C. BAKER: Madam Speaker, I would just like to talk about a situation then, a make-believe situation.

A MEMBER: That would be good. MR. C. BAKER: Suppo sing, Madam Speaker , it happened sometime in the history of this legislature that an individual got up on a point of grievance and indicated ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I also remind the honourable member that procedural difficulties arising in committees ought to be settled in committee and not in the House. The Speaker on many occasions has ruled that - (Interjection)- reflections on committee Chairs should not be reflected on any differently than the reflection on Speakers.

So if the honourable member wants to find some other way to put his position to other honourable members, this is not the appropria te way to do it. MR. J. WALDING: On a point of order , Madam Speaker. 3205

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital on a point of order. MR. J. WALDING: Madam Speaker, I'm not sure that I can be of assistance here, but it has been the practice in this House that when mem bers rise on a gr ievance there is considerable latitude given to them. I can recall that the rules say that their grievance ought to deal with only one topic, for example.

It may be in the rules that a gr ievance concerns only constituency matters or matters within the province, but it has happened in the past that membe rs have considered or given grievances having to do with a whole range of su bjects - international su bjects, Canadian subjects - and it has been the practice of the House and of prevai ling Speakers to be very accom modating when Ma tters of Gr ievance are concerned. I would ask you to bear this in mind, and also the fact that the Member for Lac du Bonnet has spoken of surely what is a hypothetical case.

I'm sure that he is involving the way that the rules might be interpreted and the actions of various members and of Chairmen in hypothetical cases, of which he has some experience. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: On the honourable member's point of order, I do hope he's not reflecting on the past ruling that I made, but giving advice in terms of the gr ievance that the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet is trying to make.

I will remind the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet - and I am trying, in both situations, to be as accommodating as possible - 26. 1(1) says: ". . . a member may raise a grievance respecting a matter which is of concern to the member or to the member's constituency." I am interpreting that in the broadest manner possible in terms of a matter which is of concern to a member. On the other hand, one should not reflect - I don't think that particular rule overrules the other rules in our book, which deal with reflecting on the proce edings of a com mittee or on the pre siding officer of a committee.

Now, if the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet would care to proceed. MR. C. BAKER: Madam Speaker , perhaps I could just talk about the way that a new member might feel in this House upon occasion. I think all of us enter this House, Madam Speaker, with the highest of morals. Each one of us wants to do his job as best he possibly can, understan ding that perhaps there are particular rules in this House which, outside the Chamber perhaps, do not apply. Anyway, it appears to me that there is a different code if you are addressing a municipal gathering or if you are addressing a gathering within this House.

Accepting that, Madam Speaker, I think that there is room to understand that occasionally each one of us personally can make a mistake, perhaps not a serious mistake, but nevertheless it's a mistake, a slip. And I don't think it should be judged, Madam Speaker, that if in a particular case an individual feels that he is slighted, even though you might go through 100 hours of committee hearings and everybody's happy but, all at once, one episode happens and all at once the government is damned; the Chairman is damned. Everybody's damned, because the Minister or the particular individual feels that he was slighted.

Firstly, Madam Speaker, I think if such an occasion would occur , the honourable gentl eman should understand that there was nothing personal involved, because I believe that all of us want to be honourable. There would be nothing personal involved in anything like that that would happen, at least from the new membe rs. Perhaps after you sit in this House for 15 or 20 years, you might want to pick from th ose holes.- (lnterjection) Well, I'm thinking of other members as well. You'r e pointing to one mem ber. But, Madam Speaker , again I say to you that everybody tries to do his best.

I suppose if the general public out there, because I think that this is why people speak in this House - not for each other to hear but for the general public to hear - and if the general public should hear that a particular member was branded as being unfair because perhaps he acted in a certain way against a certain gentleman, that general public would read the record because it's there, Madam Speaker. It's all there to see.

And if the general public would read the record, perhaps they would see, Madam Speaker, that the Chairman might be very unfair, maybe even be so unfair as to be construed to be unfair against the government in some instances. Because I understand that, insofar as the rules of committee are concerned, anybody who is a member of that committee has a right to ask a question, anybody. I don't think there are Opposition or government members mentioned individually. I think anybody has the right to ask the question, and I understand that to be the rule, Madam Speaker.

I also understand, Madam Speaker, that there is a spirit of cooperation between the government and the Opposition to expedite the business of the House, to get it done as fast as we possibly can so that we do not waste the taxpayers' money, and that there is some spirit of under standing that, after all, the government draws up the policy, you would think that the Opposition should be the ones, in general - in the main - to be asking the questions, to do the probing and to make the statements.

Madam Speaker, as I said before, if the general public would review the records, I'm sure they would see that, if they wanted to take the total time of certain committees or certain days, in some cases, recent cases, 16 pages of committee report - let's give half of that to the Minister, Madam Speaker. The other eight pages would be left for the committee members to ask to review.

If you wanted to research sti ll furth er, Ma dam Speaker, you'd find that three-quarters of a page is allocated to the government members to ask questions, and that seven and a quarter are left to the Opposition membe rs to ask questions. Now, Madam Speaker, how could any member of the Opposition construe that as being unfair? I ask them. How could that be unfair? Do you want all the time, Madam Speaker? The gentleman from Portage la Prairie, he wants to do all the questions. That's contrary to the Rules of the House. I think, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Portage la Prairie protests 3206

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 too much. He knows that they'r e on shaky grounds when they're bringing this up, because I think the Chairman has been more than fair. I want to tell the honourable gentleman the fa.et that they brought this grie vance up won't change the style by which the Chairman conducts his business. Because the only person he really has to answer to is to himself.

