Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 11B (36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-11b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVIII No. llB - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, December 11, 1997

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

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

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

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

43 1 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thur sday, December 11, 1997 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a correction for the House today. I would like to ta ble the 1996-97 Manitoba Liquor Commission Annual Report, which has been previously distributed. Though members have the correct report, earlier this week it was the '95-96 Manitoba Liquor Commission Annual Report that was mistakenly tabled. Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the annual reports for the Manitoba Health Research Council and the Health Information Services of Manitoba Corporation. Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table annual reports which have been previously distributed for 1996-97: the Annual Report for the Department of Government Services and Emergency Expenditures; also the four special operating agencies: Fleet Vehicles Agency, Materials Distribution Agency, Land Manage ment Services Agency and the Mail Management Agency. Hon.

Glen Cummi ngs (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Five-Year Report on the Status of Wildlife. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 200-The

Interpretation Amendment Act Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that leave be given to introduce Bill 200, The In terpretation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi d'interpn!tation), and that the same be now received and read for a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, just a very few comments regarding our introduction of the bill. As you know, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, when it was released in August of 1991, recommended that �he

Interpretation Act of Manitoba be am�nded to pr?�tde that all legislation be interpreted subJect to abongmal and treaty rights. This act deals with the general principles of statutory

interpretation. Express recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights with this law would assist in ensuri.ng �hat all Manitoba legislation is interpreted properly m hght of these constitutionally protected rights. Given that several Manitoba statutes currently infringe on rights recognized by past Supreme Court decisions, action on The

Interpretation Act is warranted. Without going into details, I will simply note that the current Wildlife Act, The Wild Rice Act, the provincial parks act and The Crown Lands Act, to name a few, all should undergo such a review. I look forward to debating this bill. Thank you. Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us this afternoon vingt-quatre etudiants de Ia douzieme annee du College Jeanne Sauve sous Ia direction de Monsieur Bernard DesAutels. [Translation] twenty-four Grade 12 students from College Jeanne Sauve under the direction of Mr. Bernard DesAutels. [English] This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay).

432 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December II, I997 Also in the public gallery we have twenty-nine Grade 9 students from Pierre Radisson Collegiate under the direction of Mrs. Marj Beddall and Mrs. Lesley Sisco. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Flood Compensation Displaced Residents Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, victims of the flood in the Red River Valley were very disappointed when this government and this Premier (Mr.

Filmon) refused to apologize for his statements about people that lived on a flood-prone area. People are also quite concerned that over hundreds of famili"s are still living outside of their homes in the Red River Valley, and when you compare that to the I950s, all families were returned to their homes or alternative homes by Christmas. I would like to ask the government: how can they justify building a Brunkild dike within four days and still have hundreds of families living outside of their homes before Christmas? *

(1335) Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any question about the devastation of the flood that went through the Red River Valley this spring, and I think the Leader of the Opposition certainly raises an issue that we are concerned about as well. But I would only remind him that in terms of floodproofing, for example, in the 1979 flood event- which wao:; one oft he most recent high-water events-the flood protection program did not even begin until the year after the flood had occurred.

In fact, I believe that the facts will bear out that we are between a half and three-quarters of the way there in terms of floodproofing and helping the residents of the valley recover. For those who are not yet in their homes, they certainly have our greatest sympathy and concern, but we want to work with them to make sure that as they make their decisions on where they wish to rebuild or under what circumstances they want to return to their previous yard sites, that we have in fact helped them in the maximum way and also prepared them for flood protection for the future. Flood Compensation Rental Subsidy Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, this government issues the words but does not follow it up with the deeds. We are aware of some of the people who have lost their homes being cut off their rental allowances from the EMO department on December 24. We are further aware of some families that have been told by one department of government, the Department of Environment, that their home cannot be lived in and then been told by the EMO department that they must in fact reside back in their previous home prior to the flooding.

I would like to know how many people are being cut off in December. right up to December 24, by this government. How many families who have lost their homes have not been relocated and are being cut of f by this heartless government in terms of their allowances here in Manitoba? Hon.

Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, our government has been working with the local municipalities in terms of identifying people who require temporary accommodation and are listing and abiding by their concerns with regard to temporary accommodations and, in most of the cases, if not all of the cases, are accommodating those people in those temporary accommodations that they choose.

We do have a number who are prepared to spend some time in transitiOn between temporary accommodation and moving back into their homes, so these people have made that choice, but in all cases we have been working with the local authorities in being able to accommodate people who are in temporary accommodation.

December II , I9 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 433 * (I 340) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, that was not the question. Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Branch-Staffing Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have a further question to this government. Many people who have lost their homes and other victims of the flood have been quite concerned about the Department of Natural Resources' own measures in terms of cutbacks in their own Department of Natural Resources. The residents of Ste.

Agathe have presented a brief to the commission that speaks to the fact that only one -quarter of the staff are left in the Department of Natural Resources Water Resources branch, from that of I979. The City of Winnipeg, in their presentation, further amplifies what we have been saying in this House about cutbacks to the monitoring staff in the Department of Natural Resources and calls on the government to reinstate those resources here in the province.

Given the fact that some people will be paying between $80,000 and $90,000 to floodproof their homes in the future, they are calling on this government to reinstate the Water Resources staff in this year's budget, which the government is debating now, prior to the Water Commission reporting in June of I9 88. Will this government now reinstate the staff that the people in the Red River Valley depend on for the monitoring of our waters and forecasts here in Manitoba? Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Well, Madam Speaker, it is quite legitimate to ask whether or not the department will be maintaining adequate forecasting capabilities, and that is one of the things that the Leader of the Opposition was referring to, but I think he also knows full well that we have been attempting to require the federal government to continue with their support of the water monitoring system in this province, and what I have said on the record several times, including in this House, that no matter what happens with the negotiations, we will be maintaining the ability to monitor and forecast within the valley primarily but in other locations across the province.

Secondly, the member, probably unintentionally, indicated that we would not be hearing from the Water Commi ssion until June. The fact is we have asked them for an earlier interim report so that if they have recommendations to give us that we can act on immediately and put into place quickly, that we receive that advice and we will then act on it appropriately. Blood Supply Compensation-Hepatitis C Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Health knows, victims of hepatitis C, acquired through tainted blood or blood products, have and continue to suffer the results of an irresponsible blood supply system. If the current situation prevails, many of these individuals may die before compensation becomes a reality . I want to ask the Minister of Health today to tell this House if his government will offer compensation to the victims of hepatitis C acquired through tainted blood. Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the member for Osborne raises a very important issue, one of which the provincial ministers of Health entertained some discussion at our meeting in Fredericton, a matter of which I iittend to have some discussion with my western colleagues when we meet shortly. Madam Speaker, let us not forget that the prime responsibility for the delivery and care of the product rests of course with the provider of the product, that having been the Red Cross, and also very importantly with the regulator of the whole system, which is the national government.

I think that is why we have seen the federal Minister of Health talking about, in fact, a compensation system, because there is a recognition of responsibility by those who regulate and operate the system. We as provinces, in essence, have very much been the purchaser of that particular product. The discussion or the answer that I share with the member today is one I very much had in my discussions with representatives of the Hemophilia Society in Manitoba. I think there is a recognition that the prime responsibility rests with those governments, and it is a matter of ensuring that

434 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December II, 1997 compensation, if it is going to come, is paid by those governments and those operators. Ms. McGifford: Surely we have responsibility for purchased services. I want to ask the minister if he will support the work of the Canadian Hemophilia Society by endorsing the compensation resolution which the Quebec Legislature has passed unanimously and by committing to take this resolution to the January meeting of Health ministers. Mr.

Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say that I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Hemophilia Society, Hemophilia Manitoba. We have shared information in terms of our different ways we face this issue, because I recognize ve ry fully that the people who have contracted hepatitis C are looking for compensation. I do not for one moment doubt or in any way take away from that request.

The fundamental issue, and I would think members opposite would appreciate this, is where does the responsibility lie, and with the people with whom the responsibility lies so should flow the compensation. If the member is asking for Manitoba to move unilaterally, and I do not hear her saying that today, but if she is asking us to move unilaterally and provide a compensation system, that would simply take away from those who have that prime responsibility, the regulator, the national government, and those who provided the product.

So I think we share the same goal, but it is important to appreciate how we get there, because if we are paying compensation for which we do not have a responsibility, that takes dollars away from other areas that require them. Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the minister: would he please support the resolution which only asks him to agree to negotiate with his federal counterpart? Will he please at least agree to do this? *

(1345) Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the resolution in itself is really not the important issue here. The issue is how do we get, if we in fact are going to get there, to a compensation package. Members opposite must appreciate, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who sat in cabinet for many years, that when you are negotiating with a national government who has had a tendency to pull the provinces into particular issues and offload their responsibility for their actions, how one handles those negotiations to ensure that the provincial interests are met becomes very, very important.

I say to the honourable member with great sincerity that I am meeting very shortly with my counterparts from across western Canada. These are some of the issues we will be discussing, and the strategy that we develop to see the federal government live up to their responsibilities I think is very important to the success of this. It would be inappropriate for me to support today or see such a resolution come forward outside of our process as strategy develops.

We appreciate the sincerity of the gesture, but I think the issue requires somewhat of a different approach to bring it to a successful conclusion for Manitobans and for hemophiliac sufferers from hepatitis C. Gurprem Dhaliwal Sentence Appeal Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Yesterday I listened to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) object to questions I have been raising in this House regarding the murder of Carol Marlene Hastings and also the lenient sentence given to her killer, Mr. Dhaliwal, in the court that was heard in Thompson.

The minister, Madam Speaker, accused our members on this side of the House of calling victims' services and the RCMP racist. That could be further from the truth, and he went on to say that even the Oxf ord House Council indicated that they were not supporting my attempt to appeal the sentence. Chief James Mason of the Oxf ord House Council is in the gallery this afternoon, and my questions are directed to the Minister of Justice.

Since the family of the late Carol Hastings has stated in that letter that they are not comfortable and receptive to the lenient sentence handed down by the court, will the minister now appeal the sentence ?

