Manitoba Hansard — 28 November 1989 (Sitting 80, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-80

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, November 28, 1989. The House met at 1:30 p.m . Mr. Clerk {William Remnant) : It is my duty to inform the House that Mr. Speaker is unavoidably absent and , therefore , in accordance with the statutes , I would ask the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Chornopyski) to take the Chair. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Deputy Speaker {William Chornopyski): I have reviewed the petiti on and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the Rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned , of the Province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth: THAT as a result of the hard surfacing of Waverley and the increased traffic flow thereon, a potentially hazardous situation now exists at the intersection of Waverley and the Perimeter Highway . WHEREFORE your petitioners propose that the following safety measures be considered by the provincial Government for implementation before a serious accident takes place :

a) the immediate reduction of the speed limit on the Perimeter Highway to 70 km/hour in the interval between the Pembina Highway Perimeter exchange and a point determined to be a safe distance west of the Waverley Perimeter intersection; and

b) also in the immediacy, the installation of flashin g warning lights at the approaches to the intersection to clearly demark same to the motoring public ; and

c) in the longer term, locate in the current fiscal year's budget, or alternately budget in the 1990-91 f isc al budget , monies for all necessary steps to install traffic signal lights for use during peak traffic flows . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Parker Burrell {Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker , the Committee of Supply has adopted ce rt ai n resolutions , directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move , seconded by the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that the report of the committee be received .

MOTION presented and carried. 3327 TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Deputy Speaker , I have two reports to table today, this volum inous report tabled Financial Statements of Boards , Commissions and Government Agencies of the Province of Manitoba for the Year ended 31st March , 1988; and second, t he Quarterly Report for the Manitoba Telephone System , this being the Third Quarter. Hon. Gerrie Hammond {Minister of Labour): I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, 1989-90 Estimates for Manitoba Labour. Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would like to table the Supplementary Estimate Information for the Department of Industry , Trade and Tourism . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we go into Oral Questions , I would like to draw all Members' attention to the gallery. We have fifty-four Grade 5 students from James Nisbet Community School under the direction of Rose Novak . This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema) . *

(1335) We welcome you all here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Economic Growth Stimulation Mrs. Sharon Carstairs {Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the economic climate in this province continues to deteriorate . Last month we raised the issue of poor unemployment statistics relative to Canada, outmigration from the provinces , the declining housing starts, poor consumer confidence causing a decline in retail sales , poor investor confidence marked by plant closures, layoffs and bankruptcies . Last month, Mr. Deputy Speaker, personal consumer bankruptcies were up 27 percent over last year .

Business bankruptcies were up 75 percent . Economic measures are desperately needed to stimulate the economy , yet our Minister of Industry , Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst) continues to take a very laissez-faire attitude, refusing to show some leadership to curb this downward spiral. My question to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) is, when will this Government act on behalf of the consumers and businesses of this province and provide them with economic stimulation?

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish that the Leader of the Opposition would be able to read the budget and under stand the proposals that are in that budget, instead of in her own crass political interest just blindly voting against the budget that did what? Stimula ted the economy by giving a $61 million reduction in personal taxes to the people of Manitoba. She voted against that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Now that is far more stimulation than any amount of Government spending could ever create in the economy that would do that effect, $61 million in the pockets of the people who earn that money, now being available to be spent throughout the economy. Second, it reduced the payroll tax so that small businesses could flourish in this climate in Manitoba. We reduced the payroll tax for the second budget in a row, and 70 percent of those businesses that had been paying the tax when we took office have now been removed from the payroll tax rolls.

Fewer than 4 percent of all of our businesses are paying the full rate of payroll tax. That is the kind of stimulus we have given. In addition to that, for the second year in a row we reduced the education taxes on farm land. She voted against that, she voted against that- Mrs. Carstairs: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Premier can give all of the stats he wants. The stats that are important are the bankruptcy statistics in this province. In the first part of 1988, January to October, there were 882 bankruptcies; this year there are 1, 18 5-3 4.4 percent; business bankruptcies were up 41. 2 percent.

My question to the First Minister is, what explanation does he have for this dismal Government's performance in the Province of Manitoba? Mr . Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the only dismal performance is that every day in this House of the Leader of the Opposition (M rs. Carstairs). Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite all of the practice that she is getting, her theatrics do not work because all we get is gloom and doom, negativism, that is all we get out of here. She went to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities last week in Brandon, she tried that gloom and doom - (interjection)- Mr.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. * (13 40) Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, they would not buy it. They did not like her negative attitude, her constant harping, her constant complaining, her constant gloom and doom, because they know the facts are that our economy , accord ing to the Conference Board, is expected to go at 5.9 percent real growth, 5.9 percent this year, the second highest of any province in the country. Our investment to Manitoba is expected to increase at over 14 percent. That is amongst the top three of all of the provinces in the country.

Those are the kinds of positive statistics, that is the kind of growth that people want in this province and that is what they are getting from this Government. Labour Skills Training Strategy Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, bankruptcies are an example of negative statistics, and it is bankruptcies we are trying to get some explanation from, from this Government tod ay. When this Government took office we ranked fourth and fifth in this country. We have been consistently this year at the top of the list in the largest numbers of consumer and business bankruptcies.

We have been asking when this Government was going to announce a labour strategy. We have the Minister of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst) saying they do not need one. Perhaps they will take some advice from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That is, what is needed in this province is education and labour training programs. When are we going to get them in this province? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): What the Canadian Federation of Independent Business studies said was that the majority of businesses in this province are concerned about the heavy tax load they have to endure.

We proposed in our two budgets, two in a row, to reduce taxes this year by $61 million on a personal level and the payroll tax by an additional $20-odd million. What did they do, the Liberal Party of this province? They voted against it. The very prescription that the CFIB has for improving the economy, reducing taxes, the Liberal Party in this Legislature voted against, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Liberal Party does not want to have the good news. They do not want to know about the positive things that are happening. They do not want to know about the growth in our economy, in investments in our economy.

They do not want to know about any of those things. All they want is to repeat, repeat and repeat the negative doom and gloom things. The people of this province are very, very upset with that. They know manufacturing capital investment is predicted to increase by over 100 percent in Manitoba this year, the highest of any province in the country. (interjection)- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I wish to remind all Honourable Members and Ministers that answers to questions should be kept as short as possible so as to preserve the time for Question Period. Mrs.

Carstairs: What this province needs is a labour training strategy. We do not have such a strategy, because the Minister of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst) does not think we need one. When will this First Minister begin to lis ten to labour and business in this community, that is, telling them we need a strategy to create jobs, and we need a training strategy to make sure we have workers who can fulfill those jobs? Mr. Filmon: We have given larger increases to the universities than they have enjoyed in previous years 3328

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 unde r the ND P. We have enhanc ed programs for specialized areas of training in this province in a number of areas to address the concerns and the needs of women. We have put together a comprehensive strategy that is balanced. It includes putting money in, there was an increase in investment in education, which we beli eve is a very important investment, 7.6 percent in the budget that she voted against, 7.6 percent. More than 50 percent above the CPI level of increase of spending was put into education. She voted against it.

When she talks about the need for education and training we have to discount that, because the real concern she has is to try desperately any way to bring down this Government. She is not concerned about services to people. She is not concerned abou t investment in training and education. She is not concerned about anything but her own personal interest. That is what we have to be concerned about when we lis ten to questions like that.- (interjection)- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Program Funding Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): A week ago in this House the Minister of Indu stry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst), in response to a question with regard to the strategy of de Grandpre with regard to training, told this House we did not need any training dollars from Manitoba. We do need training dollars, Mr. Premier. I want to know why -(interjection)- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. ***** Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Minister, on a point of order. Hon. Jim Ernst (Min ister of Industry, Tra de and Tourism): On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs.

Carstairs) just attributed certain words to me which were not true. * (1 345) She asked me a question dealing with the question of free trade and labour adjustment measures from the federal Government. I said we did not need any of those dollars yet to be accessed, because of the lost jobs because of free trade, whether she likes to think so or not. Let her not put on the record false information dealing with statements made by myself. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Minis ter does not have a point of order. ***** Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Speaker , he has just repeated the whole context of my question.

He says we do not need any training dollars from Ottawa. When will the First Minister access training dollars from Ottawa for Manitoba, where we desperately need a labour strategy and a job retraining strategy? 3329 Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The Leader of the Opposition is quoting from the Canadian Federation of Ind ependent Business recent report of the various concerns they had with respect to Government's actions effects on small business. The No. 1 concern was the high tax burden.

I already ind icated that we had several measures to reduce the tax burden in this province and the Liberal Party voted against it. Ano ther major concern was the Workers Compensation Board. They acknowledged we had frozen the premiums during our term in Government, so that we froze the rates employers pay, and that has been a help. They acknowledged there should be more help, but that has been a help. Third, he acknowledged with respect to labour and training that recently the Manitoba Mini ster of Education, Len Derkach, has struck a committee to work with the CFIB on matching education to business needs.

He said that is a positive step we are taking. So business knows what we are doing. Employers know what we are doing and they know it is a positive thing. It is only the Liberal Party that tries to make something negative about it. Mrs. Carstairs: The statistics show that we are having more and more bankruptcies. The proof of the tax support will come in the support of Bill No. 86, which we will support in this House. Premier's Council Formation Industry and Technology Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Yesterday, at a meeting of the follow-up on the Round Table on the Economy, the chairperson, Ed Martens, recommended the formation of a Premier's Council on Ind ustry and Technology similar to the cou ncil in Ontario. This issue was raised earlier with the Ministers of Ind ustry and Education and Training. Why is the Premier reluctant to establish such a council in the Province of Manitoba? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): We had that very dis cussion when most of my Cabinet met last week with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

She may have read about it in the newspaper. They were very, very positive and very encouraging about the good things Manitoba has done. They recognized that we have created a much more positive climate than had been here before. They recognized we were doing a great deal to keep deficits down in this province to the lowest level in a decade and they complimented us for it. They complimented us for reducing the overall debt for the first time in over 20 years. They complimented us on doing many of the positive things that they bel ieved ought to be done.

They ind icated that we have taken some very, very significant moves. * (13 50) They said the appointment of our Round Table on Environment and Economy had some very sign ificant high level decision-makers on it, people from the busi ness community who were recognized for the

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 stature that they had and the influence they had being married together with people who had concerns for the environment. They said we were doing a very, very positive thing. They mentioned to us as well that the Premier's Council on Technology and Excellence in Ontario was a good idea and we said we were quite prepared to look at that idea, because it had merit. They are going to get back to us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with information to see whether or not we can blend that together with our Round Table on Environ ment and Econom y, because it has some merit. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Finance Minister (Mr. Manness) yesterday heard an eloquent plea for the establishment of a Premier's Council. Will the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today commit himself to the establishment of a Premier's Council to develop long term strategy for improving a provincial economy which is sluggish and getting more sluggish every day? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, private capital investment is expected to increase in Manitoba at the fourth highest level of any provinces in the country.