Insofar as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, I think that the Chairman I'm talking about was fair and he did do a good job of chairing those meetings and allocated time fairly, with the exception of one occasion perhaps, Madam Speaker, when the situation with one of the mem bers , perhaps he should ha ve acted differently. He didn't and for that I apologize to the honourable members. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I've said my grievance.

MADAM SPEAKER: The question before the House is, Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Agreed? MR. G. MERCIER: No. MADAM SPEAKER: No. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ma dam Spea ker, I, too, wish today to use my grievance that is allowed to a member once a year. I use it, Madam Speaker, because I can't count the number of times during the past few months that I've had members of the public come to me and say, "When is the next election?

We've got to get rid of this government." SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, in fact, I think today may be the 15 th month anniversary of the election of this government to its second term in office. I have to remind them that it's only 15 months. But it seems, the response, Madam Speaker, but it seems like a lifetime. It seems like it's been years and years because of so many things that have happened in the short 15 months that this government has been in office since the election of March 18 of just last year, Madam Speak er.

Now the chickens are really coming home to roost, Madam Speaker. I intend to go through a number of the issues, issues that arose during the first term in office. Madam Sp eak er, of cou rse, the Min ister of Government Services, responsible for the Workers Compensation Board, is here and has distributed to members of the House today a report of the Workers - or the printed report, he's provided another earlier report to us, but the printed report is with us today - Compensation Review Committee, in which serious and major recom mendations are made for an overview of the Workers Compensation Board, Madam Speaker.

Now in their first term of office, Madam Speaker, they also provided this House with a number of reports for an overhaul of the Workers Compensation Board system in Manitoba. Of course, Madam Speaker, at 3207 that time, they blamed the previous government from 1977 -19 81, even though they had accumulated a $36 million surplus. But, Madam Speaker, this report is a report on their overhaul of the system. Whether one was needed or not is open to question. But just look back at what they did, Madam Speaker, when they assumed office in 19 81.

They cancelled the judicial inquiry that was put in place at that time by the previous Conservative Government; and if ever, Madam Speaker, there was a need for a judicial inquiry into the operation of the Workers Compensation Board, it's now. It's now, Madam Speaker. When we look at what this government has done to that whole system, what did they do to begin to cause the massive liabil ity or deficit of the Workers Compensation Board? They fired the whole board at that time.

They fired the neutral chairman of the Workers Compensation Board, a practice that had been in place in Manitoba for decades, Madam Speaker. Now they'r e doing the same thing with the Municipal Board, and we hope to goodness that the same results don't occur in the Municipal Board that have occurred in other areas where they have chosen to place their partisan political appointees in charge of those systems. They fired that whole board. They fired all of the senior administrators of that board who had worked for their careers for the board, who had worked to run an efficient system.

There's no doubt in my mind, and I've said it in the past, Madam Speaker, that there were obviously some changes that had to be looked at and that's why we had brought into place a judicial inquiry at that time. But they went off on their own with their politically appointed board, firing all of the senior administrative staff , causing the system a great deal of expense in severance pay and carrying pensions for those people that they fired at that particular time.

They went off and we've seen the huge increase in administrative expenses that have been charged to the board by their politically appointed board that they put in place, for which they have had to have this total review, for which the Minister responsible has had to increase assessments some 20 percent a year for a number of years; and now it's not going to be 1989, as the former Minister said, that the board would be put into a non-deficit position. Sometime is 1999 or some far-off number, Madam Speaker, that nobody really knows.

So, Madam Speaker, the chickens have come home to roost in the Workers Compensation Board dir ectly as a result of the actions of this government which they started in late 19 81. And I ask you, Madam Speaker: How can the public of Ma nitoba have confidence in the continuation of this government to remain in office in Manitoba? And that's why, Madam Speaker, people are coming up to members on this side of the House and asking, "When is the next election?" even though it's just some 15 months since the last election.

Madam Speaker , we have a government that in 1981 said that they were going to restore health care in Manitoba. And what is happening now? The Minister stood up the other day in response to questions from myself, the Member for Fort Garry and a number of others, and we learned, in addition to what has happened with the cancellation of beds in Brandon, that there are 48 beds at the Victoria Hospital that are

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 going to be permanently closed. Sur gical beds, Madam Speaker, permanently closed to that community in the City of Winnipeg, and there are a number of others under consideration which are more than likely going to happen. As the Member for River East said, nurses are being asked to take an unpaid leave of absence. Yet the Minister of Health stands up in this House and said there is going to be no leaves. Understandab ly, she asked the question: what is the dif ference between an unpaid leave of absense and a layoff? There is no difference, Madam Speaker.

So despite all the promises about so-called restoring health care, we have seen the rationing of health care in Manitoba since 1981 when this government assumed office, Madam Speaker. Of course, the Manitoba Telephone System and the political manoeuvrings that went on prior to the last election -1986 - we had a politically appointed board and a Minister that chose only to apply for a 3 percent increase in the telephone rates, Madam Speaker, which was, of course, unsaid but there was an election coming up very shortly.

So they applied for a 3 percent increase in telephone rates, we have the election, and now the public of Manitoba has been saddled this year with an 11 .5 percent increase in telephone rates, which, of course, also includes part of the $27 million loss of MTX in Saudi Arabia, which again . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Only the interest, none of the loss MR. G. MERCIER: And only the interest, as the Member for Pembina reminds me, Madam Speaker.

There again is a situation where this government deliberately took a position to apply for less of a telephone increase in late 1985 because an election was imminent, and obviously they convinced a sufficient number of voters in Manitoba in 1986. Everything was going well. The public of Manitoba gets saddled with an 11 .5 percent increase within a year of the election, Madam Speaker. How can the public have confidence in a government that acts in that way, Madam Speaker?