December II, I997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 435 Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): On December 4, 1997, a member of the RCMP contacted both Thomas and Ethel Okimow in respect of this particular situation, and they advised the constable that people were putting words in their mouths. I note that both the father and mother of the deceased in this case do not speak, write or understand English, and yet the member sends a letter here in the House without any explanation in very detailed English as to a purported position.

I think it is important, given that the RCMP have told me that they are not supportive of an appeal, as to where this letter came from. I am not suggesting that the member in any way wrote the letter; I am suggesting that the information that I am receiving is not consistent with what I am receiving here. Point of Order Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear, Madam Speaker, that "Answers should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." Once again this minister is following a tactic that is absolutely re prehensible. He was asked about the appeal. Yesterday he accused the member for Rupertsland and other members of accusing the RCMP and victims' services of being racist. That was never made. We cannot even use the word "racist" in this House because of a ruling that was made some time ago.

Now he is questioning the statement made by the family. The member for Rupertsland is a Cree, he speaks Cree, he has spoken to the family. This minister has not done that. He should not criticize the member or the family. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order. Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) in the Question Period where I specifically indicated that members opposite were calling members of the RCMP and the Crown's office racist, and in fact he did. Indeed, the member for Wellington (Ms.

Barrett) also joined in those comments, accusing public servants of being racist, and I indicated that at that time. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honou rable government House leader, on the same point of order. *( 1350) Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I have listened carefully to both honourable members, the member for Rupertsland and the honourable Minister of Justice, and as we have heard many, many times in this House from the Chair in ruling on points of order like the one we have before us today, it seems clear to me that what we have is a difference here, a dispute over the facts surrounding this matter, and I do not believe there is a point of order and suggest you might want to consider it in that light. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thom pson, I thank all honourable members for their advice, and I will take the matter under advisement so that I can review the text of Hansard very, very carefully. Point of Order Mr. Ashton: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker, and that is based on the comments that the minister just made on the guise of responding to the point of order. Madam Speaker, I have before me the Hansard and the questions put forward by the member for Rupertsland from December 2, from December 3 and from December 4.

One of those days the minister was in the House-on two of those days. I refer the minister to those. Not once did the member for Rupertsland even mention the RCMP or victims' services, let alone this unacceptable accusation from the minister, and for him now after-and I realize we cannot ref erence the absence of members from the House, but he has not been in Question Period for close to a week other than yesterday-to make accusations, unfounded accusations against other members is unacceptable.

This Minister of Justice should do the responsible thing, should respond to the questions and not engage in those kinds of personal attacks. No one criticized the RCMP or victims' services. The real questions were directed at this minister and the sentence, and that is something we deserve an answer to .

436 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order. Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, on the renewed point of order, I suggest with respect that the matters raised by the honourable member for Thompson really relate to pretty well the same matter that was the subject of the last point of order and indeed the subject of the questions and the answer.

We can debate whether the minister was being responsive to the question as it was put, and indeed I would suggest that he was not out of line in that regard, but that is not what the point of order is about. The point of order is about the repeated references made by the honourable member for Thompson to Hansard and comments made in this House. You have, Your Honour, already said that you would review this matter, and perhaps the review on the previous point of order probably applies to the second point of order as well, and if that is the case, that is fine.

But I suggest that it is appropriate that you review the matter and return to the House with some comments and perhaps a ruling. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable members for their advice, and once again, I indeed will take the point of order under advisement. I will review the context of the advice received from all members. I would, however, at this time remind all members speaking to points of order to be specifically relevant to the point of order and not on debate or responses that were or were not given. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Rupertsland, with a supplementary question. *

(1355) Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What the minister is saying then, that victims are wrong and the sentence is right. Will the minister appeal the sentence ? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my prior answers on this particular question, this was a very difficult case. The Okimow family-indeed 22 members of the Oxford House First Nation met with the Crown attorney to discuss this particular case. They discussed the reasons why a charge of manslaughter was appropriate; they discussed the reasons in respect of the range of sentenc ing.

The Crown attorney said the court was entitled to know the feelings of the victim's family in this particular case, and the Crown attorney spent an hour and a half explaining to the court- through sentences from the victims-as to why the court should consider the victims' feelings in this matter, and the court, I assume, took that into consi deration in entering into its sentence. The Okimows have indicated to the police that they are satisfied with the process, that they were consulted appropriately and I stand by those comments. Chief James Mason-Oxford House Meeting Request Mr.

Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): While Chief James Mason, who is the leader of this community and also represents the interests of the Okimow family, is in the gallery today, will the minister agree to meet with Chief Mason of Oxford House and listen to the concerns that he has over this matter? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss. As the member for Rupertsland- An Honourable Member: It was to answer. Answer. Mr. Toews: To answer this then, to be more specific-from the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). To answer.

As the member for Rupertsland knows, it would be inappropriate for me to meet on a specific prosecution of a particular case, but I will in fact-[i nter jection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete his response. Mr. Toews: Thank you. I will make senior officials in my department available for the chief to discuss this very important issue.

December 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 437 Headingley Correctional Institution Safety Concerns Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice. It was one year ago this week that the Honourable Ted Hughes reported that responsibility for the Headingley riot rested squarely with this government. Is the minister aware of safety concerns at Headingley today?

Eighteen months after the riot, recommendation after recommendation from the Hughes report is ignored; the Scurfield committee which was to resolve matters has broken down; unilateral staff cuts and maximum security inmates under minimum security are endangering safety; that it is worse now under this minister? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member for St. Johns is not accurate in respect of that, those allegations. There are a number of projects that have been completed, and many of them are well underway and they are all on schedule. I want to specifically thank Mr.

Scurfield who has played a very important role in bringing the union and management together to ensure that the concerns that had been raised by Justice Hughes are in fact addressed. I met as early as this morning with representatives of-s enior officials of my department to ensure that the upgrading of the Headingley Correctional Institution is on course and indeed, Madam Speaker, it is. Mr. Ma ckintosh: Is the minister now saying to this House and to Manitobans that he is unaware of the issues that I just raised? Is he ignoring them, just like his predecessor, particularly when Mr.

Scurfield writes in October, and I quote: I am deeply concerned about the ability of the Headingley Correctional institute to function in a saf e and healthy manner. He is concerned about staf f problems. Is this min ister closing his ears, closing his eyes just like the one before him? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, of course I am concerned about safety at Headingley jail. I am concerned about staffing levels, and I am concerned, as Mr.

Justice Hughes indicated, that we tum the page and move to better relations between the union and management in that particular facility, and part of that involves a government commitment to upgrade the facilities and improve relations. Riot Costs Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.

Johns): Will the minister, who should know that the Scurfield committee has not even met for four months, tell Manitobans that aside from the loss of reputation of the justice system from the riot, what is now the cost to Manitoba taxpayers of the riot, including not just repairs but workers comp, medical costs, justice system costs, including a wrongly released inmate and murderer Donald Rouire, the loss of Mr. Futch? Is not the department's $4-million figure just part of the price of this government's lax attitude to public safety? *

(1400) Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I can emphatically say that no, there is not a lax attitude towards public safety. We are deeply concerned about public safety. This government continues to be deeply concerned about public safety. If there are specific concerns that the member has that the committee shuJld address, I know that my very capable assistant deputy minister, Mr. Greg Graceffa, is more than willing to meet with the member and indeed refer any of those concerns to the Scurfield committee. Flood Compensation Displaced Residents Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, this being likely the last day of the sitting for this year and the story of the year being the flood of the century here in Manitoba, approximately 28 ,000-plus Manitobans were displaced out of their homes as a result of the flood, and I am wondering if the minister responsible for EMO can give us an idea as to how many of those individuals would still be displaced today out of their principal residence. Hon.

Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Responding to the question, at the beginning of this month we have just under 200 families that are in a temporary accommodation. We

438 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 expect that number to drop by some 67 or 68 by the end of December. Should weather conditions continue to co-operate, we can in fact see a decline in those numbers, perhaps even in January and February, providing the weather is with us.

But we are committed, Madam Speaker, to anybody that does need temporary accommodation, and we have had assurances from Emergency Preparedness Canada that they will continue to cost-share those costs with us right through until the spring of 1998, at which time any individuals requiring temporary accommodation after that, we will revisit the program and make a decision at that time. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, is the government looking at any sort of additional compensation for those individuals that have in fact still no place to call their home, to get them over with respect to the holiday season? Mr.

Pitura: Madam Speaker, with regard to the temporary accommudation-and I might share this with the honourable member-this government is making an allowance of $800 per month to those people who are in a house or an apartment. For those people who are in mobile homes, $1,800 a month is allowed plus the extra allowances in terms of hooking up the services.

For anybody that has been in a recreational trailer-and I think that there might be a small number that are still there owing to the fact that they hope to be back into their homes this month-there is an allowance of up to $2,000 a month for those units plus all the allowances, and that would include the hookup and disconnect of utilities. Flooding Sandbag Availability Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I had an individual that had indicated to me that during the flood crisis the City of Winnipeg had offered some 35 ,000-plus sandbags, but the Department of Government Services had declined their use- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member for Inkster have a question? Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker. The question is: can the minister in fact confirm that that offer was there, and the department did tum it down? Hon.

Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member is referring to postflood or preflood offering of the sandbags, but my understanding is that, as far as the Emergency Management Organization is concerned, when offers were made of a supply of sand and sandbags, those offers were in tum related and forwarded to the various emergency management organizations throughout the valley in local municipalities, and it was their decision as to whether they wanted those materials or not. If they took them, we would have ensured that they had them in place.

Airplane Crash-Little Grand Rapids Emergency Response Review Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Residents of Little Grand Rapids, of course, and the staff of the airport there, the nursing staff included, and especially the leaders of the community, including Counc illors Enil Keeper and Councillor Nelson Keeper, did a fine job and also the local RCMP all deserve praise for their heroic efforts in the rescue of the victims of the air crash.

