LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 7 April, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phill ips: Pres enting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pre senting Reports by Stand ing and Sp ecial Comm ittees . . . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notic es of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... ORAL QUESTIONS Manitoba Developmental Centre - tabling of Ombudsman's Report MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speak er.

My question is for the Min ister of Community Services and Corrections. The Min ister is in possession of a report that was cond ucted, along with an in vestigation by the Ombudsman, into the Manitoba Developmental Centre at Portage la Prairie into physical conditions, staff conditions, as I understand it, into the use of mind­ altering drugs and the physical abuse of residents, and many other issues that deal with the quality of treatment of some of our most vulnerable persons in soci ety, the mental ly-retarded residents at the Ma ni toba Developmental Centre.

My question to the Mini ster is: Will she, in the public interest, table the Omb udsma n's Report, so that Manitobans can kn ow and unde rstand what the concerns are, what the conditions are, and what the recommendations are of the Ombudsman on MDC? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the Ombudsman, in response to our request for a review of an injury to a person living at MD C, did broaden his study of many aspects of MDC. As is his custom, he submitted the report to us, to our department to comment.

We are now going through that process and will then return the report to the Ombudsman, and it will then be up to him to determine what is done with the report. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, is the Min ister saying that she does not have the authority to make that report public? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I think the facts are as I described them. It is the Ombudsman's Report, and I think, according to the legislated authorit y, he has his resp onsibili ty to release wha t he think s appropria te.

I am fully prepared to dis cuss all aspects of MDC during Estimates, in fact, look forward to that opportuni ty. 729 MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, The Ombudsman's Act clearly says that his reports can be made public if it's in the public interest. Does the Minis ter not believe it's in the public interest when people are being accused MADAM SPEAKER: Will the honourable memb er ple ase rephrase his question so it does not seek an opinion? MR. G. FILMON: Yes.

Madam Speaker, gi ven that the report contains information about physical abuse of residents; given that the report contains information about mind-altering drugs being used there; given that the report contains information that is critical of the physical conditions and staff conditions at MDC, will she not in the public interest release that report so that Manitobans can kno w and un derstand what is happe ning at the Manitoba Developmental Centre? HON. M. SMITH: That report is the pro perty of the Ombudsman and the members opposite -(ln terjection)­ The facts and the procedures are as I described them.

I do wonder at the sudden interest of the Opposition in an institution which has been around for many, many years. - (Interjection)- Madam Speaker, the care of the retarded in this province, I think, has been impr oving steadily under this government. As a matter of fact, it's been during this government that the most innovative change in the whole range of services available to famil ies with retarded children and a significant increase in resources has occurred. I would be the last person to say that we have arrived at nir vana in the care of the retard ed.

I look forward to seeing contin ued imp rovement both on the institutional side and on the community side of deliv ery of services to the mentally retarded. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier .

Given that the Minis ter has indi cated that under her admin istration conditions have impr oved at MDC; given that she has said that she is satisfied with the operation of MD C; that she bel ieves that the treatment of the residents is fine, will the Premier , gi ven that there are allegations of physical abuse, of use of mi nd-altering drugs; given that there are allegations of im proper fa ci litie s, impr oper staff ing at the Ma ni toba Developmental Centre; will he not order the Min ister to table the Ombudsman's report, clear the air and let the public know? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister.

HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, first, I don't know from whence the Leader of the Opposition heard the Mini ster suggest that she was quite satisfied. In fact, this Min ister has never been fully satisfied with the operations of the centre at Portage, and has been

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 working constantly over the last number of years to bring about improvements , improvements that ought to have taken place many, many years ago . It has been this Minister who has been undertaki ng those improvements to the centre at Portage la Prairie . Secondly, it's been this Minister who has encouraged the development of the Welcome Home Program as well , which was long overdue, and despite the opposition in fact of some honourable members in this Chamber to that process .

