Manitoba Hansard — 16 March 1998 (Sitting 18, 36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-18

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. 18 - 1:30 p.m., Monday, March 16, 1998 SN -54

Member ASHTON, Steve BARREIT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert 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 MALOWA Y, 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 Portage 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. P.C. 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.

73 1 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, March 16, 1998 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lorraine McBain, Linda Griffin and Lisa Anderson praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospitals food services. Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Violet Milinkovic, Anne Horner, Dana Naskar and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospitals food services. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Thomas R. Horn, Serle F.

Fowler, Greg Robinson and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health to consider immediately cancelling the hospital food proposal and concentrate on delivering quality health care instead of using health dollars to provide contracts for private firms. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table the Report of the Manitoba Legislative Task Force on Canadian Unity.

I have not provided sufficient numbers for all members of the Legislature, because it is my understanding that all members of the Legislature have already been provided with copies of said report. 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 this afternoon, 36 visitors of the 66th Air Cadets Squadron from Thunder Bay, Ontario, under the direction of Mr. Scott Cameron.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. * (1 335) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Education System Advisory Committee Report Mr. Gary Doer (Leader ofthe Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). A school trustee in rural Manitoba just recently stated that she felt that they were in the Titanic and that the Education minister was in another boat sailing by with the radio turned off. That really illustrates what we are hearing across Manitoba from a number of trustees both in and outside of Winnipeg.

The government received in November of 1997 an advisory committee report. An advisory committee made up of trustees, parents, teachers and administrators from the department has received that report. I would like to ask the Premier: was he apprised of what was in that report, and why did his government not follow the advice of their own advisory committee in dealing with the future of public education and the opportunities for our young people in this province? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, on an annual basis, the minister's advisory committee will provide us commentary on each year's funding aspects to the division, so we very much appreciate the advice they give us. The advice is, in some cases, acted upon and in other cases not, depending upon our own circumstances. Last year, as you recall, we introduced greater flexibility to school divisions in dealing with 20

732 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16 , 1998 percent of their categoricals, and this year, as you know, we were able to indicate at least what the floor would be for funding for the province again to assist in multiyear planning. This year's problems that the member referred to in the quote from the trustee from Brandon were due to assessment, reassessment and declining enrollment, and I have met with that particular board to discuss their situation.

They now recognize that they will be getting $256,000 which they had not realized they could incorporate this year, which is going to be a great help to them, and we are looking at reassessment phase-ins for following years, again through the advice of the advisory council. Funding-Property Taxes Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, it looks like the minister's radio is turned off when it deals with her own advisory committee or report. It looks like that trustee was right on in their assessment of this minister.

The advisory committee report, and this is two years running, condemns the shift on taxation to property tax base and says for this year, for the '98 school year, that we should not have increases in property taxes to pay for education, that those increases should come from the general revenues of the Province of Manitoba.

Now this committee is made up of assistant deputy ministers in the minister's department, parents, trustees, superintendents, and when we look at the Beautiful Plains School Division getting an 11 percent tax increase on property taxes, we look at the Kelsey School Division, we look at Transcona, we look at Winnipeg School Division No. 1, obviously this government is not listening. I would like to ask the Premier: why do you continue to shift the burden onto the property taxpayers, and why do you continue not to listen to your own advisory committee's recommendations? Bon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I believe in Friday's Question Period the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stef anson) gave a very reasoned response to that very question that the member has just posed to this side of the House. I have to indicate that many of the school divisions that this year are feeling the impact of reassessment faired extremely well under previous years with the same formula. Trustees have indicated they do not wish to see the formula changed.

For example, in Portage Ia Prairie where it talks about an increase in the rate, what they are talking about in terms of dollars is about $26 a household. Those divisions that have this year experienced a high impact of reassessment, as I indicated, many faired very, very well under that same formula in earlier years. Brandon, for example, having had an increase of 11 .5 percent during the succeeding few years, and that was during an era when funding increases from the province overall were not there, so they are working from a very secure base. Funding-Technological Needs Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The minister's radio is not turned on. They are not working from a secure base. Madam Speaker, taxpayers paying property taxes for school taxes have had hundreds of dollar increases in their taxation under this minister and this Premier over the last number of years, and that is why the recommendation is to make that shift to general revenues this year rather than the property taxes implemented by this government through their cutbacks in funding over the last five years.

The report further recommends, as a No. 2 priority, that some $15 million is needed for new technology for our kids, for our future, for Manitoba children and for our schools. How can the minister square this recommendation based on student need of $15 million with the $1. 8-mill ion announcement that she made, which is approximately $10 per student, to meet the future technological needs? Why are we depriving our kids a decent future by denying them the technology that is recommended by their own advisory committee? * (1 340) Bon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): The $1. 8 million over and above the formula that we provided for technology this year is an indication that we see it as a priority and that we wish to continue helping.

March 16, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 733 Madam Speaker, that goes along with the science technology grants that are being provided to schools, up to $40,000 per school annually. We have been giving them to some 25 schools per year, very valuable assistance in the classroom for technology, along with the guidance we have been providing through MERLIN and through other enterprises to assist school divisions in co-ordinating and interacting with each other. You know, recently, Madam Speaker, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) was pleased with what we are doing in technology in her division.

Those kinds of things, while more can always be done and we would like to do more and more and more, I think, given the work that we have been doing, our indication and commitment to technology in schools is clear. Education System Funding-Rural Manitoba Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, this year over half the school divisions in Manitoba received less than the stable funding that they were promised by this government.

One rural school division, writing of its dismay and anger at these significant reductions, said to the minister, in your public announcement you gave no indication of what lay in store for many rural divisions. On February 11, delegates from over 70 rural municipalities, school boards and parent councils met in an unprecedented meeting to send that same message to the Minister of Education. I want to ask the minister: what has she done with that message? Has she turned that radio on yet? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, there is no getting away from the fact that this year we have added $17.6 million on top ofthe $115 million we had already added since we took office to public school education in Manitoba. That is $131 million added to public schools since we took office, just in their basic funding formula.

While it is true that some divisions that were feeling the impact of reassessment, of declining enrollment and other factors that affect the formula would experience a decrease, all of those divisions were told very clearly and understood very clearly last year that when we said this year there would be as much money in the pot this year as there was last year, that that was what they understood. We made it very clear in writing and verbally that variations would occur, of course, to divisions depending upon whether or not their enrollment had gone up and down.

In the case of Brandon, for example, enrollment went down by $200,000. If their enrollment goes up come September, they will get that money. It will flow automatically. They knew that, and the member should know that they can apply their known factors into the formula for estimating purposes. Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) to confirm that he is aware of the very serious accusations that are coming from rural Manitoba, and again I quote: quite frankly, the quality of education has deteriorated to the point where the primary responsibility of boards to provide a satisfactory level of service to the students charged to their care is being compromised by the provincial government's failure to provide adequate financial support. Those are serious accusations. Is the Premier aware of them? Mrs.

Mcintosh: As I said before, we have put $131 million more into education this year than was being put into public education when we took office. The special levy that school boards put in place, if the member wants to go back just for comparison purposes, since she seems to be doing some comparisons here, she might be interested to see that the special levy rate increase during the mid-'80s, the late '80s when the NDP were in office were a much higher percentage rate than they are under this government. So if school divisions are able, Madam Speaker, to- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to quickly complete her response. *

(1345) 734 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16, 1998 Mrs. Mcintosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. School divisions are able-when they are doing their projections they are able and they do take figures that they know to be true for themselves, for example, the market value of their homes, the projected student enrollment, et cetera, and they can plug those into the formula for a reasonable estimate as to what they could be expecting. Divisions did that this year so they were not surprised. Ms.

Friesen: Could the mm1ster, the educational leader in this province, tell us what steps she has taken to meet the very real fears of those parents and trustees in rural Manitoba who are telling her that the quality of education has deteriorated, they cannot meet the needs of their students? Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, not accepting the

preamble as accurate, because I visit many, many schools and I visit with many, many boards, and the message that she is portraying today is not the universal message that I am receiving. Indeed, many boards have written to say thank you; many boards have dropped by to say thank you. As well, in visiting schools, I am both impressed and delighted with the very, very high standard that I see in many of our public schools. I see wonderful progress in technology taking place, high levels of literacy. I see a tremendous amount of extremely good work being done in the classrooms. I see small classes.

I see plenty of educational assistants and technological assistants in the classes. We can always improve and we can always do more, and we wish to do that, but to leave an impression there is a poor quality of education here is incorrect. Brandon General Hospital Physician Resources-Pediatrics Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Because of excessive workloads, sometimes as much as 120 hours a week, the remaining two pediatricians in Brandon have now withdrawn their on-call serviCes, and the hospital, the Brandon General Hospital could be forced to send children by air or ambulance to Winnipeg for treatment.

The people of Brandon and western Manitoba are increasingly alarmed at this situation. The minister and his staff have known for many, many months that there was a serious problem, and the minister has not come up with a solution. My question to the mm1ster: will the minister acknowledge that a crisis does exist and tell us exactly what he is going to do to address this crisis today? Hon. Darren Pramik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we have attempted to keep the member for Brandon East informed on a number of these issues and the details which have not made it into the public debate.

I think he is more informed of the intricacies of this situation than his question would imply. I can tell him that, from the recent report I had this morning from the Brandon hospital authority, the health authority, I understand they have identified I believe three new physicians that they are currently talking to about recruiting to Brandon. Mr.

Leonard Evans: Will the minister acknowledge that Winnipeg indeed has an oversupply of pediatricians and that the solution can be found in an adequate incentive system, coupled with proper supports, to attract pediatricians out of Winnipeg, and the solution is not to go offshore to bring foreign doctors in; the solution is at the minister's doorstep if he would only take this matter seriously? Mr. Pramik: Certainly we take it seriously.

I want to thank the member for Brandon East for his support for those types of changes, because under the current agreement we have with the Manitoba Medical Association, reallotment within the fee

schedule is within their purview under that agreement. We are beginning, we would like to begin, we have offered to begin the process of negotiating the new agreement, and the kinds of mechanisms that the member is requesting certainly should be considered in this agreement to get the right allocation of physicians. I take it from the member's comments today that we can count on the support of the New Democratic Party in that initiative. Mr.

Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, will the minister assure this Legislature, the people of Brandon and western Manitoba, that he really will, along with his staff, give this crisis their full attention, make it a priority, and come up with the solution now that will provide for an adequate level of pediatric services in the city of Brandon? As the Brandon Sun has said: Will the minister put the care back into the health care system?

March 16, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 735 *

(1350) Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, absolutely, because one of the observations I make today as we get into these battles, and I suspect since the agreement with the Manitoba Medical Association is expiring at the end of this month, and since we have already been told by Mr. Laplume that they will be looking for areas in which to cause difficulty within the system, I certainly want to ensure care is there in the health care system rather than negotiating tactics or politics in the broader sense.

But what the member is suggesting today is a very radical departure from the tradition in Canada and in this province in how we remunerate physicians and how we build into that the ability to direct them. Our staff at Manitoba Health has been working with the Brandon Authority. We have offered to convert fee-for-service dollars into contracts to be able to get into that position of contract, salaried physicians. Currently, if we are going to do this, of course we should first attempt to do it through negotiating a new agreement with the Manitoba Medical Association.

I would expect from the member's comments today that the New Democratic Party will be supportive of our initiatives rather than be continually critical of absolutely every move we make, even when they contradict themselves. When push comes to shove, they will be there. Grant Park High School Student Protest-Investigation Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, last year the Winnipeg Free Press called the Minister of Education a schoolyard bully. This year the minister has evolved to being both an object of ridicule and a bully.

The first I think is clear in a Free Press cartoon which I am pleased to table and the second in the minister's unprofessional remarks about students at Grant Park school which culminated in an unprecedented demand that a particular student be punished so as to serve as an example. Madam Speaker: The question, please? Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the Minister of Education, and leaving aside the human rights issues, I want to ask the minister if she- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Osborne please pose her question now. Ms. McGifford: Yes, Madam Speaker.

I want to ask the minister if she is now satisfied that the student has been disciplined, or does she intend to continue her personal vendetta? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): In response to questions I had received at my office about security in the schools, I made a request of the Winnipeg School Division, a request for information about whether or not a locked door had been broken open to allow unauthorized personnel to the school, and that if that were true, would the discipline that would be put in place help other students understand that such things should not occur.

I have since heard- An Honourable Member: So where was this RFK analogy; eyes bulging out- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to complete her response. Mrs. Mcintosh: The member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton), from his chair, refers to a subsequent story in the Free Press which alluded to how I felt for those few moments on stage, and that may have made interesting headlines, but it had nothing to do with my correspondence to the Winnipeg School Division which was a request for information about a locked door having been broken open, and any disciplinary action which may have flowed from that, if it were true, could the board please make sure that it would help other students understand that we have rules about safety in our schools that we passed last June.

So, Madam Speaker, that is my only communication with the Winnipeg School Division on the issue, so I do not know what the member is referring to in terms of personal vendetta; I have none. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, with a supplementary question.

736 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16, 1998 Ms. McGifford: Why, Madam Speaker, when the minister clearly knows that legislation states that discipline is the jurisdiction of the principal and, in this case, the principal had taken the necessary measures, did the minister then write to the chair of the Winnipeg School Board demanding a report on disciplinary measures with regard to the student Chris Millar? What has happened- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. *

(1355) Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, there was no demand in my letter; it was a request for information. I would be delighted to provide the member a copy of my letter which simply said: after the event in question, three platform guests were provided with information by the school that a locked door had been violated and unauthorized people allowed admittance to the school. Because of the newspaper coverage on that event, I received a request from the public questioning our commitment to safety in schools.

I therefore wrote to the school board, which is the legal channel with whom I communicate, asking for the information: was there or was there not in fact a locked door violated and, if so, what would be the disciplinary measures?. It was a request for information; it was not a demand for punishment. Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, the minister is wrong, wrong, wrong about that letter. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Osborne, this is not a time for debate. Would she please pose her final supplementary question. Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.

Film on) why he allows this minister to bully and intimidate Manitobans, to run a department based on bad temper- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Words like the ones uttered by the honourable member for Osborne in her last question- Madam Speaker: On a point of order? Mr. McCrae: Yes, on a point of order, Madam Speaker.

We have all been reminded repeatedly to use language which is appropriate for a parliamentary setting, and the honourable member's last question contains words which I suggest if they are not on the list of unparliamentary expressions, ought to be, and we can put them there by making a precedent here today. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.

It was this minister who likened a peaceful student protest to the RFK assassination, making references to their eyes bulging out, their veins popping, and now the government House leader is concerned about language made by our member of the Legislature in questioning that. I think not only are the comments appropriate, I think it is absolutely unacceptable to have a Minister of Education in this province who would try and persecute student protesters for exercising their democratic rights.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, on October 5, 1995, the quotation "bullying his way around" was ruled unparliamentary. Caution was again given on April 29, 1996, on the word "bullies." I would request that the honourable member for Osborne please withdraw the direct reference to the minister bullying and pick and choose her words more carefully on a further occasion. *** Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I was quoting the Free Press. I withdraw the word "bully" and substitute- Madam Speaker: Order, please.

March 16, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 737 Ms. McGifford: I withdraw the word "bully." Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Osborne. Would you quickly rephrase your question. Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier why he allows this minister to run a department based on bad temper rather than sound management, accountability and respect for legislation. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I totally reject the assertions that are contained in that question by the member for Osborne.

I know this minister to be a very caring individual who has personally attended at more than a hundred and fifty different schools in the province since she was appointed the Minister of Education, who goes out to visit with all of the students, who cares deeply about their future and who has demonstrated that time and time again, which is why we get the kinds of personal attacks we have just had from the member for Osborne. *

(1400) Education System Funding-Per Student Statistics Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Given that education is of great importance for our younger generation in order to obtain the necessary knowledge to advance in our society, can the minister tell this House how much this government currently spends on each student for education, and how does this compare with other provinces? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the Province of Manitoba provides grants to school divisions. It works out to about $4,000 per student.

I can get the exact figure for him that is provided to school divisions. That is not necessarily what is spent, because school divisions themselves can, through their authority to collect their own levy, change the amount expended by what they collect or choose to spend. But that is the basis for what the province provides on a per capita basis through the student funding formula. Funding-Provincial Comparisons Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.

Boniface): Madam Speaker, to the same minister: how does the Education budget compare with the province's GOP, and how does the Education spending to GOP ratio compare with other provinces? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will have to take that question under notice and provide the information to the member. I can tell him, however, though, in meeting with other ministers of Education across the country, Manitoba spends per capita slightly more than the average in Canada of the other provinces across the nation, but the exact figures I will have to provide for him.

They do fluctuate on an annual basis. Class Size-Provincial Comparisons Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): To the same minister: can the minister tell this House what the average class size at the primary, junior high and senior high levels are in this province, and how does it compare with other provinces? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): We have the third-best ratio in terms of class size compared to other provinces across the nation.

In terms of two categories, pupil-teacher ratio and educator-pupil ratio, we say that we have 18.9 to one, being what would be registered classroom teachers, 19 to one. In terms of educators in the school which would include those teachers who do not teach in classrooms, librarians, guidance counsellors, we have 15, 14.9 or 15 to one, very good ratios in terms of class size. Nineteen would be equivalent to the average class size, but that does not mean, nor should be mistaken to mean that every class will have 19.

Some will have 30, some will have 10, depending upon what classes you have, where you are, et cetera. But the average is 19 to one. Minister of Education Student Complaint Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, time and time again the Minister of Education's behaviour has been unacceptable. At a

738 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16, 1998 meeting of post-secondary representatives last September, the minister showed contempt, disrespect and abusive behaviour to a student representative who was there to discuss the very important issues related to post-secondary education. My question is to the Premier: what action has the Premier taken to respond to the letter of December 11, 1997, from Elizabeth Carlyle, the president of the University of Winnipeg Students Association, which cites the Minister of Education's behaviour as personally injurious, completely unnecessary and inappropriate?

In fact, the Honourable Mrs. Mcintosh's behaviour became so unbearable-and I am quoting from the letter-that at one point the Honourable David Newman felt it necessary to intervene and ask her to get back to post-secondary education issues relevant to the meeting. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will provide a written response to the member--or at least to the individual who wrote that letter.

That individual, of course, is also the same individual who led a student protest that occupied my constituency office-! might say occupying private property and taking it over, locking the door and doing all sorts of foolish things that normally would be the subject of police action. I think that kind of hooliganism, though, is not the kind of thing that we should be supporting in this Legislature. I note that the member for St. James supports that kind of activity though. Point of Order Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the question-! want to cite Beauchesne Citation 417: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." The question was about the behaviour of this minister to the president of the University of Winnipeg Students Association. I think it speaks volumes that the Premier chose to also attack the president of the UWSA and make comments that if they were made outside of this House, reference to hooliganism, would most definitely be subject to action for slander.

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, you ask the kind of attack against the student representative, continuing the kind of personal attacks and vendetta we see against anybody that disagrees with this government. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, the honourable member who raised the point knows the rules very well, knows that he has not a leg to stand on with respect to any citation in Beauchesne in relationship to the comments of the First Minister of this House this afternoon and has no point of order. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the honourable member does not have a point of order. Language specific to members is ruled parliamentary or unparliamentary. I believe someone outside this Chamber was identified in the First Minister's comments. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to complete his response. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I believe practice in this House, if a member's time has not expired and is interrupted- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I believe practice in this House is, if the member's, who was responding to the question, time has not expired and is interrupted on a point of order, that member can or may indeed complete their response. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, in concluding my response, the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) joins a long list of New Democrats in this House who support disruptive and illegal activities from time to time- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Premier to not only obey the rules but not make that Madam Speaker: Order, please.

March 16, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 739 Point of Order Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the comments made by the First Minister were highly unparliamentary and out of order, and I would cite the precedent in which the government House leader in another reincarnation a number of years ago was actually expelled from the House for similar sorts of accusations. The questions asked by the member for St. James were about a meeting between the president of the University of Winnipeg Students Association and the Minister of Education-nothing illegal, a meeting.