I would like to ask the minister this afternoon if he has had an opportunity to review the decisions of the search and rescue of the armed forces not to contract local helicopters when the Griffon helicopters were stuck overnight at Saskatoon. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I would also like to add my words of thanks to the people in the community for their immediate response, the efforts of the RCMP, emergency preparedness people of Transport Canada, and also extend sympathies and our thoughts with the people who were on the plane and their families who were affected.

It was certainly a serious, serious accident which will be investigated by the Transportation Board of Canada as to what were the events that led up to it. There has been a lot of comment in the papers, a lot of observations, and the transport board will sort those out. With regard to the specifics that the member mentioned about response, who responded and whether

December 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 439 they responded fast enough will also be part of the review that will be done, and we will await that independent review before anything else is said. Airports-Northern Manitoba Safety Concerns Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I understand that a couple of weeks ago, the band officials from Little Grand Rapids discussed the problems that they were having at that current airstrip with the department.

I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared now to make such negotiations a priority, not only for Little Grand Rapids but indeed other northern Manitoba communities-Gods River, Poplar River, Berens River and, of course, the new airstrip that is being proposed at Wasagomach. Again, Madam Speaker, if you would allow me, also a timetable in putting a GPS or other landing equipment at these smaller airports in this province. Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is aware, we have 22 airports in northern Manitoba which carry a tremendous amount of traffic. Little Grand Rapids itself has 4,400 air movements per year. That is the landings and takeoffs of airplanes. That works out to 12 a day. The airports are very busy. We certainly are in negotiation with individuals interested in the different airports across that part of Manitoba.

The member mentioned Wasagomach, which we currently have a cost-shared agreement with the federal government for an airport involvement there of up to $16 million, and there have been negotiations with Little Grand Rapids to look at different alternatives. I believe there were four alternatives on the table for discussion, and they will continue to be analyzed in consu ltation with the different interested parties. CFB Shilo Support Services-Privatization Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

I have obtained a copy of some recent official documentation indicating that CFB Shilo has been placed on the so-called initial list with six other bases for the first phase of the alternative service delivery process which will determine whether support services will be privatized in order to save money. As such, 260 regular and 1 00 casual jobs may be at risk since it is not clear whether the existing employees can bid for the contracts or whether they will be given jobs by private employers.

So I would ask the minister, Madam Speaker, whether he has been informed that Shilo is on this initial list for early review and that well over 300 jobs could be at risk. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Indust ry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that question. I personally have not been informed. I am not sure whether the department is aware of this or not, but I will be checking with them. Mr.

Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for the answer, Madam Speaker, and I ask him: would the minister undertake to monitor the situation closely and do everything possible to ensure that CFB Shilo is treated fairly in this process, and ,hat every effort be made to minimize potential layoffs at the base, given the negative economic impact it would have in the Westman area and indeed the whole province of Manitoba? *

(1410) Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, the short answer would be yes. The longer answer is that I think it was demonstrated a few years ago, when there was some concern about Shilo, as to the leadership shown by my colleague from Brandon West, the opposition member from Brandon East and the surrounding elected officials, of how deeply we as a government and the region feels in relationship to the maintenance and maximization of Shilo. The government, through the Department of Natural Resources, continued to long term lease the facilities for the German training people to come, which is a tremendous economic activity.

So the answer, as I said, is yes, and there has been in the past considerable amount of work done on a co operative basis.

440 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 Of course, being the Christmas season, Madam Speaker, I would like to wish all members a merry Christmas and the best in the new year. TeleSend Gateway Inc. Funding Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. I would like to ask the Deputy Premier about his $200,000 grant to TeleSend Gateway Inc., but first I would like to table some documents showing John Ishmael's involvement in TeleSend Gateway Inc. and documents which raised questions as to whether the money was misdirected and was used for improper purposes.

I would like the mm1ster to clarify government policy. This government appears to have a policy of handing out money under the Canada-Manitoba Communi cations Agreement without doing proper credit checks, without checking the track record and business experience of the applicants, without proper account ing of whether the money gets misdirected to other companies owned by the princ ipals or used as a personal slush fund. In fact, some of the grants appear to be used as slush funds for politically connected people. Can the minister tell this House: what are the criteria for obtain ing grants under this program?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): First of all, Madam Speaker, I do not accept any of the

preamble from the member. which is totally inaccurate, which it has been all the way through the piece. On this particular program, TeleSend, there was a business plan prepared by Deloitte and Touche prior to the advancement or getting involved in this program, and Mr. Ishmael was not a part of it. In fact, it was backed and proposed by a company known as AT&T, which were proponents of it, which were fully supportive. As far as the bills that he is referring to that may have come from Mr. Ishmael-were not paid for by the department. Mr.

Maloway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the same minister is this: can the minister confirm that Mr. Ji m Mickelson and Gary Albo of his department were advised of TeleSend Gateway Inc.'s problems on February 20, 1995, and that the minister released the final $90,000 grant money during the 1995 prov incial election because of concerns that exposure of this boondoggle during the election could hurt the government's chances of re-election? Can he confirm this information? Mr. Downey: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm and will not confirm that the money had anything to do with the election.

The only basis for which the money was released was after a review, an accurate review of the expenditures incurred by the agreement which were within the agreement. after they were vetted through appropriate people and paid bills of small companies that if they had not received that money would have been in extreme difficulties. The monies that were paid were with in the agreement and appropriately mon itored by the department and by the legal system within our government. Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the same minister is this.

The minister had time to peruse the supplementary TeleSend Gateway Inc. credit card applications for John Ishmael and the numerous personal charges of each of the three Ishmael family members- Madam Speaker: Order. please. Does the honourable member have a question? Mr. Maloway: I do, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the mi nister: will he now admit that the grant program was totally out of control because of misappropriation of mon ies? Mr. Downey: No, I will not, Madam Speaker. Royal Winnipeg Ballet Ministers' Attendance-London Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I suppose it is jet-setting and living the life of the rich and famous which kept government members from meeting with flood victims in southern Manitoba but

December 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 441 not apparently from attending the Royal Winnipeg Ballet in London, England. I would like to ask the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship to tell the House exactly how many and which ministers, government caucus members and senior staff members travelled to London and attended the ballet at taxpayers' expense. Hon.

Rosemary V odrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that our Royal Winnipeg Ballet was able to have an extensive tour throughout not only London and Scotland but also many other parts of Europe, and they were, in fact, very, very well received. Their tour was quite extensive, and so I am sorry I am unable to tell the member exactly who attended and on what time. 1 will, however, say that I will- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, to complete her response. *

(1420) Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased to tell the member that, while I was away on government business, business involving immigration matters, on behalf of encouraging immigrants to Manitoba, business relating to culture and heritage, I also was able to attend the ballet. However, I am also very pleased, of interest to members since the trip to Europe was arranged to- the member for Point Douglas might be very interested-some of the work on immigration did, in fact, receive front-page coverage on a Canada News. I am very pleased to table it, Madam Speaker and members opposite.

In tabling it, it says, "Immigrants urged to consider Manitoba now." Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Beauchesne 417 is very clear, and I will read it again: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." The question was asked: how many Tory MLAs attended the ballet in London? The min ister said she was there. I would appreciate if she would answer the rest of the question, indicate how many Tory MLAs were at the ballet in London, a very straightforward question. Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, because of the good work of the honourable member for Thompson, myself and others, we do not have Friday mornings anymore, and so it seems that some of us feel that we need to celebrate Friday mornings on Thursday afternoons.

However, the honourable member for Thompson is right when he points out Citation 417 of Beauchesne which says you are not supposed to provoke debate, but there are other sections in there that ref er to the fact that a member asking a question has no right under parliamentary custom, tra dition or anything else to insist on the nature, quality, length, and all the rest of it, of a minister's answer.

I know that it is upsetting for opposition members, asking a question with the intent of embarrassing the government, to get an answer back that simply informs the House and the public of some of the very fine results which flow from the good work of members on this side of the House. That is frustrating; I admit that, but it is certainly not the subject of a point of order. Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind all ministers, however, that the Beauchesne citation is very specific, and they should respond to the question asked.

Ministers' Attendance Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I was going to ask the minister about the costs. I suppose she will not know the answer about that or about government policy. I would like to ask the minister- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I believe the honourable member has asked her question. Would the honourable member please repose her question now. Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I did use the conditional.

442 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 I would like to ask the minister if she could tell me how many passionate-for-dance Tories attend the ballet in Winnipeg. Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone on this side of the House would, in any way, not want to say that they went to the ballet. There are many members who have indicated-and in fact we are very proud of our Royal Winnipeg Ballet.

As usual, we hear from the other side of the House something negative towards one of the most important ambassadors for Manitoba, actually in the world; they have travelled extensively. In Manitoba, we are very proud of them. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. House Business Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Before proceeding to Members' Statements, I wonder if there would be leave to return to tabling for one moment while the honourable Minister of Agriculture tables a report or two.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to permit the honourable Minister of Agriculture to table his report? [agreed] TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to table the Annual Reports of the Manitoba Farm Mediation Board and the 43rd Annual Progress Review of the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences at the University of Manitoba. Thank you. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS CHST Program Mr.

Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, during the holiday season we are often reminded of the Dickens Christmas classic "Scrooge." It is the story of a man who took a great deal away while returning little. It appears that in the spirit of that tale, the federal Liberal government has enacted its own version of Scrooge with the announcement that it is planning to restore a small portion of the federal transf er cuts that it had planned to take away from our province at the expense of health and social spending.

Even with this week's announcement by the federal government that it would establish a $12.5- billion floor for total cash entitlement to the provinces under the CHST program, our province, Manitobans will receive $228 million less next year than we did two years ago. Perhaps the Prime Minister or the Finance minister for the federal Liberal government was paid a visit by the ghost of election's future which motivated the announcement we heard yesterday, or perhaps the knowledge that they have balanced their books on the backs of Manitobans was affecting their ability to have a peaceful holiday season.