I thought I heard the Ombudsman this morning indicate that, when he had the report and the comments from the Minister and had completed his report, he would probably at that point be making public a

summary report of his findings in respect to the Portage Centre . So it seems to me , Madam Speaker - (Interjection)- Well, there's been a suggestion of cover­ up. The Ombudsman of the Province of Manitoba is not a party to cover-up. A MEMBER: You are , you are. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I find that is a most disgusting comment by an honourable member in this House. The Ombudsman in this House, the Ombudsman for this province has been able, has done his job in the most satisfactory way. I heard the Ombudsman this morning indicate that he would likely, upon receiving the report from the Minister, be making his report available in a

summary way, ensuring the confidentiality of individuals who are the subject of allegations are protected, which is a reasonable thing to do. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, at no time did suggest that the Ombudsman was responsible for the cover-up. It's this government that tried to cover up MPIC, MTX , and all those other issues and is trying to cover up this one. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Does the honourable member have a question? Manitoba Developmental Centre - gov't cover-up of Ombudsman's Report MR. G.

FILMON: Given that the Premier apparently believes he has nothing to hide, why will he not release the Ombudsman's Report? Is it because the report is severely critical and damaging to this Minister and her department? Is that why he wants to cover it up and not release it? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, obviously there 's a Conservative Convention coming up this weekend , and the honourable member is desperately worried about ensuring that he gain some public profile prior to the weekend.

I understand his motives, and we're not going to be too distressed if the honourable member wants to grandstand between now and this weekend. He's got good reason to do so. Insofar as the publication of reports,

section 43: "In the public interest or in the interests of a person, department or agency of the government, the ombudsman may publish reports relating generally to 730 the exercise , the performance of his functions and duties under this act , a particular case investigated by him, whether or not the matters to be dealt with in the report have been subject of the report made to the Assembly under this act . .. " That section, Madam Speaker , r efers to th e Ombudsman. I heard the Ombudsman himself on radio this morning. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition didn't hear the Ombudsman announce that it was his intention to, in all likelihood , release a

summary report once he had obtained all the information. The Ombudsman is anxious to obtain complete and full information. This government is anxious to obtain full and complete information. Madam Speaker , what we have is the same sort of vendetta by honourable members across the way who love to make allegations based upon baseless allegations continuing. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that the Premier believes that the allegations are baseless , and given that he says that the Ombudsman has the authority to release that report , will he request that the Ombudsman make public that report on MDC? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the allegation that I suggested was baseless was one that I heard from an honourable member in this House who screamed " cover-up " when I suggested the Ombudsman would be making the report available, according to the announcement the Ombudsman made this morning.

Does the Honourable Leader of the Opposition have so little confidence, so little trust in the Ombudsman that , despite his announcement this morning that he would be making a report available , a public report,

summary findings, does the Leader of the Opposition indicate that despite that he doesn't trust the Ombudsman? I have trust in the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman will do as he has indicated this morning . MR. G. FILMON: No, Madam Speaker, it's the Premier that I lack trust and confidence in. Madam Speaker , I have a very simple question to the Premier . Will he request that the Ombudsman make the report public when he has completed all of the details? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition 's comments about not trusting the Premier may gain him two or three votes this weekend at the Conservative Convention that we'll be following with great interest . Madam Speaker , the question is repetitious . The Ombudsman's already indicated that he will be making available the

summary report of the report. I don 't see why, pursuant to what I understood to be the Ombudsman's announcement this morning , that we would feel it necessary to make further demands upon the Ombudsman who I have every trust, every respect for insofar as his word .

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 Manitoba Developmental Centre - report on drug use MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Member for Portage la Prairie . MR . E. CONNERY: Yes, Madam Speaker , to the Minister of Community Services . Given the shocking report in today 's press concerning the use of drugs on a fourteen-year resident at the institution, will the Minister ensure that the repor t of the Public Trustee be available to the members of the Assembly? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min iste r of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I'll have to take that specific request as notice .

I don 't know that I have any particular right to make any promise on behalf of the Trustee, but I can inform the House, as I did yesterday, that we are concerned about the appropriate use of drugs for the mentally retarded. There is difference of opinion , even among professionals, as to the appropriate use. We have asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons to review , to arbitrate the particular debate that has been occurring. As a matter of fact, I have been asking questions about the policy on drug use.