In this province, Madam Speaker, expressing one's opinion and meeting with members of the government are legal. We are not into a Pinochet-style dictatorship. We have rights, we have democracy in this province and that First Minister should withdraw that rather despicable comment that he made. Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comment.

Premier suspend the Minister of Education for her unacceptable behaviour-and if anyone is a hooligan, it is in the second row right behind him-and stop the embarrassment to Manitobans and put in somebody who can lead and be a leader in education? Madam Speaker: Order, please. The reference made by the member for St. James was specific to a member in this House, and I would ask that the member retract the word specifically attributable to the Minister of Education and Training. We have already gone through this once today. Ms.

Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I remove the specific reference to the Minister of Education being a hooligan. I probably meant her behaviour was hooliganism. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. When a member is requested to withdraw unparliamentary language, the withdrawal is supposed to be unqualified. Would the honourable member for St. James please just withdraw the words used? Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I withdraw my Minister. comment. *** Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, my second question is to the Premier.

How can the Premier justify the double standard of his Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), who demonstrates where she herself shows great intolerance to her perceived disrespect of certain students, and yet this minister is totally disrespectful to the people that she meets with and, in this case, the president of the University of Winnipeg Students Association-total disrespect? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I totally reject the assertions contained in the question of the member for St. James. *

(1410) Suspension Request Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my final question to the Premier: will the Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St. James. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the false allegations made by the member for St. James are worthy of a response. Education System Funding-Property Taxes Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Education said that all divisions support the way school divisions are funded, and she said, I quote: that they want to see it stay in place.

This is utterly false and incorrect, and I want to table a copy of a report to the Minister of Education from the Transcona School Division that clearly states that they have concerns with the means by which education

740 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16, 1998 funds are distributed amongst school divisions and that they see the system as fundamentally flawed. I want to ask the Minister of Education if she will now admit that her statements were wrong and that the huge increases in property tax across the province by school divisions is because of the underfunding of this government for education. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, as I indicated in an earlier answer, and I think it bears repeating, $13 I million more has gone into education since we took office.

The school divisions that had originally been quoted in the paper, in the Brandon Sun, as desiring a change to the formula have contacted me specifically to say, please do not misinterpret us. We do not wish the formula changed. We like the formula. Our problem is we got hit this year with the impact of reassessment. They have asked that in future years can we take a look at phasing in anything over or above a certain variable. We can certainly take a look at that, Madam Speaker, but they made it very clear-they came to see me in person to make it clearer-that they did not wish to see that formula changed.

It was those divisions that I was specifically referring to, those divisions that had originally been quoted as saying they wanted a change, emphasized to me they did not want to change. The majority of divisions in Manitoba are in that category. Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for at least backtracking on that answer.

With Transcona-Springfield School Division having to raise now 36 percent of its budget from local taxes, I want to ask the minister to tell us when she is going to start listening to school divisions and her own Advisory Committee on Education Finance and implement the recommendations to review the way school divisions are funded, and that this year specifically no increase in revenue should come from property taxes. Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, the funding formula that is currently in place is one that was devised with the assistance of people in the field.

Superintendents, educators, teachers, people from the field helped develop the current funding formula. Madam Speaker, the feedback we have received is that while there may be some exceptions, the vast majority of school divisions say they want no change to this formula. The formula is reviewed annually. We receive advice from the Finance Advisory Committee which is sometimes accepted, sometimes modified and sometimes rejected. We are looking at what to do in the future. There is a massive change in assessment on property values, as the member has suggested. That is part of our normal course of review.

We are paying specific attention to that aspect, given that this year it was the subject of complaint by some divisions. Education System Funding-Rural Manitoba Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to raise an issue on behalf of the people of the Roblin-Russell constituency who are very concerned about the direction this government is taking with education funding.

In a Jetter from the R.M. ofRossburn and the town of Ross bum to the Minister of Education, it is clear that the municipal leaders are concerned that as a result of reduced funding there is going to be a huge tax increase in rural Manitoba How can this government continue to say that they have not increased taxes when in fact there is going to be a tremendous increase in property taxes in rural Manitoba because of cutbacks to education funding by this government? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I think the member is somewhat flawed when she refers to rural Manitoba, because the changes in reassessment that caused negative impacts for some divisions are not all of rural Manitoba divisions. Many rural Manitoba divisions faired extremely well this year because the impact of assessment came to them earlier. Similarly, many of the metro divisions have a very good experience this year because the impact of assessment hit them four years ago. Madam Speaker, I come back to the increase in special levies.

By and large, particularly in urban Manitoba, they are far less than they were when the New Democrats were in power. I have met with the Pelly Trail board, and I have talked to them. I have met with several boards, be seeing more of them again

March 16, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 741 during the MAST convention coming up later this month. Anything that they wish to share with me that they have not already shared with me I am quite willing to examine, but problems of low and declining enrollment cannot be changed. If you have fewer students, you will get less money, and reassessment-we are taking a look at. Ms. Wowchuk: Will the Minister of Education admit that the quality of education in rural Manitoba has declined and people are very worried about it because of a cut in funding to education by this government? Mrs.

Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, we are very pleased with the quality of education we see in Manitoba. The member herself is running around the North trying to take credit for our initiatives on technology in the northern schools, a very distinct improvement in quality that has nothing to do with her and everything to do with us. I need to put on the record that the member approached me once last year about technology, and that should be recorded because I notice now she is trying to take credit. So all I can say is if things are not going well, they want us to take the blame; for things that are going well, they (

a) either do not want to acknowledge it or (

b) take the credit themselves. The fact is the quality of education in Manitoba is extremely good. That is borne out by national examinations. It is borne out by commentary from other ministers of Education across the nation. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Rulings Madam Speaker: I have two rulings for the House. Order, please. During Question Period on June 23, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the opposition House leader respecting words spoken by the First Minister in response to a question asked by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).

The opposition House leader asked that the words be withdrawn and stated that they contravened Beauchesne Citation 484 as well as being unparliamentary. The words in question were "I know that the member opposite does not have issues of substance, so he chooses to look for substance of slime when he comes to Question Period." The opposition House leader did have a point of order. Citation 484 states that a member will not be permitted to impute unworthy motives to the actions of another member. I would ask the First Minister to withdraw the words he spoke. *

(1420) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I would be pleased to withdraw those words, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister. On June 25, the Deputy Speaker took under advisement a point of order raised by the opposition House leader respecting words the Premier allegedly spoke from his seat during a speech by the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) during a matter of privilege. The words spoken, according to the opposition House leader, were "phoney tactical crap," and he asked that the words be withdrawn.

When taking the matter under advisement, the Deputy Speaker indicated that if the words in question had been picked up in Hansard, a ruling would come back to the House. The words which appear in the Hansard record are "phoney tactical." Speakers in Manitoba and other Canadian jurisdictions have ruled that words not spoken on the record cannot be the subject of intervention.

These rulings are based on Beauchesne Citation 486(4) which states that remarks which do not appear in the public record and are therefore private conversations not heard by the Chair do not invite the intervention of the Speaker, although members have apologized for hurtful remarks uttered in such circumstances. Therefore, I cannot ask that the words be withdrawn, but I would ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to be prudent in the choice ofhis language. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Labatt Brier Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the

742 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16, 1998 organizers of the 1998 Labatt Brier for staging a most successful and enjoyable event at the Winnipeg Arena. This was the first time Winnipeg had hosted the event since 1970, so the games were eagerly anticipated. Competition and hospitality are two of the key ingredients to host the Brier, and both were in ample supply in Winnipeg. Visitors from across the country were treated to traditional Manitoba hospitality at its finest as they took

part in the 69th men's Canadian curling championship. Hundreds of volunteers enthusiastically greeted the fans and the players and ensured that they received high-quality services during their time in Manitoba. Whether they were taking in the games or spending time at our fine local hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions, the Brier participants were warmly received. The competition was stellar. Even a brief power outage could not dampen the enthusiasm of the curlers, fans and organizers who gathered for the final match between Ontario's Wayne Middaugh and Quebec's Guy Hemmings.

Some 147,000 fans took in the games at the arena, and thousands more watched on television. All can say they witnessed a series of exciting games which exhibited curling's most usual standards of high-quality play and a strong spirit of sportsmanship. Once again, congratulations to all the curlers, organizers, sponsors and volunteers for a job well done. Their hard work and dedication bodes well for the upcoming world junior hockey champions and also the Pan Am Games. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Philippines Centenary Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I 00 years ago the Philippines declared their independence. Yesterday I was pleased, along with my wife and many others, to mark this occasion at Casa Bueno banquet hall along with more than 300 other people. It was an extremely enjoyable event and one that will be remembered by the participants for a long time. In addition to outstanding entertainment, I think the highlight was a trivia quiz on the history and geography of the Philippines. As a result, their Canadian-born guests learned many new facts, and everyone had fun taking

part in the trivia challenge. I want to congratulate the organizers of this successful event which was sold out. There are now more than 40,000 Manitobans of Filipino descent living in Winnipeg. They have made enormous contributions to the culture and business development of this city and province. Over the course of this year, there will be many more events celebrating the centenary of the declaration of independence. I encourage anyone who can attend to participate in such events, and I look forward to attending some of those functions, as do many other members of this Legislature. Thank you. Ms.

Collette Daley Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the heroic actions by Collette Daley, a teacher at Ecole Varennes. "Hero" is a word that is often used to describe the actions of an individual, but seldom does the word so appropriately fit as it did last week. During lunch break at Ecole Varennes last week, Ms. Daley noticed a kindergarten student choking on her lunch. Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, Ms.

Daley quickly leapt into action and performed the Heimlich maneuver on the student and, by doing so, dislodged the piece of food that was causing the student to choke. Her knowledge of this maneuver and her very quick use of it in all probability saved this young student's life. I am confident that to one young student at Ecole Varennes, Collette Daley is a hero in every sense of the word. Having worked with Ecole Varennes and its teachers for several years, I know the quality of the teaching staff is among the highest, and this most recent action confirms what I have known all along.