Regardless of the season, Manitobans are not fooled by the federal Liberal attempts to play Santa Claus for just one day after having played the role of Scrooge for several years. The Dickens tale was one which finished with optimism and prosperity. This holiday season, through the combined efforts of our government and Manitobans, our province also has a tremendous reason for optimism. Despite the Grinch-like actions of our federal counterparts, we have a partnership to make Manitoba a province of opportunity and growth, and that is a story we can all take heart in. Thank you. Emergency Services-Grandview Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I rise today on a member's statement on behalf of the citizens of the community of Grandview, who are right now in a struggle to maintain the quality of health care that they have become used to over the last number of years. Madam Speaker, 440 people have signed a petition that has been circulated for just about a week now in the town of Grandview. It is a petition to the Minister of Health (Mr.

Praznik), asking the minister to show some leadership and protect their 24-hour emergency care and to protect their ambulance service that serves so well the people in the community of Grandview.

December II, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 443 Grandview is a farming community. It has about 2,000 people in the area, and it is located halfway between Dauphin and Roblin. The community of Grandview and the R.M. of Grandview have people who live another 20 to 35 minutes outside of Grandview.

So, as you can see, anyone who gets hurt in a farming community, in an industry that is very much a dangerous industry, that is agriculture, would now, if they did not have ambulance service in Grandview and 24-hour emergency care, be transported, in addition to the 30 minutes to either Dauphin or Roblin, another 25 or 30 minutes.

The people in Grandview want this minister to know that is just unacceptable, that is too long a time, and that everyone knows, who has any knowledge at all about health care, that the sooner you can get to treat an injury or a sickness, the more chance you have of helping that person and helping that person recover. So I would like to table the petition right now of over 200 names who have signed this petition in Grandview. Later on in the session, I will be presenting the petitions of the other remaining names, for a total of around 440 at this time. Thank you, Madam Speaker. *

(1430) Licensed Practical Nurses Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, health care is an essential service to which our government devotes the largest portion of its expenditures. I would like to draw the attention of members of the House to a very positive development in Manitoba's health care sector. Recently, the Ministers of Health (Mr. Praznik) and Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh) announced that the Assiniboine Community College in Brandon will expand and enhance its practical nursing program.

By expanding the licenced practical nursing program, our government is putting even more trained professionals into Manitoba health care facilities. The province has provided $2 17,000 to ensure a high quality of training, with an emphasis on community based health care. The program at the Assiniboine Community College's newly renovated facilities has also been extended by three months. The annual capacity of the practical nursing program will increase to 90 students from 60 by doubling the enrollment at Assiniboine Co mmun ity College.

The college is also said to operate a program accommodating 30 students at the Misericordia Hospital in Winnipeg beginning April of 1998. Licenced practical nurses are an extremely important component in the delivery of health care in Manitoba. Personal care homes and rural health care facilities, in particular, will benefit immeasurably from the increased contributions made by LPNs. I applaud my colleagues on this side of the House and our government as a whole for the high priority we assign to health care services and the training provided to health care professionals across our province.

We are committed to providing the most efficient and advanced health care system anywhere. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Order, please. In fairness to all members attempting to make members' statements, I wonder if I might ask for the co-operation of all members having private meetings to do so in the loge or outside the Chamber. It is very difficult to hear the members, and I know they want the respect that they are deserved. Mine Employee Deaths Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the families of mine workers who have been killed on the job.

In 1992, 26 miners were killed in an underground coal mine explosion at Stellarton, Nova Scotia, Westray coal mine. Last week, after five and one-half years of waiting for these families, Justice Richard released his findings in a report containing 74 recommendations. Justice Richard named people responsible for the disaster, indicating that a clear hierarchy of responsibility lies with mine management and government.

One quote from Justice Richard states: It is a story of incompetence, of mismanagement, of bureaucratic bungling, of deceit, of ruthlessness, of cover-up, of apathy, of expediency and of cynical indifference. Justice Richard states that unacceptable performances of the mine saf ety inspector regulators must surely have

444 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 destroyed the confidence that the people had in the inspectorate. Justi ce Richard recommended that Ottawa and the provinces should study accountability of corporate bosses for wrongful or negligent acts of a corporation with an eye to legislating it. I could not agree more.

The Filmon government has a history of letting companies and their owners injure and kill their employees and escape prosecution, and examples that I have demonstrated here in this Legislative Assembly, where companies have closed the doors of their operations only to start up business within weeks under a new name without any respons ibility of the owner managers for their negligence, and I have raised those cases in this Legislature. Dozens of miners have been killed in Manitoba with little or no reaction or action to stop the death march. No education programs, no prosecution, no interest by th is government.

The time has come to say that we as a people take workplace saf ety very seriously and apply the princ iple to action with more than just 18 inspectors to check 42,000 workplaces in Manitoba, and with the real meaningful powers to be put into the hands of the inspectors to prevent accidents before they happen. Forty-two thousand yearly accident claims must be changed. Twenty-seven thousand Manitoba fatalities last year, including 13 mine deaths since 1990. must not be allowed to go unanswered for the sake of the dead and their families. An Honourable Member: How many last year? Mr. Reid: Twenty-seven.

Betty Francis Learning Resource Centre Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, yesterday Cec il Rhodes School and the community of Weston honoured one of their own. The library at Cec il Rhodes School was renamed the Betty Franc is Learning Resource Centre in recognition of her 65 years of service to the community. Betty Franc is was born in England on December 26, 1909, and moved to Weston when she was two years old. She spent her first eight years of school at Cec il Rhodes and then graduated from Daniel Mcintyre Collegiate.

Betty was a student teacher at Cecil Rhodes and spent the first 25 years of her teaching career in rural Manitoba. In 1957, she returned to Cec il Rhodes School where she taught for the next 11 years. Upon her retirement from the paid teaching force in 1968, she began her career as a volunteer at Cec il Rhodes. In all, Betty Franc is has worked with children for 65 years, 43 of those at Cecil Rhodes School. At age 88, Betty continues to work several times a week at Cec il Rhodes.

I know all members of the Legislature will join with me, the communi ty at Cec il Rhodes School and the residents of Weston in congratulating Betty Franc is on a lifetime spent passing on her love of learning. Generations of students. teachers, parents and the commun ity have been the recipients of Betty Franc is's hard work, unselfish commitment and love. We are all the richer for her life. MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Contaminated Blood Supply Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I rise today on a matter of urgent public importance.

Currently, many people living with hepatitis C are living in crisis, a crisis created by illness, monetary deprivation. personal loss and frustration. Today I rise specifically to address the plight of those people infected through contaminated blood or blood products. The shameful legacy of an infected blood supply and its tragic results have been dramatically documented by the Krever inquiry. Who can forget the Krever inquiry and the constant contrast between poignant testimony and slick attempts to evade respons ibility?

Justi ce Krever's recommendations include a recommendation of immediate compensation to all those affected through the blood supply, and here I quote from Justi ce Krever: in my opinion, a system that knows these consequences of viral transmission will occur and that brings them about has at the very least a moral obl igation to give some thought to the question of appropriate relief for those affected by the inevitable results. Madam Speaker, resolving the issue of hepatitis C's viral transm ission is an urgent public matter. Moral obligation is the key phrase in Justice Krever's quoted

December 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 445 remarks. You know that this House will adjourn today. You probably do not know that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has hitherto ref used all overtures to debate private members' Resolution 67 on the Order Paper referred to as Compensation Plan for Victims of Tainted Blood. A slight misnomer since the resolution merely urges our government to consider working with the federal government on a plan. Again, today, the Minister of Health refused to support victims or even entertain our mild resolution.

Clearly there is no other time than now for us to begin fulfilling our duty, what Justice Krever has named our moral obligation. The right time, indeed the only time is now. I tum now to the matter of urgency. Why is it urgent that we debate the question of a compensation strategy for primary and secondary victims of hepatitis C? The Krever inquiry itself is a study in the dangers of procrastination. The inquiry shows delay after delay after delay.

In order to save money, all Canadians, and we all have the right to health care, were put at risk, for blood transfusion and contamination was and is a possibility for each of us. Those inf ected with hepatitis C are now paying the price of this heartlessness and tightfistedness. People are losing their livelihoods, their homes. Families are suffering because breadwinners are too ill to work, indeed some are dying, some are dead. Further delay may mean that many more victims will die before a compensation package has been determined.

The deaths of persons living with AIDS before compensation, a situation impelled no doubt by caution, remains a national and provincial disgrace. Let us act now and so avoid repeating this egregious wrong. Decency and compassion must prevail. Urgency is necessary because of a forthcoming meeting of Health ministers-because of a forthcoming meeting. In January, the federal Minister of Health and his provincial and territorial counterparts will meet in Saskatchewan.

Federal Minister Allan Rock and Saskatchewan Health Minister Clay Serby, co-chairs of the ministers of Health meetings, have said that compensation for victims of hepatitis C acquired through contamination will be on the agenda. Mr. Rock has clearly signalled his belief that compensation, as well as compassion, is a joint federal provincial responsibility which must be shared.

Knowing more than any of us that compensation is urgent and knowing that the January meeting is a window of opportunity, the Canadian Hemophilia Society is endeavouring to have good-will resolutions related to compensation unanimously endorsed by provincial governments and so ensure that at the January meeting this urgent matter will be resolved. Quebec has passed a good-will resolution supporting the principle of compensation; Manitoba has not. The need for a compensation strategy is urgent. The time line is narrow. It is urgent that we debate this matter today. *

(1440) People acquiring hepatitis C through tainted blood arid blood products have been betrayed by the blood system and continue to be betrayed by the immorality of inaction. These individuals have been victimized and revictimized. Our House is in session. We have time left to shoulder our moral responsibilities and not again turn our backs on Manitobans. We have the opportunity to make the point th ... t we value all our citizens, value them equally, the sick as well as the healthy. Urgency in this matter is fourfold: (

I) to adopt a procompensation position for the January meeting of the ministers of Health and, through this, perhaps to influence other provinces, that is, to assume leadership and become a model; (2) to alleviate the impoverishment of victims through- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) move her motion now. The procedure has not been absolutely followed.