Myself, I'm not an expert in the use of drugs , but I do know that there is an appropriate level and that it is fair to review drug use from time to time to ensure that there is not a sort of thoughtless program of overuse of drugs or over­ sedation. At the same time, there may well be and exper ts in the field assure me that there are conditions that go along with certain kinds of retardation that can benefit from an appropriate use of drugs. I think it's quite appropriate that the medical people involved , the people with specific expertise review that practice and the issues there and so adv ise us.

That is the path that I have chosen to take on this particular case . Manitoba Developmental Centre - number of deaths MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker, to the same Minister . Some new information has been brought to our attentio n that the actual numbers of deaths at the MDC far exceed the numbers of deaths that are reported by legislation to the Legislature. For example, in 1986 it was reported that there was 19 deaths and my sources say there was 23. ln'85 , 8 versus my source of 12. Will the Minister now investigate and report back to the Legislature the true facts of the numbers of deaths at the MDC?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M. SMITH : Madam Speaker , I certainly am prep ared to compare statistics. I have the statistics for the number of deaths from 1982 through to the end of the first quarter of '87 .

I have , as well, the average age of death at the centre because , as the health practices with the retarded have improved , we are finding a steady increase in the age of death of retarded persons. 731 As you well know , years ago many of them used to di e at a very early age and we 've had an improvement from 1982 where the average age of death was 49.7, to 1986 where the average age is 63 .4. The pattern , Madam Speaker, of the numb er of deaths according to the statistics that I have follows this pattern . Ther e are 14 in '82 . . MADAM SPEAKER : Order please .

May I remind the Honourable Minister that answers to questions should be brief and, if there is detailed information to be given to th e House. there are other methods of doing that. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, briefly . MR. E. CONNERY: I'll be as brief as the Minister in answering, Madam Speaker , very happily. A new question, Madam Speaker, to the Minister.

On March 24, I wrote a letter to the Ombudsman expressing the concerns that we have for the conditions of the Manitoba Developmental Centre in Portage and , Madam Speaker, some of the issues addressed were the overcrowding ; the fire regulation ; standards conducive to comfort and privacy; the tota l standards of the living conditions in there, including air conditioning ; is there adequate staff; are they properly trained; is the morale conducive to good work. Madam Speaker , the Ombudsman states in his letter that all of these areas were addressed by him in the report that the Minister now has in her hands.

Madam Speaker, yesterday in question period she tried to indicate that there was just a study done on an individual resident. Madam Speaker, when will this Minister start to tell us the facts , start to tell us the truth, and will the First Minister then order her to . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order , order please . MR. E. CONNERY: . . . give that report to us. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. As the honourable member well knows , it is not appropriate to suggest that the information Ministers bring to the House is not accurate. Would the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie please rephrase the last part of his question?

MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker , how can I rephrase it when we have not had accurate information given to us? Last year, when I asked the Minister about the fire at the MDC, she said there was a bit of plastic pipe and , in fact, there was a whole system there. Now, if that is not inaccurate information, then what is it? SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Beauchesne Citation 357(1) says: "A question should not impugn the accuracy of information conveyed to the House by a Minister. " The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie .

Would the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie please withdraw any imputation that the information conveyed to the House by a Minister is not accurate? The Honou rable Government House Leader.

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , on the point of order regarding the Member for Portage 's comments during his lengthy

preamble to his question , I believe he at one point indicated - and I think Hansard should be reviewed to determine if in fact it was the case - but I believe he at one point indicated or impugned motives to the Minister that she might not be telling the truth in this matter . If, in fact, that was the case, when he suggested that she tell the truth - and definitely the implication is that she is not telling the truth in this regard - then he is bound by Beauchesne , bound by the Rules, bound by the traditions of this House to withdraw thos e words.

Your advice to the Member for Portage la Prairie is very good advice at this stage. I think he should reflect upon what he said and, in fact , withdraw any comments which might have impugned motives , impugned not only motives but indicated or referenced or implied that the Minister might not be telling the truth and that the information that was being given was inaccurate. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the Member for Portage la Prairie referred to a letter he had received from the Ombudsman, which outlined the report of the Ombudsman, that has gone to the Minister on general conditions at the Manitoba Developmental Centre. He indicated in his question that the answer the Minister had given yesterday was only with respect to one complaint , and he is therefore indicating that the information conveyed by the Minister yesterday in question period was incorrect and he asked for an explanation, which is entirely appropriate , Madam Speaker.