How can the public have confidence in a government that refused to answer the questions that the Member for Pembina put to them about MTX prior to the election of 1986, that simply closed the books on that affai r until the election was over, Madam Speaker? How can we have confidence in a government that, for th ree or four years prior to the election of 1986, promis ed the freedom of information legislation and still has not delivered on the freedom of information proclamation of tha t legislation, and says perhaps next year, perhaps 1988, Madam Speaker?

How can the public of Manitoba have confidence in that type of government? Today, Madam Speaker, we have another situation wher e the chickens have come home to roost. The Minister of Community Services has tabled with us the latest annual report of her department for 1986-1987. And what does it show in the statistics, Ma dam Speaker? What it shows in the statistics with respect to child abuse is that there has been a one-third increase in the number of abused children in 1986 in Manitoba over 1985. It has gone up from a total of 646 cases to 836 cases.

But, Mada m Speaker , this wa sn't to happen, supposedly, that we now have in place, supposedly, the system tha t the Minis ter of Communi ty Services implemented in 1984 which was going to solve all of the problems. There was going to be prevention that was going to stop child abuse in Manitoba. But there has been criticism of that Minister, Madam Speaker.

We just received this year the review committee that this Legislature, I think, by it's action and with your assistance, Madam Speaker, in an emergency debate at the last Session resulted in having this report in which there are again major recommendations for overhaul and reform of their system, of the government system that they put in place in 1984.

The statistics show, Madam Speaker , this government system is not working when you have a one-third increase in total child abuse cases from 1985 to 1986, and which, Madam Speaker, most regrettably, there are six deaths in 1986 compared to none in the previous year. Madam Speaker, this government obviously is not competent to handle anything. It is not competent to handle anything, and then they come to us at this Session of the Legislature, in the past few days, telling us this government is going to take over ICG, the gas company.

How can the public of Manitoba have any confidence in their ability to handle that situation when they botched the Telephone System, the telephone service in Manitoba, when they botched, Madam Speaker , we remem ber Ma nfor . Every thing was supposedly fine at Manfor, before the next election. But the government changed the year-end. They changed the year-end to 15 months and the $30 million loss was announced after the election. How can they have any cre dibility, Madam Speaker? One has to ask whether there is any honesty on that side of the House at all.

We have today in this House, Madam Speaker, the Minis ter of Highways responding to a numb er of qu estions from the Member for Morris and the Member for Springfield, where he tries to hide the fact, when the Member for Springfield has clear documentation that the prelimi nary report is going to be doctored, is going to be amended, is going to changed before it's released to the public. He says he has no knowledge of it, yet the Member for Springf ield has a copy of the memorand um from the office of the Minis ter of Highways and Transportat ion, forward ing a copy to all NOP Caucus members, Madam Speaker.

So they haven't learned a thing, Madam Speaker. They are prepared to change anything, to doctor anything, to hide anything just so that they remain in office. They did it prior to the last election; they succeeded I suppose, so they're going to continue it, Madam Speaker. They're going to continue to change these documents, change documents to -(lnterjection) and I haven't yet gotten into that area, Madam Speaker. But obviously another instance has shown up at this Session of the Legislature what they were prepared to do to win the last election.

The Minister respo nsible for MPIC has clearly said he was well aware of the losses of MPIC, but made a decision not to put them in the annual report and hid them from the public so that they were not available at the time of the last election. How many more instances of this are occurri ng, Madam Speaker? How many more instances of this are occurring? 3208

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 Well, we have the Minister of Education, Madam Speaker . The Minister of Education and his chief aide, the now Min ister of Busin ess and Tourism. We remember what they did with Doctor Perkins at the Brandon University, Doctor Perkins and the University of Brandon. They cost the public of Manitoba $1 million because they put again their partisan appointments on tha t board , Ma dam Sp eak er, and they cost the taxpayers a $1 million loss. That's what they did and the Min ister of Education is sitting there making comments from his seats about these other matters.

He has no room to manoeuvre, Madam Speaker. Virtually in every area that you look at, there are instances of cover-ups and hiding information from the public of Manitoba or distorting information put to the public of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, and then they ask us here to approve their takeover of the gas company. The Mem ber for Lakeside has expressed some genuine concerns and cer tainly we all sympathize with those concerns that he expressed. Perhaps the real issue in that situation is, are the members of the NOP and this government competent to take over this utility, Madam Speaker?

Put in those essential terms, Madam Speaker, I say no. The public has no confidence in their ability to take over the gas company and run it properly, Madam Speaker , because in every instance of Crown corporations, their departmental involvement that I've referred to, there's been too much partisan politics injected into the activities of this government to the detriment of the public of Manitoba, but only for the benefit of the NOP Party. They're prepared to put the inter ests of the NOP above the public inter est of Manitoba. We look, what did they do with Flyer , Ma dam Speaker?

I think we have to remind the public about some of these instances. They hid that particular matter until a couple of months after the election when it cost $10 0 million to get rid of Flyer, that great NOP socialist experiment that originated in the early 1970's. Madam Speaker, we've had a Budget, a Budget that is driving people out of Manitoba and today, as I under stand it, it's confirmed that it is destroying consumer confidence in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, I can say to you and to membe rs of this House, that a number of my constituents have already since that Budget made a decision to move and are moving from this province, and others are looking to move from this province because of the tax regime and the attitude of this government. We all know the Canadian Federation of Business, independent business, in their survey have given the lowest mark to this province and this government in its attitudes towards small business.