I recognize the honourable member to move her motion, and then each member, including the mover of the motion and one member from each party, is allowed five minutes to present their case of urgency, but I did not want to interrupt the honourable member for Osborne. The five minutes has expired, but I would ask for the co-operation of the honourable member for Osborne in putting her motion on the record now, please.

446 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I ask that our Legislature not disgrace itself and fail her people. With this end in sight, I move that under Rule 31 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the need for a compensation strategy for primary and secondary victims of tainted blood, especially those suffering with hepatitis C. Motion presented.

Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable government House leader, I would remind all members that under our subrule 31 .(2) the mover of the motion has already utilized her five minutes, and one member from the other parties may use not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. As cited in Beauchesne Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate not of the subject matter of the motion. Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I am, having been through this process a number of times, aware about those matters to which we are to direct our comments in this five-minute period. Now I do not recall if you said that you received the appropriate notice, but assuming that you did, the issue then becomes the issue of the urgency of debate. Certainly there is a matter of urgency of action and all of those matters, but the rule in this case talks about urgency of debate. We all recognize the very, very serious nature of this matter that has arisen in Canada.

Speaking not only as House leader but as a former Health minister and I know, from talking to my colleague the present Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), the extremely serious nature of the matter the honourable member for Osborne raises. My honourable colleague and his counterparts from across the country and the territories at the federal level are indeed working towards appropriate resolution of all blood issues in Canada.

Shortly before I left office in the Department of Health, ministers of Health had attended a federal provincial territorial meeting, and in anticipation of the final Krever report, made plans for establishing a national blood strategy. Something needs to be done to ensu re that the tragic events of the past are never repeated, so that there is no question of the weight that the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and his counterparts feel on their shoulders as they address this issue which has been so very troublesome for so many Canadians and their families.

Madam Speaker, if you look on page 7 of your Order Paper, you will see item No. 67 standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), Compensation Plan for Victims of Tainted Blood. As we looked to how we would deal with proceedings in this particular sitting or session of the House, the opposition House leader and I discussed many things as we do in the ordinary course of our work. One of the things we could have discussed would have been to bring forward item No. 67 this morning. That would have been one option.

I think one of the things you have to look at is that there may or may not be other opportunities for debate. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and his colleagues could have brought that forward, because as honourable members know we have been working very co operatively this session, so co-operatively that we can make adjustments as we go and as we have done. So, really and truly, Madam Speaker, the urgency is to ensure that our Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) tends to the business at hand here. I have every confidence in this Minister of Health.

He has demonstrated his commitment over and over, and he has demonstrated his competency to deal with important national, provincial or any other kind of issue you can imagine extremely well. So no debate this afternoon will make any difference with respect to the urgency of the matter. Nothing in debate would make any difference in terms of the way federal-provincial territorial ministers are going to approach the subject.

They deal with it on an extremely serious basis, and for that reason I do not believe that the honourable member's motion, however well-intention ed-and I certainly do not question that-i s appropriate this afternoon. Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I would like to join in the debate to urge this Assembly that we set aside the business in order to discuss this issue, and I would like to outline the reasons and some of the faulty reasoning, I believe, with all due respect, made by the government House leader in this regard.

December 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 447 Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health is going to a Health ministers' meeting, we learned, in January in order to discuss the matters relating to this issue. The National Assembly of Quebec recently passed a unanimous resolution of the Quebec Assembly with respect to dealing with the compensation issue and gave direction to their Minister of Health with respect to negotiating a compensation package for victims of hepatitis C infection.

Madam Speaker, our minister, within a month, is going to negotiate as well, and we have not been allowed an opportunity to express to this minister our Assembly's concurrence or nonc oncurrence with respect to this very significant matter. In addition, the federal government whom the province is negotiating with is clearly looking to directions from other provinces as to where the other provinces are sitting with respect to the compensation issue, and we are going to this meeting without a voice, without allowing the Assembly and this Chamber to speak to this resolution.

With respect to the House leader's comments whether or not members opposite could have raised resolutions, there are a multitude of resolutions on the Order Paper. Some are a very, very high priority; others are not. We are adjourning this afternoon, Madam Speaker. We have no opportunity to debate this resolution since it is No. 60 or No. 61 on the Order Paper.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, what is required in this resolution is a unanimous passage of this resolution from members opposite in order to allow the minister to go with a voice from this Assembly, and it is clear that members opposite do not want to pass this resolution. *

(1450) That is the issue that needs to be debated. Now, members indicate the negative. If that is the case, then let us debate the resolution, but the minister needs direction, the minister needs a voice from this Legislature, and he needs the advice of this Legislature. A grievance is not helpful in this regard, Madam Speaker, because you have ruled in the past with respect to grievances. A grievance would only be our viewpoint in this regard. What is needed is a resolution from this Chamber to allow the minister to go and negotiate with the federal government.

You know, this resolution in itself is not committing the provincial government to any course of action other-I might add, and that is the curious aspect of this-than a negotiation with the federal government with respect to compensation. Surely, the minister would like direction from this Chamber rather than going without any opportunity, without any debate on this very serious issue, going to a meeting of ministers and not having the voice of the Assembly of Manitoba as does the minister from the Assembly of Quebec.

So, Madam Speaker, the minister's arguments about whether or not there are other opportunities to debate this resolution are not relevant. We do not have any opportunity on this occasion, with the House adjourning this afternoon, to debate this matter. The minister is leaving within a month. The Assembly will not be sitting before the minister departs. The minister will be negotiating on behalf of Manitobans, and he does not know what Manitobans wish him to negotiate on their behalf. What more clear case would be evident for an urgent matter.

I do not even have to deal with the question of the significance to Manitobans because that has been very adequately dealt with and confirmed by the government House leader of the significance of this matter. So I urge you to accept an opportunity to allow the people of Manitoba to direct the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), to provide the Minister of Health with advice with respect to negotiations that he is entering into in January on our behalf.

On our behalf, I urge you to allow this debate to go forward so the Minister of Health can negotiate on behalf of all Manitobans and on behalf of the victims of hepatitis C. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has indeed met the notice requirement for this matter. According to Manitoba practice and Beauchesne, a Speaker's role when a matter of urgent public importance is put forward is to determine whether the matter is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not

448 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 given immediate attention and to judge whether the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough, and the public interest demands that discussion take place immediately. While the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) certainly brings forward an important matter, in my judgment the public interest will not be harmed if the debate of this matter does not take place today.

The member's private member's Resolution 67 will provide an opportunity for the House to debate a compensation strategy for victims of tainted blood. The member may also discuss the issue during the Budget Debate when this House reconvenes. House Business Mr. McCrae: I have a couple of housekeeping matters prior to getting to government orders.

The first is that I believe if you canvass the House you would find that for the remainder of the afternoon everybody is agreeing that there is not going to be a requirement for a quorum in this House because, as you know, Madam Speaker, the Legislative Assembly Management Commission will be meeting and members will be busy, and we can still conduct the business of the House without the need of a quorum. That is my understanding unless there is- An Honourable Member: During the LAMC. Mr. McCrae: During the LAMC meeting only. Clear enough, I agree. Is that agreed?

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to ignore the regular required quorum while the LAMC meeting is meeting and up to the duration of that meeting for this afternoon? [agreed] Mr. McCrae: On another matter, Madam Speaker, yesterday, if yesterday was December 9- An Honourable Member: No, the lO th. Mr. McCrae: Then, on Wednesday, the House leader for the official opposition and I, on behalf of our caucuses, made an agreement which I would like to table in the House.

I have made the members of the independent Liberal caucus aware, and it is agreed that the Legislature will not sit during the week of March 30, 1998, to April 3, 1998, that being the school spring break. Also agreed that in order to accomplish this consideration, passage and Royal Assent of the Interim Supply Bill will be completed prior to the close of business on March 26, 1998.

What this essentially says is that we will not sit during the spring break, and that Interim Supply will have been completed prior to that time, and I think that may come as some help for some honourable members who might have plans with their families at that time. I am tabling this document now. Madam Speaker: The document has been received for information purposes. ORDERS OF THE DAY Government Motions Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Cummings), THAT, in the case of all bills referred to committees of this House during the present session and proceeding to enactment, Legislative Counsel be given the authority to take the following steps at any point before publication of the acts: (

a) change all

section numbers and internal references necessary to give effect to amendments to bills adopted by this House and its committees; and (

b) without in any way altering the intended legal meaning make minor changes to bills to correct obvious errors like spelling, numbering, cross referencing and capitalization errors and to correct punctuation and formatting that is not consistent with Manitoba style. THAT the Legislative Counsel be required to mark all changes made pursuant to this authority in red ink in the affected blue bills as soon as possible after the end of the session. Motion agreed to. Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Mr.

Gerry McAlpine, member for the Electoral Division of Sturgeon Creek, be appointed Deputy Chairperson of the Committees of the Whole House.

December 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 449 Motion agreed to. *

(1500) House Business Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, on a matter of House business, I believe there is agreement that immediately after the next motion is moved and dealt with that we would move to consideration of government bills in the order listed on the Order Paper, and that at four o'clock the House would move to private members' hour. Thus, when five o'clock arrives, it will really be six o'clock and at that time we would adjourn.

This is an opportunity, I guess, for me to say Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone, and I hope that we all return to this place some time early in the new year ref reshed, and that we have a peaceful time in the meantime. Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that when the House adjourns today it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Madam Speaker upon the request of the government. Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: For information purposes and clarification for routine this afterno on " there wifl be now one hour, from three to four, approximately one hour of debate on second readings. At four o'clock private members' hour wil1 commence, and be Ql1l.e hour in duration, which should bring us to five o'clock. At five o'clock the House will consider it six o'clock and adjourn for the holiday season. [agreed] Mr. McCrae: Although I did suggest we move in the order the bills appear on the Order Paper, would you be so kind to call BilJ 13 initially or as the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.