So, on behalf of all members of the Manitoba Legislature, I would like to acknowledge Collette Daley's fast thinking and fast action. In a matter of a few seconds, she turned a potential tragedy into an important lesson for all, and that lesson is that we should all have the basic

March 16, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 743 lifesaving skills necessary so, if we are confronted with similar circumstances, we too can take action. Thank you, Collette Daley. Philippines Centenary Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, my colleague from Burrows has already expressed greetings on the first event celebrating the 1 OOth anniversary of the Philippines. As a member of that community, I wish to add more information about the background of our country of origin. The Philippines had been under the Spaniards for almost 300 years.

When the rule was over, we were placed under the Americans under the conqueror, Admiral Dewey, and we were under the United States for almost 50 years of benevolent political rule. Finally they gave us commonwealth status in the early 1930s, and we enjoyed some degree of local autonomy, which then matured into full independence in 1946-political independence that is, but not economic independence. Therefore we are celebrating this year the beginning of a hundred years of the existence of the country as an independent nation after suffering many of such difficulties in history. *

(1430) Many of our people in this community have resided mostly in Winnipeg, and due to sheer hard work and thrift, they have seen their children-sons and daughters-achieve their dreams in this province of opportunity. They have become doctors, lawyers, nurses, engineers, and successful in another dozen professions. Although we came here for many different objectives and purposes, economic opportunity was one of them, and we are very grateful to the people of this province. Thank you. Mr. Basil Agnew Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): In the constituency of Pembina, we are fortunate to have a strong volunteer base that serves a variety of organizations. Their ongoing assistance and the countless hours volunteered ensure local organizations are healthy and well run. In 1996, the Governor General's Caring Canadian Awards were created. It was started to recognize Canadians whose voluntary contributions provide extraordinary help or care to people in the community.

This year's 53 recipients were announced last week, and I am very pleased to note that a constituent of mine from Morden, Basil Agnew, is a recipient of the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award. Out ofthe 53 recipients, Mr. Agnew is the only Manitoban to be recognized. Mr. Agnew has been devoting his time for over 20 years to helping others in his community and parish. He was very involved in raising funds to build the Morden Friendship Centre and in recruiting volunteers for the 1996 Manitoba Summer Games.

The citation noted, and I quote, his warmth and caring are most evident in the countless, low-key, often anonymous acts of kindness he performs for community members in need, from providing transportation for senior citizens to helping friends and neighbours with gardening and home maintenance. Like a true volunteer, Mr. Agnew was somewhat modest about his community work, but I am more than willing to sing his praises. On behalf of all residents of the Pembina constituency and all members of the Manitoba Legislature, I would like to congratulate Basil Agnew.

Your formal recognition through this award only reinforces what your community has known all along: that you are a generous and caring individual whose ongoing efforts to assist others is a blessing to us all. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE (Seventh Day of Debate) Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and on the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), who has 40 minutes remaining. Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak at some length this afternoon about the budget and about health care's role within it, which is a very significant role, and to talk about the work, the planning, the implementation of planning that is underway to bring

744 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March I6 , I9 98 about I think some overdue and extremely significant changes in the way in which we deliver health care services to the people of our province, indeed in the manner in which health care services are delivered to the people of provinces right across Canada. Madam Speaker, there is-in fact, beginning my remarks, I would like to say that the changes that the system is undergoing today are just as significant as the decision made in the early sixties to begin to have governments centrally pay for medical and hospital services on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba.

The manner in which service is delivered is going through what I would call today a revolution, not an evolution but a revolution in terms of that fundamental change. The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) makes some comments about blaming the federal government and he makes some comments about crisis in health care, et cetera.

I say to him, I think if he examines what is happening right across the country today, he will see emergency rooms in Montreal, in Toronto, in Edmonton, in Vancouver, Winnipeg, in many centres, have undergone the same kinds of pressures that we have faced in our own province in these last couple of months. He will see those same things being replicated across the country for many of the same reasons.

Many of the initiatives that we have embarked on, Madam Speaker, in the last number of years are very similar in their nature and direction with the kind of fundamental reform that is taking place in every province in this country as we struggle to move our health care system into the next century. Madam Speaker, what I wanted to address today is very much the plan that we are now into full implementation of.

I want to, in doing so, put into some context the world in which Health ministers and governments and health systems and health care workers have had to operate over the last number of years, particularly the last decade. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that context we can go back a decade ago when we look at the state of governments right across the country. We were all awash in a sea of red ink, national and provincial governments. The cost of policies of borrowing money on an annual basis for 20 years had caught up to us.

They had caught up to us as provinces and as a country, with the result that we were all facing in our overall budgets the inability to guarantee basic public services into the future because our own cost of carrying debt and ever-escalating cost of carrying debt meant that, in the case of the federal government, they were spending one out of every three dollars on debt servicing, and for provinces, we were beginning to pass the I 0 percent or II percent of our budget going to debt servicing.

Some had reached I6 , 17 percent and were escalating beyond the ability of our taxpayers to carry that burden, The result, if we did not collectively, as provincial and federal governments and consequently as municipal and school governments at the local level, meet that challenge was that we would financially, literally collapse much like in New Zealand or other places that found out one day that they just could not borrow any more money and that services, the delivery of public services came to an end or were sharply reduced. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, unlike the government that we replaced, although in their deathbed days they did recognize that they had to do something about it and were starting to look at how they were going to manage but who were largely to a good degree responsible for our problem in Manitoba, we had to take on that challenge and we had to meet it, and we have. The national government, whatever one's political party, has had to attempt to do that as well. Now, we can debate very legitimately how do they attempt to achieve their savings and to balance their budget.

Some of us would argue very strongly that they have not managed to address the manner in which they deliver services to the public where they are responsible. They have managed their deficit by cutting out of transf ers to provinces for the delivery of basic services like health care. That is a very legitimate debate, and I would urge Mr. Martin and Mr. Chretien to be re-examining their own delivery mechanisms. By the way, in that challenge I am joined by every provincial-! believe I am joined by every provincial Minister of Health across this country, including New Democrats, including Liberals.

I am joined in that battle, in that cry by the federal New Democratic Party and by the former member for St. Johns, who have come to recognize that the national government has

March 16 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 745 pulled a great deal of money out of the provincial health care system. What we urge them to do is not to get into borrowing again but to re-examine their own spending priorities, the way in which they deliver their services, and if dollars can be saved and directed to the highest priority, which I believe is health, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to do so and do so quickly.

For all provinces, indeed Manitoba, when one pulls some $200-million plus, $200 million, $240 million out of our health care system, when we are spending now $1. 9 billion, that is far more than 10 percent of our expenditure. To pull that out of our system and expect that system to carry on as if they have never lost the money is impossible. It is unrealistic.

We manage by reallocating resources, pulling money out of other departments to make up that money and to add, but in doing so, our ability to meet the growth in demand, to meet the demands of an aging population, of new technology, of new drugs, has been strained, strained to a great degree. It has meant that in practical terms, we have had to run our facilities very much to the maximum.

When one does get hit by a momentous event, whether it be a flood in Manitoba or an ice storm in eastern Canada or a flu epidemic, this Sydney strain of flu that we have experienced this winter across the country, it means more people will access the system than expected. It will put more pressure on that system, and it will cause that system to back up. We have never denied that there was a problem, but to understand what is behind it is fundamentally important in that context. It is fundamental to point that out. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer) rises in this House and talks about reductions of acute care beds throughout our system-[interjection] The Leader of the Opposition is always quick with a line here or there. His accuracy on the facts leaves a great deal to be desired. * (1 440) Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debate on the right bed mix in our system has been going on for many years. It was going on in the days of Larry Desjardins.

The question driven by changes in technology, the development of laser surgery, the increase in day surgery, all of which have reduced the need for acute care beds, has led every advocate for redefining the Canadian health care system to bring it into the modem age to say that we have had to move bed and care from acute care facilities to other alternatives: long-term care, home care, et cetera. That has been the direction of every analyst of any credibility looking at the Canadian health care system. They have said that is the shift that we need to make in our system.

That debate has been going on in Canada for well over a decade. People like Michael Deeter, who I understand is a friend of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), has made a living being an advocate for change in the system and has been involved in these issues. They have been advocates of this kind of shift and this change. The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), I have quoted him in this House, I have quoted Mr.

Sale, who agreed that that shift has to take place, and Manitoba, like every other province, has been making that shift from acute care beds and services to the long-term care in home care over the last number of years. Now do we get the number exactly right? There is no science to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is an art. When you have a diffuse management system of your health care delivery mechanism it makes it even more of an art. The result, of course, is: do we have exactly the right number of acute care beds in an ever-changing system?

From time to time we probably do and other times we may not, and when you compound that by the need for a more long-term care space, it does put additional pressure on our system. But when the Leader of the Opposition comes up and says we should not have closed any of those beds, what he denies and challenges is the whole change to meet need in our system. He is saying we should go back to the way we delivered it 10 , 15 , 20 years ago, continue to have those beds in place whether we needed them or not. So I would like the Leader of the Opposition at some point to say is that what he means.

Let us tum back the clock on reform and let us have way more acute care beds than we need. If he wants to debate, do we have the right number within that change and that evolution, that is a fair debate, and sometimes we may not have it right, and I accept that, but to say that we should not have embarked on shifting beds and services from acute care into other areas denies reality, denies the needs of the public and is extremely short-sighted. In fact, it is that kind of short-sightedness at the end of

746 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16 , 19 98 the day that could kill a health care system by making it unaffordable. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are other factors at work in health care today that one has to recognize. One of those areas is technology. The growing, changing technological abilities in medicine have changed the way in which we practise medicine and we treat individuals. [interjection] I hear the Leader of the Opposition from his seat. There are real issues here to be debated.

There are issues on which we may not always agree, but there is a legitimate debate to be had, and what I hear from the Leader of the Opposition from his demeaning and small-minded remarks in this House about members on this side being all the inheritors of wealth, I will tell the member, I inherited $1 ,000 from my hardworking grandmother when she died. I did not inherit wealth or money.