But that has been reflected over the last num ber of years, Ma dam Speaker, in a number of well-paying good jobs moving out of this province and they are occurring virtually every week of the year. We see major moves. One can well understand, if one tries to be rea sonable, Madam Speaker, in terms of some head offices moving to Toronto, because that's where much of the real economic activity is right now. We hate to see them do it, but sometimes you can understand the business rationale for doing it, but lately we have seen a number of businesses moving to Calgary.

Now in my mind, Madam Speaker, there's no reason on earth why we should see major economic activities move from Manitoba to Alberta. Madam Speaker, it well appears that there is going to be another major move from Manitoba to Calgary and it's going to be the head office of Westfair Foods. That is under active consideration and Manitoba is going to see, regrettab ly, a loss of some 325 jobs from this province, well-paying jobs, Madam Speaker, that are going to leave this province, and this government is responsible for most of those moves.

We've seen the drop in manufacturing jobs, the greatest loss of manufacturing jobs across the countr y, and those are the good paying jobs. Who is going to continue to pay the high rates of taxation that this government is imposing? Their budget is driving people out of this province. The 2 percent net income tax, the increase in the sales tax and all of the other tax, Madam Speaker, because we're at virtually the highest level of taxation of any of the components when you look at the comparisons with all of the other provinces.

And we have virtually all of the new, so-called new taxes, Madam Speaker, the payroll tax and other taxes like that. They're only, Madam Speaker, in many of the cases, applied by this government, so this government has picked up the worst of the tax regimes from other provinces, and it's work ing to destroy and harm economic activity in this province and destroy good paying jobs and forcing people to leave this province and certain ly, without question, Madam Speaker, is work ing to discourage investment and long-term investment and the creation of jobs in the private sector.

So what do we have in react ion to that? We have the government introduce at this Session of the Legislature Bill 61, a bill not only opposed by the Chamber of Commerce but opposed by a significant number of labour unions. One has to wonder what is going on in the mind of this government when both management and labour don't want the bill but the government is determined to carry on with it.

It simply raises agai n, as many comme ntators have noted, Madam Speaker, whether or not this bill is being designed to bail out one particular union and one particular strike that is ongoing at this present time, just to help out a friend - who happens to be the leader of the union.

Madam Speaker, what is worse than that is that it creates in the mind of anybody looking at investing in Manitoba - they see an attitude there that is simply not helpful at all and they are going to look elsewhere, and they are looking elsewhere and will continue to look elsewhere as long as ther e is that kind of attitude is expressed by the government. Madam Speaker, those kinds of activities by this government in labour legislation and an unwillingness to listen to the comments on a bill like this where there is alm ost virtual unanim ity between labour and management - the bill should not be introduced.

Any investor says, why do I want to get myself involved in that particular situation? Madam Speaker, we have this Budget which has proven very ha rmful to consu mer and business confidence in this province. We have a debt which has been increased by this government from some $4,000 per capita when they took office to $9,500 per capita. That's in five or six years - an astounding debt and 3209

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 legacy to be left to Manitobans. We've used up all of the tax room in this province. Where are they going to go next? The economy is said to be going very well. It generally is going fairly well. What are they going to do if we have a recession, or there's a downturn in the economy? Wher e are they going to go for the extra revenue that will be required? It simply will not be available. Even with all of those taxes, we're carrying a $417 million deficit in that $500 million range for the fifth or sixth year in a row.

So they're putting the province in a real box because there's no room to manoeuvre. There's no room to manoeuvre in the future when it may well be necessary for government to act in the public interest, in the event of a down-turn in the economy. All of these things, Madam Speaker, create the situation where people are, as I said earlier on, saying, "when is the next election?" We have to remind them it's only 15 months, but it seems like decades, Madam Speaker, because so much has gone wrong by this government. They seem unable to touch anything without having it go wrong. They seem unable to mana ge anyth ing.

They appear cert ainly to be incompetent in all of their dealings and we're being asked to approve a major take-over of the gas company at this time. Madam Speaker, the public are simply shaking their heads and saying, "when will it all be over?" And the earlier it's over, the better for Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supp ly to be gr anted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for Bur rows in the Chair for the Department of Finance; and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for the Department of Government Services. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - GOVERNMENT SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: Committee, come to order. The Member for Portage. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to deal a little bit with the financial end.

I think, first of all, I only missed a few minutes of the critic so I hope I'm not covering any of the territory he did. In the adminis tration expenses, we see an increase of almost $1. 5 million over last year. Mr. Chairman, we look back to 1980 or even'81 where it was around $4 million and now we're up in $1 1 million, so we're looking at an increase of about 300 percent in the five years of NOP hard times. Can the Minister tell us, is it because of increased staff or what is the reason for the $1. 5 million increase in expenses? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The

interpretation of NOP hard times would depend on whose perspective you're looking at it. I guess if you look at it from the perspective of the injured workers, the widows and the childr en who are not getting these services, then I guess you could say it's good times for them because they were getting the services that they previously weren't rec eiving. So I guess it depends on what perspective you're looking at. I guess if you look at the general administration of the Workers Compensation . MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. HON. W.

PARASIUK: On a point of order, I want to make sure that the Member for Niakwa was not cut off in any way, shape or form by the Member for Portage. MR. A. KOVNATS: It hasn't bothered my speaking, but ... MR. CHAIRMAN: I might tell the Minister that I did ask the Member for Portage la Prairie whether in fact his colleague for Niakwa was going to be here and he would have the oppor tunit y of carrying on the questioning if he so wished. But he was not here, so I recognized the gentleman for Portage la Prairie. Mr. Minister, will you continue your speech. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: The cost to this administration has incr eased as the total budg et of Workers Compensation has increased. You have to recognize the improvements that have been made in the whole area of rehabilitation, the whole area of claims. So natural ly, there was the cost in the whole opera tion. This money has not gone just for administration. There have been increases for the benefits of the people who have been injur ed, for the wid ows and the dependent childr en of those injured workers. The percentage of administration, percentage-wise, is still pretty well the same as it was.