Any suggestion that the Member for Portage la Prairie should withdraw his statement is totally unbased, Madam Speaker. The Minister is the one who should be asked to explain her statement. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, I have to admit that I had not followed all the

preamble as closely as perhaps I should have, but I believe a reading of the Hansard will very clearly show and demonstrate that the Member for Portage implied in his

preamble that the Minister was not telling the truth. I believe it was something to the effect that when will she tell the truth. In instances such as this , Madam Speaker , the practice has been, if the member refuses to withdraw his imputations and his comments - and I think that's regrettable at this point in time - but if he refuses to do so, the practice in the past has been to review Hansard to determine if, in fact, unparliamentary language has been used or unparliamentary phrasing has been used .

If in fact Hansard shows that it has been used, then the member would be required certainly to withdraw those comments. I guess if what he is asking is for Hansard to be reviewed , and he's indicating a willingness to withdraw any unparliamentary language at that particular time, it would be something that this side would be amenable to. But we definitely believe that he did use unparliamentary language when he suggested the 732 Minister should tell the truth or begin telling the truth , and thereby implying that the truth has not always been told by all honour ab le members in this Hou se at all times. MR. G.

MERCIER: Well, Madam Speaker , the Government House Leader indicated that he did not follow all of the remarks of the Member for Portage, and I think that is correct. I would agree with him in the suggestion that you should review Hansard before tak ing any further action with respect to this matter. MADAM SPEAKER: I thank all honourable members for their advice on this situation . It did seem to me at the time that the honourable member clearly was in violation of the Beauches ne Citation that I quoted. However , with all the additions and and comments since, I've kind of lost track.

I will review Hansard and I will expect, as I'm sure the honourable member will comply with any request to withdraw any unparliamentary language, so we can proceed in the best parliamentary traditions. Workers Compensation Board - rate projection MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa . MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you , Madam Speaker . I would pose my question to the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation.

On January 16, 1987, a news release official from the Government of Manitoba Information Services under the heading of, " Workers Compensation Assessment rises 20 percent," it sta tes: "The phasing in of responsible increases will gradually allow the board to achieve a fully-funded position which continue s to be our objective. Based on current projections, we expect the board to reach a break-even position in the next two years." Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister: Can the Minister advise if this $84 million deficit is the first step for the board to reach a break-even position in the next two years?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Workers Compensation . HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, yesterday we clearly indicated that this was not a deficit . It is an unfunded liability and , when the statement was made and said it would be -(lnterjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The honourable member asked a question. He's entitled to hear the answer. The Honourable Minister. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, obviously they don't want to hear the answer. They have their own agenda .

Madam Speaker, when the statement was that we would be breaking even, it was on a year-over-year basis. and we are still on that target for breaking even on the year-over-year operations.

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 MR. A. KOVNATS: To the same Min ister, Madam Speaker. Can the Min ister advise if the Workers Compensation rates will have to double or triple just to break even in the next two years? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the Member for Niakwa is not listening to what our explanation has been. We had said that it was not a deficit. It's an unfunded liabil ity, and that unfunde d liability would not be required over the next period.

The unfunded liability will be requir ed over the next 20 years in order to pay out the operations of the Workers Compensation in the area of rehabilitation, the pension funds and all other parts of the operations of the Workers Compensation Board. Workers Compensation Board - underestimated deficit MR. A. KOVNATS: My final supplem entary to the same Mini ster. Did this New Democratic Party Government once again und erstate the deficit as did the Manitoba Public Insu rance Corporation to hide the deficit from the people prior to the last elec tion? MADAM SPEAKER: That question is out of order . HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker , I hope that . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That question is out of order . First of all, the honourable member did not ind icate to whom he was addressing the question. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Hono urable Minis ter is not responsible for all the other areas that the honourable member listed. The Honour able Member for Niakwa can rephrase his question. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would pose my question to the First Min ister.