I did not have half the opportunities that the Leader of the Opposition had in growing up, and yet he comes into this Assembly in his time to speak, and instead of engaging in debate he enters into some kind of attack on members of this House based on some image that his party would create that is inaccurate and wrong. He demeans this Legislature. He demeans good debate, and now he snips from his seat to make smart comments for members instead of dealing or wanting to deal with facts that we are facing. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Could I ask honourable members if they want to carry on a conversation to do so in the privacy of the loge. I believe the honourable minister has the floor at this time. The honourable minister, to continue. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the change that we are undergoing in our health care system today that is so fundamental, and there are a number of areas [interjection] The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) talks about the greenhouse. I do not know what a greenhouse has to do with the debate.

I suspect again it is some attack on my mother and father because they are vegetable farmers, and vegetable farmers and small farmers are not supposed to be Conservatives, I imagine-[ interjection] And we get into another comment, but that is fine. There is another day and a time for that. The fundamental change that we are making in this system, and it is fundamental and it is revolutionary, is the manner in which we do two things: the manner in which we govern and administer our health care services and, secondly, the manner in which we budget. Those changes are well underway in our province today.

In fact, in the case of governance and the way in which we administer health services, we have substantially completed those reforms. Our new regional health authorities in rural Manitoba are well underway making improvements and changes and developing better ways to deliver service. On April 1 of this year in the city of Winnipeg, our two new authorities will take their place among the other 11 to do the same in the delivery of service.

The second part, as I have mentioned, is budgeting, developing methods of budgeting, and it is going to take several years to work those out, which has direct accountability for the way we spend money, which in the past we have not had. Let us look at the context of the development of our Canadian medical system for a moment. How did we get where we are today? It is important in understanding this.

First of all, if you go back to the early part of this century, health care was primarily a private matter, interspersed with religious and charitable organizations who ran hospitals or facilities or offered charity work. It was a private matter. Government played a very small role only in public health.

After the Second World War the Government of Canada, as it began to pay down war debt and had increasing revenues, recognized that we had a significant shortage of hospitals in Canada at that particular time, and they endeavoured to place a significant amount of money, make it available for the construction of new hospitals. In those days, it was municipalities who took on that challenge and responsibility and built, with 50 percent support from the national Treasury, a whole series of hospitals, mostly across rural Canada.

In fact, if you go into western Manitoba today and various parts of the province, you will still see many of those facilities now time-dated with different function and use but coming from that period of time of great

March 16 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 747 hospital construction. Saskatchewan had 1 00-plus hospitals I think built during this particular time, 50- plus of which have now been converted or closed by their government, because structures have changed and many of those facilities were time-dated and not needed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we built those hospitals. We had that expansion.

Then in the 19 60s, beginning in Saskatchewan with the CCF government of Tommy Douglas and then the later Woodrow Lloyd, they began I think what was really the first revolution in the delivery of health care services, because they brought in the principle, when their budget was balanced-Tommy Douglas was elected in 19 44-he did not bring in medicare in Saskatchewan until he had balanced the budget and returned Saskatchewan to a very firm financial footing after the Great Depression. He acted very responsibly. * (1 450) But he brought about, along with John Diefenbaker as Prime Minister and the creation of Mr.

Justice Hall's committee on medicare, they brought in the first revolution in the delivery of medicare and medical services in Canada, because they said that doctors' services and services in hospitals would now be paid for or insured by the provincial treasuries. That was fundamental, because it meant that citizens could access those basic services without having to lose their farm, their home, et cetera, because they were poor. But it changed the nature fundamentally of the delivery of health care services, because they no longer were entirely within the private or charitable sector.

They now became a matter of public support and public finance and public responsibility. There was a very interesting documentary on the 19 62 Saskatchewan doctors' strike. A very interesting one. We saw a lot of forces at work in that strike, a lot of forces to deny the necessary changes to give us a quality medical care system for all of our citizens. One of which was the desire of an opposition party to win an election and an alliance with physicians who were opposing medicare, because they saw it as a restriction on their ability. [interjection] It was Ross Thatcher's Liberals, actually.

They saw it as imposing restrictions on their freedom, their ability to practise and their ability to earn a living. All legitimate issues, but the greater public good prevailed, and we got the beginnings of a public medicare system in Canada, the beginnings of it. We got the beginnings of that system. Then we had the Diefenbaker government, the Hall report, Pearson's administration beginning to provide public funding for those secured services. But remember we had public funding only for hospital and medicare services, doctors' services, but then in the 19 70s we started to see that grow.

We saw the complete spread of medicare across the country for those services, and the world journeyed on with 50 percent government funding, federal government funding for those services. Then we got to the period of the early '80s when national government said that we do not want to just continue to pay the bill when we do not control the delivery of those services, and they were right. Not even provinces controlled it all. We just funded. We were, in essence, the insurers of the system. We paid others during this whole period to deliver health care. We paid independent hospitals to provide service.

We paid independent medical practitioners to provide service. Governments were the insurers. We just paid the bill. An Honourable Member: Charged premiums too. Mr. Pramik: As one of my colleagues points out, for many years in this period premiums were charged. Some provinces like Manitoba did not. We ended that in the '70s. Ontario did up until a few years ago, but we, by and large, government-supported the provision of those services as insurer.

We had the remnants of all of that private health care system providing the service, the independent hospitals, the municipal hospitals, charitable hospitals, religious orders. We were just the payers, and it worked. It worked relatively well during that period because technology, the delivery of medical care was all in place and well suited to that structure. By the 19 80s two things were changing and changing rapidly. The technology, information technology and medical technology were now starting to provide a need to consolidate services to get enough volume to meet the costs of that new technology.

You also had

748 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16 , 19 98 information systems beginning to develop in the computer age that allowed you to move information faster and more quickly around the system.

On the other. side, the financial side of the coin, you ha? the rate �f mcrease in health care costs going up so qutckly durmg this period, well above the rate of inflation, that it forced the national government to walk away from 50-cent dollars for basic insured services and go to a block-funding system where they said to government, you could build anything and spend it � yway �ou want in health, but we will cap it and mcrease It only at the rate of inflation.

The result, of course, is its cost grew faster and the provinces had to pay an ever-increasing share, but I want to make a comment on one benefit of that block change. When the federal government only provided 50-cent dollars for medicare for insured doctor services and hospitals, what did provinces bill? Where did we spen� our money? We spent our money on building hospitals, supporting hospitals and doctor services. We did not build personal care homes during the '70s to the degree we probably needed. We did not build home care. We started. Manitoba was a leader.

I will give some credit to Ed Schreyer as a leader in that particular field, but we did not build it anywhere near the need that we needed to meet the need that we could have met or wo�ld have to meet, and why? Because every dollar a provmce spent on a personal care home or on public health or on home care was a I 00-cent dollar, and every dollar they spent on a doctor's service or a hospital was a 50-cent dollar.

The funding mechanism drives the result and to a very significant degree through a period there, I believe, and I would contend and I would propose that we overbuilt in our hospital system during the '70s and underbuilt in our community care side. I do not blame anyone. A lot of it had to do with the funding mechanism. By the 19 80s, as I said, the federal ?overnment changed that significantly and they capped It.

We could spend it on anything but we had built �ignificantly as Canadians, overbuilt during that period m our acute care side, particularly given the changes of technology coming on and underbuilt in our community side, so then we began the catchup, and all governments have had to wrestle with that. We also add to this, by the way, another factor called the Canada Health Act in 19 83-84, and that was a fede�al government attempt, I believe politically, leadmg up to the I 984 election, to look like the saviours of medicare.

So they proposed we create federal legislation that would restrict what provinces co�ld do, impose some rules, all the while knowing that their. share of health care costs were declining. When � om que B.egin was Minister of Health nationally at the time, I believe that was a deliberate attempt to create �� dicare.as an issue to get the Conservatives opposing It m Parliament, so that the Liberals could hold on to power in the I 984 general election.

Well, it did not work, because the Conservatives accepted the Canada Health Act and Parliament passed it, I believe just about unanimously, and we all marched together to protect medicare in Canada. . The result was we had one more layer of control Imposed on the system. So where does it bring us by the I 990s? What it brings us to is a system where we still have the delivery of health care in our institutions done by independent organizations. In Manitoba as of last January, we had over I 80 different health care boards running and delivering our health care system.

In my own community of Beausejour we had a hospital board, we had a personal care home board for East Gate Lodge, we had an ambulance board plus we had the services that Manitoba Health delivered. We had four points of administration in a community and district of 3, 000 to 4,000 people.

Well, given the fact that the cost and the development of technology and the delivery of medical services means that you have to have larger groupings of people to justify and get full use of that new technology, given the fact that you have to get into that information technology, allows you to administer health care in multisite, it only made logical sense to Health ministers right across Canada, to governments right across Canada that we move into a regionalized system of health-care delivery.

Yes, we can debate whether we have elected boards or appointed boards and those are legitimate issues of debate, but I think it is very clear that the change is needed, was needed and will continue to be needed to deliver better care. In my own constituency the three administrators of the hospitals that I had in my riding, I remember, called me into a meeting, I believe it was somewhere in the early I 990s, I 990-I 99 1, and they wanted to let me

March 16 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 749 know that for the first time in the history of the Pine Falls, Pinawa, and Beausejour hospitals that they were actually meeting to compare their occupancy usage. Imagine, three neighbouring hospitals before had never shared any significant amount of information because they were busy competing with one another. These three very wise administrators, and they admitted to me they were all nearing the end of their career and so there was not a battle for who would be the administrator.

They agreed that we had to work together to get regionalization and they urged us to get on with it and make it happen. * (1 500) We started working together as a region even before the regional health authorities were created, and the result was we got a dialysis program in Pine Falls for the region; we share a chemotherapy program with Selkirk for the region. We have a physiotherapy program in Pinawa for the region. We have community mental health services in Beausejour for the region because we have the benefit of those large enough numbers.

Today my constituents have a greater array of services than they had 10 years ago, and we were one of the first out there. We were doing it even before my predecessor, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), brought in the legislation; we were making that happen in an unofficial way in our region. So we needed to get the ability to do that. With that regionalization comes the change in budgeting where we know things will be spent and all of the other changes we need to meet the needs of the future.