It's usually between 10 percent and 14 percent of total budg eted for administration and that's still the rule followed by Workers Compensation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Mr. Chairman, it would be easier if the Minister, instead of giving us his programmed answers, would just say it was Answer No. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, because basically it's the same answer. What is the staf fing complement now at Workers Compensation compared to say, 1982, when they took over? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I believe the answer to Question No. 10, that the Member for Portage la Prairie put, was in 1982 it was 171; now it is 261. MR. E. CONNERY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We want to be very careful when we do these Estimates, because I think you have to realize that the money we 'r e discussing is not money that has been raised through taxation by the government, it's raised by premiums and totally paid by the business community, unless this government does decide to take up and recover some of the unfunded liability as the Minister likes to see.

One other thing that kind of bothered me a little bit in the Financial Statement was the allowance for doubtful accounts. We had the two-year comparison, 3210

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 but in'84, it was $1 50,000; now we're $525,000.00. This is an item that appears to me to be rising just a little bit too quick ly. I know the more money you're involved in, the higher the doubtful accounts will be, but I don't think the premiums have tripled in the three years, or two years actually. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess the first thing the Member for Portage mentioned was the fact that it is the business community's money and we should be carefu l.

I want the member to know that we are carefu l with all money that we handle with this government, not only the business community's money, but the taxpayers' money is important to us. I think we have been showing prudent leadership in the way we have been handling the taxpayers' money. The Member for Portage asks if the government is going to be paying part of the assessment. I've made it quite clear that we have no intentions of moving into that area.

That is an area which is the re sponsibility of the business community as a historic agreement that was reached for the benefit of both workers and the business community. I don't think anybody wants to go into that area and change that formula. It is the resp onsibility of the business community and it will remain so. You ask about write-offs, I guess the board's annual bad debt write-offs are due to bankru ptcies and other normal collection problems. The ratio of bad debts overall is extremely low, compared to what would be an average in the business sector, and you should mention that this money is not lost.

It is still in the process of being collected and some of it is collected. I think that the member has a close rapport with the busine ss commu nity, I would encourage you to encourage them to pay their assessment that they have been assessed in whatever category they fall into. MR. E. CONNERY: Well, Mr. Chairman, one comedian was asked where he got all his material from and he said, "I listen to the government and then I report on it." I think this is a classic case that the Minister is becoming a stand-up comedian with his answers. Mr.

Chairman, last year, when we were in the rates, the average rate was I think $1 .36, it was supposed to be, and it ended up at $1. 38 something. It would have taken 53 percent last year to increase to break even. What would it have cost this year to break even, not to repay the unfunded liability, but to break even on this year's operation? HON. H. HARAPIAK: It would have taken an increase of 57 percent to break even with the operating costs. MR. E. CONNERY: The Minister said that he is going to have the fund in a break-even point by 1989.

The Minister must have done some calculations to come up with that sort of a figure. I don't know if he's going to find anymore extreme losses, but let's say that the additional $10 0 million is the last surprise we'r e going to get, what would it cost to be breaking even in 19 89? What would the rate be? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The member alludes to additional $100 million. There is no additional $10 0 million. The actuaries have worked with Workers Compensation and they have come up with the figure of an $84 million unfunded liability.

There would have to be additional decisions made by Cabinet before there's any additional increase in the unfunded liability. We said that we'd need an increase of 20 percent until 1989, which would bring us to a break-even point in the operating budget. MR. E. CONNERY: You're saying, if we have an increase of 20 percent each year till 1989, we'll be at a break even point. Is that what the Minister said? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. MR. E. CONNERY: No, not recovering any debts, just on the operations for that year, 20 percent a year.

But you said it would take 57 percent this year, so what year are we in now - 1987? So in two years, we're going to be in 1989, so 20 percent and 20 percent, even though you compound the 20 percent, isn't going to give you a break even if you need 57 percent this year. How does the Minister rationalize those figures? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Member for Portage la Prairie doesn't seem to take into consideration that it was in 1986 the year we set the rates for. So that we would be figured over three years of 20 percent would be a break-even point. MR. E.

CONNERY: You know, the Minister's in fantasy land with the losses that are being incurred annually and we're not going to set a rate that's going to break even next year at 20 percent. So I don't have the time to do the calculations but anybody sitting down and reading Hansard after will know that and understand why this government and this Workers Compensation is in such a disastrous position because they just don't understand it. The Minister said that if they implemented all of the 17 8 recommendations in the King Report that there would be a break even in the position, it wouldn't cost any money.

The Minister must have some figur es now to justify making that statement. Can he tell us what the revenue factors would be and what the cost factors would be? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I have said on several occasions that, based on the years of experience of the review committee, which is Mr. Tom Farrell, who's the industry rep, so I'm sure that you have had a very close rapport with Mr.

Tom Farrell - he is responsible for Workers Compensation for lnco, one of the largest corporations in the province - and Lissa Donner, who's had several years experience with Workers Compensation, helping people in the labour industry apply for some of their claims, and she's had several years of experience; and Mr. Brian King, who is the chairperson, had several years experience as an injured worker and also he was the chai rperson of the Workers Com pensation of Saskatchewan.

