MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS {HANSARD) 36 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Myma A. Phillips Speaker VOL. XXXV No. 278 - 8:00 p.m., MONDAY, 13 APRIL, 1987. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty- Third Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ASHTON, Steve BAKER, Clarence BIRT, Charles T.. BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CAR STAIRS, Sharon CONNERY, Edward J. COWAN, Hon. Jay CUMMINGS, J. Glen DERKACH, Len DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent L. DOER, Hon. Gary DOLIN, Marty DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert DUCHARME, Gerry ENNS, Harry J. ERNST, Jim EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. FILMON, Gary FINDLAY, Glen M. HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Hon. Harry M. HARAPIAK, Hon. Leonard E. HARPER, Hon. Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOS TYRA,Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton McCRAE, James C. MERCIER, Q.C., G.M.J. (Gerry) MITCHELSON, Bonnie NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte L. ORCHARD, Donald W. PANKRATZ, Helmut PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Hon. Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John ROCAN, C. Denis ROCH, Gilles (Gil) SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Q.C., Hon. Victor SCOTT, Don SMITH, Harvey SMITH, Hon. Muriel STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill WALDING, D. James WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Hon.

Judy CONSTITUENCY Thompson Lac du Bonnet Fort Garry Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli River Heights Portage la Prairie Churchill Ste. Rose Roblin-Russell St. Bon iface Concordia Kildonan Arthur Emerson Riel Lakeside Charleswood Brandon East Tuxedo Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Swan River Rupertsland Logan Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson St. James Elmwood Morris Brandon West St. Norbert River East Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina La Verendrye Transcona Selkirk Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Springfield Burrows Rossmere lnkster Ellice Osborne Flin Flon Interlake St. Vital St.

Johns PARTY NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 13 April, 1987. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: I call the committee to order. The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: We were on Health Promotion, I think, but actually before the dinner hour, what I was actually trying to say is that probably next year there won't be an item on Health Promotion. It could be a line unde r, for instance, Maternal and Child Health, and Hearing Cons ervation, and Gerontology and so on, because it is in all those areas.

That's what I was trying to show you, an idea of what we're trying to do with this plan, this comprehensive health care service model which, by the way, is modelled after the United Nations with some adjustments for Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, everybody's aware of where we're at in the book. The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister then saying that Health Promotion will disappear and that what we end up with is the $1. 7 million budget of Health Promotion spread throughout the department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's a strong possibility.

Either that or, if it stays as such, we would put the other addition, if at all possible, under another line in a certain area, for instance, maybe in Gerontology and so on. MR. CHAIRMAN: When I left this afternoon, when we adjourned this afternoon, I had the Member for River Heights ... HON. l. DESJARDINS: No, I was speaking on Health Promotion. MR. CHAIRMAN: But I had her down on the list, and I should honour it. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Hono urable Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, the point I was making with the Minister before is I think that there's no difference in approach between us and the New Demo crats in terms of some of the areas that have to be dealt with to contain or prevent health care costs overtaking our financial capabilities in this province, and one of them of course is Health Promotion.

The point that I was making with the Minister is that the government has talked Health Promotion, but the 935 reality of the spending and the funding, with the exc eption of one prog ram , namely , the Diabetes Education Program, there is a singular lack of attention paid to Health Promotion by this government.

I simply go back to the Minister's informat ion: budgeted Other Expenditures, $517,7 00 last year; actual expenditure, $266,000, .25 million left unspent when we approved it here last year on the basis that spending those kinds of dollars in Health Promotion would save us money on the institutional side, would save us money in the Physician line for doctors' fees because, if you're healthy, you don't need a doctor, you don't need an institution.

So we've got a government that talks Health Promotion and doesn't appear to be putting it as a priority, because it's one of the first places, it seems to me, that a significant paring of expenditures occurs within the department, if and when that reduction in expenditures is needed. That's fine, if the government's priority is not to spend money on Health Promo tion, but don't tell us that's the focus and one of the key centrepieces of a New Democratic Party health policy, when in fact the reality is you're not delivering on it. You're not spending the money on it.

I don't see in here, other than Diabetes Education, where you've got yourself a demons trable result from Health Promo tion, and I don't think you can show it to me. Just take one example, in terms of Health Promotion. If you decide that Health Promotion is key and you take the area of heart pro blems, because heart problems - not entirely - but probably as much as any other health problem, is something that is lifestyle, is dietary, is environment, i.e. , stress in the workplace. All of those factors fit in and, if there's one area . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Don't get me nervous, no stress. MR. D.

ORCHARD: No, you're all right. I don't think that your ticker will ever stop because of a little bit of debate in Estimates. Mr. Chairman, in the cardiovascular area alone, Health Promotion should be able to show some de monstrable results. I don't know whether the emphasis here in Health Promotion is to pick cardiovascular problems as one of the areas so I think again, when I posed the questions earlier on in Estimates, can the Minister assure us that we've got programs that are managed properly? Have we got programs that properly expend and get value for the dollar expenditures?

I don't think the Minister can answer that, and what annoys me in Health Promotion is it's an area that, for three years now, there's been some emphasis on when you've introduc ed your Estimates. If you go through the track of spending from the Public Accounts and from the information the Minister gave me, you consistently underspend your budgets. You'r e not spending the money that we approve, as the members of this committee in this Legislature on Health Promo tion, because we happen to believe that

Monday, 13 April, 1987 it could save us long-term dollars in institution and Medical line care. If you're not serious as a government, quit deluding the people that this is a major thrust of this government to try to contain and have health costs not go out of control. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is that simple to make a statement. First of all, I don't think the honourable member was listening to what I said. I said that, other than Health Promotion, there are other areas.

There's not as much as we'd like to, I'll admit to that, for instance, as far as education, prevention and so on in the health field re cardiac problems. We have helped. Again, we've made new arrangements with the Refit Centre for one thing, which does exactly that. Then in the area of medicine in hospitals also, some of the equipment that we've received. It is not going maybe as fast as the members of this committee would want, neither is it going as fast as I would like to see, but I would like to know sometime the priorities of the members of this committee also.

I think that it would be important to see, at least in some areas, if we agree. For instance, I' ve shown in the opening remarks that we have been increasing 17 6 percent, or whatever the figure that I quoted, in the last 10 years or so in health care. I know that members of the Conservative Party are pretty touchy and I'v e been very careful of how I stated that, but very touchy when we talk about the Federal Government. I always hasten to add that, no matter what the Federal Government would do or is doing, we would have to look at reform.

I'v e said that, but it doesn't help when we get less of the percentage, and I'm again not saying that they reduce actual dollars, it certainly doesn't help. We are going through a situation now where the dollars are very difficult to get. Now during the year like, in the time my honourable friend, at times the Cabinet will decide, all righ�, we've got to cut down another 2 percent or whatevllr because of the budget. Those are factors that we have been spending the money as fast as we would like to or as much as we would like to.

I think that this is a factor and then, also, it's true that we've talked about changes in the last three years. It is not someth ing, and I can't imagine that anybody around this table thinks it's that simple, to take something that people appreciate, people like, and that is working well, but that you know, certain changes because of the costs, that you won't be able to keep up and that you feel that maybe the standards will improve. If we could say all right, we're not going to do this from one day to the other, but we cannot do certain things, for instance, when we are talking about deinstitutionalizing.

We cannot do that if we haven't got certain services in place because then we'll be in real trouble. It will be the same chaos as when we tried to deinstitution alize the mental health institution. And fine, this committee could chastise. I'm being chastised by other people other than members of this committee, I can tell you that, but there's a limit in how fast you can go. When you're talking about discussing with different groups also, it's not done from one day to the next. These are the facilities. Now we've asked the Federal Government, we've discussed with the Federal Government.

The Federal 936 Government made a specific commitment that, although they were going to cut their percentage, there would be special funds for research and for fitness and for education and that. We haven't seen any of that yet. So I think that there has been an awful lot of change. You can say, okay, you can go back to'Bi when there was a change of government and, at that time, we set up planning and research facilities. We brought in different works, different reforms. We worked with the medical profession. We worked with all the professions. I think we're arriving at something, and it's not going to be easy.

I can't get all the money that I want in every one of those areas. I have an increase of $12 0 million this year. That's approximately 10 percent for health. There have been different pr ograms. I'v e been discussing with the - I know you're going to say we're discussing again, but it's got to start - present Minister of Education to set up in the curriculum different periods where there would be some education on health and on lifestyle and fitness and so on. I'll take that criticism because, if anything, if it can push us to go a little faster, so much the better.

I'm not going to accept that we are not serious when we were talking about changing this, but we're not just focusing on one thing. We are working on trying to deinstitutionalize, to prepare programs at the other end, to promote. We have gone on diabetes, you've given us credit for that. We have gone out on early discharge in areas. We have discussed the situation with the seniors. There's much more than we ever had before in the Maternal and Child Health and in other programs, Hearing Conservation and that area. We're behind, we'll see that.

We're not going as fast as we would like to in the field of mental health. This was something that most - well Saskatchewan is an exception. In Saskatchewan, it started about 20 years ago. Many of the provinces for many reasons - one of them it wasn't covered with any arrangements that, when hospitalization came in at one time, there was no mention of mental health. So it's going to take a while, but I think that we are going in that direction.

We're going in the direction and, as I said many times and I don't know a better way to make a point but to say that we haven't got the luxury of putting a sign and saying, sorry, we're closed for renovations. We must keep on with the service while we're trying to make the change, try to convince the people that this is for the best because we want to retain the good programs that we have. So fine, maybe we're not spending that much money but, you know, in the House we'll talk also about the deficit and about the taxes and about all these things, about closing beds.

I'm saying, fine, lets work together and have a plan. It would be a lot easier. We can't reduce the taxes or not increase taxes, reduce the deficit and not do some of those things, once in awhile, and then keep on in the new programs while keeping the other programs. It's impossible to do that and not increase. I don't know that we can go much higher. I think it is a priority, certainly more than other provinces, in saying that there's going to be $12 0 million increase in all, and it might be that won't be enough. It might be that we will have to come back, because we won't have enough for home care and so on.

I accept the criticism that we're not going fast enough.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 I would like it if my honourable friend would tell me where we'd get the money and I hope that, you know, we spend this money many times. Now we can't cover everything with the staff of the First Minister, so I hope,_ other than that, there might be other ideas in the field of health. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about the Minister having to find money.

We're not talking about what members of the Opposition want because, last year, I believe we passed this line in Health Promotion in agreement with the government that Health Promotion is something that, in the long run, dollars focused here can save us sizeable amounts of dollars down the road. It's like investing in the future when you invest in Health Promotion. Healthy people don't cost the health care system money, so we're not talking about what we want. We agreed with you last year when you came to this House and you asked us to approve last year, in Health Promotion, $1. 7 million. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: And we spent $1.7 million. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Chairman, in your Other Expenditures, you did not expend .25 million. Now it seems to me that you've spent the money on staff, but you haven't given them any resources under which they can deliver their programs for Health Promotion. I mean, you have consistently und erspent this budget. This seems to be, when you mention your 2 percent figure that Treasury Board and Cabinet gives you to reduce your expenditures by, this is where you come into is Health Promotion, and we agree.