Now we come to Winnipeg, because in Winnipeg being very, very large, it was the collective wisdom that it was better to divide the hospital side from the community care side at least in the beginning, because it is such a large elephant you cannot consume it in one sitting but to split it off into two authorities for a period of time before we would bring it back together, get each a chance to reform. On April 1, the two authorities will begin their legal life of operation, but there are a number of very key issues in making the Winnipeg Hospital Authority work.

Some of them are controversial and some of them are being opposed. I think we have to accept that the benefit of being able to make decisions for a system, instead of nine hospitals, leads to far better decision making than not. It leads to far better budget allocations than not, and it leads to a much more humane and efficient system of human resources than leaving everyone independently. Now what is interesting is virtually every one of the existing boards have accepted those principles except on the labour side, except on employing authority.

Yes, there is a bit of a controversy today between some on the board of directors of St. Boniface and this government and some in the Faith Association, but what are we attempting to do? We are attempting to get a common employing authority so our labour relations will follow that. We will have city-wide collective agreements, and we will be able to move staff when it is appropriate and have them keep their salary, their benefits, their seniority within a Winnipeg hospital system.

We have announced a very significant change in purpose for the Misericordia Hospital, one that will take it into a very bright and promising future for their next 100 years. But in the course of making that move, there are going to be many acute care nurses and acute care staff who will not want to work in a long-term care facility. Will we need them? Absolutely. We will need them in our other acute care facilities. How will we get them there? Will we get them there by laying them off at the Misericordia Hospital and having them reapply for jobs at Concordia or Seven Oaks of HSC? Is that what people want?

Is that fair to those employees? But I will tell you, I know where the New Democrats will be. They will say we should not do it. They will say we are being nasty. They will say we are interfering with independent volunteer boards. I have heard that already. But what is the purpose? The purpose is to allow employees in that hospital system to move their place of employment and still maintain their jobs, their salaries, their income, their benefits and their seniority. I will tell you they may not believe this is coming from a Conservative government.

But I tell you this, this government cares about those health care workers, and we will make sure that this happens because it is the right thing to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question is: will the New Democrats stand with us or will they stand against this change? Will they be there? Will they be there if this does not happen and

750 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA March 16 , 19 98 nurses are laid off at the Misericordia to have to be rehired somewhere else? Will any of those members have the courage of the comments they make in this House to go in front of them and say we prefer it this way, we agree that you should be laid off and not moved? I doubt it, because they will be long gone to hide behind some other issue as they always do. Now I know my time is drawing short in this debate, and I could speak for another hour. I want to share a couple of other stories that I have seen about the need for change.

There is a hospital in southern Manitoba, southeastern Manitoba, an 18 -bed hospital, an 18 - or 20-bed personal care home. They have, as they are regionalizing and moving into the regional health authority, a $! -million operating surplus, and that is not money-[interjection] Well, I want the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) to listen. That is not money that was fundraised, that is not donations, and that is not municipal levy. That is money that Manitoba Health on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba provided to that hospital to deliver service, and they have accumulated a $! -million operating surplus.

Now, they came to see me because it had to be moved into the RHA, and they agreed to do it. When the meeting was over, I said to the chair of that board, tell me, how do you get a million-dollar surplus at a small facility? You know what the chair of the board said to me? He said, Mr. Minister, I have been on that board for 22 years, and we learned something a long time ago. If Manitoba Health funds us for a nurse and we do not hire one, they still send the money. They still send the money, so what happens? That is not a way to operate. Where is the accountability?

Last year, in the Winnipeg hospital system, the wonderful status quo structure I get the sense the New Democrats defend when it is convenient to defend [interjection] Right, where is the accountability? That is what we are building into this, financial accountability. A year ago, in the Winnipeg hospital system, they lost collectively a net loss of $2.5 million of the people's money subsidizing their cafeterias. [interjection] Well, the member says here we go. Is the member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) saying that $2.5 million of public money is better spent subsidizing a cafeteria or going into hip and knee replacement? Where does he want the money, in hips and knees or cafeterias? The New Democrats say cafeterias; the Tories say in hips and knees, and that is where it is going to go, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is where it is going to go. I hear these comments again. The New Democrats have to decide, is the health care system there to deliver health care or- An Honourable Member: Or frozen food. Mr. Praznik: Well, the members say frozen food. have been waiting for this one, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because if you listen to them, it sounds like in January the peas and carrots come in from California and every pea is shelled in our hospitals today. There is no frozen food in our hospitals today. Why, everything comes in fresh from California, and it is all shelled out there. The hospital staff are shelling the peas so they are nice and fresh. [interjection] Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)-oh, there we get it. That is where we get it right now. The member for Thompson's criticism is that one of our colleagues here wanted to explain it to his constituents.

My goodness, is it not terrible that some citizens of Manitoba might actually want to have the facts on which to make their decision, instead of the absolute baloney and malarkey they have been getting from UFCW. The only baloney served in Manitoba hospitals is from UFCW. That is the only baloney; it is from UFCW. That is what we get. That is the great dilemma, because, ultimately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ifhealth care is to survive, it has to have the management and administrative structures that allow us to be able to move resources around, to be able to accommodate new and ever-increasing degrees of technology.

It has to have the ability to have accountability in budgeting, where we are not just giving money to groups of private administrators in hospitals and saying go, thee, and govern, and when they run out of money or waste it, they say please send more, without accountability. That has to end and it will end with this government, because if it does not, if we are not successful in this, the current structure of health care will condemn it to

March 16 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 75 1 the kind of fall and end, because it will not be affordable to the citizens of Manitoba. This change is just as fundamental now at the closing years of this century, as we face the new century, as Tommy Douglas's and Woodrow Lloyd's decision to insure medical services publicly in 19 62. I can tell you, if the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) had watched the documentary, he would find many parallels to the somewhat thoughtless attack against that first revolution in 19 62, many comparisons to the position his party takes in this House every day.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. * (1 510 ) Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I just want to say to the Minister of Health that as a New Democrat, as someone who saw what Tommy Douglas did for Saskatchewan, who attended conventions with Tommy Douglas, who knows what Tommy Douglas stood for, the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) is no Tommy Douglas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is clear by his words. For a Tory who is part of a government that has been in government now for 10 years, 10 long years, and when I look at those faces, 10 very tiring years, for that Minister of Health (Mr.

Praznik), who is now presiding over a full-blown health care crisis, to tum to Tommy Douglas and somehow suggest that we in the New Democratic Party do not share the same vision I think is a sign of true desperation. I would remind the member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Grant Devine tried that in his last election in Saskatchewan and look where he is today. He is out of government. Most of his caucus is in jail. He tried to wrap himself in the CCF tradition, but, you know, CCFers and New Democrats know, to quote the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), that a Tory is a Tory is a Tory, and we see that every day in this Manitoba Legislature. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to suggest to members of this House that we have reached the watershed in the time that this government has been in power. We have reached the watershed because, you know, we are hitting close to the 1 0-year mark-in fact, we have been at the 1 0-year mark since what some of us call the Jim Walding day. What I find interesting is there is clear evidence from this Minister of Finance's (Mr.

Stefanson) budget that pretty well all the foundations of this government's policies in the past 10 years were wrong. Think about it for a moment. Health care-we will deal with this in detail here-education, infrastructure, even in terms of economic development, we are seeing this government beating a hasty retreat from the kind of positions that it has taken year after year in this Legislature. I find it rather interesting. Let us take health care for a moment.

The Minister of Finance on health care talking about this $10 0 million extra for health care-and, of course, we did kind of find out that it was more like $3 million extra in this year, but even given the difference between the years, what is interesting is even all the rhetoric that we have heard from the Conservatives across the way has now shifted.

You know, after year after year of us pointing to the fact that health care in this province was being subject to cutbacks, the kinds of decisions that were being made to freeze capital construction, the numbers of jobs that were being eliminated, direct patient care eliminated by the laying off of nurses, now we have this government desperately trying to put money into the system, desperately trying to put resources into the system, desperately trying to deal with the health care crisis. But you know what is pathetic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is I think we all know in this House why they are doing this.

They have not converted on the road to Regina here. They can quote Tommy Douglas, but they are no newfound born-again believers in health care. What they have done is they have run an opinion poll. The opinion poll says no one believe the Tories on health care. They believe there is a crisis in the system. They do not trust them, and now they are desperately, as that election clock ticks down, down, down, down, they are trying to change their image on health care. They tried with the former Minister of Health; you know, the fuzzy sweaters. An Honourable Member: And the former former one. Mr.

Ashton: Well, the former former Minister of Health was not exactly into fuzzy sweaters, as we know, and now the current minister tries the most

752 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16 , 19 98 desperate thing I have seen yet, and that is to wrap himself in Tommy Douglas's name. I mean, no one will believe that. Let us deal with education for a moment. I am not going to deal with the question of this minister's rather bizarre attacks on a peaceful student protester, Chris Millar. I must say I talked to a lot of people in my constituency who were offended by that, who thought that the minister's comments about likening that to the Kennedy assassination, the Robert Kennedy assassination, Chris Millar and the student protesters were not Sirhan Sirhan.

This is not 1968. They protested peacefully. This a democratic society. Even the Prime Minister, who has had a bit of a difficulty with protests in the past, had the sense to say to the RCMP, no, that is not a problem. This is a democratic country. I must say I was even more disturbed by the comments made by this minister and to the Premier about the president of the University of Winnipeg Students Association. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have some affinity with the president of the University of Winnipeg Students Association, because I was the president of the University of Manitoba Students' Union.

I attended a number of protests, and I met with the then Premier, and I will tell you one thing, with my experience, seeing the kind of vicious right-wing ideology that members opposite espouse, when I saw it day to day in education, the kinds of cuts, I made a commitment at that time that I was not going to just protest against this government, I was going to run against them. In fact, I was fortunate enough to be elected to this House for the first time in 19 81. But, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is what democracy is about.