Ma nufa cturing capita l in vestment is expected to increase this year at the highest level of any of the provinces in the country. Our average weekly earnings increase this year over last year is the best of all the provinc es in the cou ntr y at 5.5 percent. Our manufacturing shipment increase this year is the second best of all the provinces in the country. That is not a sluggish economy. The entire premise behind her question is wrong as it usually is, and I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs.

Carstairs) would stop trying to find whatever is negative in anything that she possibly can and get on to the kind of positive attitude that people in Manitoba are looking for. They want a bright future. They know they are going to get it with this Government. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the gho sts of Sterling Lyon live on the front bench of the Tory benches. The only growth we have in the private sector is in the bailiffs, and moving vans that are going out of the province.

We will be positive, we will be positive, and speaking of positive announcements, we look forward to future Hydro development in this province which has been indica ted -(interjection)- That is right, they are. We will not be electing Brian Mulr oney as our Leader, I will tell you. We will have an honest Leader when we are finished with this convention. Free Trade Agreement Hydro Legal Opinion Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is to the Min ister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) -(interjection)- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. Mr.

Doer: I have a very serious question to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) and it deals with our economy. There is predicted and announc ed future development with Hydro and in particular the Conawapa Agreement is close, I believe, or the Conawapa Development is close with the annou ncement of the sale to Ontario and other Hydro projects have been announced by this Government pursuant to other energy exchange agreements and other developments in our province.

I would ask the Minister of Energy and Mines, has he received any legal opinion that a Mani toba Preference Cl ause and contracts dealing with construction of any Manitoba Hydro projects in the future will be legal under the Free Trade Agreement? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Min ister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement deals with the sale of and export of Hydro. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am advised that asking for legal opinion is-will the Honourable Member rephrase his question? Hydro Development Manitoba Preference Clause Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Can the Minister provide Manitobans with a legal opinion and if not has he received any legal advice that a Manitoba Preference Cl ause would be allo wed under the Canada -U.S.A. Free Trade Agreement? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Beauchesne's on page 12 2, No. (1 3)- questions should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal advice a Minister has received. POINT OF ORDER Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party Caucus in his question very carefully asked the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.

Neufeld) to provide us with any legal opinion that he may have with respect to that particular agreement and the effect on HyClro development. * (13 55) In the past, the precedent has been in this House, and it has been accepted on many occasions. As a matter of fact the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) will recall as will the Min ister of Health (Mr. Orchard) recall asking on many occasions for legal opinions in this House, which were on numerous occasions provided to them. It is a question with a long-standing history in this House.

It is a question that has always been answered fairly and courageously by Members of our Government when we were in Government. We had the courage to say yes, we would give it or no, we would not give it and that is all we are asking the Minister of Energy and Mines for with this particular question, is for him to provide a copy of a legal opinion if he in fact does have a copy of a legal opinion. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, please. I thank the Honourable Member for Churchill for his advice. I will take the matter under advisement and bring back a ruling at another time. 3330

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 Free Trade Agreement Manitoba Preference Clause Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question to the Minister is, is it the policy of this Government to have a Manitoba Preference Clause in any future Hydro development, and will that be allowed under the Free Trade Agreement with Canada and United States? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Min ister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the guidelines are decided upon and the preferences, if any, are decided upon, we will take into account any problems that might be created by the Free Trade Agreement.

We will abide by whatever laws are the laws of the country. Mr. Doer: Well, the Minister may well be aware that former Hydro agreements, projects and developments perpetrated 20,000 jobs in Manitoba and Conawapa is predicted to produce even more in terms of the potential employment, employment that this province needs. Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question to the Minister is, is he aware or can he advise Manitoba the impact of decisions on

Section 15 of the Free Trade Agreement in the Province of Ontario dealing with construction and the allo wance of U.S. workers to take jobs of Canadians in terms of Ontario and the implications that will have on thousands and thousands of potential employees and workers in Manitoba for future Hydro development. Mr . Neufeld: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is our opinion that the Free Trade Agreement will not interfere with any exports to the United States of electricity.

The only way that this could be interfered with, the only way that the Free Trade Agreement could int erfere is if we had exported some electricity to the States and those exports are under a contract, under an agreement and will not be affected. * (14 00) Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, no wonder this province has seven thousand less people working than a year ago with the type of ignorant answers from the Minister responsible. This is a very serious matter. Is the Minister- Mr . Deputy Speaker: Order , ple ase. Ord er. The Honourable Government House Leader. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) does not know the Rules, at least he should show a little courtesy around here and mind his manners when he is asking questions. Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was mad at the answer. I should not have personalized it. I withd raw the word "ignorance" and would ask the question, why does the Minister not know that important decisions under the 3331 Free Trade Agreement are impacting on thousands and thousands of potential workers in the construction industr y, a purview- An Honourable Member: Nonsense. Mr. Doer: Well, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) says nonsense. Perhaps he should read the decision in Ontario dealing with

Section 15 and the ability of American workers to come up to Canada and take our jobs and not deal with the abilit y of Manitoba to have a preference clause. My question to the Minister is, will he intervene on behalf of Manitobans to strike down the rulings in Ontario and will he push for a Manitoba preference clause in contracts so that we can employ Manitobans who need jobs in this province? Mr. Neufeld: As and when the decision to build Conawapa is taken, we will review the decisions of Ontario.

We will review the preference clauses and we will abide by the decisions of the laws of the land and we will continue showing the preferences that we have shown in the past. Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, already in Ontario we are having decisions that are saying that means job losses and contract losses will be made for construction workers in 'Ontario and contractors. The same principle of law under the Free Trade Agreement obviously appli es to Ma ni tobans.

Why is the Mi n ister not monitoring these developments in terms of construction projects, because he is obviously involved in them, and why is he not intervening on behalf of Manitobans so that we will not lose 30,000 jobs in the future as he is now advocating in terms of his responsibility as Minister responsible for Energy and Mines? Mr. Neufeld: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Manitoba Hydro people are monitoring all the actions across the country with respect to construction, with respect to the Free Trade Agreement and with the respect to the labour market. We are not left standing in the dark.

We know exactly what is happening and the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) can tell us nothing. Centre for Disease Control Downtown Site Support Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Tomorrow afternoon city councillors will vote on the movement of the City Works Yards. A new report from the Board of Commissioners has detailed what the cost will be to the city and the federal Mini ster, Mr. Epp, has ind icated that he would consider placing the virology lab at the downtown site if City Council makes the land available.

The only Government without a commitment is the Go vernment of Manitoba. Would the Premier (Mr. Filmon) please ind icate what his Government is prepared to do to facilitate the placement of this very important initiative downtown where the Premier and his Ministers believe it belongs? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) knows full well,

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 we have ind icated very strongly our support for the downtown site for the lab. We have ind icated that it makes good sense in terms of removal of an environmental irritant. It makes good sense in terms of the land use being a health care lab, a disease control lab surrounded by health care facilities adjacent to the University of Manitoba. I have met with count less people, including the president of the Un iversity of Manitoba and many others, even in the last few weeks, indicating our strong support for that.

I spoke with the mayor on the weekend indicating our strong support for that downtown lab site and many others. So the fact is that we are supportive of it. We have ind icated our commitment to work with thos e people to ensure that if possible the lab is located on that site, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no question as to where we stand on the matter. Municipal Works Yard Provincial Capital Funding, Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Premier and his Ministers have been offering lip service to the lab site downtown for a long time now, for many months.

We are now at the verge of a decision that is going to be made by City Council and councillors are interested in knowing what the province's position is. Is the province prepared to offer any capital dollars either in this budget or in future budgets to facilitate the movement of the Works Yard? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we had followed the advice of the Member for Fort Rouge we would have dumped $30 million into the project back two months ago when he made the proposal.

He said, whatever it takes right up to and including $30 million, which was a facetious estimate, an estimate that everybody knew was not factual, was not accurate, but he was prepared to advocate $30 million being put on the table to bribe the City Council to locate the lab down by the Health Sciences Centre on that Works Yard site. Because we had a great deal more sense than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we said no. We are not going to go forward and tell City Council that they have to be bribed in order to make the right decision.

We gave all the reasons why that was the preferred lab site and we suggested that city councillors ought to review their position and that new city councillors ought to be encouraged to review that decision. That is happening. I under stand that they are going to be taking that decision and that a majority of them will likely choose that site- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. Centre for Disease Control Lobby Effort Results Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): We have seen the Gove rnment's commitment. The Gove rnment's commitment is zero and, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, during the civic election campaign the Premier pledged to lobby successful city councillors so that they could be persuaded by argument that it was a good move to have it in the downtown site. Since the vote is tomorrow, can the Premie r report to the House how many councillors did he talk to and how persuasive was he able to be? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am told from my discussions that a majority of people on council, the new council, favour that downtown site.

I read in today's paper which I am sure is the genesis of the Member for Fort Rouge's questions, that the number is approximately 20 to 10. The fact of the matter is that we have ind icated publicly where we stand and what our preference is. I might ind icate to him as well that we have, and the Liberal Party may not be aware of it, that the city has a five-year capital works plan that does include cost shared programs with the provincial Government.

If the city wanted to include in that capital plan the relocation costs of the Works Yards or some aspect of the relocation costs, I think that we would look at that favourably. That is an area in which there is a role for the province to play. We will take a look at that and see if it fits in as a priority of theirs. I see no reason why we would not want to participate in such a priority decision. Meech Lake Accord Premier's Position Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a new question to the Premier.

We were all delig hted that the Premier representing all of us was able to watch that terrific Grey Cup game and we know who he was hoping for, but we also thought that he could do a little nation building while he was there when he was talking to the Premiers of Ontario and Newfoundland, but it looks like, having done a reverse in December of last year, he has now done a double reverse on the whole issue of Meech Lake. The Premier has said time and time again that he supports the recommendations of the Manitoba task force. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we were concerned and appalled to learn that the Premier's resolve is weakening and he now seems to be prepared to negotiate away the consensus of the task force. What recommendations of the Manitoba Task Force is the Premier prepared to sacrifice in order to get an agreement on the Meech Lake Accord? * (14 10) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I might suggest that the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr.