Based on those years of experience, they said that, if all the rec om mendations of the report were implemented, it would come out at cost-neutral. We have not done the cost analysis at this time. We're still in the process of developing the cost analysis. When 3211

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 we are completed, we will make a report on all our findings. MR. E. CONNERY: Well, the Minister's admitting that he misled the House when he said that it would break even if he implemented them. He has not done the study; he hasn't done the rationale, so he hasn't got the figures to back it up. So by making a statement of that line, you are just picking paper off the wall. You really have no grounds to have made that statement, and this is what we're saying. You haven 't been straightforward with us on the Opposition side in coming forth with the factual answers. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I guess the Member for Portage la Prairie is, as usual, not listening to the answers and is re ading his written set of qu estions tha t the researchers obviously supplied him with. I have never made a statement to the House that we had any cost analysis done. As I very clearly have stated, we're going to be doing an analysis of the entire report. Then we'll be making our recommendations and moving on the entire report. I have never misled the House, and have never told them that we have done any analysis on it. MR. E.

CONNERY: Last year in Estimates, I asked the Minister then - the Minister now has changed - if we could have a breakdown of the categories of the cost versus the premiums to see if the categories each were paying their own representative share, even though we're losing money. The answer was, if it wasn't against government regulation, he would do it. We never did get the figures. What has this Minister got to say? Will he provide the breakouts of the categories? HON. H. HARAPIAK: There are 73 categories, and 47 of the groups are in a negative balance, and 26 of the groups are in a positive balance.

There's a book that's given out by the Assessment Branch of Workers Compensation which includes all the different categories and you can get a copy. We can arrange to have a copy sent to you. MR. E. CONNERY: Pardon me, I was talking to our researcher who was giving me my next question. At the end, did the Minister say that the information was available to us by category? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, I said you can get one from the Assessment Department or, if you like, we can have one delivered to you. MR. E. CONNERY: Okay. Obviously, the Minister last year didn't know that or didn't follow up on it.

What is the philosophy of the Workers Compensation Board? Is it to have all categories be in a break-even point? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, that is not the philosophy of the Workers Compensation. We view it as a collective liability where it's the responsibility of all of the industry to be responsible for it and we try and even it out as much as we possibly can. But there are different categories where they are based on histor y, the danger of their occupation that they're involved in. Based on that history, the categories are broken down in that area. So they are based on history in those categories.

Sure, sometimes it may fluctuate. The history of certain categories may be better than others but, overall, it's a pretty fair system. MR. E. CONNERY: So it's not designed for each category to pay it's own way, so some categories are paying a higher amount because they're in a hopeless position, and the Minister says it's not the philosophy of the government to have each category pay its own way. But in Autopac, you don't have every car charged the same insurance bill. You go by size and everyt hing else. There are various rates. Individuals who have a good rating system pay less and those who are bad pay more.

How do you justify having different categories being subsidized by other ones? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Within the groups, there are dif ferent - that's why we have a different percentage increase from one gr oup to anot her. There's an adjustment made every year. So within the 73 groups, they try and adjust it every year so they are trying to break even at every year. But overall, there are some who are not paying their way. MR. E. CONNERY: Well, just for an example, Mr . Chairman, I have one group that we got last year - and I wonder if the Minister agrees with this sort of thing - it's subgroup 905-08.

We got this for 1984 and 1985 cumulative, and there were costs of $2,891 and premiums of $37,057.00. Now to me, this is not the way Workers Compensation should be. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess I should tell the Member for Portage what goes into estimating the rates for each category. They're estimated employer payroll and estimated dir ect costs.

These include compensation, medical, the capitalized value of pension awards and rehabilitation costs on accidents after 19 83, and estimated administration costs and also the estimated costs of funding the rehabilit ation and second injury, equalization fund, amortization of past provisions for '87 pension increases, and the requir ed increases to the reserve for future costs to existing claims. MR. E. CONNERY: The Mi nister says estimated costs. I don't know why the Minister would be estimating any costs for any category. You've got a track record of each category.

Wouldn't your premiums for the coming year be based on the previous experience of that particular category? HON. H. HARAPIAK: It has been the history or experience of Workers Compensation that you can't predict the history or the experience or the severity of any accidents in any specific area. So that's been the practice that's always been in place for Workers Compensation, they estimate the costs. MR. E. CONNERY: Well, to the Minister, I can predict history accurately. Surely to goodness, you must use what has happened in the previous years to set your premium for the coming year. 3212

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 HON. H. HARAPIAK: We do use that formula to a degree, but then the payroll increases and there ar e many, many factors come into play. They use the previous year's experience as history but then, at the end of the year, there is a final accounting where the final payment has to be paid. Whatever the difference is, is paid at that time. MR. E.

CONNERY: So, the Minister then is saying that he's not concerned if each category is brought in line and maybe within from year to year there will be fluctuations where there will be changes within an industry, a higher incidence of accidents, in another categor y, a lower incidence. But he's saying that he's not concerned about trying to ensure that each category clearly pays its own way. HON. H. HARAPIAK: It's difficult to predict, because what you're attempting to hit into is a self-insured status. There are many factors that come in with it.

In a small grouping, one fatality in a small group could drastically affect the group rates in any given year. MR. E. CONNERY: If these figures were available, for how many years back are the figu res for the various categories available? What I would like to see is: Have certain categories continuously been in a deficit position and others in a surplus? Then that would show that the government hasn't attempted to bring them in line. I ask the philosophy of the Minister. He said it's difficult to predict. Well I guess this government is pretty hard to predict.

But what is the philosophy of this Minister in regard to categories? Is there a genuine attempt on the part of the Workers Compensation to see that each category fairly pays their own way? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess that's one of the areas that have been touched on by the review committee. They are saying that they should be moving, they should be reducing the number of categories, I guess. That's a recommendation. I guess we should be moving into less categories, and trying to ensure that each category is paying their way as much as possible, and set their rates on that basis. MR. E.