We have agreed with you that this is a priority area because we happen. to think that, if you spend money here and you spend' it wisely, you're going to save money when we get down to the Health Services Commission. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, you won't. You won't save mo ney. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister now saying that the promotion of health in this province won't save money from the Health Services Commission in terms of hospital expen ditur es and medic al expenditures? HON. L. DESJ ARDINS: No, I said, if I may, Mr .

Chairman, what I'm saying, it has been said that, if you prolong with this prevention and so on, certainly you 're going to save money in looking at how productive the people will be, what kind of a life they live, but you will not save money in the health field. You might have people, instead of 70 or 75 - that's true - in the hospital, they might be 85 and 90. But they will eventually die, and these people will be sick at another age. I think it is pretty well understood. It is certainly worthwhile.

It's not something we're backing away from, but to think that there's going to be an actual saving in hospitals, I doubt it very much. That can be argued and it is being argued by people on that side, but anyway the point is that in 19 86-87, the vote was $1,7 29,700, in 19 86-87, the estimated actual was $1 ,741,5 00 with salaries, and so on, with everything. MR. CHAIRMAN: Next question. 937 The Member for Pembina. MR. D.

ORCHARD: The Minister is correct, and what happened is the salary line, and this is where we got into the argument, or not the argument, but the observation the other day, that we've got an 8 percent average salary increase in this department, and the biggest part of Health Promotion last year, the biggest increase in expenditure went to salaries, while the other expenditures, presumab ly, the operating funds that those people you're paying the salaries to, the money they have to deliver programs with, with .25 million underspent.

In other words, we put lots of people in place, but did those people have any money to do anything with? I can't answer that, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the Minister can answer that right now. HON. L. DESJARDINS: We certainly didn't underspend. It was salaries, but anything you spend in a hospital, for instance, 75 percent is salary; of course, salary is a big item. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I think we started out last year in Health Promotion with 19 SY's. I think that's what we started out with. Now we added 21.5 - well it doesn't matter. We went through that earlier on.

There's a whole confusing area here of staff because they took the Home Ee

Section out but, Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister must admit that there's something wrong with a division in a department where salaries go from what was estimated to be spent last year of - I'll get it from the original print estimate - $742,000, then they go up to $883,000, while the money those staff spend to deliver programs goes from an estimate in last year's Estimates of $51 7,7 00 down to $266,400.00. You'r e fatting the department with staff and cutting them off, tying their hands behind their back by not having money available for them to spend.

Now, I mean if Health Promotion is simply nothing other than an employment agency, then fine, you're doing a great job. But if you're serious about Health Promotion, to keep people healthy and out of hospitals, to prevent my honourable friend across the table from maybe having a heart attack prematu rely, in cardiovascular education program, then you're not doing it when you're hiring more staff and not giving them any money to work with. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, in an area, you know it's a vicious circle also, because we didn't spend $1 80,000 on diabetes education last year because we didn't have the staff.

And now we're asking for six more staff. That is another example that you need the staff also. You can have the money. If you're not ready, if you haven't got the staff, you might be blowing it away. So there are six more staff this year to do the work and hoping that we'll spend that $1 80,000 that we couldn't spend. Part of the salary last year wasn't budgeted for, it was an increase after negotiation after the Estimates. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister really hasn't given us a reason or any justification whatsoever as to what's going on here.

If he's saying that, you kn ow, we had this money to spend on diabetes promotion but we didn't have the staff in place to spend

Monday, 13 April, 1987 it, then maybe some of this mismanagement I keep reminding him of, of this ADM shop, is really there. Maybe you should start considering that, not as just a member of the Opposition telling you that, but maybe you should ask why this went on. How can you justify $14 0,000 more staff costs and $250,000 or about 50 percent less operating money? I mean, those don't fit.

Either you bu dgeted improperly and, if that's the case, then you 'd better start looking at your senior managment, because you come here asking us for some thing you didn't need, or there is no plan, there is no management, there is no leadership in this division. If you've got that for a problem, Mr.

Minister, as I believe you have, then you've got to take hold of it and start to rectify it, because you can't continue to talk about health care promotion and how it's going to be beneficial to the people of Manitoba and allow what is either a lack of focus and dedication to your political commitment as a Minister and the actual delivery by your staff, or else you've got the program without management. You can't have it both ways. Something is seriously wrong here in Health Promotion. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I don't think it is at all.

It is not the first time and it won't be the last time that you haven't been able to do either, be able to do the work with the lack of staff, especially in this area where now it is so difficult to get the staff her e becaus e governments are all so careful and at times you just can't deliver it if you haven't got the staff. And this is what happened. That money wasn't spent that year and now we've rectified that by getting the staff. There was also an amount of money that had to be paid from that last year from the increase in salaries after the agreement was signed. That was part of the fund also.

So, no, I think that we have improved, granted, maybe not as fast as some of the members of this committee would like to see us do it, but we have spent - and I' ll give you some examples in some other areas also. And then, the information that I'm given is that it's not factual to say that we did not spend the mon ey. Maybe we didn't spend it as my honour able friend would like to see it spent, but the estimated actual is a little more, practically the same, a little more than what was voted last year. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I won't belabour the point because I don't think the money was spent as this committee approved it last year. We approved some $51 7,000 of program expenditures to support the staff, to provide Health Promotion programs throughout the province. In reality, we got $266,000 spent, alm ost half of what we approved. We, as members of this committee, believe that would help the health care system.

I think that what's happened last year in terms of rapidly increasing salary costs, rapidly decreasing expenditures to support those jobs, is just another example of what's happened here because this government, a year-and-a-half ago, went on a cutting binge where they were going to eliminate the Home Ee staff comple tely. That was the original intention, Mr. Chairman. HON. L DESJARDINS: From this department, and never comple tely. 938 MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, the Minister says, never comple tely.

I'm not going to argue with him because all we'll be doing will be arguing opposite sides of the case, but I believe that those people involved in the Home Ee service believed their jobs were not going to exist in the Home Ee directorate anywhere in government, that they were going to be redeployed into other areas as jobs opened up, but not as home economists delivering budgeting services, nutritional services, etc., etc.

That was eliminated from Health Promotion, and I have to tell you that I believe it was probably one of your most efficient gr oups of people within your department, delivering probably the most cost-effective advice to the people of Manitoba on how they can maintain health through nutrition, how they can budget money, how they can manage their household. We're talking people without those basic skills, single-parent families, single mothers, a lot of them in the inner core area of the city.

We met with them, my three colleagues right here met with them in the MLA for Ellice's constituency, but this government rammed ahead and eliminated that or were going to eliminate that. They changed their mind and they put it into Agriculture, but it was doing a fine job in Health Promotion. That's why I say, I don't believe this Minister and his ADM have a vision as to what Health Promotion is to do. I think it's another example where you don't have management that's capable of focusing the resources and getting the job done. We will no doubt agree to disagree on that, Mr.

Chairman, because I know the Minister will never agree with my perception on this item of Health Promotion. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, to your surprise, Mr. Chairman, I do agree with the need for nutritionists and, if anything, I visualize that we'll probably have more in the department. What was done last year, we're trying to make sure that what is in the budget of the Department of Health is for health.

Health is a big enough department as it is and the situation about - and never was it said that this wasn't important, but it is not a function of the Department of Health to have people to talk about money management. That could be Community Services or Agriculture the way it was and the way it is now but, if anything, I think that we've always said that. I think that you will see more nutritionists, because it is not just fitness of jogging and so on.

There's no doubt it's proper eating habits and, I would imagine, I would hope that we're going to have more because that is the role these people are qualified and trained for. Now it was never intended to drop these people from the department. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, one final question, who is the director of Health Promotion and how long has that person been there? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I think I answered that before dinner. I introduc ed the gentleman and you asked questions about him. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

Monday, 13 April, 1987 I'd like to go back to some thing the Minister said a little while ago, because I think it's critical to this entire department. That is, he said you won't save money through the Health Promotion. I don't like to disagree but I think that, if one just takes the diabetic as an example, if a diabetic is controlled and gets the kind of support they need in terms of diabetic education, that individual is very unlikely to die of diabetes. Now he may die of complications of diabetes.

He certainly may die of other things but, if you've managed to keep that individual out of hospital three or four occasions in their lifetime because they've had proper diabetic counselling, presumably you have saved the health care system a substantial amount of mon ey. I think that can be taken through any number of individuals, that it can be shown very clearly that teaching people good health care can indeed save millions of dollars out of your hospital care budget. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I want to make sure right from the start that we are not suggesting for one minute that it shouldn't be done, that we're abandoning that - quite the contr ary. I think when you look at the productivity of these people, I think that's certainly an important thing; the fact also that they live a much better life and a more pleasant life. What I did say, and you will find many people who will say the same thing - that argument has been going on for a long time - that you in general will not save money from the health care field.

What the member said is absolutely true but the people, because of the scare and so on - and I don't want to be gruesome here, but they are living much longer than they were in the past because of the strides in medicine, the improvement in medicine and care. I remember not that long ago, when I was Minister of Health and Social Development, the average at the Portage School for the Mentally Retarded was - what? In the 40's or so and, not long before that, it had been in the 12 's. Now it's the usual age, and that costs an awful lot of mon ey. That's the point I'm trying to make, I don't want to argue this thing.

You will find authorities, other than certainly myself, probably on both sides. This is something that goes on, but the point I was trying to make is that is not necessarily the main reason to save mon ey, that we should educ ate the people and do some health promotion. It is that they will live a better life and be more productive. That's my point. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Well, in that you won't find any disagreement; obviously, quality of life is very important.

But I think that, if the Minister is sincere about what he has said in his introductory remarks with regard to the need to move to more innovative health care systems, one of the reasons to move to those innovative health care systems is to in fact bring down the costs in the long term. One of the most fundamental ways that we can do that is to promote individual Manitobans accepting some respo nsibility for their own health care and that, to me, is what health promotion is all about.

I mean, if you encourage people to give up smoking, then you're going to have a reduced incidence of lung cancer and you're going to have a reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease. If you can convince people to monitor their weight, the same thing will result. Of 939 course, ultimately they will all die - there's no question about that - but they may die in their beds, and they may die without having to place enormous drains on our health care system.

If we are serious about what we're doing, then we have to move in a dramatic way into the encouragement of this kind of lifestyle activity on the part of Manitobans. That's why it was, to me, of some concern to see that while the health budget has gone up by very large percentages in some areas, Commun ications in this budget, which I happen to think is a very vital area, has gone up by 1.5 percent. Now if you are going to pr omote health by encouraging individuals to look after themselves, then surely that has to be done through the communications medium.