When I heard the Premier today accusing a student associatiOn president of hooliganism-this is not Pinochet's Chile, this is Manitoba. I expect better from this Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) and from this Premier (Mr. Filmon). We have a quote from Pinochet provided to us, by the way, and I think, in a way, unfortunately we see some members in the House subscribing to this. Basically the quote from Pinochet is, Pinochet had said that he had nothing against ideas, just the spreading of ideas. Think about it. [interjection] Well, the member for Lakeside (Mr.

Enns) and I have a bit of a thing ongoing about Pinochet and Allende going back many years, but I do not want to digress. I want to say, though, that this government has recognized the complete failure of its policies in public education. Just think back a few years here, think of this Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), then the previous, previous Minister of Education. You know, it is interesting, with health care and education, there are a lot of previous ministers.

Maybe it is an indication of the difficulty they have had in these key areas of public service, but even this Minister of Education at times has said, well, money does not really matter. When it comes to public education, that does not determine quality. I still remember some discussion on this a few years ago, and I thought the appropriate point that was made at the time by the then member for River Heights, if money did not matter in terms of quality of education, private schools would not be charging $9,000 a year tuition, they would not be seeking additional funds.

Come on, everybody in this Legislature and everybody in this province knows that money is not the only determinant of quality, but if you cut, if you cut, and you cut teachers and you cut programs, you cut the quality of education. How do we see that this has now been admitted by the government? You know, they came out in advance of the budget, and what did the Minister of Education announce? A further cut? They cut 19 91, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96. I think '97 we had a freeze. The minister went out of her way to say: oh, we are putting more money into education, supposedly, 2. 1 percent.

Once again, they have recognized that people feel that our education system has declined in quality and they are trying desperately going into the next election to deal with it. This is not necessarily a conversion that reflects any change in philosophy. It reflects political expediency and perhaps was one of the findings, along with health care, contained in that opinion poll that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Mr. Open Government, would not release to the people of Manitoba.

I must say I was disappointed, because I expected from this Minister of Finance that the least he would do, if he is to really put any sense into being the

March 16 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 753 guardian of the public's finances, was release that information. I mean, we all know what is in it. You know what is in it. We see you desperately trying in your shotgun approach heading into the next election to try and put a human face on this government. But I say to the Minister of Finance, it is really unfortunate that you would not admit to it, at least release the public documents, and I think it meant in this House that your policies on public education have been a failure. * (1 520) I want to put on the record what they have meant to my community.

You know, it is interesting, because the Minister of Education seems to have a lot of time for Chris Millar, the peaceful protester, and the president of the University of Winnipeg Students' Association. You know what my school board is going to get at MAST in the way of time to talk to the Minister ofEducation-30 minutes. Thirty minutes, that is how much time she is going to give them. Now think about this for a moment. She has not been to Thompson. I do not mean that as a shot. I think it would be appropriate being the third largest city, but then again, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) has not been in Thompson since just before the last election. We have come to expect that. I actually give credit to some of the members opposite who have been. But, you know, my school district has faced-get this-between 19 92 and 19 95 a 10 percent drop in funding, not inflation-adjusted numbers, a real drop in funding; it does not reflect dropped enrollment, far greater than any drop in enrollment. We have had only a minor- An Honourable Member: Reassessment. Mr. Ashton: Well, reassessment. Here is the situation we are in, to the member opposite. This year the province got 2. 1 percent.

You know what we got? Mr. Deputy Speaker, 0.4 percent. My school district is faced with a million-dollar shortfall. They are looking at $300,000 of that coming from property tax, probably in the 10 percent range. To the members opposite, do you know what the property tax increase has been on the school board side? Until this year, it has been 25 percent over the last five years, and it is going to go up another 10 percent minimum this year. An Honourable Member: What happened to the reassessment? Mr. Ashton: Well, the member opposite talks about reassessment.

Here is the fallacy of what this government is doing to my community. Has anybody heard what has happened at Inco? Inco has laid off 15 0 contractors. It has laid of f 45 staff employees. It is going to lay off either directly or through attrition another 10 0 people. My community is hurting right now. My community is being hard hit by those cuts.

But, just as we are hard hit by those cuts, we are expected to dig down deeper to do what-to try and save things like our teacher-librarians, to try and preserve what quality of education we can after the last several years where we have seen cuts in French language education, where we have seen cuts in Cree education, where we have seen particular cuts that affect special needs students, where we have seen cut after cut after cut. This is the tale of the two provinces. You know, it is ironic. Friday, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) brings down his budget.

Tuesday, the school board in Thompson brought down its budget. What a contrast. If you were to listen to the Minister of Finance, you would have thought that the streets were paved with gold. I will tell you, there may not be a lot of inflation economically right now, but there is sure a lot of inflation when it comes to the kind of terms and the kind of rhetoric being used by members opposite. But, you know, compare that rhetoric to the reality. I find it interesting, by the way-1 mean, we could get into some of the specifics of the First Minister's (Mr.

Filmon) new philosophy of public finance and economic development-! found it rather interesting, for example, when he talked about balanced budgets creating jobs. What is interesting then, and I say this to the Minister of Finance, I mean, a nice phrase. Now you might want to also argue that jobs create balanced budgets. In fact, the minister might want to look at where the greatest impact on public finance has been the last several years at the federal level and the provincial level. It has been in terms of revenue growth. The minister knows that.

Does this mean to say that in 19 92-93 when the government he was part of ran the highest deficit in Manitoba history that they were not interested in jobs in those days, that they had

754 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16 , 19 98 no commitment to employment? The Minister of Finance should move away from these glib statements and recognize that the key element that needs to be maintained is jobs-yes, well-paying jobs, most definitely, and jobs for the many people in our society who are stiii being left behind. I want to address that because what is interesting is we are also seeing how they are admitting their failure in a number of these areas, too. Look at the rhetoric in this finance document about aboriginal people.

You know, for 10 years this government's policy towards aboriginal people has been one either of benign neglect or of direct cuts. Let us talk about the benign neglect for a moment and direct cuts. Look at what they have done in terms of aboriginal justice. The ceremony that we saw marked recently, the lOth anniversary of the J.J. Harper shooting that led to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. You know, I find it amazing that our member for Rupertsland (Mr.

Robinson) had to say in interviews: this government has not even lived up to the first recommendation of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and the most substantive elements. Madam Speaker in the Chair We see a government that-and I go back to the '92-93 cuts. You know, who was the No. I target in those cuts? It was the aboriginal people, with New Careers, with Access programs being cut, various aboriginal organizations cut, the Friendship Centres cut.

After close to I 0 years in which aboriginal people have been faced with continued problems in terms of the justice system, the need for the aboriginal justice system, continued lack of advantages in terms of economic development, we have seen this government cut. It is nice for them now to become newfound friends of aboriginal people, but part of the problem has been the arrogance of a government that refuses to work in partnership with First Nations, with the Metis people of this province. We have seen it time and time again. We have seen this government unwilling to look at the real needs that are out there.

Well, it is similar, I think, when you look at a young people. It is interesting, Madam Speaker. I would suggest if you want to ask the people of Manitoba what they feel about the current political circumstances and economic circumstances, ask them a very simple question. Do they think that they, if they are young people themselves, or their kids or their grandchildren have better opportunities now, adequate opportunities for a job, a decent future in this province? For all the talk we get from members opposite, they fail to reflect on the fact that-well, record numbers of Manitobans are employed right now.

Unfortunately, a lot of them are in Alberta. We are starting to see that out-migration take place again. We are starting to see increasingly that situation. I want to use a couple of statistics here to demonstrate that, and the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) points to the real story on employment growth, which shows us close to the bottom, January, February of 19 98 over 19 97. Bu t, Madam Speaker, Jet us go one step further. I ask some very simple questions here. Let us do a sort of a real barometer here of how Manitobans are faring under close to I 0 years of government.

What is the average industrial wage in Winnipeg? Twenty-four cities. It is interesting. I was aware of this, but I read this in the sports page in the Free Press. It is funny it does not appear in the business section. There are 24 cities that are analyzed. Okay, where do you think Winnipeg ends up? Top 10 ? 15 th? 20th? 21s t out of 24 cities. You know, the average industrial wage in Newf oundland is traditionally higher than it is in Winnipeg. Now there is higher unemployment, yes, but- An Honourable Member: Not when you count aboriginal people. Mr. Ashton: Exactly, as the member for Crescentwood (Mr.

Sale) points out, if you count in the number of aboriginal people who are not measured as being unemployed, it makes a huge difference, but, of course, we have a Premier that said in the last election that aboriginal people were not really Manitobans, certainly when it came to poverty statistics. I have heard many comments from aboriginal people who will never forget what that Premier said. Let us take another barometer here, and I say this to the Minister of Finance. I particularly point to people in the city of Winnipeg because I come from outside of

March 16 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 755 the city. I suppose, since being an MLA and being back and forth to university over the years, I have actually been back and forth to the city, like most residents of rural and northern Manitoba, pretty well on a regular basis since 19 72, and I consider it sort of a home away from home. I still live in Thompson, and my family, but I also understand one thing. Without a strong city of Winnipeg this province is going to be in very difficult circumstances.

I apply that by the way to rural Manitoba, particularly the agriculture sector, the same thing in northern Manitoba with our dependency on resources. * (15 30) But let us ask a simple question to the average resident of the city of Winnipeg. Ask them to compare what their house was worth ten years ago and what it is worth today after 10 years of Tory rule. I look at the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). Well, let us start. It is interesting comparisons, by the way, in terms of communities represented on our side.

I know what houses are worth in Point Douglas right now. There are houses that are selling for $1 0,000, for $20,000--$10 ,000 and $20,000 less than assessed value. Let us take Crescentwood, south centre Winnipeg. Have house prices been booming in Crescentwood? Not in Crescentwood. How about Transcona? Frozen. You know what is interesting? Let us move to the other side of the picture. People may say, well, you know, the NDP represent some of the more modest areas of the city. Let us ask the average home owner in Lindenwoods. I look to the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stef anson), if he can answer this question, what is the average house in Lindenwoods worth compared to what it was worth? The minister knows it is worth less. In many cases, people have a house that is worth less than what they paid for. I can cite all sorts of areas in Fort Garry. You do not have to ask a real estate agent for this. You can ask the average citizen on the street. I want you to compare your rhetoric in all this sort of, you know, happy days are here again and all these statements that you made about how great you thought things were.