Carr) read perhaps more than one newspaper when he develops his questions for Question Period, because in respect to what I did say after meeting with Premier Wells for an hour and a half yesterday morning, I did say we firmly were committed to attempting to get the changes we have put forward, on the Manitoba position and Premier Wells' position, which was put forward to Ottawa. I said Meech Lake would not be approved in Manitoba without changes. In fact, the headline in the Toronto 3332

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 Gl obe and Mail said , Premiers do not foresee compromise on Meech Lake. I put forward the Manitoba Task Force position. It is our position as a Government and that is as it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nothing has changed .- (interjection)- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Carr: The last paragraph of that report the Premier refers to says that Mr. Filmon also told the press conference that the hold-out provinces might soften their opposition to the accord, that Mr. Peterson and Mr. Bourassa are willing to support their demands for Senate reform.

Well, the people of Manitoba, those who want a distinct national identity for Canada, those who believe in multicultural rights, those who believe in the rights of aboriginal people, those who believe in fairness for northern Canada are not going to be impressed by the words of the Premier. It is a legitimate question to ask him in the House today. How firm is his resolve? He has flip-flopped once, will he do it again? Mr. Filmon: He will note I am not quoted in that paragraph. Over and over -(i nterjection)- I wonder if you could ask the Member for ln kster (Mr. Lamoureux) to quiet down his enthusiasm.

I know he has had his knuckles rapped by his Leader for his actions in the past, so he is unable to ask questions. I wonder if he could just quiet down his heckling so he could listen to the answer.- (interjec tion)- Mr. Deput y Speaker: Ord er, please. Order . The Honourable First Minister. Mr. Filmon: Over and over and over again, I have urged the other provinces to consider moving - (interjection)- Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have ind icated that we want to see movement on Senate reform as well as all of the other concerns we have put forward on Meech Lake.

Of course the Task Force Report talks about studying Senate reform. That is all well and good, but I want to see commitments on the part of Premiers Peterson, Bourassa and others to a Triple E Senate. I believe that would show good faith on their part. At the same time, we are committed to the Manitoba Report on Meech Lake. That is our position. Mr. Carr: The very first question I asked in this House was to the Premier on the question of Senate reform. His answer to this side of the House at that time was there can be no Senate reform without Meech Lake.

Well, he changed his position on the 16th of December, and we think he did the right thing. We encourage that, as he came more and more to the view of many other Manitobans. I am not interested in debating press reports. I am interested in knowing what the Premier's position is now as he negotiates in this round. Is he prepared to sacrifice any of the recommendations within the Task Force Report in order to make a deal? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my position at the table is the Manitoba Task Force Report. That is the third time I have said it. I would hope the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr.

Carr) will finally lis ten to it and accept the answer instead of being given the lib erty, I might say, to repeat over and over and over again all of his

preambles, which are absolute nonsense. Health Care Profession Pay Equity Implementation Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): One thing, in the New Democratic Party, we have been warning for the last year and a half is the fact this Government lacks a clear commitment to pay equity. It is not committed to pay equity in the private sector. It shares that, unfortunately, with the Liberals of this province. Now, after nearly three years of negotiations, they refuse to implement a pay equity agreement that was agreed to by all the hospitals in Manitoba.

In tact, there was a desperate attempt on the part of health care workers to get the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to change his mind at a meeting this morning, and the Minister once again refused to do that. My question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Will he intervene l'IOW to prevent this from going to the Labour Board and ensure that the negotiated settlement that was reached between the hospitals and the health care employees proceed as was agreed and overrule the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), who completely lacks the commitment to pay equity? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Heal th): Mr.

Deputy Speaker , my honour able friend, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), ought to understand two things. First of all, pay equity has been implemented as legislated throughout Government circles. Second, pay equity will be implemented in the health care sector according to the legislation, as all other groups have done. The other point I want to make with my honourable friend, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), is that money is set aside retroactively at the Health Services Commission to make the adjustment as required in pay equity in the legislation for last year.

Money is budgeted in this year's budget to continue that process as provided for in the legislation. This Government is not opposed to pay equity. This Government is willing to implement the pay equity. That clearly was the genesis and the impact of the discussion we had this morning. Mr. Ashton: I have a supplementary question. The Pay Equity Act is quite clear and talks about each bargaining agent acting in good faith and making every reasonable effort to reach an agreement in terms of pay equity. That has not been done by this Minister. He once again refused to do that this morning.

Will the Premier intervene on this to ensure there is a continued commitment to pay equity and it is not sabotaged by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), who clearly has no commitment to pay equity in the health care sector? 3333

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Health, with a short answer. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Speake r, I regret my honourable friend does not und erstand the issue as well as he likes to. Within the legislation there is the ability if the employers on the one side, which are the hospitals in this case, and the bargaining agents do not come to an agreement within the legislation.

That negotiation process has been going on now for a year and a half that I am aware of and probi'!bly before that-they have an issue that they are willing to refer to the Labour Board as provided in the legislation when they have not been able to come to a mutual agreement, that is full provision of The Act. We are prepared to implement pay equity within the legislation, we have been, we continue to be, and we will be. We have the budget set aside for last year and this year's Estimates, and can do just that- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Address for Papers, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Rocti)? ADDRESS FOR PAPERS NO. 9 Mr. Gilles Roch (Springfield) : Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles), THAT an Address for Papers do issue praying for: (

a) all documents, quotes or estimates submitted by GEC Plessey Teleco mmunications to the Man itoba Go ver nment in regard to an automated 911 service; and (

b) feasibility review for the expansion of 911 service to rural areas as requested by the Min ister responsible for the Ma ni toba Telephone System to the President of MTS. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speake r, this Address for Papers is acceptable to the Govern ment. MOTION presented and carried. HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, before moving to the examination of Estimates this afternoon, I understand that very shortly the Health Estimates may be completed.

They would be follo wed outside the Ch amber, by agreement among House Leaders, by the Estima tes of the Department of Energy and Mines, outside the Chamber. * (14 20) Inside the Chamber I under stand also we may be nearing completion of the examina tion of the Environment Estimates and following those Estimates, by agreement amongst the Parties, would be the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs. Mr.

Deputy Spe aker, in addition, I have had discussions with House Leaders and I understand that there is agreement that the House would not sit this coming Friday in order to accommodate Honourable Members of the New Democratic Party so that they can attend a convention. I understand they are choosing a new Leader or something. Of course we are still waiting to see if the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) will throw his hat in the ring at the final stages. If the Honourable Member should decide to do so, we would wish him every good wish.

In addition, it has been dis cussed and agreed amongst House Leaders that Thursday we would be observing Friday hours and dealing with Bills that day. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would now move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Mr. Deputy Speaker, do now leave the Chair- Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Government House Leader has announced changes in the sequence of the Estimates. Is it unanimous? Is it agreed? Agreed and so ordered. * (14 30) Mr. McCrae: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Mann ess), that Mr.

Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be gr anted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) in the Chair for the Department of Hea lth, "and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) in the Chair for the Department of Energy and Mines; and the Honourable Member for Burrows (Mr. Chornopyski) in the Chair for the Department of Environment.

CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPL Y SUP PLY-HEALTH The Acting Chairman (Mr. Helwer): Order, please. I would like to call this

section of the Committee of Supply to order to consider the Estimates of Department of Health. The last item that we will consider for the Estimates of the Department of Health is item 1. Administration and Finance, (

a) Minister's Salary $20,600-the Member for Kildonan. Mr. Guizar Ch eema (Kil donan): Mr. Acting Chairperson, before I end up with my closing remarks for the whole process, and what we have all achieved here, I want to ask the Minister a few questions, if he 3334

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 does not mind. It just does not fall into this category, but I think it is a responsibility overall. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minis ter of Health): Yes. Mr. Cheema: My first question is-unf ortunately today the time in Question Period was so much utilized due to the absence of the Speaker, so I was not able to ask my questions. As my honourable friend for Thompson raised the question of pay equity, I have a question to the Minister of Health. This morning the Minister reportedly met with the representation from health care workers with respect to pay equity.

Did the Minister and the workers finally come to a conclusion in that it is only the Government and no t the employers or empl oyees who have prevented the implementation of pay equity? My very specific question is to the Minister. Mr . Orchard: No. Mr. Cheema: I was about to ask this question but was unable to due to shortage of time. The Government indicated that the $1 8 million has been put aside for the implementation, and the final agreement between employers and employees was $7.9 million. Why has the program, therefore, not been implemented when the Government allo cated $1 8 million? Mr.

Orchard: Well, first of all we have not allo cated $1 8 million. Wha t is set aside from last ye ar's Estimates-and I cannot give you the specific number because I do not have my staff here-what was set aside was a sum which would be required to comply with the legislation in terms of pay equity for the last fiscal year. That has been set aside. This year a similar amount has been budg eted in this year's Estimates. We have not budge ted the estimated total amount of $1 8 million simply because that is designed to be a cost over a four-year implementation period.

We are only budgeting the annu alized portion of that. Mr. Cheema: I have a final question on that same issue. The whole question of this Gove rnment's commitment to the pay equity has been called into question. I raised a similar question yesterd ay. Why will this Gover nment not proceed with the implementation of pay equity with health care workers? The Minister said, in Question Period, in answer that they can go to the Labour Board for arbitration. On No. 24 the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) also said this matter is before the Labour Board and when they make a decision then we will abide by it.

Can the Min ister of Health (Mr. Orchard) indicate clearly to the health care professionals that this Government is serious about this very important issue? Mr. Orchard: I have already said that time and time again. We have the money set aside. We are prepared to comply with the legislation. That is not a new commitment. That is a long-sta nding commitment.

That is one of the first issues that was questioned in the first Question Periods that we were Government. 3335 Negotiations have been ongoing to achieve an arrangement with the hospitals, the 23 facilities, and the affected unions to comply with the pay equity legislation. We are fully prepared to do that, and indeed when agreement is reached we have funding set aside currently and retroactively to undertake that. Second ly, we are fully prepared to budget future requirements in the Manitoba Health Services Commission Estimates. Mr. Cheema: I do not have further questions on this issue.

If the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) does not have any questions on the same issue then I can proceed with my closing remarks. Mr . Steve Ashton (Thompson): While I did get the opportunity in Question Period to raise two questions, I think it was very unfortunate that today we had probably the smallest number of questions we have had since we have been in Session, and there are important issues such as the pay equity issues that are being dealt with.

I just wanted to ind icate, further to what was dis cussed in Qu estion Period and has just been discussed by the Member for Kildonan, my extreme disappointment in the fact that despite the last ditch attempt of health care workers, today, to persuade the Minister to listen, to come to a negotiated settlement, that we end up with this going to the Labour Board tomorrow. I am not saying that is not part of the Act. It is part of the Act. It is only there when, to my mind, negotiation is broken down.

In this case it has broken down, not because of the nurses and the other health care unions- 10 unions agreed to this-it is not broken down because of the position of the hospitals, 23 hospitals have agreed to the formula that was agreed upon-the package-it is the Minister of Health that has said he does not agree with that. So what the 10 unio ns and the thousands of employees they represent have agreed to, what the hospitals and their hospital boards that they represent have agreed to, is simply not good enough for the Min ister of Health. I think it is very unfortunate.