That's expensive and I recognize it's expensive but, just as we're not putting enough money into communications about AIDS, I question whether we're putting the kinds of dollars that we should be putting into Health Promotion in the same way. I mean, where's our advertising program encouraging people to monitor their weight, to encourage people to give up smoking, to encourage them to watch their diet for diabetes protection? Where is that kind of programming, and when are we going to see it? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the point that I'm trying to make is that you don't necessarily, to achieve what was said, what is promoted, and what we all agree should be done, it doesn't have to be here in Health Promotion only. I'm saying that there have been dozens and more programs that will be financed at different levels, for instance, gerontology. We did some of that before dinner. There are some also, Maternal and Child Health, we talked about that before dinner. We have worked with other people on the nonsmokers to promote that. We have worked with the Refit Centre to work in the re-cardiology.

There's more of that, I'm told maybe there's not enough. But the point is, it is not only in Health Promotion, and I think you're going to see more of that. We are talking about going into the community. What we said we're trying to do in the different legislation that we have to do in different areas, all right, this will take a while. It's not going to be done from one day to the next, and this is exactly what we're doing to work and also to get the proper funds to put in there also. We're working with the Department of Educa tion.

That wasn't done before, not the way that we want to work toge ther now in this area for that kind of promotion. We are talking about community clinics and so on with those kind of services. And there will be some services probably with Community Services also, the department. So fine, we're going in that direction. Granted, if you want to say that we're not spending enoug h, that's fine. I'm still saying where are we going to get it? I showed you, gave you the figures of the average increase over the last few years. I told you how much the budget has increased, which is more than any other department by far.

I'm saying that you won't find all the promotion and so on in this little square of Health Promotion; you'll find in other areas. This is why I gave you this also before dinner. If you look at that, you will see in which way we are trying to do it. -We've said, and you're right, I said that we must change the motivation of the patient to start with, that

Monday, 13 April, 1987 he doesn't think that just be sick because he can get a bed in a hospital and he can see a doctor . We've talked about a possibility of pilot projects, if we could work this with the medical profession, where there would be capitation, where the motivation of the doctor would also be more on fitness and prevention rather than just treating in a hospital. We're going in that direction. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: The Minister mentions before our dinner we did discuss the area of Gerontolo gy, and one of my concerns when we discussed Gerontology was that we were going to have the cervical cancer study which I certainly agreed. I'm sorry, it wasn't Gerontology; it was Maternal and Child Health. Excuse me. We were talking about the need for an advertising, a communi cations program, and I noted at that point that the Commun ications budget was down in that particular area. I was told at that point that I could look to Health Promotion.

So I come over and I look to Health Promotion and I see a grand sum of $2,300 having been added here. I also noted that it was down in Gerontolo gy. The frustrations that I feel is that I agree with the Minister's objective which is to promote better health as one of the principal ways of ultimately bringing down our Health expenditures. But what I don't see in the budget is the actual money for that kind of thing taking place.

I can certainly deal, and I said in my opening remarks, with closure of acute beds if I can see alternative programs and, if that alternative program is better promotion of health care so there's less demand on acute beds, so be it. I mean that is the ultimate solution as I see it, but I see one thing happening and I hear one thing being said, but I don't see it translating into the dollars that I think are required in order to move towards that goal. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, where to start? You know there's not much point in arguing any further. We agree with the direction we can go.

I, quite honestly, got as much money as I could on this at Estimates time. I think there is no doubt that this was the priority department. Obviously, I won't have the money that is felt by some of the members of this comm ittee for that. Well fine, I can't help that. I can't help that we have a big deficit. I can't help that we've had to increase taxes. I can't help that I'v e spent more money - I probably will spend more on home care. I can't help that the hospitals have deficits and so on. We're trying to put a little order in that and I won't satisfy everybody on all fronts.

We'll do the best we can but there's a limit. If we have the mon ey, we're talking about also by 19 90 of having no deficit, which everybody agrees with also. That is also a factor. This is a factor that now, if I' d be spending all the mo ney, there wouldn't be an increase. If we're going on, there wouldn't be an increase with a single other department. Today we've talked about the gentleman who's in agreement with the Federal Government, and we were chastised by the member of the Liberal Party also, to my surprise. This was something that there's a Federal Government that always paid for that before.

They're pulling out. They're doing the same thing on Health. They're doing it in practically every department and, 940 because we' re closer to home, because there 's pressure, we've got to take the slack and that's impossible. So I'm saying let's be fair, let's priorize. But looking at the difficulties that we are having also, we can't do it all. Something has to give. If we spend more money on health, there will have to be higher taxes. If there are not higher taxes, we'll have to cut services or we'll have a larger deficit, and that's the point that I'm trying to make.

I think that we've accomplished an awful lot in this department with the staff that we have and so on, with the funds. We would like to have a lot more money than that. There's no doubt about that. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I'd like to go into some specifics about the Diabetes Education Program for just a moment. We have gone from a staff of two to a staff of eight. Can I have some figures on the distribution of where those individuals will be placed throughout the province, or will they be all functioning out of the City of Winnipeg? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: The total staff will be distributed amon g st the different regions, such as Central, Parkland, No rman and Eastm an, to have those programs ... MRS. S. CARS TAIR S: My information may be inaccurate, so your assistance may be able to clarify, but it is my understanding that the highest incident of diabetes and the fastest growing area is among our Native population. Is that correct? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It is one of the difficult areas, yes. MRS. S. CAR STAIRS: Will these regional people in the area also be working on the reserves as well as within the health region itself? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Well, there's another touchy topic. You know, in the late Fifties, Chretien came here with a White Paper suggesting that the Native people were - Manitobans or from Ontario or whatever. It was a suggestion that the Federal Government was ready to pay the cost, but it should be delivered by the provinces. We 've accepted that under all the governments that I've seen in Manitoba, we've accepted that. The Native population at that time did not want to go along and, if anything, now we're stuck. The Federal Government more and more are pulling away from the services but not giving us the funds.

We are ready, we want to negotiate with the Federal Government, and it's difficult to see somebody . You know, they're in Ottawa, they don't see that. We see problems here and we've picked up, but again, how much can you load on a province? We are ready any time to go ahead and meet these services and deliver these services, and we are doing some. In some areas, we have some kind of arrangements with the Federal Government, but that is a touchy thing. There are discussions going on now between the Federal Government and the Native population, and we are trying to get as much information as possible.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 We would love to be able to say, okay, we' ll deliver all the services. We are doing some of the work. We've worked in this with the Federal Medical Services on this and have developed a well-received teachers' resources for the Natives, and this has been distributed for field testing also. But what I said is still valid. I'd like us to settle that once and for all because, for Manitoba, it represents quite a bit, and I' ve discussed that at different meetings with the Minister of Health.

I had backing from Saskatchewan but, at the time, Alberta was quite rich and, for what they had, they didn't figure that it was worth arguing and so on, but that is a concern that we have. We are doing the best that we can and cooperating with them, but we don't go on the reserves. Unless we'd be invited or if there's an arrangement with the Federal Government for a nursing station or something, then we would. MRS. S. CARST AIRS: Does the Minister have any recent data on just how many diabetics we have in the province or even a percentage figure as to how many at a certain age we think will have diabetes? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: We apparently are going quite close to the national average of 3 percent, about 30,000. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: In the discussion of the grants, there were a numb er of transfers that were made to Lotteries. We also had in the Budget the fact that $7 million was to be transferred from Lotteries into the Health Department. Has that been assigned to any particular function of the Health Department or is it going into general revenue? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: That is going to general revenue, and it was felt the reason for that was that I wouldn't have had this mon ey, even probably less, and we're trying to get more now if we hadn't had that transfer from the Lotteries. So it's going in general revenue to pay part of the increase in here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Yes, just a couple of questions for the Minister, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if maybe I missed some thing.

I was out for a few minutes and I was wondering whether the Minister had explained or told us what specific groups in the population, what targeted areas there were in Health Promotion? HON. L. DESJARDINS: For what, diabetes? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Well, diabetes is one. There's cardiovascular, I believe, too. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Smokers. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Smoking. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Alcohol and drugs. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Alcohol. 941 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Fitness, obesity. I'm the picture of "Befor e." MRS. B. MITCHELSON: . . . they've been working on you. HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's too late for me. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask whether the Minister under Health Promotion has ever considered working with people who are under stress, anything to do with stress-related activities. I know that in today's society, there are many people who are under stress as a result of work, home life, family life, and I would think that mental health might be an area that might be looked at under Health Promotion because there are a lot of people who have mental breakdowns, mental problems, as a result of stress.

It would only stand to reason to me that people with these types of problems should be helped too un der a Health Promotion type of program. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I met this morning with the chairman of the Health Research Council and we've discussed the possibility of looking and having research in that field of stress, mental illness, mostly in gerontology. They're working on that, in other words, not just the regular problems that they might be studying somewhere else, but maybe something that is particular to Manitoba.

Of course, the more you work - and that is slow in coming, slower than I would like to see, but when we have our mental health program in place - but on that, I don't know if I'll have that program ready for the Estimates. If not, it'll be shortly after. It's been in front of the Advisory Committee and so on, but that should take care of some of that. We have a long way to go on that. It's a newer science. It's not accepted as well by all the physicians. It's pretty hard to recruit the good ones and so on.

You know, there are a lot of factors and there is so much difficulty, because there are so many different questions of stress and concern in this fast society and so on, in this lifestyle. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Could I ask the Minister, what do you say when people don't un derstand - it's psychogerontolo gy, specifically the problems with the elderly and mental illness, or is it . . .. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, no, no. When I said, research in gerontology, that was one thing. You know, we have an aging population and so on. I wasn 't combining both; I was talking about two distinct things.

I was saying also in the field of mental illness, I was agreeing with the statement that you made and talking about the research of what makes people, what is the stress, what it does to the individual and so on and so forth. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Just for clarification then, the Minister is saying that right now ther e is some com munication with mental health and with the Research Department on what might be implemented or put into Health Promotion? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Not the Research Department, the Research Council, which has experts who the

Monday, 13 April, 1987 government will give them whatever money there is to go in research. I'm not talking about the research in our own department. This is something that I met with the chairperson of the Research Council, and this is what we were discussing for an hour-and-a-half this morning, that kind of research. I'm talking about the Research Council as such. I'm also saying that they will be a help. Those were some of the recommendations that were made a few years ago. It started with an Advisory Comm ittee and so on.

That has been taking place and there is a program being put in place, borrowing from some of the success they've had in Saskatchewan and certain areas and so on, to start this program. I say that, in that area, we haven't got much to write pamphlets and take ads and so on. In this field, there is still an awful lot to find out and facilities that we haven't got to work with. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: So the Minister is saying, you're talking about the Mental Health Research Council then that you were meeting with . HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, no. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: I don't understand who the council is.

Maybe you could explain. HON. L. DESJARDINS: A numb er of governments. In other words, in the Schreyer years, Mr. Sherman, when he was member and so on, worked in research. At one time, the only research funds that you had here came from the Federal Government. Then a few years back, the Federal Government cut that down, but they reinstated it. At that time, the first money that was ever spent in Ma nitoba for general researc h, medic al research was - I think there was $10 0,000 for two years for some research.