CONNERY: What would be the philosophy of less categories, the reason for less categories? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess it would be a collective liability and wouldn't allow for as much fluctuation. There would be more categories and there wouldn't be as much fluctuation as there is in, say, one small category. If there were less categories there would be less fluctuation in rates. MR. E. CONNERY: I guess what the Minister is saying, if you have less categories, it's easier to lump a whole bunch in and so some are subsidizing others.

With the less categories, there's going to be less opportunity to see which categories are incurring the higher costs and should be brought in line. The Minister won't tell me if, philosophically, he believes in each category paying their own way. HON. H. HARAPIAK: If there is less fluctuation, then it would be better for the industry to be budgeting for the year. If it continues to fluctua te in a rate, if there's a great fluctuation every year, then it's difficult for indu stry to budg et. So I think, if there was less fluctuation, then it would be better for industry.

But I guess in the Workers Compensation, there is a pooling of risk of the entire Workers Compensation. MR. E. CONNERY: Pooling of risk isn't common in just about any other insurance. You are in a category and, if you have a good incidence, you get a lower premium and, if you're in a high one, you pay higher. So I don't know why Workers Compensation is going contrary to the norms. But in the King Report, they recommend bringing in a whole lot of new people, including farmers. Now the farm community is going to be thoroughly upset if they are forced to join Workers Compensation.

I think the Minister wants to consider this. But they say that and the Minister says we can implement the King Report, the expense items. We think there'll be a flood of new applications, but offset by Income. This whole new group of people who come in, are they going to be overassessed because, if they'r e assessed fair ly , their categories should be in a break even area and there should be no windfall revenue to offset the higher costs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Member for Portage La Prairie says that this isn't different than the insurance indus tr y. It is different.

This is the Workers Compensation Board and once again I have to remind you of that historical agreement that was reached by the workers and the employers. The employers are protected from being hauled into court so that is one of the things, the protection they get for being involved in Workers Compensation. If they were taken to court in a small industry like the one you were involved in before you became a member of the Legislature, if there was a fatality in your operat ion, then it would break you.

Whereas now, if you were covered by Workers Compensation, it's a collective coverage of that fatality. MR. E. CONNERY: I think that's "rehearsed answer No. 6," because the Minister never answered one portion of my question. Now, how many answers did they program you for, Har ry, so that we know how many different ones we'r e going to get? Well, it's not fair but we get the same answer. I asked a question. I asked the Minister: Was this new group of people coming in going to pay more than what they were going to be assessed or taking out of the system?

Is there going to be a windfall amount of money to Workers Compensation because of this new group? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I think if you are ref erring to the farm community, we would have to have a very high rate set for that community, that category, because the history of the farm community has not been good. There have been a lot of injuries in that industry, so it certa inly wouldn't be a windfall. If you want to look at some of the other categories that have been recommended that they come into, become part of the Workers Compensation, there is no windfall in any of tho se categories brought in. 3213

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 There is some history that you can follow up on. You go into Workers Compensation in Saskatchewan and Ontario where they are part of the system now. There's no windfall there. MR. E. CONNERY: Well, the Minister, you know, I'm kind of bamboozled by his answers and what has been said. He said that if all of the recommendations of the King Report were implemented, the expenses would be offset by income. Then where is the income coming from? Where is the additional income to offset the horrendous costs of some of the recom mendations of the King Report? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: There are 17 8 recommendations. If you take into consideration all of the recommendations, then it should be cost-neutral. I am not goi ng to start debating one specific recommendation over another. I know that you and your leader would like to start dis cussing each recommendation separately. We are not going to. So if that's what you want to lead into, I can save you a lot of time and tell you I'm not going to be discussing every recommendation separately. We will be discussing the entire report. MR. E. CONNERY: I wasn't asking about every recommendation.

I'm saying the cost versus the income, what are the numbers? The Minister says they're going to break even. Fine, but I'd like to know where he's coming up with this answer. If you have a statement to make, you should have done some research that have some working papers to show how you came up with that. I would like just an insight as to how the Minister decided to make that statement. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Obviously the Membe r for Portage was not listening to my qu estions to begin with.

I told you very clearly that the cost analysis had not been done, that the break even, or the cost-neutral figure was arrived at by the years of experience of the thr ee people who were involved with the review committee. Based on that experience, they said it would be a cost-neutral. That's the best information we have at this time. There is analysis being carried out on where the costs - how much revenue the revenue items are going to bring and how much costs are going to be involved, but at this time we do not have those figur es. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage. MR. E.

CONNERY: I'll pass to somebody else, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have found it extremely difficult to get a hold on the Workers Compensation Board, quite frank ly, in terms of trying to find out just how it works. And if A MEMBER: It doesn't work. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister wants to know where I'm at right this minute, I'm on page 7 of the Workers Compensation Board Annual Report. There's a structure there headed by the Board of Commissioners down to information services, support services.

Can the Minister provide information as to just how many individuals - and I don't want to know the names of the individuals - are involved in this variety of functions? I assume that three board of commissioners and one in the top thr ee lines, how many others are involved? HON. H. HARAPIAK: While they're gathering some additional information I'll start giving you the information tha t we ha ve here. At the top is the Board of Commissioners and it says there that there are thr ee boards of commissioners and one chief executive officer.

There are three people involved in criminal injuries, one secretary to the board, two review officers; one of those SY's is presently the liaison officer. There are three permanent review committee members and they're still gathering additional information. I'll read them off in the way they are listed in my book and it might not be in the same order as you've got in that book, but I'll read them slowly. In claims, there are 86 people; in assessment, there are 42; finance is 30; data processing is 10; medical is 21; administration is 27; rehabil itation is 42, for a total of 261. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Could the Minister tell me how that has changed over the last couple of years? We have 261 for this report, what comparative numbers did we have in'85 or'84? HON. H. HARAPIAK: What year do you want? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I need both. HON. H. HARAPIAK: In 1985, in claims, there was 86. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Just the total figure. HON. H. HARAPIAK: The total figur e was 250; and'84 was 222; in'83, it was 196;'82 was 171, and in'81, it was 15 0. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I can understand, Mr.