Martindale) might direct during the course of the hour. What about Bill 17? Are we going to do that one? DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 13-The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), Bill 13, The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'aide a l'achat de medicaments sur ordannance ), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): The Pharmacare program in the province of Manitoba was of course introduced under the Schreyer government and has made it possible for now more than 20 years of families and seniors to be able to afford the drugs that they need to maintain or to restore their health. Mr.

Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair I think we need, in putting in context these changes which of course need consultation with the pharmaceutical association, with patient groups and with others before they are considered for passage by this House, but in the process I think we need to reflect on Mr. Justice Hall's royal commissions to realize just both how far we have come in the area of Pharmacare and what a great distance we have yet to go. Mr. Acting Speaker, Mr.

Justice Emmett Hall in his royal commission report which was received-the commission was struck in 1957, and the report was received in 1960. Mr. Justice Hall indicated that the most important overall concept of providing publicly funded health care across Canada was to put in place a seamless kind of system. By that the justice and his many advisors, many of whom still are and certainly those who are not still active in the field, were the leading people in health care planning in Canada from Dr.

Hastings to Claude Castonguay to the Castonguay Nepveu commission to the Miller task force here, to people like Bob Evans and many others who took a great- The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. I do not mean to interrupt the honourable member for Crescentwood, and it is nice to see members from across the way talking and smiling and doing their thing, it is nice to see that kind of thing happen. However, while another person has the floor,

450 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December II , I9 97 I would ask that all honourable members try to do the responsible thing and allow that person to speak. Mr. Sale: Mr. Hall put in place recommendations for what has been called a seamless system. For example, he foresaw the need to cover not simply direct medical care in the form of doctors' services and the services of hospitals, but he foresaw the need to include dentistry, pharmaceutical costs, mental health costs, home care costs. Indeed, members who have not read the

summary of the Hall Royal Commission would really be interested to see the tremendous foresight that was shown in compiling that report because the compilers, who represented, I think, all traditions of political thought in this country from all sides of the spectrum, understood that it does not make sense to cover only part of what people need. I would like to explain why that is the case, not just in terms of simple justice which I think is obvious, but in tern s of the distortions that introduces into any kind of human service.

Take, for example, the case of a senior who is on a very limited budget and requires a particular medication, whether it is a diuretic or a heart medication or some other form of long-term medication, the absence of taking that medication, Mr. Acting Spea ker, I think we all know what happens. The senior gets very sick, may die, but certainly gets sick and needs to go to hospital, needs a great deal of medical attention in order to simply regain the state of health that would have been maintained in the first place if that senior were able to take the drug that was needed. So Mr.

Hall and health economists by the dozens since have pointed out to governments that it is really penny-wise and pound-foolish not to provide a full and continuous spectrum of services. If you are going to insure anything I 00 percent, you pretty much have to insure everything that is medically necessary because the failure to do so means that people, in the absence of their ability to get the service they need here, wind up in a much more expensive situation over here.

That, of course, is the reason why the Schreyer government introduced home care, why it was maintained under the Lyon government, and why it has been-although badly damaged in times under this current government, it still is maintained and it is maintained at a level, if I may say, that is higher than some other provinces in Canada, and that is a good thing. It was much higher than other provinces in Canada under the Pawley and Schreyer governments. Unfortunately, it slipped somewhat.

It is still a very good service, and we are very pleased that the minister has backed down from his ill-advised attempts to privatize all of home care in Winnipeg and all of the nursing services. I think that was a wise move on the government's part, whether they planned to do it or not or whether he invented it on his feet, nevertheless the climb down was welcomed by home care recipients and by those who have known that that is a cost-effective as well as a humane way of meeting the needs of sick people. The same is true in regard to Pharmacare, Mr. Deputy Speaker-Mr. Acting Speaker, I beg your pardon.

There have been many studies, some of them which might seem self-serving by the pharmaceutical associations of Canada, but all of them which I think have a great deal of useful truth in them and that is that in the past 25 to 30 years, advances in drugs have made it possible for people to remain in their homes or in communities and to maintain a level of well ness which was previously unobtainable without the use of those drugs.

This government and every government in Canada and, I think, all opposition parties have welcomed and urged the development of a Canadian drug industry that undertakes extensive research and development and is located in provinces across Canada. Unfortunately, the central body of that research is done in Montreal where the centre of the drug industry in Canada is, but Manitoba has a small and growing pharmaceutical industry.

I believe that the industry really began to take of f under the HIDI initiative, which was started again under the Pawley government and has been maintained and built on by this government, wisely, the initiative to focus on the health pharmaceutical sector. So we have new companies in Manitoba that have sprung up, more recently, the merger of two companies here which was well remarked on and whose senior staff I have had the opportunity to meet with, who I think are providing both very good research and very good products as well as very good employment opportunities for a growing number of Manitobans. *

(1510) December 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 451 So it is in everyone's interest that sound research and sound development in use of pharmaceuticals takes place, because it is so clear now that if we did not have psychotropic drugs for example we would not be able to have many people with debilitating mental illnesses able to share a normal life in the community with their families and with their friends. If we did not have drugs to lower blood pressure on a saf e and consistent basis over many years, we would have far more people dying prematurely of stroke.

We would have far more people unable to work because of chronic high blood pressure. So no one I think debates the efficacy, the appropriateness of working to develop an ever larger array of useful pharmaceuticals.

But what this government unfortun ately has done is to go in the opposite direction, and they have gone against the best advice of Justice Hall and all those who followed him, from Doug Angus, Pran Manga, Bob Evans; people who are here in this province-John Home, David Fish, Anna-Lee Yassi-and any number of Canadian health economis ts who have said it is not good economic policy to only ensure some services or only ensure some drugs.

So the changes that are proposed in this act allow in general terms more discretion to take more things away from the public sector, to remove the responsibility of the minister, and to give it to some faceless committee, so that the accountability of what is listed and what is not is no longer before elected officials. Let us review, Mr. Acting Speaker, what this government did when it gutted the Pharmacare program.

While it is true that for a small number of Manitobans the I 00 percent coverage has been a benefit, it is equally and, in fact, considerably more true that for the 100,000 Manitobans who used to receive significant Pharmacare benefits but now receive virtually none that the program effectively has become a welfare program for low income people or for very sick people. Now that goes against the fundamental principles of wellness and prevention, which this government likes to talk about but does not like to act on.

When you make it difficult for moderate income or lower middle income people to take the drugs, to access the drugs that they need to maintain health, you are simply playing with a time bomb.

I have had far too many constit uents who have said to me, my drug bills are now in the $1,500 to $2,000 a year, and when you combine that in some cases with the fact that in some of those homes, as the minister probably knows, one of the spouses is in a nursing home, with the increase in nursing home fees, the increase in Pharmacare fees and the dropping availability of home care support services-not the intense nursing services, but the support services-seniors are being very, very seriously squeezed by the decisions of this government. Any one of the decisions by itself was problematic.

When you take any senior who has worked hard all their life and has a modest income and suddenly they have to find another $1,200 to $1,500 for drugs where previously they were paying $300 or $400, that is a serious impact.

When you cascade on top of that, the other things that are happening to seniors and which are made more possible under this bill, were it to receive passage, then you see that what we are doing is putting in place the conditions not only that make it difficult for seniors and others who have chronic and major drug costs, we are putting in place the conditions to cost ourselves more than we ought to spend.

The minister, by failing to meet t!.e basic Pharmacare needs of all Manitobans, is putting at risk the ability to control the costs of the health care system for all Manitobans, because it is a documented fact that when people do not take the drugs they need they wind up sicker, longer, and in many cases they wind up in hospital inappropriately. No one, I think, over here would argue that all drugs and all prescriptions are properly used, that there is no abuse in that area. Of course, there is, but for the most part people use their drugs the way they are supposed to be used.

I am too often told by seniors: I have to choose between adequate food and my Pharmacare bills. I do not have the flexibility anymore with my wife in a nursing home, my home running down or my apartment running down, my food bills, my travel bills to help look after my wife in hospital. I am talking about someone like Mr. Wirth, for example, whose case I raised here in the House last week, who is paying $22,000 a year out of his income for his nursing home care, which is not in a nursing home, it is in Victoria Hospital, plus his own drug bills, plus the costs of

452 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 maintaining his home which was previously a family home. He just does not have the ability anymore to stay in his own home, because of the cascading effect of the charges that have come about because of the changes that this government is making. Mr. Acting Speaker, when you add on top of that what is going to happen to every senior in this province, because of the federal government's cuts to the seniors benefit, and I hope the Minister of Health (Mr.

Praznik) knows the impact of that change, because there has been a great deal of misinformation put out by the federal government in regard to the change in the seniors benefit. Seniors have been told-and I am sure that the Minister of Agricult ure (Mr. Enns) has probably received this information, that his benefits, such as are not taxed back, will continue unchanged by the seniors benefit when it comes into place.

I believe all seniors have received that information from the federal government, but what the federal government has not told seniors is that you lose your pension income deduction and you lose your age deduction when the seniors benefit comes in, and that is for all seniors, not just ones who are going to be 65. It is for everybody. Now, the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is a lawyer, and he has done lots of these calculations in his head. What does it cost a couple who suddenly lose approximately $8,000 in deductions? What is the tax impact?

Three thousand plus in an age deduction and a thousand each for pension income deductions. The seniors benefit has an impact on modest-income seniors of $2,200 per year per couple, $1 ,200 for a single person of a modest income, Mr. Acting Speaker. The problem that we have going in regard to all of our senior services is that a few years ago the pundits and the theorists began to say, listen, seniors are pretty well looked after. We have cut the poverty rate way down. It is really the working poor who are the problem now. Everyone looked at it and said, well, that is probably-you know, there is some truth there.

So everybody rushed to cut seniors benefits, each level of government cascading cut on cut, and no one has sat down and said, what is the whole impact here of the changes that we have made over the last four or five years?