Then there were discussions with the Dean, who was Naimark at the time, between myself and Sherman, and the Conservatives at one time started from the Estimates, regular, which wasn't done before. I think in'81, there were $200,000 from the Estimates. During that time, Mr. Sherman had started working on

an act. I comple ted that act. I introduced it in'82, I think. There is

an act that created the Manitoba Research Council with the understanding that the money that the government could put in or would want to put in for research, instead of saying, you're going to get it and so on, having a decision made by people who were not qualified, the members of the board who were working with certain committees would have the money that the government would give them and then they would go from there. They would decide on the project. There wouldn't be the politicians. By about three years ago, it was up from the $200,000 to $700-som ething in the Estimates.

But then when there was a reform of the Lottery, they had an um brella that was just for research besides that $700-and­ something, and that money was divided 45 percent or half of it or whatever to capital, because of what we inherited. In St. Boniface, their building that they have, that's finished. They had to match it. Now it was felt that the Health Sciences Centre should certainly have part of that, seeing that St. Bon iface had to build that building mostly from Lottery money. That is being done, 942 I think, to $2.5 million that they'll have to match and the Children's.

During that time, the other 40 percent or 50 percent or so would go to the council, so they would have $700-and-something from the Estimates - last year I'm talking about - plus another $700,000 or $800,000, whatever. Now this year, that was all transferred. But it would be somewhere around - and don't hold me to the exact amount - of approximately $1.5 million. Now, the mental health - there's a special act - and they were getting about $1 5,000 or so. We agreed that, if we're going to go ahead with the council, they should decide anything and it should be a first-class project.

So to give them a chance to get ready in the mental health, we gave them, I think, an equivalent of $50,000 - I don't know if it was on a sliding scale - for three years with the understanding that eventually they would have to go to the council. So now, all the money that the government will have put aside for research, the application will have to be determined by the Manitoba Health Research Council. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether the Minister and I are really talking about the same things.

He's talking about Health Research and Mental Health Research, but I'm talking about Health Promotion and money that is spent in Health Promotion to deal with stress-related situations and not just mental stress and mental breakdowns. What is the government doing or what is this Minister doing to attempt to work with the people who have problems, mental breakdowns, physical problems as a result of stress? Is there any direction or anything taking place in that direction? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I know exactly what you'r e saying.

This is why I started saying that what you were talking about, that I met with the director of the Research Council. We were talking about - it's okay in promotion. We know about "no smoking"; we know about that, but we don't know that much about stress. Some of their research and studies are being done, and that is suggested. It's a new science. It's not just that you've got all kinds of material that you can print it and send pamphlets, not in that field. That's what I was trying to say. First of all, we must have the information that we want to give to the public, and that's the first step.

I say also that working with the groups - and that was just one example I was giving because of what you stated. Then I said also that, through our directorate on mental health, we're working with the directors, with others, with an advisory committee. There's a plan that's being placed in front of them that's in front of Cabinet now that I should announce as soon as I get it. That is treatment and so on. There are a lot of those cases. We're talking about prevention, but we've got to know how to prevent it and so on. It's difficult.

I can tell you that, no matter how much money I spend for prevention of stress, the ML A's won't pay attention to it at all, not with the way we're conducting the House. So we can talk until we're blue in the face, but we live on stress and we're not happy if we don't cause more stress to the opposite side. So you can say what you want, that we're not practising what we preach.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Well I'd like to really thank the Minister for looking in that direction, and I really look forward to seeing something then if it's before Cabinet in the very near future in this direction. Can I ask, under Other Expenditures for advertising, can you tell me what type of advertising is done? HON. L. DESJARDINS: What's that? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Under advertising and Other Expenditures, under Communications, there's $1 32,000 for advertising. HON. L. DESJARDINS: This is what we've been talking about all the time. This is what your colleague talked about.

He's not satisfied with the amount that is there. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's what I was not satisfied with. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The amount of mo ney, you were saying. MR. D. ORCHARD: The money is there; it's not being spent. It's being put into staff. The staff budget is bloated and the Other Expenditures, the money with which they can carry out programming, is not there. That might be a good question. What was the actual expenditure on advertising last year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Let me try to tell you again what it is that you call poor management.

This is the way we were instructed to deal with this. There was an increase in salary after - what is it? - the general increase that we did not have the mo ney, and we were directed to find it from within. That's what we did, and that's absolutely right. My honourable friend is absolutely right. We spend a lot of money on salaries. As I say, we were directed to do that because of the question of the deficit and so on and the taxes. We weren't giving any of the funds, and we had to spend it for wages. That's true. That doesn't mean these people didn't do any work. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Can the Minister tell me what the actual expenditure for advertising was last year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: You mean programs on radio, TV and so on? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Well, under communic ations, whatever they were. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The total amount was spent or will be spent. I say, will be spent, some of the bills aren't in yet. It's approximately the total. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: $1 29,000 or $1 30,000, okay. Did we discuss supplies and services at all? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Okay. MR.

CHAI RMAN: 2.(d) ( 1 )-pass; 2.(d) (2) -pass; 2.(dX3)- External Agencies-pass. 943 Hearing Conservation: 2.(e)(1) - the Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the Minister tell me, among these three positions, if they have all changed between '86-87 and '87-88? HON. L. DESJARDINS: You mean the incumbent? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Yes, I mean if there are three different people here this year than there were last year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The manager, Mr. Selinger, is the same. The professional or the technician, the one who repairs equipment and so on has been changed. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: And the administrative support person? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, that's a secretary or something. That's still the same. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I'm sure the staff, Mr. Chairman, knew where I was coming from here, because the managerial individual got a 12.6 percent raise; the professional person got a 24 percent raise; and the administrative support person got a 23.9 percent raise.

In addition, the administrative support person now has $3, 700 worth of overtime, which conceivably could mean that individual could earn 41 percent more this year than they earned last year, which seems a rather hefty sum of money. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The explanation that I have is the increase is due mainly to GSI and increments and, in part, to the position being budge ted at a lower level than required in '86-87. That would be - what? - the technician? -(I nterjection)- oh, the manager.

The increase is due mainly to the requirement, 19 86-87, the budget for the vacant position at the first step of the range, while 19 87-88 reflects the actual requirement and, in part, the GSI and increments. The overtime also was that we did not have an amount the year before and then we had to pay for it, so this is the special amount for overtime this year. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, I gather though from earlier discussions with the same Minister that this amount of overtime would in fact be paid to the individual who is listed under administrative support? HON. L. DESJARDINS: And the technical also.

MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: And the technical individual could also be paid overtime? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Because of the nature of the work that individual . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, probably more than technical, the administrative support in this department, and then the explanation also is that we advertised it,

Monday, 13 April, 1987 when we didn't have the position, at the lowest step, but we filled it at a higher step. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, the individual who would in fact be working as a technical person in Hearing Conservation, what technical skills would that individual actually require? HON. L. DESJARDINS: He repair s audiom etry equipment and the hearing aids for the young, real deaf children mostly. MRS. S. CARST AIRS: Would these be the children who are in the school division, as opposed to the ones who are at the Manitoba School for the Deaf? HON. L. DESJARDINS: In the school division. MRS. S.

CA RSTAIRS: In the terms of External Agencies, the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, I would assume, gets part of that grant, and the Luther Home. What is the Luther Home? HON. L. DESJARDINS: If you remember , there was the discussion with the medical profession, the MM A, on this. It was developed that this was a grant provided to support a voice-out answering service provided by severely handicapped empl oyees of the Luther Home for Manitobans who are profoundly deaf. The MM A was in another program at Luther Home also.

That's the health answering line where there's a tape that is played, but it's some of the same people who are manning the phone. MRS. S. CARST AIRS: But I still don't know what the Luther Home is. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh, the Luther Home is a personal care home. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: It's a personal care home. And at this particular home, there are a number of individuals who are ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: They specialize in care for the deaf. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Care for the deaf.

So this would be a place where many people who could no longer stay at the Kiwanis Home for the Deaf may go when they need a more extended care kind . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's a personal care home, and the other - this is a personal care home. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: But this would be a place where they could in fact go and still get some deaf services? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Although we have some beds as a personal care home in the Centre for the Deaf which is very similar. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I notice that there was no - well, I shouldn't say that.

There doesn't appear to be any 944 increase between 19 86-87 and 19 87-88 for Winnipeg School Division No. 1. Is there not any increase? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, it was the same. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: What kinds of things is this suppo sed to provide for these children at the school? Most of these children, I think, are at Grosvenor School. HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's through the Child Guidance Clinic, and it's the support for the audiological services provided by the Child Guidance Clinic. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: So there's actually nothing out of this sum of money that would be used to fund the in-classroom activities of these children? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No , it's people who are identified, I guess, by the Child Guidance Clinic with some problem, and this would be the support for those people. They find these children by working with the teachers and they have screening and so on. The teachers will conduct some of the screening. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal with a couple of areas here.

Last year, the SY's for Hearing Conservation showed four; this year, three. Is that because the Director, Dr. Vic Magian, left mid-year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It was a Dr. Magian that retired. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, when did he retire, and did he take early retirement? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Early in the new year or somewhere around the new year of 19 87. MR. D. ORCHARD: And was it early retirement, Mr. Chairman? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, it was. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, when we get into the forecast of expenditures on Hearing Conservation, the print Estimate last year had $1 58,000.00.

The forecast expenditure is $18 2,500.00. Yet we are shown, in the adjusted vote, $85,500 for 19 86-87, when your actual expenditure forecast is $18 2,500.00? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That position, the doctor who retired, was transferred to the Norman Region. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, if the position was transferred to the Norman Region, was it transferred - what I'm getting at is: How did you spend the $1 82,500 when you budgeted $1 58,800 on 4 SY's, when one of them took early retirement two-thirds of the way through the year? When presumably Dr. Magian, the

Monday, 13 April, 1987 director, hence I'm assuming the highest-paid individual here, took early retirement two-thirds of the way through the year, how did you acco mplish overexpen ding the salary line by $23, 700? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I und erstand that, upon retirement, there is quite a payout, and that would take pretty well the salary for the full year, for the three months that he retired, in early '87, and it would be used for that. MR. D. ORCHARD: So, Mr.

Chairman, what we're saying then is that, even though the SY is transferred, we enj oyed the services of the director of this department for about three-quarters of the year and, as a result of his taking early retirement, we have an overexpen diture in the line of $23,7 00.00. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That is the severance pay, vacation pay and one week for each year . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Why is there severance pay if it was early retirement? HON. L DESJARDINS: Because he is entitled to severance pay. MR. D. ORCHARD: Interesting. Is that part of the MGE A contract then? HON. L DESJARDINS: The MM A contract.