I say to the Minister of Finance, the reality is-[interjection] Well, the minister, I think, is trying to come back with something that says it is good to have low housing prices. I will tell you, you know, not depressed housing prices. Everyone knows that the biggest investment most people make is in their house, the biggest lifetime investment. I ask people opposite to reflect on that, because I just want to run through this for a second. Let us go back to health care. You know the Minister of Finance came in and lectured us on health care reform, his style.

Just ask people out there, just ask people if they think their health care system is better today than it was 10 years ago, when the Tories came into power. Just ask them that question. Do not take my word for it. Same thing with education. Ask them, is there a public education system-not private, by the way. I acknowledge that private system is much better off after 1 0 years of Tory rule. But ask them, is the public education system better off today than it was 10 years ago? You know the answer is going to be no.

I think if you ask serious questions about the economic circumstances of most Manitobans, they might say, well, finally, maybe there is some employment creation. But the reality is that their houses are worth less, their income is down in real terms, and their prospects of the future are of great concern to them, particularly when it comes to young people. Now, I have given that snapshot and I, by the way, would suggest that members opposite use that as their barometer. Do not take my word, just ask people. It is a barometer for where the government stands after 10 years.

Let us look at some of the underlying reasons behind this approach. I found it interesting, by the way, that I would call this budget essentially a shotgun approach. The Minister of Finance has got a poll showing they do not have any credibility on health care, so let us make it look like we are doing something on health care. Education, Jet us make it look like we are doing something there. Infrastructure was another area that struck me, the $5 million for city streets which- An Honourable Member: That will not do Transcona. Mr. Ashton: That will not even do Transcona, as the member points out.

Some additional funding for

756 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16 , 19 98 highways, I do not know how much of that we will get in northern Manitoba, I must say. An Honourable Member: They are building a private road in the Whiteshell, though. Mr. Ashton: They are building a road in the Whiteshell, I am advised, Madam Speaker. I think what the government has to recognize-and once again this is part of the shotgun approach. After 10 years of particular neglect of our infrastructure in this province, they are now finding that they cannot ignore it any longer.

Roads, sewer systems, water systems-we all know they are in a crumbling state. I find it amazing that in the budget document, they are going to create a park to Duff Roblin who, I think, was a fine Manitoban. It is interesting, Duff Roblin will be remembered most notably, for what? For building Manitoba's infra structure, Duff's Ditch being the most obvious example. If you go into what happened-and the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) was here-I think with Walter Weir; there was a bit of turning back the time clock.

Ed Schreyer, I will tell you people in northern Manitoba remember Ed Schreyer for-and much of rural Manitoba-what he did for infrastructure. He built the air strips, the roads. He built the community halls. I want to run through the same thing in 19 80s. I tell you if you go to a lot of areas in Manitoba and ask about the NDP government in those days, they will remember infrastructure once again, such as Limestone, one of our largest. That is part of our infrastructure; it is making us a hundred million dollars a year.

Now the minister, in the dying days of this government and its mandate, has decided to be a born again believer in infrastructure, direct public expenditure. Let us be a little bit careful here because this government has a habit of recycling announce ments on infrastructure. Look what they did with health care. I think the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) actually believed that when he got approval for that capital project the capital program was going to go ahead. I do not blame the member for Brandon West when he told the member for The Pas (Mr.

Lathlin) that do not worry, we have the capital project approved for you. What happened? After the election, surprise, surprise, everything gets put on hold. [interjection] Some of them went ahead says the member for-but I want to stress I am not blaming the member for Brandon West They must have sat down after. I can almost picture the Tory cabinet table after the last election. Now after they had finished laughing about the Jets, boy, did we ever fool them on the Jets. They must have been rolling in the aisles. Filmon out there saying-pardon me-the Premier out there saying, I was not in the loop.

That would have been in about the first 15 minutes of the cabinet meeting. The second 15 minutes would probably have been spent discussing MTS. Oh, yes, we are not going to sell offMTS here. What I think they probably did in the next part of the meeting, they said we are in government now, we do not have to deliver on health care. Let us cut back on the capital expenditures. Boy, did we ever fool them. How many times do they think they can get awa: with this? This is the government that promised a health action plan in 19 88. They promised it by 19 90, they did not deliver it.

They then brought out the blue document on health care reform in '92-93. Big cuts in health care. I remember the impact that we are going to see in my hospitals; '93 by-election, whoop, they lose seats. They bring in the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) in a sweater and all that is on hold-yet he came to Thompson, I give him credit by the way everything was on hold. You know what happened, the election came. Guess what they did? They went ahead with all the cuts they had announced in '92-93 . I do not know how many times they think they can get away with this.

Okay, 19 88 was somewhat unique circumstances, different issues; 1990, there was probably some discussion back and forth; even in 19 95, because do not forget this government got 42 percent of the vote and the vote was split between two opposition parties. I say to the members opposite, it is not going to be that way in the next election. It is going to be a two way fight, and you know what, you cannot fool the people anymore. You have run out of ability to fool

March 16 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 757 people on health care, on education, on infrastructure. They just do not believe you anymore. I also want to note for the record that I think they have to examine the weakness of their overall economic strategy as well. The days in which a low wage strategy, and let us not kid ourselves, that has been the strategy going back to when Clayton Manness was the Minister of Finance. I noticed, by the way, it is very interesting that he was here watching the budget and it was sort of kind of the current Finance minister against the previous Finance minister.

I must say I was quite interested by the dynamics because I actually know that the former Minister of Finance would not have agreed with the approach taken in the budget by this minister, because he believed, and he told me this on many occasions, of ratcheting down the size of government, and he is rigid about it. He did not believe in this pre-election spend a little bit more money stuff. What I find interesting again is that Minister of Finance did something that this Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) often does not do and actually really talked about the strategy openly.

I mean let us look at it, our minimum wage. Remember I told you about the average industrial wage. One of the reasons is we used to have I believe the second highest, if not the highest minimum wage in the country. An Honourable Member: The election is coming. * (1 540) Mr. Ashton: Well, now, as the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has pointed out, the election is coming. Maybe they are just going to raise the minimum wage again, but we are eighth out of 10 ; eight out of 10 . The minimum wage is an important part of the economic portfolio we are dealing with.

I would ask members opposite, if you want to look at the kind of economic strategy that other jurisdictions are following, increasingly they are understanding that you cannot compete strictly by cutting back on the price of labour. I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the current minimum wage here, I mean, you can go to Mexico and you will get one-tenth the mtmmum wage. The way we compete as a country is through the strength of our infrastructure and the strength of our education system, and, yes, the strength of our health care system.

That is how we compete, and where we are successful it is largely because we have been able to maintain that niche in the world economy. I say to members opposite, I do not know how much longer we have to go through this deliberate choking off of wages for Manitobans, a time at 10 years where their purchasing power has declined. I say to members opposite, by deliberately keeping down the wages-I will tell you, talk to young people, many of whom are the ones working at or near minimum wage.

We had at the Youth Parliament-believe you me, when Gary Doer, the Leader of the Opposition, talked about the need to raise minimum wages, you could see the response that came from those people. [interjection] Well, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) references some wages that have not gone down. I say to members opposite, history-I mean, even Henry Ford understood in the first part of the century that if workers working on an assembly line to build cars do not make enough money to buy those cars, you do not sell cars.

This government, I get such a kick out of them talking about change and looking ahead to the future. You know, they are a government of the '90s. They are a government of the 18 90s. Virtually everything that they argue, all their true ideology when it is not masked coming up to election time, is to have us go back to the good old days, you know, the good old days. I say to the members opposite, their strategies are being rejected increasingly throughout the world. I was looking at the European Union.

I think out of 15 governments, now I think about 13 , maybe 14 soon with Germany, are social democratic governments. Right-wing governments are being rejected in every major economy in this world. You know what part of it is? Let us look at what happened. Why would people be rejecting their kind of ideological approach? I want to mention MTS for moment. This is a summation for you. This government-and I am not going to spend much time on how they tried to fool the people of Manitoba in the

758 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA March 16 , 19 98 election. You know, it was interesting, there was a poll out recently saying a lot of people think that politicians are liars. Well, after what happened with MTS, Madam Speaker, who can doubt that there is some cynicism when a government said, oh, we have no plans to sell offM TS. But you know what is interesting, this is a tale of two Manitobas. You know, immediately after the sale we saw the sale of Mercedes-Benz and Jaguars increase dramatically in this province. Who?

The brokers spending their newf ound gains trading in their Jaguars for more expensive Jaguars. Well, what have we seen since-and this is how total this government was in its lack of being up front with the people. We have seen 450 job losses, and I want to put on the record, by the way, Bill Baines, one of the heads of MTS has been saying, oh, it has nothing to do with privatization. You know, I remember when Tom Stefanson said on the public record, we are not going to cut back jobs; we are going to expand jobs. I have that on record in the Thompson Citizen. I have that on record when he was in the House here.

Boy, did they have a good one with that, I am sure, too. Did they think anybody was going to believe that? Even the Portage Daily Graphic-and I refer the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) to that-said call a spade a spade. Look at what is happening to communities like Portage now with the closure of the office and the layoffthat is taking place there. You did not tell the truth. The same thing with the First Minister and the Minister responsible for MTS: Well, we are moving from public to private ownership, but it is going to be a Manitoba company. Whoa.

The stockbrokers are saying that 80 percent of the shares are now owned outside of the province. Are you proud of that? Were you either not telling the truth about that or did you deliberately act in a completely incompetent way? I mean, I have said on the record that-and I will tell you, when we are in government, I will predict that there may very well be a compete investigation into what I consider to be one of the biggest rip-offs and scandals in Manitoba history. You ask the people out there about whom the Tories represent. There is the best example. The only winners were the brokers.

The only winners were Bay Street and institutional investors. The losers were everybody in the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-18
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 18.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b602d9c1e29966780a890f99134f8150a51775ba

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