I want to underline to the minister, although the issue of the federal benefit is not specific to this act, that seniors are looking at very, very serious consequences, and the near retired are looking at even more serious consequences because the new seniors benefit, which is not taxable, that is true, but the tax-back rate on the new seniors benefit for people who have an income of only an additional amount equal to the seniors benefit-that is, the seniors benefit for a single person will be $1 1 ,000-and-something; for the next $1 1,000 of income the tax-back rate is 76 percent because the seniors benefit is clawed back for everyone at 50 cents on the dollar, and, in addition, people pay income tax.

So I think the minister needs to take very seriously what is happening to many seniors and needs to address with his colleagues federally the impacts of all of the cuts and changes on a typical senior household. This has been done by the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, by the Canadian Council on Social Development. and those data are available to the min ister should he wish to take a look at them, and I would urge him to do so before he meets with his colleague. There is a particularly good study by the Canadian Association of Retired Persons which was done by a Mr.

Keirn that I think the minister would find very useful. Mr. Keirn is a retired actuary in Toronto and might even not be a member of the NDP, I am not sure about that, but I would commend that study to the minister. Mr. Acting Speaker, the changes that are being looked at here unfortunately do not take into account the needs of people with multiple sclerosis in regard to their ability to receive Betaseron and Copaxone . We know that these are very expensive drugs, but there are also very substantial benefits for a proportion of that population.

We would have wished that the minister would have taken an early opportunity to announce that this coverage would be extended to those who could benefit from those drugs. *

(1520) On the other hand, Mr. Acting Speaker, the bill does do a very important thing, and I commend the government for this, and that is to follow through on the

December II , I9 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 453 promise to make it possible for midwives to write prescriptions. That, of course, is also an important initiative which, while it took far too long to achieve and while we are still some significant time from having midwives actually out there in the field in any numbers, it is nevertheless important that the government has followed through on the promise to make it possible for midwives to write prescriptions. I want to draw the House's attention, however, to the fact that we have been talking about this particular change for more than a decade.

The government took a great deal of time, and in fact sat on the midwifery report for well over a year before making it public and taking a stand on it. So the action of making it possible to prescribe drugs is welcome; the timing is abysmally slow. In concluding my remarks on the whole issue of these changes and on this bill, Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to return to what I think were the most unfortunate changes that were made in the Pharmacare program.

When very significant deductibles were imposed of 2 percent and 3 percent of income prior to any payment and to then allow I 00 percent payment is a principle that I think if the minister went to any of the social policy people in the field, right-wing, left-wing, centre wing, it would not make any difference, all of them would say to the minister that it is bad-program design to have I 00 percent coverage after zero coverage in one step. One more dollar, and it is I 00 percent covered; one less dollar, and you get zero. That is a bad program because it encourages abuse and it discourages responsibility.

If the government cannot afford to provide free needed prescription drugs, then the notion of a scale deductible would be a sound policy. From a program point of view, it is sound policy because there is then no incentive to behave other than to use the drugs properly because you are paying the same proportion of the cost up to some reasonable level. Other provinces have an upper limit beyond which they do provide total coverage, but it is a sliding process. There are many texts written on how to design an income support program.

I have never ever seen one that suggests that it is a good design principle to go from no coverage to I 00 percent coverage, with no graduation in the process at all. It simply is bad program design. So when the minister made these changes, he not only disenfranchised over I 00,000 Manitobans from receiving benefits under a program that was very important to them, he also put in place a program that was very badly designed and led to tremendous distortion in the first year.

The minister will remember all of the people who reached their threshold and then went out and filled prescriptions because they were then at their threshold and they could prebuy for the next year or the next period of time at the government's expense. That, of course, is the behaviour you would predict from a program that is that badly designed.

So I would wish that at some point in this next year or so, next few months, perhaps the minister will come back to this House with a better-designed program, with a program that recognizes the other fundamental principle, and that is that it makes no sense to not provide needed prescription drugs for all who need them and to not overcharge them and not make it difficult for them, because in the absence of taking those drugs, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, Mr. Acting Speaker. We are shooting ourselves in the foot, and then, of course, we need to go to a hospital anyway.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot because we are encouraging people to get sick by discouraging them from taking the drugs they need because they cannot afford them.

The third thing I would ask the minister to pay particular heed to is the cascading effect of the charges that he has put in place, particularly for seniors, because I would wager that in the next year or so, we are going to see a great number of seniors in deep, deep economic distress because of the changes ofthe federal government cascading on changes that they have faced from provincial, particularly health care, but also things like the $75-tax credit change. They all add up to a very big burden, and I do not think the government has taken the time to add them up and recognize the scale of that burden, Mr.

Acting Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this bill. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments on Bill l3 , The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act. This is an issue that is important to my constituency. I

454 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1997 know I have had the opportunity to talk with many people in my community not only those who have called me specifically with health-related issues, but people who I encounter throughout the community. In fact, I have done a survey some time back about the government's change to the Pharmacare program when it occurred on April 1, 1996, and the effects that it was having on the people in my particular constituency.

People living in Transcona or elsewhere in the province of Manitoba have for some time recognized the value of the Pharmacare program and its importance to the families, my family being one of those who would utilize the Pharmacare program and at that time, prior to the 1996 changes, recognized that there was quite a substantial saving to the families as a result of the Pharmacare program. It indeed helped many families-mine included-and low-income families who fall above the government's threshold that they have established and that it was a benefit to the families.

But the government chose in 1996 to change the particular Pharmacare program. In fact, we saw it as a tax increase on those families in the province here, and we put together a number of examples to try and illustrate quite clearly what the impact was going to be on a family. An average working family, where there were married with two dependent children, with an income in the range of some $4 7,000 annual income, that the current annual deduction at that time was $237, that was the deductible that those families would have to pay.

Well, under the changes that the government brought forward on the Pharmacare program in 1996, of course, that same family, its deductible would rise from $237 to $1,15 5 before any of their drug costs would be covered under the Pharmacare program. I think that that government moved in the wrong direction of that and particularly in light of the fact that you now have and you brag quite openly about this surplus and you have had successive budget surpluses, as you have indicated.

In fact, I think the number last budget total count was $577 million and now you continue to gouge the families of Manitoba through your Pharmacare surtax or tax-if we can call it that-by the changes that you made in April of '96. To give you another example, because that first one I gave you where the deductible rose from $237 up to $1,15 5, a 387 percent increase for that family. The cost of living for that family, even if they did get a raise, for that average family would have been in the range of 2 or 3 percent.

That would be, no doubt, the maximum that they would have received by wage increases for that family if they got anything in that particular time. Another example, a family of four living at the poverty line, total annual income for the whole family, both partners working and perhaps even some of the older children working, would have been $3 1,000 and if you do the calculation for that family, the annual deduction would have been $237.

Under the new system that the government has brought in under the Pharmacare program, $662 is the deductible for that family, 179 percent increase for a family at the poverty line. I do not know how you can justifY that. I do not understand the logic that you used. A senior, a single senior living in the province of Manitoba whose current annual deduction before April of '96 was $134. Some might consider it an onus; if you are a senior on a fixed income, no doubt $134 would be.

Cons idering the seniors I have talked to in my community, some of them are living below the poverty line and have their budget stretched to the limit just to try and make ends meet. Well, their annual deductible went from $134 for this one particular woman in my constituency who is a widow, and under the new system she would be paying $465, a jump from $134 to $465, a 246 percent increase for this widow. I am not sure how you can justify that. * (1530 ) There are many examples that I can give, but two thirds of Manitobans are now cut off the Pharmacare program. I am not sure how you can justify that.

This is a preventative measure. It costs substantially more to put people in hospital and treat them than it does to give them the necessary prescription drugs to prevent them from having to enter the hospitals. So it is a preventative program, and yet you have moved away from preventative programs and now people have to enter hospitals. This is a tax on Manitobans; let us be clear about it. We think back to the changes this government has made in the health care system since they have been in office, and of course we can look back to the fiasco when they hired Connie Curran to come into this

December II , I9 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 455 province at $4 million U.S. tax free to make, what? What kind of recommendations? How has it changed the health care system? Was this a wise investment of Manitoba taxpayer dollars? Now we have rethermalized food coming into the province of Manitoba under this government's plan. It is going to cost us nearly 400 jobs in the province of Manitoba, some of them your own producers living in your own communities. That is the impact is going to be, and I am worried about these people and the jobs they have.

I want to have quality food products for the people that are in our hospital facilities and in our personal care homes, but if you are bringing in rethermalized food-and I have seen that food. My honourable colleague the member for Concordia brought examples to this House where you could not tell the difference-m ember for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), pardon me, where he brought examples to this House where he showed quite clearly that you could not even tell the difference whether this was porridge, gravy or mashed potatoes.

Now I do not know about you, but I would not eat that type of food unless I was being spoon-fed it. I fi were in a hospital bed, I suppose, that would be the only way you could get it into my mouth, but I would not eat it if I were any conscious person looking at that. It was not appetizing in the least. I took a look at the toast. Any one of you know, just take a look in your own fridge at home. Put a piece of toast in there and take it out a couple of days later. What is the condition of the food when you thaw it out, the toast?

You are going to have a soggy piece of bread; in fact, you might not even be able to tell that it is bread, and yet you are going to feed that to the sick and the vulnerable in our hospitals. I think it is the wrong move. I think we should be using Manitoba-grown products to support the produce people here in the province of Manitoba. We should have the value-added industry to produce those products here in the province of Manitoba.

We should be giving quality food to the people that are in our hospitals, not the kind of garbage that you are now having under experiments at the Riverview and other centres here in the city. We think you are on the wrong track on this, and I am sure the public will demonstrate that clearly to you as time progresses-[ interjection] Yes, and I am reminded here by my colleague the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) about the Min ister of Health (Mr. Praznik), and he must be embarrassed, at least he was here on the day when it was pointed out to him.

He said with great fanfare that he was going to bring in a sample of this food from the Riverview Health Centre for his Tory caucus cabinet meeting, or caucus meeting that he was having this week, only to find out that he had brought in a special chef from Nestle to prepare this food and a full-course turkey dinner, a full-course turkey dinner, no doubt to feed the turkeys that were going to eat it. An Honourable Member: What did the patients have that day? Mr. Reid: But the patients that day had rethermalized food, macaroni and peas. Now I do not know how the Minister of Health (Mr.