I think this is a bad omen for the future progress of pay equity in this province, which up until now has succeeded because the co-operative approach that is part of the very essence of The Pay Equity Act-and I realize this was discussed yesterday, it is going to be discuss ed again in the future-I just want to say in terms of the New Democratic Party having introd uced pay equity, and being very proud of that, I would say one of the achievements of the previous Government that I would be most proud of would be pay equity. We are a leader in this country.

We are not going to allow this Government or any particular Minister to put that progress back. We want to see it through in terms of not just the Civil Service, where it is fully unde rway in terms of implementation, not just in terms of outside funded agencies, but also in the private sector as well, and we will be pushing the Government on that. I am very concerned about the development tod ay. I know the health care people -I talked to a number

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 of them after the meeting, they were very frustrated. They felt the Minister only met with them to be able to say that he met with them, that there was really no discussion or dialogue, no flexibility on the part of the Minister, no real attempt to live up to the spirit of The Pay Equity Act or the spirit of the three years of negotiations that it took. So with those comments I would just say we are very frustrated, and we are going to be continuing to raise this throughout the remainder of this Session.

I will say we will continue to fight for pay equity no matter what the Minister of Health and this Government does. Mr. Orchard: I simply want to correct my honourable friend, because as is often the case with the New Democrats they do not exactly have their facts straight. * (1 440) My honourable friend, the NOP Health Critic (Mr. Ashton), says the hospitals are in agreement with the unions in terms of the proposal. That is not factual. The hospitals' position before the Labour Board -and the hospitals are the employers, in case my honourable friend did not know.

My honourable friend said the employers, the hospitals, were in favour of the unions' proposal, that the unions and the hospitals were in complete agreement and it was only the Minister and the Government who were stopping this. That is false. If my honourable friend does not know it is false then maybe he ought to get his facts straight. If he knows it is false then he is trying to mislead the people of Manitoba. Now it is one of the two.

It is either ignorant or malicious, one of the two on my honourable friend's part, because the hospitals are before the board with a presentation because they bel ieve the current presentation, as agreed to by the unions, exceeds the legisla tive manda te of 7(3) in the legisla tion my honourable friend is so proud of. My honourable friend says it is just Government that is stopping that. Well, Mr. Acting Chairman, I have always said-and we passed legislation which put pay equity guidelines in legislation saying 1 percent of payroll.

My honourable friend from the New Democrats said, pay what the unions want, it exceeds the legislation. If my honourable friend wanted it to exceed the legislation why did he not pass open-ended legislation? -(interjection)- Mr. Acting Chairman, my honourable friend the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says that is my opinion. That is not my opinion, that is the professionals at both the hospital administration who are responsible for budget and negotiations, and have done an awful lot more budgeting and negotiating than my honourable friend for Thompson.

That is the calculation made by my people in the Manitoba Health Services Commission representing not just the unions but all of Manitobans in this issue. My honourable friend said, pay them what they want. Well, that would mean my honourable friend would want to have inequity in the implementation of pay equity, because every other organization who has complied with the pay equity legislation has done so within the guidelines of 1 percent of payroll per year for four years.

My honourable friend, the New Democratic Critic for Health, said that does not matter, the unions have an agreement therefore pay them, even if it does exceed the legislation. The unions, this morning, said their proposal do es not exceed the legisla tion . The administration of the hospitals, who are going to find that sum of money within their budgets, say it does. Calculations made by the Manitoba Health Services Commission ind icate it exceeds the 1 percent guideline. So what my honourable friend is suggesting is that we break the legislatio n th at he is so proud of and inequitably implement pay equity.

I cannot say that is a logical way to proceed. We are willing to comply with the legislation, but let my honourable friend not, either through ignorance or deliberation, put improper information on the record. The hospitals and their administration are before the Labour Board indicating that the current proposal by the union consortium exceeds the guidelines of the pay equity legislation,

Section 7(3) in particul ar. So let my honou rable friend not try to mislead the people of Manitoba in his information. Second ly, I just want my honourable friend to know that the non-uni onized employees' presentation to the Labour Board concur s with the $1 8 mill ion approximation as an implementable target for pay equity which will comply with the legislation. That is the same position as taken by the management of those hospitals. It is not as if all workers are of a common vein of thought.

I know my honourable friend might want to know those two important pieces of information so he does not continue to attempt, del iberately or ignorantly , to mislead people with his statements. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Chairperson; this is just classic with the Minister of Health. Throughout the more than 47 hours we have been in this co�mittee the Minister's caustic tongue, the Mini ster's selective use of words, have been developed to a fine art, and quite frankly it does not wash any more from this Minister.

His great debating technique is, he likes to say, well the Member is saying this, the Member is saying this. I am just looking at what the Minister himself has said, for example, to the workers this morning. They were not impressed whatsoever by the complete lack of- An Honourable Member: Were you there? Mr. Ashton: I have talked to people who were there. If the Minister wants to invite me to meetings on pay equity, I will be glad to-oh, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am speaking on behalf of the many people in this province, particularly women, who have a stake in pay equity.

I am speaking on their behalf and the Minister should know that, and that is a vast majority of Manitobans. Unlike the Conservative Party which talks through both sides of its mouth on this, on the one hand they -(interjection)- oh, the Minister says for the record that 3336

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 they supported The Pay Equity Act. Well, if someone would care to check the record and what they have said about pay equity, perhaps the Minister would like to quote back what the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Mccrae) said in terms of the pay equity police, as if there was going to be, somehow, some sort of Gestapo that would enforce pay equity in this province.

Those were the words of the Member for Brandon West. (interject ion)- The only puppet in this particular community right now is the Min ister of Health who seems to be manipulated by those who would like to see pay equity sabotaged, I am sure of that, see it slowed down, see roadblocks thrown in its way. The Minister should be aware of that because I do not believe for one minute that this Minister has an honest and sincere commitment to pay equity.

I know deep down in that extreme right wing soul of his-which he manages to hide now that he is in a minority Government situation -I know he does not support pay equity. I do not even believe the Minister unde rstands pay equity. He likes to quote from the Act, I will quote from the Act too. We will talk about negotiating in good faith, which is one of the fundamental principles of that Act, we will talk about that. We will talk about the basic principles of pay equity. Let the Minister not play his little verbal games, as he does, and not ignore the signi ficance of what is happening tomorrow.

We have a pay equity -(int erjection)- if the Minister wants to put any comments on the record we can continue this. This is the first time I have seen a Minister intent on fili bustering his own Estimates. I will say this is a very serious development. Tomorrow the issue goes to the Labour Board. Tomorrow we are seeing the co-operative approach that has been the fund amental prin cipl e behind pay equ ity being dismantled. That is what is happening tomorrow, and it is a very bad omen for future developments.

The Min ister , in his arrogance, tries to suggest that, oh, well, those who talk about pay equity are puppets. That is a joke. If I am a puppet of anyone, it is the people of Ma ni toba who want to see pay equity implemented. The Mi ni ster kn ows that a vast majority of Manitobans, perhaps not people of his own political persuasion, his right-wing ideolo gy, perhaps they do not agree with pay equ ity. The vast majority of Manitobans do and they are going to be very concerned.

I think they are going to see as of tomorrow the concerns that they had, the suspicions they had, about this Government particularly this Minister are going to be brought out in the sense that this Minister has adopted the conf rontational approach on the pay equity question. I belie ve that just as the comments he made in the committee show that his talk as the Minister of trying to get any co-operative relationship with people in the health care system, with the employees in the health care system, Mr. Acting Chai rperson, are fraudulent. They are absolutely fraudulent.

One and a half years that this Minister has been in power and we are now beginning to see the Minister has no interest in a co-operative relationship with the health care workers, the 10 unions that represent thousan ds of health care workers throughout the province. That is the unfortunate fact. This is not just going to stop with pay equity. The Minister can get into his personal diatribes. I do not think that is important. I do not think anybody cares.

He has spent enough time in committee attempting to get into those little debating techniques that repeat one statement again and again and do nothing to add any facts to the record. * (14 50) What is sad, and I do not think he realizes this and he has asked who did I talk to, whether I was at the meeting? I talked to people at the meeting this morning, and I have met with them. I tell you they are really frustrated with this Minister. It is not me saying this, Mr. Acting Chairperson. I will talk to them, and I talk to the hospital administrators as well.

I will talk to everyone in the health care field, unlike the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) who has selective hearing, who will only hear what he wants to hear, who has proven in the one and a half years that he has been in office that he has no concern for getting any real input from the employees and their representatives. He would not even appoint representatives of the nursing association to the Health Advisory Network. Well, perhaps we should have seen that as an omen. It is interesting. It is classic with the Minister . I asked him that in the Question Period.

He said, oh, well, but we appointed someone to the Health Promotion Trust Fund -(interjection)- that is right, yes, you appointed a representat ive from MONA, only after being hammered for a year continuously for ignoring the nurses union did you ever turn around and do that. You still have not put anybody on the Health Advisory Network, you still have not put anyone. It is not a question of anything other than the fact that this Minister has a right wing bias against anything that is called a union. Yes, that is right he likes to manipulate, Mr. Acting Chair person.

Deep down, we have seen it, and it is confirmed in these Estimates. Whenever the Minister manages to get off his script, and does not have his departmental officials around to keep him to the straight and narrow to the facts, we start seeing it is the same Member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) that we have all over the years, the eight years that I have been in the Legislatu re-I wish I could say positive words. This is the same Member we have come to know, and we know where he stands on issues, and we know his position, and in this case we are seeing it.

The Minister I believe is essentially baiting the unions in this particular case, baiting the employees, and sabotaging pay equity in the province. Having a former Minister responsible for that here, I hope the Member for Portage (Mr. Con nery) will be talking to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), because I believe that things were on track. 3337

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 I am disappointed actually in the current Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond). If I was the Member for Portage I would be demanding to know what the current Min ister of Labour is doing about this. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would like to think that the current Member for Portage would have at least said something to the Minis ter of Health that this was unacceptable. Unfortunately there is nobody speaking up for pay equity. In Friday's Question Period the Minister of Labour was asked to provide legal opinions. She would not even answer it. She said it is before The Labour Board, period.

Why did the Minister of Health not provide the opinions that were requested by the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema), and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer)? That is perhaps something that she can best ask. I belie ve it is because if you look at the situation, you look at fairness, fairness would have resulted in a negotiated settlement and not the opposite approach of this Government and this Minister, which has ended up sending it to the Labour Board , which is a very unfortunate step for pay equity. Mr . Orchard: Mr.