He's not in the MGE A contract. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, then is that the reason for indeed the rather sizable salary increases that we see in this line, and the overtime increase is because now you'r e trying to run Hearing Conservation with three SY's where four did it before? Is that why you've had to pay 12. 5, 24.4, 23.8, an average salary increase in this

section of 18 percent over presumably the adjusted vote for those same people last year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I tried to explain some of the reasons for that but . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Or were they reclassified because now they no longer have a director in charge of them? HON. L DESJARDINS: No.

It was that the GSl's and the increments, part to the position being budgeted also at a lower level than required in '86-87 and the increases are due mainly to the requirement in '86-87 to budget for the vacant position at the first step of the range, but in '87-88 reflects the actual requirement and then part of the GSl's in increments also. MR. D. ORCHARD: Which position was that, that was bu dgeted at the lowest range? HON. L DESJARDINS: That would be the technician. The technician for the one that was advertised. As far as the GSl's, the three of them. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr.

Chairman, in general averages and when we get into managerial levels of 945 staff, it's been less than 8 percent, but general average of GSI plus increments has been about 8 percent every other line of the department. Here we come to this one, and we have a manager or the director take early retirement and, from then on, we get 12 .5 percent increases and 23 percent, 24 percent increases. One of them is because of reclassification. Then why is the administrative support going up by 23.8 percent and not simply something in the range of 8 percent, which one would normally expect? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Well, it's the explanation that I gave, the manager, I guess, came at a lower - I said the technician. It's the manager who came in at a lower range. We advertised at a lower range and then that was increased. The increase is 18 percent but we're talking for th ree positions, $1 5,000 there. I'm talking about somebody who we had to advertise the position at the lowest range, and he came in at a higher range than that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay. That's the managerial position which increased by 12.5 percent, but the professional/technical and your administrative support both went up by about 24 percent.

Then presumably, they didn't come in at the bottom end of the range because I think, if I followed the answer, they were existing staff. HON. L DESJARDINS: We'r e talking about the increase. The figures that we had last year did not have the GSI in the middle. Then, as I say, for the manager, well the position budgeted at a lower level than required in '86-8 7. For the technician and the professional, we budgeted for a vacant position at the first step. Then when that person came in, the actual requirement was paid, plus the GSI again which was not in last year, which did not figure in last year.

So it's not an increase, actually it's not a true picture of an increase of 23, 24, and 12 percent increase as far as their salary from year to year. It's a total of $1 5,000 for the three positions. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I realize that it's $1 5,000 - it's over. It's just about $1 9,000 by the time you toss in overtime. I won't dwell on it any longer, but are you saying that the professional/technical position and the admin istrative support position were both moved up through several increments at once to achieve that 24 percent salary increase? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I'm saying that the managerial position ... MR. D. ORCHARD: That's the lowest increase. HON. L. DESJARDINS: . . . was being budgeted at a lower level than required in '86-87. Okay? Then I' m saying that the professional and the administrative, the increase was due mainly to the requirement in '86-87 to budget for the vacant position. That would be the professional at the first step of the range, but actually '87-88 reflects the actual requirements and also in part for the three of them, for GSl's, any increments that were not included, I understand, in last year's figures.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Chairman, un der Other Expenditures, what is capital spent on in this program? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Capital, there was 16 6,300.00. Medical equipment expenditure plan includes, and I'll give you the $16 6.3: sound booth in Swan River, 50,000; dependant screening, 3,300; F.M. monitory trainers, 40,000; audiometers, portable and diagnostic, 8,000; hearing aid analysers, real ear measurement, 20,000; brain stem equipment, 30, 000; and rep airs and maintenance, 15,000, for a total of 166,000.00. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, your forecast of expenditures indicates that you're going to expend $43,000 to External Agencies. You'v e budge ted $71 ,000.00. Which external agencies did not receive the monies budgeted? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That amount of money, like you will see in other areas, a certain amount of money that we have to negotiate with the different agencies or clients, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it will all be spent. We try to get the amount, but that is negotiated, and we see what the needs are in certain areas and it's not always all spent.

We figured this year that the closest we can come will be the $71 ,000.00. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I understand that Dr. Magian, when he was director of the department, was quite an innovative individual in the position. He started programs in Dauphin and Brandon, and I believe the Swan River sound booth that you mentioned was one of his initiatives in the department. So I think that he probably carried out his duties within the department qu ite admirably. Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate whether, in discussion with his ADM, he asked why Dr. Magian was taking early retirement? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It was a decision from the doctor himself to take a retirement. He might not have agreed with the direction that that directorate was going, but that was his decision. MR. D. ORCHARD: I beg your pardon? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I said, he might not have agreed with some of the decisions that were taken, but it was his decision to leave, take an early retirement. MR. D. ORCHARD: So is the Minister saying that maybe we've lost a director here because . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: He's not a director. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well what was he? What was his official title? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Medical directorate in the medical consulting, advice, as the medical person. MR. D. ORCHARD: He wouldn't be referred to as the Director of Hearing Conservation then? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No. 946 MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, what was his title so I get it right? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm telling you, he was the medical consultant in this directorate. MR. D. ORCHARD: And how many years had he been in that position? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh, I don't know. MR. D. ORCHARD: The Minister indicates he doesn't know. Well, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to indicate that the Minister should ask his ADM whether Dr.

Magian, who I'v e indicated was quite an innovative individual in this program of hearing cons ervation, left because of the management style and direction of his ADM. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's his choice. MR. D. ORCHARD: So is the Minister saying that's why he left? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I understand that there has been some concern that he wasn't happy with all the decisions that were made, yes. And the direction was discussed at the time with Dr. Wiltz, who was there previously, and that was a decision of the department. And he left, which could happen, which he certainly is free to do. MR. D.

ORCHARD: So I take it then that the Minister is satisfied, having had Dr. Magian take early retirement with whatever concerns and disagreements he had with his ADM, that - if I can put it in as understandable terms as possible - the best person remained and the worst person left. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well you know I - maybe it's time that we have this out once and for all. I don't mind if there is going to be a committee that's going to come, but I do not intend to participate in the Estimates. This was never done before, that we're going to question every single member of the staff on trial.

If there's any complaint, anything wrong, I will investigate it. If we need to have the RC MP, fine, but I'm not going to work with these McCarthy techniques on everyone, people sitting here who can't defend themselves who are constantly ridiculed and attacked. I don't think that's proper , and I'm not going to go along with this any longer. That has never been done before. If there's someth ing, if there's some criticism, we are responsible for the administration. The decision, the medical part has been reduced, and it's not. I'm not going to start blaming any individual, and I'm not going to start these things.

I don't think that's fair. We accept the respon sibility. If there is something criminal or someth ing, I will find out, and I can only find out if I'm given the information. There is no doubt that there are people in my department giving a lot of information. I've said that before, they have no business doing that. If they have any criticism, they could come to me, and they're not doing that. So you know this, we can't keep on like this. This was never meant to be part of the Estimates at all.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 If there is, as I say, a scandal, I hope we don't have to wait for that if there is some thing, any embe zzlement or something like that, and I think that the member and any member of this committee would do better if they came to talk to me so that I could investigate without having everybody on the alert like this and conducti ng this kind of a thing. We're not in court. I don't think that we should be accuser, judge in this thing. I don't think that's proper . I'v e never seen that done the way it is done the last few years. It places all of us in a very difficult position.

I said that, if I know some thing, I'm going to try to rectify it or find out. I' ve never refused to meet with anybody. In the meantime, I'v e got to go along with the senior people we have, and I'll pay for it if there's something wrong. But in the meantime, I don't think that we can conduct these things publicly like this and people are left accused. If there's something serious, an accusation, line. I would suggest that that should be discussed with the Minister. I can't prevent any mem bers of this committee from bringing it in committee.

But they should - that's when there are accusations to be made - not going after professional people and so on the way we've been doing the last two years. I don't think that's proper . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairn1an, we're dealing with the expenditures of $80 million. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's right. MR. D. ORCHARD: Under one ADM's administration. Last year, I pointed out certain problems to this Minister wherein I indicated to him that he should take very seriously some of the concerns that obviously he wasn't hearing, concerns about mor ale, concerns about direction within this

section of the department. We've got a

section of Hearing Conservation where an individual, who I understand was quite innovative and did an excellent job, has left, in the Minister's own words, because he disagreed over direction within the department. That, to me, is of concern on how well the department is being managed, and I've been consistent in my questioning of this Minister. I don't know whether he's been consistent in following it up.

I don't know whether he's been consistent in asking whether he is getting the best possible management of an $80 million budget and, if he isn't asking those que stions, then he isn't taking his responsibilities carefully. Eighty million dolla rs is bigger than half the depart ments that we'r e going to deb ate in this committee room and in the House. It's an awful lot of money. The least you have to make sure of is that the people, and particularly at the ADM level, are capable of managing it, are capable of providing the leadership and the direction to the department.

If they're not, they are Order-in-Council appointments at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor and, as long as you insist in not investigating and finding out whether there are problems, then maybe yo u'r e not getting valuable management and careful ma nagement of the expen ditu res. Until you know that, Sir, you are responsible. It's my job as Health critic and as a member of the Opposition and an ML A, whether I was on this side of 947 the House or the other side of the House, to make sure that tax dollars are being spent properly and wisely.

I don't think you can tell us that in this particular department, because you can't answer the questions as to whether there are management problems from the top. Until you can, don't criticize me for bringing them up because you're the Minister who was warned last year. You can't sit here and say, well nobody's talked to me, nobody's made any presentations to me. Have you taken the initiative on yourself to find out why a professional like Dr. Magian left? Well, I don't know; only you know, Sir. But you've got enough examples before you that you should start investigating. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, I agree that the program has to be well managed, but my honourable friend has enough experience and he knows that it's not one person in the department who sets policies. That person has to go along and run with the policies. That's my point. I appreciate that, if there is anything that could be helpful - it is the way it is done. We've never seen it like that, that we have people on trial here, and I don't think that's proper. We've had senior people, we've had professional people, we've had other people on trial.

I said last year, and I'll repeat again, there are some people who do not like changes and they are lighting the changes. Now a policy is set either, in most times - well it has to be approved by the Cabinet, but either a directive that comes from Cabinet or a special standing committee of Cabinet, and we have to go along with that. Or it is something that is developed by the department, the senior people. There are checks and balances. We have directives, things that we do from Treasury Board and from Cabinet, and that will go to our Director of Administration who makes sure that this is done. That's one thing.

Then there is the certain budget and all the senior people. Now our senior people, they meet with management committee at the Commission and there is a management committee in the department that meets nearly every week, and that is discussed. Now it is not uncommon to have people who have been very good - and I'm not talking about any particular person, although I should say that this doctor is known who was one of the founders of this branch or directorate, and he's worked quite well. He's had a very strong contribution. But at times, they don't agree with the direction.

Can you just imagine, if every time somebody doesn't agree with a direction that is either mandated by the Cabinet or somebody else, no wonder you would have very bad morale if you had to work with this and if you couldn't carry on and make any decisions. I am very pleased. I am not saying that everything is perfect. We've had a tremendously difficult situation in the Department of Health.