Chairman, why the numbers certainly would have gone up when we moved into a vocational rehabil itation department, which really didn't exist before, but what are the reasons for the increase in'85 and '86? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I've got the changes here for the Member for River Heights. In the Adminstration area, there was an increase of 4 people; in Data Processing, there was 1 additional person; in Finance, there were 4 additional people; in Medical is 1 additional; and Vocational Rehabilitation is 1. I should mention that we compare quite favourably with the other jur isdictions across Canada.

We're just about in mid-range of the number of clients handled per person employed as compared to other Workers Compensation Boards across Canada. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad they compare, but if you deal with a number of clients who 3214

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 are being served, you're not dealing with very large numbers, and yet you had a staff component increase of 11. How can the board justif y 11 new employees when in fact the servicing to clients hasn't gone up anywhere near that kind of percentage? A MEMBER: They had that many friends. HON. H. HARAPIAK: We have continued to make implementations of the Lampe Report, so services have gone up.

I just wanted to tell the Member for River Heights that in comparison to other jur isdictions, Manitoba handles 208 claims per staff pers on, Newf oundland is 174, Saskatchewan is 15 6, British Columbia is 129, Quebec is 11 7, Ontario is 103, and Alberta is 56. So you can see from those figures that Manitoba has a fairly lean admin istration staff compa red to other juri sdictions. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, I know that the Minister does not want to discuss the report and I don't want to discuss individual recommendations, but I do want to refer to the "Beef and Bouquet"

section and a statement that one of the regrets of the committee was the difficulty in establishing a cooperative and efficient working rela tionship with the Workers Compensation Board. I think it's only fair to allow the Workers Compensation Board to explain why they felt they didn't have that kind of a working relationship - or did they feel they had the working relationship that the King Report says, indeed, didn't exist? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess, when we get right down to it, I think we should look at the whole report.

The report does acknowledge that there were a lot of changes made by the present Workers Compensation from the system they took over in'81, and there was some difficulty to begin with in the working relationship, but they also acknowledge th at there were improvements and, at the end, there was cooperation between the board and the review committee. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, we had $3 1 7,470 spent on the review committee, and I don't ask for any breakdown of that amount of money for thr ee people doing the kind of travel ling and evaluating they were doing.

I don't think that's an out-of-line figure, quite frank ly. I think it's a rea sonable amount of money spent. But having spent that kind of money, it is distressing to think that they were not getting the full cooperation of the board that they were supposed to be trying to evaluate. I think that if one looks at the composition of that particular board, it was done, certain ly, with the board in mind in terms of being relatively sympathetic to the board's position, which still leaves, I think, everyone with a very uneasy feeling that there seemed to be this difficulty in communicating with the board.

What is going to now happen in terms of trying to bring about the reco mmendations of this particular committee? If you have a board that seems less than sympathetic to a review, it presu mably is still going to be a board that's less sympathetic to changes, the kind of processes going on to perhaps make them more open to that kind of situation. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I have shared with the Member for River Heights that to begin with there seemed to be a little bit of difficulty of sharing of information, but then later on there was an improvement and they did share the information with the review committee.

Now that the review committee has tabled a report, I have given a copy to the Workers Compensation Board, and they just got it last week so they haven't had a chance to analyze the full impact of the report, but I expect that I will be sitting down with the board very shortly and discussing some of the reco mmendations of the review committee and some of the recommendations that we want to bring forward . We are com mit ted to refo rm.

As a Mini ster responsible for Workers Compensation, we want to make the improvements to the Workers Compensation that'll make it the most humane and efficient Workers Compensation that is in Canada. I think there are some areas where there are impr ovements needed and some of the recommendations are that the structure of the board be changed. We will be looking at that recommendation, along with all the other re com mendations, and discussing it with the board and see what role they have to play in th e changes that are being recommended.

We're using this as one of the building blocks for a system to make it more humane and more cost effi cient and all the other considerations that have to be taken to make a good Workers Compensation. There are other ideas that we have on how we should be improving the system. So we'll be taking this all in as one complete package and the commitment I'm making is that we will be bringing about reform. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr . Chairman, we've heard the Minister now use the word "analyze" or "an analysis" a number of times both in the House and in these hearings.

Just what is the process of the analyzation that's going on? How many people in his particular ministry are involved in studying, in providing reports on this report? How many Cabinet Ministers are interested and involved in preparing the report? What is going on at the Workers Compensation Board itself in terms of the analysis of this? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The entire Cabinet is interested in what happens to the Workers Compensation. It's an area that touches all areas of the province.

Members of the Opposition, every Cabinet Minister and every caucus mem ber has an interest in Workers Compensation and I would hope that they would all be reading the report and making the recommendations to us as to how they see the system should be changing. Some of them have had personal experiences and some have had experiences of their constituents that they can bring to the table and make recommendations as to how we should be making changes, and, as well, just from the review committee itself. It's been given to the Board of Directors. They have access to computers. With the technology they've got 3215

Thursday, 18 June, 1987 available, they can feed that into the present system and come up with some of the cost analysis as well. As well, we are in the process of setting up a comm ittee which will help implement, do some additional analysis outside of th e board for the implementation of the pl

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-72
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 72.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a22fbd60bc0276eee39a40a80daf3e1d0b9a94ea

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