Acting Chairman, my honourable friend likes to put information on the record, but my honourable friend has the common decenc y, as an Honourable Member of this Ho use, at least to deliver something of a truthful message. My honourable friend from Thompson says, well, we should have negotiated a settlement. That is exactly what we attempted to do, but what my honourable friend from Thompson is saying is that we should negotiate a settlement, which exceeds the legislation that he passed and supports. Now from his seat he says, that is not true.

You see my honourable friend does not und erstand what he is saying and what he is supporting because-and I said it with tongue-in cheek, as a jest in part, as a li ttle jibe at my honourable friend, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), when I called him puppet man. Maybe I was not far off, because it appears as if the Member for Thompson does not understand the issue. Here is the issue. Pay equity was passed unanimously in the Legislature four years ago, I guess.

It provided a number of steps for employers and emp loyees to achieve in given institutions of Government, inclu sive of 23-funded health care facilities, 22 in the hospital system, one is St. Amant Centre, in Family Services funding. Mr. Acting Chairman, the legislation provided the ability to negoti ate a settlement within 1 percent of payroll per year, in the legislation, maximum 1 percent of payroll. It was not 1. 2 or 1.4, it was 1 percent of payroll, and my honourable friend the Member for Thompson says that is right. Every organization who has implemented pay equity has done so within the legislation.

A proposal, based on 96 cents per hour on average, that came before this Government at a meeting in November of last year exceeded the legislation; 1. 2 percent was what was required. My honourable friend is sitting there shaking his head. Does he not realize that is the case? - (interjection)- The Acting Chairman (Mr . Helwer): Order. Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend says-he will not say whether that is right or wrong, because I do not know again whether he is igno rant of the facts or whether he wants to hold them.

At any rate my honourable friend ought to be aware that 96 cents an hour over a four-year period exceeded the legislation. Mr. Acting Chairman, we still have 96 cents an hour before the institutions, but now because of a change in implementation formula 96 cents an hour is deemed not to exceed the 1 percent guideline advice that we have been given, not simply by the department and the commission, but by the institutions that say that will exceed the legisla tive guidelines, 7(3). Clearly my honourable friend the Member for Thompson has to be willing to do one of two things.

He must still be willing to break the legislation that he passed because he is recommending a settlement, which apparently, by any calculation I have seen, may well exceed the legislation. I say, may well, because I am willing to have independent people, as is provided in the legislation, at the Labour Board make that decision. My honourable friend for Thompson who has said to us on a number of occasions, well, you did not fund this, you did not fund that, we need more here, we need more there, wants us to spend $24 million over a four-year period where $1 8 million is what would comply with the legislation.

That extra $6 million I guess grows on the NOP tax tree -(i nterjection)- like the NDP tax tree. My honourable friend says, it does not matter if it exceeds the legislation, spend the money. That is the kind of attitude that caused enormous problems in the Province of Manitoba. I want my honourable friend the Member for Thompson to reflect upon his tenure of eight years in the Legislature. The Acting Chairman (Mr . Helwer): Order . The Member for Portage (Mr. Con nery) please refrain. Mr. Orchard: When my honourable friend the Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) entered the Legislature, it was in 1981, in a Government headed by Howard Pawley as Premier. At that point in time, after 111 years of Government of Manitoba by parties of all political stripes, the general purpose debt of the Province of Manitoba was $1 billion.

Now my honourable friend admits that is the case. * (1 500) After seven years of Howard Pawley and the NDP, which my honourable friend from Thompson was a backbencher the whole time, the general purpose debt in the Province of Manitoba increased from $1 billion, after 111 years of Government, to $5.2 billion in seven years of Government by Howard Pawley and the NDP. Subsequent ly, the interest payments annual ized grew by $450 million a year, from $90 million in 198 1 to $550 million in 1988, and my honourable friend, the member for Thompson says, "Spend the money." 3338

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 That is what they did and that is why we do not have money to spend because the first call on the tax dollar of the Province of Manitoba is to pay the interest which is statutory debt. That is why it is called statutory debt. That means you pay it first. That means you pay it before you pay one salary in the health care field. You pay that before you do one surgical procedure in the health care field.

The first money is statutory debt and, under Howard Pawley and the NOP with the member for Thompson as a backbencher, we pay $450 million additionally each and every year until we eliminate that debt given to us by Howard Pawley and the NOP with the Member for Thompson as a backbencher. Now, I un derstand my honourable friend says, "Spend, spend, spend." Why would they change? But they have not learned the lesson because that is why they are reduced to 12 members in this Legislature.

They had 18 percent of the vote and they are dropping like a stone because Canadians, Manitobans, and people across the world are rejecting the NOP-type philosophy that Government can nationalize everything and spend their way to prosperity. That is being rejected as a failed theory right across the world. Mr. Acting Chairman, does that matter to my honourable friends in the NDP of Canada? No. Is there one single new thought in that bright light of leadership candi dates that are converg ing like a plague on Winnipeg this weekend?

Is there one person with an original thought other than spend, spend, spend, nationalize, more left-wing rhetoric. My honourable friend talks about ultra right-wing policies.

What about the ultra left-wing policies of the NDP that drove this province to the brink of bankruptcy, that regardless of whether my honourable friend, the member for Fort Rouge, sits in the Minister of Health's chair, the Min ister of Finance's chair, or even the Premier's chair, my honourable friend from Fort Rouge, as a potential member of a Li beral Government, is going to have to face an interest charge annually of $450 million more than it was in 19 81, from 90 million to $550 million a year because of Howard Pawley and the NDP and their kind of wasteful policies for the people of Manitoba.

First dollar before health care, before education, before roads, before any service in Government, first dollar to the finance years that my honourable friends flew around the world and were wined and dined and embraced by every financier in the world. They loved Howard Pawley and the NOP because, when they had him coming, they knew they could get out the buckets and pour the money at him and get it back every single year in interest, but they knew the people of Manitoba were going to have to pay whether they had to cut services, do anything but provide interest as first, first call on the taxpayers of Manitoba.

So, Mr. Acting Chairman, I fully appreciate the maturity of my honourable friend, the Member for Thompson's thought process here. It is the maturity of the NOP philos ophy that is 20 years old, outdated, outmoded, out of favour with Manitobans. It will not work. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Chai rperson, it is amazing. We start to talk about pay equity and the next minute we hear the Minister's personal political philosophy here. It would almost be amusing if it was not such a complete di stortion of reality . It is int erest ing, Mr. Acting Chairperson, because the Minister accused the NDP of spend, spend, spend.

What is his proposal for the Province of Manitoba? Cut, cut, cut? Well, I would say if the Tories had a majority in this province right now, that is exactly what we would see. That is what they did when they were in government last time. Sterling Lyon. The Minister of Health is probably one of the few members of the current Conservative Caucus -ma ybe the Minister of Northern Affairs might be included-who would even own up to being part of the Conservative Government under Sterling Lyon.

Let us remember, we had the same political philosophy, and I believe really that Sterling Lyon was the Minister of Health's mentor. He looked to him for his political philosop hy, Mr. Acting Chairperson, and does the Mini ster- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! The Acting Chairman (Mr . Helwer): Order, order. Let us try to keep some order here. Mr.

Ashton: Does the Minister of Northern Affairs remember' what Sterling Lyon did -that Government he was a member of-and the member for Pembina did to the health care system, when they cut back the health care system with one of the most savage budgets in Manitoba history. Perhaps they do not remember those years of 1978, Mr. Acting Chai rperson. That is what a Conservative Government does when it has the majority. When it does not get the opportunity that it does when it is in the minority Government situation, to run around the provinces-yes, they are not Tories.

I am surprised they have not gone ahead with the Member for Brandon West's suggestion of trying to change the name of their provincial Party, because that is the whole philosophy, the whole approach here, over the last 18 months. They try and pretend they are not Tories. We have just seen here revealed on a question on pay equity that it just does not wash. A Tory is a Tory is a Tory, as is the Minister of Health. He is a Tory through and through. We have seen today and throughout these Estimates, given the chance, Mr. Acting Chai rperson, it would not be spend, spend, spend, it would be cut, cut, cut.

He talks about money growing on trees. In the last budget he und erspent by $30 million, close to $30 million, Mr. Acting Chai rperson. An Honourable Member: He is a Tory's Tory. Mr. Ashton: He is a Tory's Tory. I think that is a fair statement for the member for Fort Rouge. You know, the interesting thing is he talks about what happened in the province between 1981 to '88. Well, I know what would have happened if we had had a Conservative Government. They would not have been spending on the Jobs Fund. They would not have been spending on Hydro devel opment.

If the Minister wants to look where the expenditures, the capital investments were made, I would like to then turn around and say what would he have wanted to cut back? 3339

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 Mr. Acting Chairperson, he said general purpose debt. General purpose debt was part of the whole anti recession policy of the Government, and by the way, if he just thinks this happened in Manitoba, every one of the 10 provincial Governments across the country oh, and by the way, the Government of Brian Mulr oney from 1984 on-w ould the Minister of Health like to put on the record what has happened in terms of the general purpose debt with the federal government? Would the Minister-perhaps the Minister would pay attention for a change, Mr. Acting Chairp erson -would he like to put those figures on the record? The sad

part is the Minister likes to use the same sort of debating technique they used in Germany in the 1930s. He gets one statement-he keeps repeating it -(interjection)- I did not say anything unparliamentary. I could say something that was unparli amentary. It is the debating technique of the big -(interjection)- big repeat. Wel l, Mr . Acting Chairperson, the Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), I would have expected better from the Member from Osborne, because one thing I find frustrating, and perhaps the Liberals might want to look at the record of this Member.

If he wonders why I am concerned about what this Minister of Health would do, especially if they had a majority, just look at the speeches that have been made by the Member from 1981 to 1988. Look at the statements that were made at that time.- (interject ion)- The Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema) says we have changed him a lot now. I would say to the Member for Kildonan that it is only because we are in a minority Government situation. I do not believe that there would be any control over this Minister of Health if the Conservatives had a majority and I would say thank God they do not, Mr.

Acting Chairperson, thank God they do not. Let the people of Manitoba read the statements, he went from a debate on pay equity to a rambling dissertation on his phil osophy of the world. I could get into that debate quite easily. I think that if the Member was to wake up and look at what is happening in western Europe, he would find that what people are rejecting in western Europe, is they are rejecting the kind of extremism that this Member espouses.

Talk to people in Britain, where they are moving-to the Labour Party, or Spain where they have a socialist Government or in France where they have a socialist Government, I could run through that if he wants. If he wants to look at what is happening in eastern Europe, what is happening there is people are embracing exactly the philo sophy tha t we have espoused which is democratic social, they are rejecting the authoritarianism of the communist system.