We haven't had the staff that we wanted or the funds that we wanted, and our people have been working practically around the clock and on weekends and on evenings and all that, and I think that they've gone along with what we're trying to do. We'll make mistakes. We'll pay for it. I don't mind discussing with my honourable friend, but I am saying - and, if he looks back, he will see that things like that, there is a way of dealing with this.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 I would be only too pleased if he has some information, something that we can discuss. He doesn't have to go this route. He can say that, fine, he should expose that. Well, let me expose something. Remember that if you're not correct and if you'r e beating something or making accusations, that's sick and that's unfair and those are exactly the tactics that McCarthy did at the time, that everybody was guilty, and I don't think that's fair. I think I'm ready to discuss with any emplo yees.

I'v e never had a request from a doctor to come and talk to me, and I'm ready to discuss with any members of this committee, privately or here, but not this thing of people, the same kinds of questions that were going on last year and it seems to be starting this year, as we had in these committees when we're looking at something for the telephones or something. That's not the intent of these Estimates. Now as I've said, if there is something wrong, fine. We don't want to hide it, but there's a way of doing it and then discussing it.

Right now, it's people who do not agree and then we are unf air with certain people who are there to carry on a policy, and the policy is the responsibility of the Minister and the Cabinet. So we're not going to fault them for having a policy, for going ahead with a policy. We had a lot of trouble getting doctors to work for us in the past. We've had those who wanted to work for the government, for the department, certainly not all of them, but some of them, who've been after a busy career and saying, well I want to rest, I want to take it easy for awhile, I'd like to get a job with government.

I was asked that many times, and now there are certain people that are talking about making it a career in public health. It's tough, and we won't be able to recruit anybody. We've lost some because some of the people who we had before who did not - we've lost very many because a few people did not want any changes, and that's what I was referring to without naming and I won't name people here. That is, I'll name them personally to my honourable friend or somebody to show him what I mean if he wants to, but I don't think it would be fair.

These people did what they felt they should do but, after a certain time, they did not want to change. There are many people who don't want to change. I'm told by all the members of this committee, hurry up, in fact, I'm not bringing these changes fast enough. If we're going to have everybody second-guessing us and people not wanting to change, what kind of staff are we going to have? What kind of morale are we going to have? We would have utter chaos. They must accept the directive that they are given.

If not, fine, maybe we're losing, maybe we're making mistakes in some of them, and that's when we have to be careful. But people cannot just decide, no, I don't want to go in that direction. As I say, I don't think we could blame all that and that's been done now for two years, attacking, and it's nothing else but an attack, naming people by their name or their position and blaming them for everything that seems to go wrong, everything we don't agree with. The respon sibility of those people is an important thing. I don't like to treat people like that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister indicates there may be disagreement with the direction in which 948 he and his senior personnel wish to take in given areas of expenditure. Do I assume from that, given there's a one-time salary increase because of the early retirement of Dr.

Magian; given that, from the adjusted expenditures, funding toward External Agencies is down by a significant amount; Other Expenditures is down from what is, in the Minister's forecast of expenditures, some $254,000 down to $208,000, a decrease of $45,000 in Other Expenditures, i.e., the work that presumably staff is going to do, does that mean that Hearing Conservation is one of the areas of expenditure within the Department of Health that is being de-emphasized and wound down in terms of funding priorities? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I don't think that, as far as the department, it's gone down in priorities.

We haven't been able - I'll be honest. As far as I'm concerned, I would like to see it go faster than that. We haven't been able to recruit the audiologist who we wanted. We have lost some. It is not a program that is going up by leaps and bounds. Gradually, we have been taking care of more regions. We haven't cut down that much but, no, we haven't gone as fast as I would like to see it. I think that, in 1981 or so, we were talking about trying to cover as many regions as possible, and then last year we were looking at - not audiologist, but audiometrist. Yes, and we haven't been able to recruit all of them.

It hasn't gone down in priority, but we haven't had all the funds. As I say, it's been difficult to recruit. Also we haven't had all the funds that we would need to cover all the regions, but there are quite a number of regions covered now. We haven't covered Norman yet. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, again I simply have to point out to the Minister that what he's saying in terms of funding isn't being borne out by what his forecast of expenditures showed. Last year, we gave approval for some $254,000 worth of expenditures by, at that time, four SY's.

We now see that the Minister is expecting that he's going to spend $209,000, $45,000 being unexpended. I make the same observation here as I did in Health Promotion, that you've got a significant reduction in Other Expenditures. If that represents a de-emphasis on Hearing Conservation by the government, then fine.

I mean, let's talk about it and decide whether that's good, bad, correct or incorrect, but don't befuddle the argument by talking about not having as much money as you'd like to have to do this, that, and the other, because you didn't expend the money to provide those services to the reg ion that we app roved at this committee last year. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's correct. There was $45,000 und erexpended, but that's going to happen with a department like we have. In certain areas, we're oversp ending; in other areas, underspending it. Sure you plan for the future; it doesn't always happen.

You might not be able to recruit or there might be some other reason. I'm sure if you look at any of the departments, that is done. You don't spend exactly the amount of money that you budge ted for. In certain areas, it's more difficult.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 For instance, we bud geted for Home Care and, boy, did we overspend in that area! That's true. In other words, we didn't spend that money last year; now we're asking for the money that we didn't spend last year and, as I say, it's not the area that we are going. I would like to go a little faster than that. We can't do it all at the same time; we just can't do it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I simply close on this item, that I'm not in a witch hunt with the Minister and his senior staff.

I simply want to point out to you that again, as I pointed out to you last year, all indications point to the fact that you've got some difficulties. If you don't recognize it, investigate it and, if necessary, take action on it, then you are not carrying out what I believe the Minister of Health should do. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I have difficulties; that's granted. As I said before, this is a team approach.

There is no doubt that the government and the Minister have to take respons ibilities, but then to think that the Minister knows every single thing or everything will be brought to his attention, you should know of all people, that's not correct, especially in a department like this.

We're talking about an over $1 billion budget; we are talking about a bunch of hospitals and personal care homes; we're talking about people pretty well, I paid good salaries in this department; we're talking about a person who has to run this department, who has to look, who is told that we're not moving fast enough in reform, that nobody has done or there was very little done before, that you have to convince. We're told that we have to be careful in discussing with the professionals, for instance, and there's a lot of time.

I'm just giving you the thing that it is impossible to think I know that I can follow every single thing, but I must accept the responsibility. All in all, I repeat, I am very pleased with my senior staff, and I think - and I can't see where we're told there are morale problems and so on. I know that certain people - yes, and I've never asked anybody. Let's put all the cards on the table. I' ve never asked a single person what their political preference was at any time. I've never employed people, I've never fired anybody, because there was a change of government and I think that they've had a respo nsibility.

We went along with that and, when we were defeated, I said to the staff that they should have the same loyalty to their new Minister and their new government as they had before, and I believe that. We've worked with these people and they have been loyal and they've worked hard. Again, I doubt there are that many who are supporting this party, but that's not the important thing, as far as I'm concerned if they're loyal and if they do their work. I appreciate what my honourable friend is trying to do, but I think there are better ways of doing it. I' ve really never seen that.

Very seldom did anybody go after a senior person in the department or a Crown corporation and so on, and you had to know. You were making an accusation then. I'm ready to discuss that with my friend at another time, but the thing is just like a setup. I'm getting the questions one by one, trying to set this thing up and we don't know where my friend is coming from. It seems to me, if there's 949 some doub t about staff, I want to know. I' d appreciate that, and that should be presented all at once, not in a roundabout way of finding out, of trying to build a case. We're not in court; I don't think we're in court.

I think that we are here to get information, I'm trying to give as much information as possible. I admit with all this different added information that we have it makes it very difficult because I seem to be looking at the wrong book all the time. But it's not the principle, it's the way that it's done. I think we'r e going a little too far in front of these people who can't say a word, who can't say anything and who are accused and badgered and so on. I don't think that's fair, and I think my honourable friend, on reflecting, will agree with me. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I don't find it . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I accept the responsibility for policies and I'm not going to blame just one ADM or the Deputy Minister and so on. It's my responsibility. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I don't recall at any time talking about political affiliations of staff. I don't ever recall mentioning that. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, but it's obvious that some of the people who are giving you the information - I mean, we know who I'm talking about. MR. D. ORCHARD: I don't know who the Minister is talking about, but I'm not talking about any staff. I'v e never attributed any political-affiliated motives to any staff. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: No, that's right. MR. D. ORCHARD: From my introduc tory remarks this year to some of my remarks last year, I believe I dwelt consistently on the competence of his staff, because we are talking people who are administering large budgets. HON. L. DESJARDINS: And knowledge . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Large budgets -(Interjection)- and I'm trying to find out from this Minister, between Estimates, because I give him some strong warnings, we've had this argument last year . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: And we'll have it again. MR. D.

ORCHARD: ... and we're having it again, and we seem to have continuing evidence that the problem still exists. That's why I will continue to point the problem out where I find it, where I'm made aware of it, so the Minister knows. If he chooses not to do anything about it, that's his political decision. HON. L. DESJARDINS: But I am. MR. D. ORCHARD: It's my responsibility to point it out to him, if a department, if an official, if an individual is not doing their job properly in my estimation and, if I'm wrong, the Minister can prove me wrong, but I'm

Monday, 13 April, 1987 not going to stop pointing that out. It has nothing to do with political affiliation. It has nothing to do, in my estimation, with loyalty, but I think it has a lot to do with com petence. That's what we're talking about, and I hope that the Minister accepts and investigates some of the concerns that I'm going to bring up to him. Now ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I accept that and I will, but then it has to stop somewhere. I mean if it's a question of - it might be that my honourable friend thinks that we have people who are incompetent. I don't think he knows the staff.

I think that he's listened to some people, and that's not loyalty and that's not the way it's done, people from the de part ment. Obviously, I'v e never worried that much about it. I've never tried to find out who it is, but obviously there are people in the department who are giving a lot of information, and that's what I mean. So there's a vendetta with people who do not agree, who for some reason or other are criticizing our people. I think my honourable friend is taking them as if that's the Bible, that they're the only ones who are right, telling the truth, and he has no confidence.

I don't think he knows the staff, and that's what I think is so painful, because these people have been working. When I say loyal, I'm not talking about loyal to me. I'm talking about loyal to their task, to their dedication and to the government. I'm not preventing - and that's right. My honourable friend never mentioned the qu estion of about party affiliation. I made that statement, but it's obvious that some of the people who have been known for years to give information, some of those people have run for the party.

Last year, we had a person who was criticized because his wife knew the wife of the Premier and that kind of thing. That's what I'm talking about it. If there is anything, fine, let's look at it, and I won't cover up anybody, I can tell you that. I don't care who it is. MR. D. ORCHARD: This sect ion can pass, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2. (e)( 1 )-pass; 2.(e )(2 )-pass; 2.(e)(3) -pass. The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, under Continuing Care, the Minister indicates that twice in the last fiscal year he went to Treasury Board for Special Warrant approval.