Praznik) and his colleagues can sit here in this Chamber and say that it is fair for his caucus colleagues to have what he called a meal that was prepared at the Riverview Health Centre come into this Chamber, when we know full well that that meal was not the same meal that was prepared for the patients of that particular health care facility. So, while you had turkey, dressing, gravy and all the trimmings, the patients of Riverview Health care had Kraft dinner, no doubt, and peas. Now, you call that fair for those patients that are in that facility?

I have a family member that just came out of there. was in there looking at the conditions, beautiful facility, but the food that they were being served is not appropriate for them. I do not know how this aids in their recovery to feed them-[inter jection] Yes, I have had family members recently in the hospital, and I have looked at the quality of food, and I have looked at the overworked conditions of the nursing staff in there.

I have had calls from people in my constituency who have family members in the hospital today who tell me-in fact, one particular case, the constituent's father was a doctor now retired, and there was not even appropriate health care staff to look after him in the hospital. Now my constituent asked me: does the government think that this is quality health care to have a person that is in the

456 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December II, 1997 health care condition that her particular father is in and not have adequate health care staf f available? In fact, my const ituent tells me that the nursing staff of the hospital have been instructed to tell the families of the patients: we cannot help you; go out and hire additional staff to come into the hospital to look after your family members. That is what my constituents are telling me that they are being told if they are worried about the health care and the staffing additions in the hospitals.

I am talking about last week being told this-I am not talking months back-last week. So maybe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) can afford, through his family income, to hire additional staff to come into the hospital to look after his family member or his loved one. Other families in our province cannot afford that. It is an onerous financial burden that you are placing upon the families and upon the people that are in hospitals at the most vulnerable point of their lives. I want to talk a bit about the other health care issues, because it does deal in some way with Pharmacare.

I know the Minister of Health has been asked this question, and I am not sure if I will have another opportunity to ask him this question, but there is a problem at the Health Sciences Centre under the mental health system in that particular facility. Now, I know I have written to the minister and my Leader has written to the minister on Dr.

Seshia, and I am not going to get involved in the management decisions that are taking place in that particular facility, but what concerns me about that particular health care facility, knowing of people that have utilized that facility, and it is my understanding in talking to others in the community that deal daily with situations such as this, is that there is not a certified person in charge of that particular mental health facility.

I have waited now for some weeks for the minister to respond to my letter, and I hope he will shortly so that I can apprise my constituents of what is happening in that particular health care facility, because I want to make sure that the people who are going into that facility receive the care from people that are skilled and trained in those areas so that they do not have to guess on whether or not the doctor that is providing the treatment has the necessary certification and is qualified to instruct or perform any medical procedures or to prescribe any drugs.

For the benefit of my constituents, I am asking the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to respond to those needs. That is why I sent a letter to the minister asking him for some advice in this matter. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. I have asked all honourable members in the Assembly to respect those that are speaking so that they are not interrupted. I would also ask those that are speaking to address their remarks to the Chair and to try to keep their remarks pertinent to the bill in question. Thank you. Mr.

Reid: Through you to the members opposite, as I would normally do, but I neglected to do it at the beginning of my comments-through you to the members opposite, I ask you to take a look at what is happening in the Health Sciences Centre, the mental health facility, because there are problems there, and there are serious problems. I do not want to see anybody put at a disadvantage or not receive the appropriate health care services that they require, particularly in these situations.

I also want to, when talking about this Bill 13, and I am aware that Bill 13 has some five sections in it, four of them more specifically designated to reform the particular act or to amend the particular act, but I am worried about the future of the Concordia Hospital. I believe, Mr. Acting Speaker, the government House leader has a few comments, and I will yield the floor to him with the understanding that I can resume my comments. *

(1540) House Business Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): I thank the honourable member for Transcona for the accommodation. This is by way of House business and not meant to take away from his time. Earlier today I tabled a letter of understanding between myself and the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) respecting the spring break and respecting the Interim Supply bill. At the time it might have been good if we had asked that that become an order of the House by way of unanimous agreement,

December 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 457 so that is what I am asking for now, that the letter tabled earlier be agreed to unanimously. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. *** Mr.

Reid: To resume my comments about the Pharmacare program and Bill 13, but I want to talk a bit about Concordia Hospital because I have received correspondence from constituents, people I talked to in my community about the future of this particular facility, and I know the government has made some changes to its structure of the delivery of health care services in the city of Winnipeg and, in fact, throughout the province of Manitoba, when we have now gone in the city here to the Winnipeg health care authority, I believe is the appropriate term to use.

My worry here is, and I am going to put this on the record although I hope it does not come to pass, that the government may be intending to use this particular body to change the structure of the Concordia Hospital facility from one currently of acute-care, 24-hour basis to one of a geriatrics facility.

Now, if this is the government's intention and plan to use this particular body to make those changes, I can assure the minister there is going to be a large hue and cry from the community, and you will be hearing from me on this because I think this would be a wrong step because this particular hospital not only serves the northeast

section of the city of Winnipeg but also serves the outlying areas of Springfield, Birds Hill, Anoia, Oakbank. So it is an important hospital facility, acute-care facility, for all of these communities, and we think it would be the wrong direction for the new body, the Winnipeg regional hospital authority, or the government in its instructions to this body to make those changes to that particular hospital. In Bill 13, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I am concerned because this government has levied a tax upon the people of Manitoba, those who had used the Pharmacare program, increases anywhere from 100 percent to 250 percent on their prescription drug costs. In fact, I have had occasion in the past to correspond with the ministers of Health for people who have had drugs that were delisted, and their doctors were prescribing these to them, to these patients, only to find out that they did not have access to these drugs unless they wanted to pay for them out of their own pockets. I am worried about the

section in the bill under

Section 2, and I hope that the minister is not intent on this because it would definitely be in the wrong direction. It appears to be that the government is intent on having a payment of fees, as it says, to be met by different manufacturers of drugs. My worry here with respect to this particular bill is that this could be the door opening to allow the drug companies of North America, perhaps around the world, to pay a fee to the government of Manitoba to have their drug listed as the drug of choice on the preferred list that the government has.

If that is the case, I think we are doing a disservice to the people of this province in that there are no doubt suitable alternatives through the generic drug manufacturing industry that would be equally as appropriate for them to be prescribed as it would be for the government to have a preferred drug list, as the drug companies are trying to comer the markets.

Now, we know this government is in favour of the 20-year prescription protection for the drug companies, and we know it was your government that had some say in what happened and that you never voiced any concerns contrary, raising the price of prescription drugs in the province of Manitoba, but I am worried that you are moving no w to allow these particular name-brand drug manufacturing companies to have their product comer the market by having it put on the preferred list.

Well, if that is what you are going to do, I think it would be the wrong move, and I only raise this because I am not clear on what your intent is. We have not had a chance; we have not had-[interjection] Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, perhaps the minister, who did not provide us with a spreadsheet to explain these changes, would have helped us to understand what that means to have a payment of fees. Who is going to pay those fees and for what purpose are those fees being paid? So I am not quite clear on what the minister's intent is with respect to the payment of fees. In the other

section of the bill, the minister is making some changes, and what we are also worried about with this is that because we know that this government receives a certain amount of financial contributions

458 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December II , I9 97 from the particular drug companies, that is another reason why we are worried that you are going to put these products on the preferred list. In addition, the government is going to make some changes with respect to who would be allowed to pres�ribe drugs, likely no doubt from a specific list.

PreviOusly the government had listed the dentists and the pharmacists as two professional groups that would be allowed to prescribe drugs, and the government is now adding midwives no doubt in light of the government's legislation which we had before us in this Chamber last session.

If there are needs in situations where there are midwives that are involved and there is no doctor available in that situation and we need to have certain drugs done, and the people that are administering or prescribing these drugs are trained and are aware o!'the conditions of the patient, then it may be appropnate for them to undertake to issue or prescribe these drugs. I am not an expert in these areas.

I hope that the minister through his department will take the necessary precautions to make sure the people that are being given these new powers will exercise �hem in the most appropriate fashion, and that they will mdeed be given the training to allow them to make the appropriate decision on when and where to make those decisions. I am also aware through my colleague, but more importantly, through my own family member who happens to have multiple sclerosis. I know my colleague the member for the Interlake (Mr.

Clif Evans) has raised this with the minister here in the House dealing with the listing of Betaseron and I think the alternate is Copaxone, ifl recall correctly, to have that particular drug listed so that the people suffering with multiple sclerosis can lead a normal life because it is my understanding that these particular drugs can make a significant change to the medical condition for people suffering with MS.

I ask the minister to with all haste undertake the nece ssary due diligence in looking at these particular drugs to make sure that the appropriate tests are done but in as quickly as possible a fashion to make sure that the patients can utilize these drugs if they are going to alleviate the pain and suffering that they have and to improve their quality of life.

In the bill itself, Bill 13, the minister is now going to delegate some of his responsibility, in fact shift the responsibilities to the par ticular committee that the minister has, in setting up or determinin g which drugs are or are not on the list the government has of the in�ured drugs. Now, of course, the minister I guess in this case does not want to make those decisions any longer .s� _he is going to shift the decision-making responsibility on to this particular body. I am not sure if that is the appropriate course of action to take to Jet another body.

I take it that there must be some fair amount of expertise on that particular body, but we are not quite clear on whether or not that should be appropriate for the government to make those changes. *

(1550) There may be other areas that the government is proposing. I wish the minister would have tabled a particular spreadsheet to explain in more detail his intent with respect to these changes on Bill 13, the Pharmacare program. But I do know that overall his Pharmacare program has disadvantaged a great many of Manitobans; in fact, two-thirds of Manitobans are now paying this increased tax as a result of your changes to the Pharmacare program. These changes, I hope, will not further disadvantage Manitobans, including the people that live in my communit

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-11b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 11b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a8152e59b38e65450f4f003c1e0211162b46514c

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