I can get into that debate but really why is the Minister, at this point in time, after we have spent 47 hours in Estimates wasting the time of the committee starting on a debate on pay equity? I was very specific in my comments. I did not talk about my philosophy of the world, I will do that if the Min ister wants. I mentioned the fact we are very concerned about the situation with pay equity in this province. I wish the Minister would deal with that, put some of his pet political philo sophies aside, some of his ideology and accept his responsibilities as Health Minister.

This is the first time in the eight years that I have been here that I have seen a Minister fili buster his own Estimates. Every chance this Minister gets he takes a two minute question and gives a 20-minute dissertation on his philosophy of the world. I do not know if this is the Conservative strategy. I will say that I know one of my recommendations to our caucus is that we might want to look at making up some of the lost time when we get to the concurrence debate as is part of the rules, because this Minister has fili bustered his own Estimates. He has wasted the time of this committee.

I believe there are a number of other Members who have important points to raise. I know the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) and the Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) have questions they wish to put on the record before we gets to final closing statements. I really apologize to committee for taking the time and respon ding to what th e Mi ni ster said. It is very frustrating because the Minister seems to know no bounds in his ability to get into rhetoric, as I say, especially when his staff is not around to keep him in line and keep him to the straight and narrow.

We could have probably spent a lot more of the time of this 47 hours getting answers on needed health care questions and is sues if th e Min ister put aside his poli tical philosophy and started dealing with the reality of the health care system of Manitoba. * (1510 ) Mr. Orchard: I have a great deal of sympathy for my honourable friend, the Member for Thompson. I also now have achieved a greater degree of understanding as to why he was always on the backbench in Ho ward Pawle y's Government. He demonstrated that right now.

Whilst my honourable friend is leaving the room, any question that he cares to pose will be answered but he has not posed any. The Member for Thompson, as �e leaves the room, leaves so witt;Jout posing questions in health care and that will be the record that is demonstrated by anyone who reads Hansard and cares to examine the issues. Mr. Alcock: I still have a few questions. I could not let this opportunity go by without asking the Minister about the Municipal Hospitals.

I do want to comment though on the lib eralizing effect his increased contact with the Member for Kildonan has had and I do compliment him on his announcement today. I have watched the discussions that have gone on with considerable interest, the Minister knows of my int erest in Municipal Hospitals. I un derstand the response that he has given that the committee has not yet reported, but I am concerned about the length of time it is taking. I wonder if the Minister could, for my benefit, ju st upda te me on the process of that examination. Mr.

Orchard: The task force on extended treatment beds was the first up and running task force. We give them a very, very short mandate to deal with the issue of capital construction proposals at three institutions: 3340

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 Municipal, Concordia and Grace, plus to guide us in what-at the time the subcommittee was struck we knew that probably shortly after the report or shortly before the report, in that time frame, that we would have a number of beds available for service at Deer Lodge, not in the acute care field but available in the extended care "the general parameters of extended care treatment." There were two sets of advice sought, first of all some guida nce after an examination of the system requirements on extended treatment beds as proposed in three construction projects, and secondly , guidance on the immediate use of the Deer Lodge beds which are available right now as my honourable friend knows.

There are other issues that we have before the ext ended trea tment subcomm ittee that they will proceed to once they report, such as the complexities of the head injured because we simply do not have a program. They are not home care capable in all cases, facilities and hospitals cannot handle-I mean, my honourable friend probably has enough background on that to know that is a new and emerging complex requirement in terms of "extended treatment." What we asked for was a fast-track answer on the extended treatment in terms of Deer Lodge available beds in the thr ee construction projects.

The subcommittee has been very, very active. They have met 17 times to try to come to grips and they have used a substantial amount of internal resource of Government for statistics, et cetera, et cetera. They are very close to presenting Government with their report and I expect that report. The best advice that I can give, that I have most recently received, is not this month but next month. We will have the report in December.

My honourable friend, the Member for Kildonan, has shown some frustration because I have said -I have probably given four different dates, but each time I have given those, that was the best estimate that the subcommittee could give us on having the report ready, no more, no less. We expect that to be in Government's hands this month and following that we have made a commitment to make an announ cement very, very shortly on particularly the Deer Lodge, but more importantly the issues before of the construction.

In the capital budget we did make specific provision that in Muni cipal, Concordia and Grace's circumstance we could move to construction should that be a recommendation made that was attainable out of the Health Advisory Network. We do not intend to waste a whole lot of time studying the issue. I think the work that has been done, the depths of the investigation I think ought to provide us with reasoned advice on how to approach all those, and Municipals has been an issue that has been before Government for many, many years. I do not want them to be asking every single year in capital budget, what happened?

I want to make a decision. Mr. Alcock: The Minister could help me then. The capital moni es that are requ ired to be gin the 3341 construction of the Municipals would be available, should the committee so recommend? Mr. Orchard: You see, that is the difference in terms of the capital budget that we pass. We never vote on the capital bud get because it is not part of Government's borrowing. We simply give the authority to the various institutions for them to arrange their financing wherever they find the most economic or appropriate place to be.

Government's gua rantee, including it in the capital reconstruction, is that we will pay the increased operating costs through the Manitoba Health Services Commission Annualiz ed Budget in either Personal Care Homes or the Hospital line. That recovers over generally a 20-year period the interest principle of borrowed funds to undertake a capital redevelopment. What we have set aside is the authority to allow the institutions to commit construction and when completed fund the additional costs as taxpayers through the commission. Mr.

Alcock: The need to replace the Municipals has been identified for a very long time as the Minister has mentioned and the Minister himself is aware. He has been out to the site and seen the condition of the physical plant, the need to provide care for our increasingly elderly population. I just spent some time with an Economic Council of Canada Report that suggests that shortly after the turn of the century we could be up to 50 percent of our working age population could be over 65. The need for facilities such as the Municipal seems to be well established.

However, the Minister had some concerns, or the system had some concerns, that led to his putting the Municipal into this study, despite the fact that the new powerhouse had been built and the front-end of the hospital had been built. There was considerable destruction on the site, and I am wondering if he could outline the concerns that he had. What were the issues that caused him to move in this manner, as opposed to proceeding with meeting what had already been a well-established need? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Acting Chairman, basically we are talking a couple of issues here, and I think my honourable friend unde rstands that. There is the personal care home bed issue per se, and let me share with my honourable friend as I did earlier-and I will just do this briefly because I shared this with his colleague when we were into discussions earlier on. In Manit oba we have a fairly generous by national standards ratio of personal care home beds to population over age 75, so that we do not have as far to go, I guess it is fair to say, as some provinces on the personal care home side.

I am going by memory, but I believe the last two capital budgets when completed will add I belie ve the number is 285 new personal care home beds to the system. Some of those are coming on shortly as a result of last year's capital budget, and 18 5 are coming on as a result of this year's commitment, and that could be within a year and a half to two years depending on sched uling and construction. I am telling my honourable friend that on the personal care home side it appears as if we are-and I say this

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 with full knowledge that there are going to be those that criticize that we never have enough. Basically according to guidelines that are established, and seem to be reasonable, we are approac hing sufficient numbers of personal care home beds. * (1 520) There are those on the other side of the issue and there are some very knowledgeable people in geriatrics working both within and without Government circles that say we have probably got enough institutional beds if we go the route of support for seniors in home care.

I tell my honourable friend some of the encouraging things appear in the five-year trend line down of reduction in panelled patients. We have gone from over 600 a year to just over 1,2 00 if I can recall the figures, a slight increase this year, but I mean the trend line is defin itely down. In the last two years, one of them our Government, one of them the previous Government, the applications for assessment to entry to home care have been going down. Discharges have exceeded admissions to the home care program, which may indicate that we are getting a healthier population of seniors here.

If that is the case, that is super. On the personal care home side, we appear to be moving in the right direction but the Grace, Concordia, Municipals proposal was in that area of extended treatment beds, which are not the personal care home staffed, organ ized or run beds. As such they are staffed differently. They are somewhat more expensive, in terms of their staffing patterns, because some of them in extended care try rehabil itative treatment or chronic care for someone who is permanently disabled, but yet not senior by any means.

We are faced with a commitment by the province to reconstruct close to 500 beds. At the same time we had 11 0 new beds coming out of Deer Lodge in the same framework, because the Deer Lodge Hospital is built upon an infrastructure that can provide excellent service. If you have toured the place I would venture to say that it is one of the fine st geriatric facilities in Canada. Certainly they have got the ability for speech pathol ogy, for physio-occupational therapy, it is a very, very complete facil ity.

Now the first and obvious question is: if Municipals, Concordia and Gr ace are committed by previous Governments, why did they not go ahead with them? They would have been very popula r doing the reconstruction, et cetera. I started asking the basic questions: why have they not been committed to construct ion, because we walk in, and within three months we are to commit them to construction when the previous administration had been there over seven years and did not?

The answer came back that we are not certain as to what the system need is going to be, in terms of the extended treatment, and where extended treatment is taking us. Head injured is a new phenomenon that may well require a very specialized portion of a facility or a facil ity.

I charged the answer of that question, to give us the best advice, over to the Health Advisory Network, because I simply tell my honourable friend, I do not want and I do not think any Minister of Health wants to commit construction to over capacity or to beds that are not needed within the system, because you know I think it is fair to say once you rebuild a facility you are going to operate it. I mean, you are never going to close one of those facilities.

So you make the decision right because your commitment to cost, and I am guess timating, is probably going to be $15 0 per bed per day, 1989 dollars, doing nothing but increasing on any extended treatment category bed you put in. That is the genesis behind it, nothing magical, just wanting to have the system analysis of needs made instead of need by individual facili ty. Grace could make a very concrete case. Concordia can make an even better case, because their hospital is the smallest community hospital.

They have been running for three-consecutive years at probably 99 percent-plus occupancy, so that everybody makes a good case. Municipals bases their case on long-standing commitment to the facility and service over many, many decades. All of them have a very valid consideration, and all of them do a very good job in terms of caring for the patients under their guidance and care.

I want to make a sound decision, because if I do not, flexibility to reform the health care system will be removed from future Min isters of Health and future Governments if we make improper capital commitments to facilities in our short tenures in Government. That is a long answer, and I apologiz e for the length of the answer, but I know my honourabl e friend wants to appreciate the background. Mr. Alcock: Wel l, I do appreciate the answer, long though it was. I found it interesting, and I am sure the Mini ster is concerned.

I worked in the residential care field often enough to know that if you build an edifice it does tend to fill to the rim. At the same time, I am concerned. We have a facility on the site that is half built. The previous Government did commit funds to that site. There is a new powerhouse. There is a da y hospital that is constructed as the front portion of the new building. I mean it is all -w e are halfway there.