Can the Minister indicate whether Continuing Care was part of both those Special Warrant requests for additional funding? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I promised to give you that. We said we would give you it in detail so, if we haven't given it to you, we will give it to you. What I say, I mean, we'll break down the two times that we went for it and, yes, Continuing Care was in both. In fact, that's the majority of the fund. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour now being ten o'clo ck, committee rise. 950 SUPPLY - AGRICU LTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Comm ittee, come to order.

We have been considering item No. 2.(

a) Manitoba Crop Insur ance Corporation, Administration; and 2.(

b) Canada-Manitoba Waterfowl Damage Compensation Agreement. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to place a few comments on the record following on the remarks made by the Honourable Mem ber for La Verendrye and the Member for Arthur, the former Agricultural Minister. Mr. Chairman, there were certainly a few revealing comments made by both those gentlemen, and I wanted to touch on them.

My colleague, the Minister of Finance, dealt with the major one made by the Member for La Verendrye where he indicated that the province, on this issue dealing with sugar beets, was in fact a "dictator," as the honourable member alleges. Mr. Chairman, the honourable member should be aware that it was the Province of Manitoba who drew to the attention of the federal officials in 1984 the whole problem that was evolving in the sugar beet industry. It was this province that led the discussions and tried to move the Federal Go vernment to mak e some decision dealing with the sugar beet industry in the fall of 1984.

For members opposite to allege that we didn't even want to participate in certain mee tings, Mr . Chairman, I guess is very shallow indeed, and following upon which several unilateral decisions were taken by the Federal Government on this issue. The Member for Arthur though, when he spoke, he talked about the Province of Manitoba having the direct responsibility for this issue, because it is a consumer issue. The consumers of Manitoba would benefit by having a sugar plant in this province. Mr. Chairman, the sugar industry has been a national industry, and it is a national issue. Mr.

Chairman, the blending of sugar that comes into Manitoba and into Alberta is imported into the Province of British Columbia. The countries that do the exporting into this country - whether it be South Africa, whether it be Australia, whether it be Cuba - are sanctioned not by any province, but are sanctioned by our national government. And for Conservative mem bers to say that there you are against South African wine but you're not against South African sugar ce rtainly ju st belittles their knowledge of the industry and knowledge of national politics and policy, Mr. Chairman.

It just shows how little they know of this issue, how little they believe that people know of this issue, that they can bam boozle the people on this question. Mr. Chairman, the consumers of this coun try, I don't believe, would begrudge paying another two cents or three cents a pound on the domestically produced sugar in order that there be an internal excise tax placed on the sugar that is imported and processed in this count ry, if it was processed.

About 90 percent of the sugar consumed in Canada is from offshore, and that's all that it would take to make sure that there be enough support for a domestic industry. But it's members opposite who don't seem to want to understand, or whether they care or not, I don't

Monday, 13 April, 1987 know, Mr. Chairman, but certainly it appears that they don't want to und erstand what the position of the farmers was and what the position of this province was. that it is in the interests of all of us in this country to have a national sugar sweetener policy which in fact then would place the farmers and the processors on equal footing. Because for every dollar they wanted to take out of the farmers' pockets in negotiations, they would lose on the other end by the imports that they would be taxed upon.

So there would be no basis and no reason for the processors to take more income out of the farmers' pockets, and it would place them at an equal footing. That gets back to the point of my honourable friend from La Verendrye who said, well the Alberta farmers didn't plant in '86; they planted in'85 . MR. H. PANKRATZ: I corrected that. HON. B. URUSKI: Oh, okay. He has now corrected that. The very reason they didn't plant, Mr. Chairman - now, I'll get back to him - because the Province of Alberta was too quick to put their money on the table and didn't guarantee the produ cers' return when they were negotiating. Mr.

Chairman, the members opposite, the Member for Arthur as well during his remarks alleged that the packinghouse industry, the demise of Canada Packers in Winnipeg was the cause and ne glect of this government. Mr. Chairman, there was an application to the federal Conservatives that, by this time, Canada Packers would have rebuilt in the City of Winnipeg. They didn't rebuild, Mr. Chairman. Why? Because Sinclair Stevens and the federal Tories said no to their application. They said no to Canada Packers, but they said yes to Neepawa. Now I don't mind, Mr.

Chairman, their saying yes to Nee pawa, but we have an agreement with every community that we do not discriminate in terms of the provision of sewer and water. We have no direct dealings with the Neepawa Hog Plant. We have dealings directly with every community for the provision of sewer and water. Now, Mr. Chairman, when they turned down their application, they knew, because we told them, that there would be repercussions in the meat processing industry in this province, and nothing that we did would change their minds. So, Mr. Chairman, the Tories can squirm all they want in terms of meat proces sing .

A MEMBER: We're not squirming at all. HON. B. URUSKI: You should be squirming if you're not because, Mr. Chairman, it is their responsibility in terms of saying that the meat pac king indust ry, regardless of where it's located in this province - and that leads me to my final point. The remarks of honourable members opposite tend to focus on saying, these are your jobs in Manitoba, these are Manitoba responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, when Members of Parliament are elected in this province, they are there to serve Canadians, not only Manitobans. They are there to serve the interests of Canada.

When they treat one part of Canada differently than the other, 951 Mr. Chairman, how can members opposite get up and continue to say that these are your jobs? Mr. Chairman, there is an equal responsibility on the national government and national politicians to uphold the focus and the strength of representing the entire countr y. When they are prepared to trade off one sector of agriculture for another and one part of the country for another, Mr. Chairman, that certainly is not upholding the interests of this countr y.

That is certainly not representing the interests of Manitoba farmers or any farmers in this country for that matter. So, Mr. Chairman, let not the Conser vatives - you Conservatives in this House - stand up and say that, for some reason, it's Manitoba, and it's your jobs and you have to protect them. Mr. Chairman, they represent Manitobans and Canadians, and they have the duty and they should be duty-bound to carry out the interests of all Canadians in this whole area. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Mr.

Chairman, I really came here this evening, rather relaxed after a good supper and a bit of a snooze, after having eaten. I would like to just discuss a little more rationally what is happening in the industry but, Mr. Chairman, when this escapee from the stone quarries of Stonewall gets up and starts to talk about some of the squirming and the slime that's going on, I get rather upset. Mr. Chairman, this Minister - and I think rightly so - put some money into the Neepawa plant for the hog killing plant, and I think it was the right thing that he did.

The federal Cons ervatives put some, I think, $800,000 into that plant, but this Provincial Government -(Interjection)- and rightly so. We'll find out later, I hope, the total amount of the dollars. It's somewhere in the area of $2.5 million, $3 million, whatever, in total into that plant. I think it was a good move. But now he's trying to alibi his way out of it, Mr. Chairman, and I disagree intensely. Mr.

Chairman, I think we want to look at this issue rather a little more sensibly and not a lot of political rhetoric, but what are we talking about when we're talking about the -(Interjection)- you resemble that remark, Mr. Agriculture Minister. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the honour able mem ber, during his . . . A MEMBER: He hasn't been recogn ized yet. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of privilege. HON. B. URUSKI: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, in his remarks, talked about me coming from the quarries of Stonewall and the slime that I come from. Mr. Chairman, I wish the honourable member would retract that statement. MR. E. CONNERY: Could I re-emphasize - he's out of order, Mr. Chairman. If you want my point of view, he's out of order.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister, if it is a point of privilege, has to conclude with a motion. MR. E. CONNERY: What am I withdrawing? He asked for a withdrawal, but what am I withdrawing? MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of privilege. The procedure is not complied with. MR. E. CONNERY: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with an industry that is an ability for people to produce some thing that is different from gr ain and other commodities, that there is no market for. We're not just dealing with an industry that is there tod ay, Mr.

Chairman, because what we're looking at is what they say is a $90 million industry. But what could that industry be if the world situation turns around on sugar? It could be an industry that could be a growth industry. We're looking at jobs now. We talk about different jobs, and how many jobs really are there? The spinoff numb ers, we'll never know. But, Mr. Chairman, this could be an industry that could grow two, three, four times in size and magnitude, and it's an industry that could be very important to the Province of Manitoba.

We are, in this province, as I pointed out earlier, well over $1 billion in foreign trade deficit, and this Minister is saying he doesn't care. Let's import sugar no matter where it comes from, even if it's South Africa. Let's import sugar, and this is where it's going to come from. Alberta's not going to produce enough sugar for all of Canada, so we're going to import it from another count ry. Mr.

Chairman, this is a disaster, but the thing that I'm really concerned about is that this Minister is playing God with a lot of farmers' lives, and there are a lot of farmers in this province that the sugar beet industry is the major part of their enterprise. When you take that away from them, they don't have the land base to go to some other commod ity. They just don't have it. Mr. Chairman, what about the people at the sugar plant? We can laugh and we can talk about loss of jobs.

My brother-in-law works at Canada Packers in the kill plant and he's going to be laid off, I presume, unless he's one of the few fortunate ones to get a job somewhere else. He's around 50 years old. Where does he go now to get another job? He's worked his whole life at Canada Packers. We see that one shot down the tubes because this Minister refuses a feedlot subsidy along with other provinces. We're dealing, Mr. Chairman, with people's lives.

When you get to that position I think that this Minister should reconsider, stop and forget about his hate for the federal Conservative Party, his hate for federalism maybe and start to think a little bit about people, the people who he's going to destroy with what he's doing. A MEMBER: Stand up for Manitoba. MR. E. CONNERY: That's right, stand up for Manitoba, but within the Crop Insu rance, Mr. Chairman, where some of the people who work in Crop Insurance come from. They're not from Manitoba, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not saying that other people in Canada aren't good people, but this Minister is not standing up for Manitoba. 952 So, Mr. Chairman, I ask this Minister to think of what he is doing and to think of the lives that he's playing with, and some of the lives that he may be hurting seriously with the decision he's making. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr .

Chairman, I know that honourable members here have strong feelings, and I'm glad that they have strong feelings about the issue that is being commented on for some time in this House, but I sincerely regret the fact that members, like the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, start name­ calling and description which does not befit the dignity of this House.- (I nterjection)-Well, Mr. Chairman, I hear that members opposite again are troubled to be hearing put on the record some words of caution and sincere advice.

You know, they can keep catcalling, if they will, but I am very concerned that members ought to recognize that this Minister of Agriculture has done more in his tenure as Minister for farmers in this province than in the record of any other government. He's gone to bat for every segment of agriculture in this province, and he has stood up for the beet farmers in this province. Mr. Chairman, we have memb ers who are talking about cajoling us to sign this tripartite agreement. A MEMBER: It's a big word. HON. A.

MACKLING: Yes, it is a big word, because you know what they're asking us for is that the sugar beet growers have to take on part of the liability themselves now. MR. G. FIND LAY: And they're prepared to do it. HON. A. MACKLING: The Honourable Member for Virden says, "and they're prepared to do it." Yes, because you've sold them out. The Member for Virden and all those members opposite have sold them out. All they had to do, Mr. Chairperson, is say to Ottawa, look, we are one coun try, we want fairness. MR. D. BLAKE: Oh, all that again. HON. A. MACKLING: Oh, all that again.