Also in terms of the identification of the need, we do have an extremely inadequate physical facility that I think is causing undue hardship for the people who currently live within it, and placing intolerable amounts of stress on the patients and the staff there. While I appreciate the need for study, I also wonder given that all of the demographic studies that I read, and it is something I do spend a fair bit of time in, suggest that the fastest aging portion of our population, the fastest growing, are people 85 and over.

The facility has developed a cons ide rable expertise in provi ding supportive care to outpatients through the day hospital and considerable expertise in maintaining frail elderly patients. I am wondering, when we look at the Concord ia, that yes, there is certainly a demand given space limitations, 3342

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 but it is a new facility or a relatively new facilit y. Certainly compared to the King Edward and the King George, which are pre-First War, the Grace and Concordia are youthful, and I am concerned that the decision be made on some relatively clear criteria having to do with the needs of the population who use those facilities. Mr.

Orchard: I would just tell my honourable friend that those criteria were there to make that decision based on a system need, recognizing a number of the factors my honourable friend has just mentioned, as well as some of the background that I have shared with him this afternoon. I have had some discussion at the kickoff of the task force and the methodology that was put together. Proof will be in the pudding, I guess. I was impressed with the methodology for analysis put together by the chairman and how he was moving with the analysis of the issues put before him. As I say, the proof will be in the pudding.

One canno t presuppose what is going to be recommended, but I think the recommendation will certainly be one based on probably the most thorough and complete analysis of the issues from a system standpoint that has ever been done. It certainly will not run the acc usation of narrowly focusing on Municipals as an individual facilit y, Deer Lodge as an individual, Concordia and Grace, as tended to be the reaction in the past. This I believe will genuinely be a health care system analysis. Mr.

Alcock: Just with a final question, the rhetoric that goes on in the House at times gets a little wild and there are concerns raised about the criteria used to assess projects, particularly capital projects, and the reasoning behind certain capital projects, but I believe that Ministers attempt to make decisions in the best interests of their departments and the people who are served by their departments.

I think that ulti mately when the dust settles that people who are in the positions of having to make these decisions do make an objective a decision as possible, and I appreciate that the Minister is saying that relativ e to this decision. I am wondering if the Minister would be prepared to, once these decisions are made, table the criteria for all of the capital decisions that have been made in these last two budgets, to remove any suggestion that there is some undue influ ence in the allocation of capital resources. Mr.

Orchard: I do not know whether there is a set of criteria that we can table on individual projects. Some of the decisions are based on a simple ability to proceed, i.e., the architectural drawings are completed and incorporate the necessary improvements. For instance, the question that came up in the capital budget this year: why Grace and not Health Sciences Centre? Surely the Health Sciences Centre, the premier teaching hospital in western Canada, ought to have gone ahead before Grace, and that is a logical argument.

The difficulty with the argument was that the plans at Health Scienc es Centre were simply not availa ble for commitment to construction,

whereas Grace was and had been developed over, I do not know, maybe a three- to four-year period of time. * (15 30) There is no magic involved in making the decision. You attempt to meet system needs in as balanced a fashion as you can throughout the province and you attempt to meet the acute care, the reform of the system needs. Hence, the commitment to the ambulatory care project at the Health Sciences Centre, growing epidemiolo gical needs as we did with the cancer trea tment commitment at St. Bon iface because unfortunately cancer is growing in Manitoba at roughly 3 percent to 3.5 percent a year incidenc e.

In terms of some of the rural facilities, they are based on personal care homes falling within the ratio of beds per population over age 75 in the region, the same thing in Winnipeg. It is a combination of criteria, identified need, such things as workpla ce, health and safety, fire inspector reports, et cetera, et cetera , and ability to complete construction, i.e., plans being ready.

Then of course the bottom line, which limits commitment to construction, is the amount of money you want to commit in any given year that clearly eliminates because there are projects that are sitting there, drawings completed, ready to go, but we could not accede to them. Other needs in the system took precedece and that has been happening for years. Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): I apologize to the Minister for not having asked these questions when his staff was present, but I had other commitments at that moment and I do not intend to take a great deal of time.

I just want to see if I cannot work with the Minister to establish whether or not there may not be an opportunity for substantial savings for the Government in the whole issue of drugs and drug prices. I do not know if the Minister has a number that he can just take out of the air or of his fertile brain. The number I am looking for is the total amount of monies spent by the Government in each year on pharmaceuticals, either through the Phar macare Program, through social assistance, and through hospitals and personal care homes.

Then to use that figure as a base to try to see if those costs could not be whittled away a little bit through an analysis of the formulary, and how the formulary establishes which drugs can be substituted for brand name drugs. The possibility of quite dramatic savings, not only to the province but by the consumers of pharmaceuticals, if the formulary in Manitoba was not quite as narrow and as limited particularly in comparison to other formularies that exist in provinces such as Ontario.

The federal Government, the drug standards branch, I belie ve it is called, has to approve the use of any drug that is used in Manitoba regardless of brand name or generic. The use of that drug or the ability for any physician to prescribe it is done at the federal level, but whether or not a drug can be substituted by a physician for a brand name is something which is determined by the formulary and as a result, I just have an instinct here, that there may be a potential for a fair bit of saving, both for the Government and for 3343

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 consumers of pharmaceuticals. I am wondering if the Mini ster could shed some light on the potential of that idea. Mr. Orchard: I genuinely cannot, and not that I am not intrigued by it I am going to have a chat with my honourable friend because my understanding is that our formulary is one of the better ones in Canada. I certainly know that it is often discussed by the brand name pharmaceutical companies in less than positive terms, shall we put it, and that to me is one ind icator that it is a pretty effective formulary for replacing, and the cost containment.

The second issue-and my honourable friend makes the comparison to the Province of Ontario. I have never heard that our formulary is not at least equivalent if not maybe better than what Ontario uses. I say that without knowledge, but certainly I have never had any indi cation that we are behind the Ontario formulary. I will make that inquiry because I am interested in achieving that kind of knowledge because the question my honourable friend posed is a very important one: what does the system cost of pharmaceuticals?

By the time you add in the Estimates we are going to pass this afternoon, presumably, we have the $50 million bud geted on Pharmacare, we have a Life Support Program, we have the Lifesaving Drug Program, we have all of the personal care home pharmaceuticals, and then in other departments we have social assistance so that my colleague, the Minister of Family Services (M rs.

Oleson), also has a pharmaceutical budget I attempted to get that number in debating one of the resolutions, particularly as to its impact on the seniors population, and it may well be the total figure could exceed certainly $10 0 million dol lars. It was a difficult one to pull together because you have to pull a portion of each. We had to do computer runs on different facilities and different institutions, so that it was not an easily achievable one and there were other priorities, but it is a big number. I am curious.

My honourable friend is approaching this issue with what I would strike as some discussions he has had with professionals. If that is the case, I would like to pursue those discussions with those same professionals to see whether, because unle ss I know the questions, I do not know whether the answers are the proper ones. So I am not at all adverse to pursuing the issue that my honourable friend is putting before the committee this afternoon. Mr. Ashton: I have not necessarily further questions. I think we are going to need final comments.

I know we did not get the chance to always talk to the Minister but our intention was to go no longer than about 10 minutes each to allow it, because I do believe we would want to give Energy and Mines a bit of a chance to start In terms of final comments, I would point to the fact that in this committee we have spent close to 49 hours discussing the Department of Health, and I think that is for good reason. This is a very important department of Government. It is important in terms of the level of expenditure, it is more than $1. 5 billion.

It is an important department I think in another reason too, because it is one of those departments where you do get perhaps the clearest indications of health care policy in the distinction between the various Parties. I think we are beginning to see a pattern in terms of the current Government. I said at the beginning of Estimates, and I will say it again. Where the Government does something that is positive, we will ind icate that, we will pass that on in terms of urging the Government to continue in that area. I am not saying that positive things have not been done; they have been done.

I noticed today for example th ere was an annou ncement in terms of AID S programming, which is consistent I know with what we discussed in this committee only a few weeks ago in terms of greater outreach. Whether there is enough funding to meet the need is a question that remains to be answered, but it is certainly a relatively positive development. There have been other positive announcements by the Minister. I think it has been because of perhaps the minority Government situation to a very large extent, I belie ve though that that should be indi cated.

As critic for the New Democratic Party, I do have some major concerns and during this particular Health care Estimates procedure, I have outlined those concerns. I want to indic ate that in some cases, I do hold the Minister and the Government to account for their actions. I believe some of the problems have been created by the Minister.

In other cases we are dealing with long-standing problems that we are facing across the countr y, and it is an area that we are looking very closely to see what action is taken. * (1 540) For example, in terms of one of the first issues that we dealt with, the shortage of physicians. It is a national problem. I think though we have to recognize this as an increasing problem in Manitoba. It is becoming a major problem in rural and northern communities where the doctor-patient ratio is gr ossly out of line in comparison with the City of Winni peg, where it is far more the level that is required.

That is an issue that we have raised; we will be continuing to raise it. We have raised concern about other areas, Mr. Acting Chairperson, concern about what has been happening in terms of major health decisions because of the delay in the implementation of the Health Advisory Network. It was in this committee that we learned that last year only $58 out of $500,000 of the amount budgeted for the Health Advisory Network was expended. We are seeing major decisions in the health care system depending on the functioning of that company.

We are seeing major decisions in the Capital Program, a number of hospitals, Concordia and Municipal in particular, that are pending results of this particular Health Advisory Netwo rk. We are critical of the Government for the dela ys that took place in its implementation. 3344

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 We are looking for action and action soon because we cannot continue with a situation where you have empty beds at one hospital in the City of Winnipeg and people lined up in the hal lways in another. You cannot continue with a situation where emergency facilities are being shut down because of this problem in terms of overflow of patients. The Minister I believe has to move very quickly in making some very important decisions in that area. We have been very critical of the del ays in the implementation of the Health Promotion Trust Fund.

This fund is a fund that was very similar to one that was announced by the previous NDP Government. While I think anyone would be reasonable enough to give the Minister some time to implement the trust fund, I think what has been most disturbing is that the Min ister seems to have spent more time reannouncing the same fund rather than working on its implementation. We need reform in the health care system. We need the kind of expenditures that can be brought through this fund, and I think that is an area that we are expecting to see action from in this Minister. It has been a similar theme in other areas.

We raised in the area of AFM the fact that the Youth, Alcohol and Drug Program has not been implemented. In fact criteria have not been set even though it was announc ed in July of 1988 as part of the throne speech. It is another important area where the Minister I believe and this Government has to provide action and provide it soon. We have questioned the Government's priorities in a number of areas, a number of very important areas in terms of for example its relationship with employees in the health care field.

I mentioned it just yesterday in terms of the Government's change to allow for contracting out and the Gove rnment 's change to elimina te the previous no-la yoff policy and allow for layoffs in a number of circumstances. We think that is not a positive development. We just debated again today the devel opments in terms of pay equity, and we are very concerned about the fact that this has not been resolved in the health care field and is going to the Labour Board. We have raised concerns I know about a number of other issues.

Whether it be in terms of continuing care, be it in terms of health care promotion, there are a number of important areas that we are concerned of in terms of what has been happening to the system in Manitoba. We will be continuing to raise that throughout Estimates. We spent a considerable amount of time in a number of areas this year, and I think it is ind icative of the importance of those areas, Mental Health being a good example. I want to ind icate that the move to a more community based program is fully supported by the New Democratic Party.

In fact many initiatives were taken in terms of New Democratic Party administration and there are a number of positive initiatives that have been taken by the current Minister. We will not only support the positive initiatives, but where initiatives have been made we will be looking for the follow-up to make sure the appropriate resources are put in pla ce, to make sure that there is a follow -through. We spent a fair amount of time in terms of Community Health Services. That is an important area.

We want to make sure that rural and northern Manitobans particularly are getting a full range of medical services and we will be continuing · to raise those issues. We also spent a significant amount of time this year on the Manitoba Health Services Commission. I am sure we could have spent even more time, if we had that time available as a committee. There are a number of important issues, a number of which I mentioned just briefly being with in terms of capital decisions. We were disappointed that the Capital Program did not include action on a number of major facilities.

I mentioned a number of them, which are lis ted as being part of the capital budget that is waiting for the decision of the Health Advisory Network and the Minister. We also raised a number of concerns in terms of the operations of our hospitals and we will be continuing to raise those concerns as well. The bottom line I think, Mr. Acting Chairperson, is that we are concerned about the delays that have taken pla ce in the health care system in dealing with major issues. We are concerned about a number of the specific decisions of the Minister.

We do believe that there has been some positive devel opments in health care because I believe we have a minority Government, where the eonservative Government cannot implement what I believe would be its type of agenda if it had a majority and was able to move without any role whatsoever in terms of the Opposition Parties. We will be continuing to point to that because we belie ve there is a fundamental difference in philo sophy between the Parties and particularly between our caucus and the Conservative Caucus on health care issues.

We believe that if there is one thing that has been demonstrated by the last year and a half, it is that this Government really does not have a long-term vision in terms of the health care system. We have seen decisions that have been delayed, we have seen a so called action plan for the 1990 nowhere near in sight, we have seen the Government spend much of the year and a half trying to decide what its long-term priorities and I am not saying initiatives have not been made. That is something we have ackno wledged where initia tive has been made. I mentioned the AIDS announc ement today.

I told the press and I will tell this committee exactly what I said and I said, well, we will see if it meets the needs, but it is certainly a move in the right direction. This incidentally is what we have been calling for, I know from the Opposition in committee, for well over a year in terms of increased initiatives. The bottom line though is I do not believe that the Government has a real vision because I believe that it is in a transition period. I believe we are in a situation where the Minister of Health is in a minority situation.

He is making decisions where decisions are made for pol itical reasons rather than because of the actual real reason of the Con servative politi cal phi losophy . Unfortunately that philo sophy does creep in all too often. I think some very real questions have to be raised about the direction of this Minister and this Government in terms of health care issues. I want to say, throughout 3345

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 the upcoming year we will be raising those issues in the Question Period and once again of course in Estimates. We spent nearly 50 hours in this committee for a reason. This is an important department, and we will be asking very many questions in the upcoming year. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not want to go into some of the negative things. When we had the opening statement, my remarks were in terms of how the perception is of the universal medicare system and whether it is readily accessible to all Manitobans, it does not matter where they live.

I think during our 48 or 49 hours of discussion we have discussed almost every area and we have put, not only in the Opposition just be on the negative side and bring the questions, I have put a number of suggestions on the record, very positive ones. All of them are very much financially responsible, and anyone looking not at a political point of view but from a realistic point of view will really appreciate that.

I know the risk involved when the Opposition is supporting the Government in certain areas, but I think my moral responsibility is to the taxpayers of Manitoba, and I think that for the last 19 months a number of improvements have been made. There are a number of areas that I want to address. One of them, which was of major concern to us, has been shown consistent ly. It is a major concern to the Government also. That was the concern about the Men tal Hea lth Services in Ma nitoba.

I think this administration is leading in Canada right now in the performance of the mental health care system, and certainly I have no hesitation of giving the Minister a congratulatory note and encouraging him to continue to do that. We will continue to help him develop the policy even though we are in the Opposition, and we do not have the money to spend, but I think constructive arguments are always appreciated. The second aspect we have always raised with the Minister is how to deal with the multicultural aspects of health, and the Min ister is showing a posit ive response in that area.

We have raised the issues about how to balance these services in the acute care situation versus the community based services. That is a long process. I have ind icated to the Minister that whatever steps are being taken now, the fruit of those steps, we do not know which administration will have it, but that is a difficult task, and certainly I think we should continue to move in that direction. There has been improvement in the del ivery of even the primary health care services in rural Manitoba, but still a lot needs to be done.

I am quite pleased with the co-operat ion of the various professional organizations and the co-operation from this ministry in terms of developing policies. I think that is a move again in the right direction. I disagree with the Minister in one aspect. That is the policy of the College, along with the Minister has supported that pol icy, which still has the perception and still discriminates against a certain

section of physicians, and I think that is not right. Mr. Acting Chai rperson, the issue of capital expenditure has been developed by this administration and does have a positive approach to deal with the present needs and needs for the future. We will wait for the report on the Manitoba Advisory Network Board on the extended care facilities. I am sure that the Min ister will bring forward those recommendations as soon as possible so that at least the satisfaction is there.

This is not an election time and waiting for the real issue and then pass the time, and when the tougher decision has to be made that could be made after the election. I will caution the Minister on that, and certainly I will keep a watchful eye on him. Mr. Acting Chairpers on, Health is the one area where we could bring issues almost every day. Each and every Manitoban is involved one way or the other. The role of the Opposition has to be very responsible in terms of not raising the hopes of people, which you cannot meet.

I have tried this year to change the tone of the whole Estim ates process that has to be a very careful evaluation of each and every issue, which is brought on the floor of the House and in the committee, so that realistic views and realistic spending can be made available to meet all those needs. Because we have seen the rise of the health care costs by 178 per cent and 46 per cent, Manitobans are saying now that they want to be very careful how the tax dollars are spent.

I think to deliver all the health care system, the economy of Manitoba has to be in the best shape, and I think that is the one the collective efforts have to be from the whole Cabinet, how the funds are handled and how the economy is for now and for the future, because the Minister of Health could be a most popular Minister and could be in trouble if the economy is not doing very well. I think that is the responsibility that has to be on the whole Cabinet and how they address the issue.

The other problem that we have right now in the public perception is that our health care is free, and I have repeated it, this is not free, people pay for it. It is the medicare paid by the people, for the people. It is not a socialized medicine, it is a modified socialized medicine, because taxpayers are paying from one side and the health care provider who works for either fee for-service or they are private people and there is always bias for the profit making policies from those individuals.

I think tha t is a very di fficult proble m for any administration and most of the time, it does not matter which Government will come, they are always stuck in the middle, how to satisfy the needs of the tax dollars as well as how do you satisfy the very local groups who are fighting for their self-int erest in certain circumstances. Certain ly, I think that is a difficult task, and we will continue to support the Minister on any of the initiatives this administration will take. Without taking further time, and because most of the deficiencies we have pointed in each and every

section of the Estimates process, and I do not want to take the committee's time and go through that again, but one aspect of the whole process of which I am rather very skeptical is that attention which is paid to the Estimate process, where we really discuss the issues, where we spend the money and that is not going to the public to a great extent. 3346

Tuesday, November 28, 1989 I think attention should be paid probably-media sometimes ignore this aspect of the committee, which is extremely important. I think you cannot expect us to give everything in ten second clips because these are the major issues, which we are dealing for now and for the future of Manitoba and people who are paying. I think people are concerned when they go home, they want to know how much they are taking home and the economy and health and everything goes side by side.

I think it is a responsibility of all Members of this House to make sure that the health care is not taken as a political football and so that we do not end up in a situation where we are now, so that rather than keep on throwing money at each and everything make actual decisions, make a positive decision and let the public know that these are the pros and cons. I am very confident that the people of Manitoba would appreciate to preserve their modified socialized Medicare system. I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister is doing a reasonably good job.

Here I wanted to express thanks to my caucus Members who have let me deal with one of the major portfolios in the Government, and certainly I think that will satisfy many Manitobans when they ask me why I am doing this. The second question they ask me is where are you really from and I think that will satisfy them. I am from Manitoba and I want to contribute to this society. I find no other better way than the political process to continue what I am doing and make a positive contribution.

Certainly I would like to thank the Acting Chairperson of the committee and all the staff of the health administration because without their excellent work no Minister, no administration would be able to achieve what has been happening. In the future we do not know which political Party will come but the issues always stay. How the issues are handled in a day to day situation, these are the most important things rather than go to score political points and with that note I will end my remarks. Thank you. Mr.

Orchard: I want to tell my honourable friend from Kildonan that I sincerely appreciate his closing remarks and the contribution that he has made. I say the same thing to my honour able friend the Member for Thompson even though we may from time to time decide to spit at each other, that is based on eight years of amorous involvement in the House-well, animosity in the House from time to time. I want to tell my honourable friend the Member for Kildonan that he really hit the nail on the head when he indi cated that the role of an Opposition Party has to be one of responsibil ity.

I genuinely belie ve that to be a fact, particularly for the role in Opposition of Health Critic, because I did occupy that position and it is a position of substantial responsibil ity. You do a lot of work as Health Critic, you have to talk to a lot of people, you have to become familiar with a very wide range of issues. My honourable friend continues to have a leg up on me in many regards in that he is directly involved in the health care system as a practising physician.

I cannot overemphasize what he said about the role of the Opposition is to be responsible and to bring issues to the House in a responsible fashion. I say that for two reasons. First, my honourable friend might recall that from time to time I offered this advice and it was cautionary advice that when I was the Health Critic in Opposition I attempted, and I will admit I was not always perfect in the attempt, but I attempted to bring to the House, to the floor of the Legislature, issues that I believed once in Government I had a reasonable chance to resolve.

I did not, as I could have done and as my honourable friend could do today for instance, take television cameras with me and go to an emergency ward, which in hospitals from time to time have p

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-80
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 80.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cd0238775d4d9653d635d7527d32db49c909b4f8

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