The Member for Minnedosa is going to say, "all that again." Aren't we entitled as a nation to be treated equally, no matter in what province we reside? MR. J. McCRAE: . .. talk about human dignity now, Al? HON. A. MACKLING: Now, the Honourable Member for Brandon West is talking about human dignity. He has a lot to learn about human dignity, and I hope in the course of time, the rest of this Session, he will learn something about human dignity. Mr.

Chairperson, if there is any fault at all, it is because members of the Opposition in this House have not been prepared to say to their friends, their relatives, their cousins, their partners in Ottawa, look, you are taking advantage of the growers. You are trying to unload on

Monday, 13 April, 1987 this province respo nsibility which no government for 25 years did in the past, even despite the fact we had very serious differences with Federal Governments before. No Federal Go vernment did and is threatening to do what you'r e doing now. We elected you for a new era of equity in Canada, a new government in Ottawa that was going to treat the western provinces with respect and give us fair treatment in respect to the issues that are important to us. That was the mandate that Brian Mu lrone y obtained from you and your delegates when you went down east to name him as your new leader.

Now, Mr. Chairperson, surely, surely if there is anyone in Manitoba who has more responsibility to make sure that there is accountability on the part of the Federal Go vernment to the farmers, the beet farmers particularly, we're talking about now, surely, if there's anyone who can demand acco untability, it is members opposite. But what are they doing, Mr. Chairperson? They're saying that the Federal Government is right in offloading a responsibility that they've maintained, Federal Governments have maintained for 25 years. Then they say we hav en't done anything. We went the extra mile in 1985.

We said, yes, we will put money in, but this will be the last time we'll put money in. They agreed. A Federal Tory Government agreed with that. But you know, they still haven't lived up to their commitment. They come back and they say it's got to be an equal sharing now.- (Interjection)- The Honourable Memb er for Minnedos a wants to ju st make silly statements from his seat. He should get up in the House and defend his federal colleagues like most of your colleagues are doing. Mr.

Chairperson, they are putting themselves on record as standing shoulder to shoulder with their colleagues in Ottawa, and they are going to pay a very severe political price for that demons tration. Mr. Chairman, at one stage, as one of my colleagues pointed out here recently, there were members - and I think the Member for Charleswood - who said: "I think we in Manitoba are going to have to change our name, the name of the party, because we're so embar rassed by that." MR. G. FINDLAY: Look at the polls. HON. A. MACKLING: Look at the polls, the Member for Virden says.

Look at the federal polls, and you are standing shoulder to shoulder with Brian Mulrone y, shoulder to shoulder. The Member for Virden should remember that one Tory that I had a great deal of respect for had a very good description for polls, and I largely associate my thinking about polls with that famous Tory. He can reflect on that. But that famous Tory who came from the west got the same treatment as the second one that came from the west. In no time, he was gone. And here we have Tory members from Manitoba who have an opportun ity, Mr.

Chairperson, to wield the kind of influence that their constituents think they have. We have members . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. A. MACKLING: Mr . Ch airpers on, I hear a cont inuous cacophony of no ise and unintelligent 953 statements opposite. The Member for Minnedosa keeps chattering away. I know, Mr. Chairperson, they don't like to hear . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have some order, please? HON. A. MACKLING: I know they don't like to hear about their shortcomings, but we are going to continue to put it on the record. You have the opportunity to demand accou ntability of Mr. Mayer and Mr.

Epp and Mr. Murta and Mr. Smith and Mr. Minaker. You have the right to call upon those federal members and say, look, what we want in Manitoba is what you're prepared to give farmers in Ontario and in British Columbia, a full 100 percent payment of programs that you have historically paid. Mr . Chairperso n, much has been said about agricultural marketing generally, and I know honourable members from time to time were on both sides of the fence or they pour the hopper two ways, if you want to put it in another way. You know, Native people would say they speak with a for ked tongue.

When it's convenient for them, they're for supply and management; when it's not convenient for them, they're against it. It's clear, Mr. Chairperson, that we have before us a group who are afraid of Brian Mulroney. They're afraid - well, the Honourable Member for Virden laughs. When was the last time that he stood in his place and said he disagreed with the Federal Government on an agricultural program? I haven't heard it.

A Federal Government that bailed out the Saskatchewan Government at the last minute and now is spinning out the payment of the billion dollars over an extensive period of time, and a good deal of that money is going to Ontario farmers . . . A MEMBER: How much? HON. A. MACKLING: Wel l, "h ow muc h," the honourable member says. Ask your friend Brian; he'll tell you. Yeah, ask your friend Brian. Maybe you know the formula because Brian has probably asked you, do you think that'll wash? Do you think we can get away with that much?

And you say, sure, do it because my consituents, I can lull them into sleep to continue to not worry about this because I'll continue to apologize for you, Brian, says the Member for Virden. And that's what we've been seeing for days in this House, Mr. Chairperson, a group that is afraid to stand up for their constituents, that has allowed a Federal Government to bully the growers into submission, into a tripartite agreement, and that is trying to bully this government to take on responsibility that historically that Federal Government assumed for 25 years.

The honourable members say, well, you know, it just has to be. It doesn't have to be. You can get in touch with those power brokers in Ottawa and say, look, you have to sweeten the pot. You have to sweeten the pot in respect to this industry, because the Manitoba Government has gone an extra mile. It did it in'85, it did it in '87 by being prepared to put $3 million, commit $3 million. A MEMBER: This year?

Monday, 13 April, 1987 HON. A. MACKLING: $3 million forward for 10 years to cover its contribution into this industry. And so we have gone the other mile, but what has happened, Mr. Chairperson, is that members over there haven't been willing to pick up the phone and call into account their elected Members of Parliament. That's what we ask you to do. Use your influence, because you do have influence and the only reason you don't do it apparently - you continue to stand up and apologize for your cousins in Ottawa - is because you're afraid of Brian Mulrone y. A MEMBER: You'r e ridiculous. HON. A.

MACKLING: Now, it's about time that you exercised your respons ibility to your constituents, exercised your responsibility to the citizens of Manitoba, and called upon your federal colleagues to play fair with the people of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting to listen to the Minister of Labour spout about the effects of the Federal Government and their failure not to become involved in the sugar beet industry in this province and that we are letting down Manitobans.

Well, quite frankly, except for some stirring words that are disturbing the dust in the upper chambers in this room, it's really not having much impact because - the Minister may not be aware of it - on the way home tonight, there was an announcement of a formal group being put together in rural Manitoba to come to the aid of the sugar industry. A MEMBER: Hear, hear! MR. C.

BIRT: Those who are in rural Manitoba, who are the Chambers of Commerce, the suppliers of equipment, those people who live in the little towns, those truck suppliers, all those people whose livelihood will be effectively impacted by the closure of the sugar plant operation, not only here but primarily as the suppliers of sugar beets, the growers, the consumers of the product that rural Manitob a is very much dependent upon, that $90 million industry that is out there and, for some ideological reason, this government can't see its way clear to solve the problem. I find that rather startling.

If this is standing up for Manitoba, that all you can do is shift the blame onto someone else - I mean, that's not only empty pockets, it's empty emotional, it's empty headiness. It says that you are bankrupt. You'r e ready to run with all kinds of money to save Canada Packers - too late. You'r e ready to get involved with everyone else, to give money - too late.

We hear great self-patting of back when we put money into the computer industry, but a vital industry that's worth $90 million a year to this province, that is part of the rural fabric, that this Minister of Labour feels so strongly about that they're prepared to cancel on a whim, and they're not prepared to commit. Now the people in rural Manitoba are not lying down with it. They've prepared an organization. They are 954 fighting mad. They are going to be in touch with this government and they are going to let him know what it means.

Now I know the Minister of Agriculture has been making phone calls, trying to lay the blame off himself onto someone else, but it isn't washing. The headline in Saturday's Free Press said it all, and all the rhetoric in this Chamber isn't going to change that one headline. Well, the disappointing thing is it not only affects rural Manitoba, it affects those people in Winnipeg as well. The little suppliers, the truck drivers, the emplo yees , the spin-off effect in the City of Winnipeg, especially the south end where the man ufacturing base is, is at least 500 jobs.­ (lnterjection)- To whom? To you, I have.

A MEMBER: Why don't you make them . MR. C. BIRT: Because you have the solution here. You' re the people who stand up and say to the Federal Government, please send mon ey. And what do we do it on? What do we claim money on? -(lnterjection)­ They think it's important that we have a national program to finance day care. Day care has been exclusively, like education, the responsibility of the province. But this government says we want some more money to live up to our election prom ises that we made a year ago. We don't have it, but we're going to transfer the responsibility to the Federal Government.

Now when the shoe's on the other foot, what are you doing? You'r e squirming, you'r e backtra cking, you're saying we're not standing up for Manitoba. You have a responsibility to this province, and you'r e not standing up to it. You are a shame to this province, you 'r e abdicating your responsibility because he's hungup on some ideological silly situation. HON. B. URUSKI: You'r e standing shoulder to shoulder MR. C. BIRT: And you don't understand. The Minister of Labour cancelling 1, 000 jobs this weekend in the agriculture commun ity, and you stand up there being proud of it. You are a shame to your Ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The reason why the House has developed, as a matter of procedure, addressing the Chair, is to avoid these kinds of circumstances. MR. C. BIRT: Good point, I got carried away with some trivia. But the important thing, Mr. Chairman, is that for some reason they are prepared to commit, they say, $3 million but are not prepared to sign anything and are prepared to let an industry go down the tubes, because someone won't call Ottawa. A MEMBER: Stand aside, blame it on somebody else. MR. C. BIRT: Now you wonder , what are they doing? We have to make the phone calls. A MEMBER: Right. MR. C.

BIRT: We made the phone calls when there was a shortfall in the trans fer payments, remember

Monday, 13 April, 1987 that? And only we got results out of it. Remem ber, last year, they got extra money; the year before, they got extra money. They couldn't do it. One of our former colleagues got involved, made some phone calls. A MEMBER: Went down there. A MEMBER: They need us for Bill 13, they need us for Bill 8. MR. C. BIRT: There has to be a will. In that discussion, there was a will to make it work. We were prepared to cooperate with the government to make it work. The willingness is here. We have been urging, but there is no willingness on that side of the Cham ber, Mr .

Chairman, and therein lies the problem. If they won't move, then there is no solution, so they are prepared to condemn rural Manitoba, they're prepared to write off a great number of jobs in the City of Winnipeg and they don't care. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's a sad day for Manitoba when they can stand up and be proud of a record of closing down large employment in the City of Winnipeg, based on one of the primary industries that we have in this province, namely, agriculture processing. It makes one very disappointed in them. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Ind ustry, Trade and Technolo gy.