Did this New Democratic Party Government, your New Democr atic Party Go vernment, once again und erstate the deficit, as did the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, to hide the deficit from the people prior to the last elec tion? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable First Mini ster. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speak er, the allegation by the Member for Niakwa smacks of the same sort of inaccuracy and misinformation as a pamphlet which he distributed which implied to the constituents of Niakwa, if it hadn't been for the MTX situation, there would have been additional money for CAT scans, additional money for hospital beds, additional money for child abuse, additional money for police protection, additional money for public schools and un iversities. Obviously now, Madam Speaker , by way of ... 733 SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please.

Could we please continue with question period in an orderly fashion? The Honour able First Minis ter. HON. H. PAWLEY: Obviously now, Madam Speaker, by way of the unanimous endorsation of the statements by the Member for Ni akwa, it just ind icates how totally misr epresentative of the facts are on the part of honourable members of the Opposition when they endorse such total and comp lete misr epresentation, fictional fabricat ion. Virden - landfill site MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Min ister of the Environment with regard to -(Int erjection)- SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Min ister of the Environment with regard to a landfill site near the town of Virden. The Min ister must be aware of the fact that most of the residents in the immediate area of the prop osed site are opposed to its placement there, because they believe it presents a major fire hazard and a threat to the water table.

Can the Min ister tell this House what consideration the department has given to the concerns of this residential group? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Staff from the Environment have interacted with the members of the town council to assist in determining whether the site chosen or the site identified by the town council was appropriate as a disposal site. Having determined that to be the case, the responsibility in terms of disposing of domestic wastes is a responsibility of the local government. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: A supp lementary question to the same Minis ter. Would the Minis ter agree to grant a second study as a resu lt that the res id ents belie ve that one examination made by one inspector at the wrong time of the year was inadequate to allay their fears? HON. G. LECUYER: I should have perhaps added that to my comments in response to the first question. We have already acqu iesced to that and we have gone back and ma de retests of the actual site to accommodate or to try and ascertain whether the

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 objections raised by some of the citizens were indeed or perhaps would warrant not locating the disposal site at tha t particular chosen location. Madam Speake r, it is a fact of life, nobody wants a disposal site next door. Inasmuch as only non-hazardous substances are disposed of in these sites and, if they are appropriate to take these domestic waste s, there should be no problem. There is always, no matter where the disposal site happens to be located , Madam Speaker , the potential for fire and that requires due regard and proper care of the dispos al site .

If that occurs, there should be no problem . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for River Heights . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, with a final supplementary to the same Minister. I'm delighted that new tests have been done . Will he make the results of those tests available to this residents' committee? HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speaker , that has also been done. Seagrams Distillery at Gimli - closure of bottling plant MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Industry.

When was the Minister informed that the bottling plant at Gimli Distillery closed? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minist er of Industry , Trade and Technology . HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker . There was a closure of one line at Gimli - what was it? - several months ago. I'll take it as notice in terms of the spec ific time when we were notified , but the plant is still open . But while I'm on my feet, maybe the member wants to ask something about Burroughs, Unisys . Seagrams Distillery at Gimli - layoffs MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Madam Speaker , I'm sure the Member for Gimli could tell if the bottling plant is closed . A further supplementary, when was the Minist er informed that approximately 35 people were laid off because of the closure of the bottling plant? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, my recollection is that the bottling part of the facility - and by far the major portion of the facility is open - was closed sometime, I believe, in January of 1987 or December of 1986 .

The time of notification - I told the member I don't recall the specific day when we were notified - but it would have been sometime before that time. 734 Unisys Plant - expansion of MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourabl e Member for Elmwood . MR. J. MALOWAY: Thank you , Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Since the Member for Sturgeon Creek won't ask the question , I will. Could the Minister give the House some information regarding the expansion of the Unisys plant in Winnipeg? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Ind ustry, Trade and Technology, briefly. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to answ er that questi on. In acco rdance with the agreement entered into by Unisys and the Provi nce of Manitoba last fall, member s will recall that a plant that was going to shut down last fall was kept open. This morning, there was an announcement by the Canadian President of Unisys, Ken Calmenson that, firstly, the disc drives being produced by that company for Burroughs are now being produced not only for Burroughs but also for the Sperry product lines as well.

Secondly, " the Winnipeg plant is being given a world-w ide mandate to produce, test and ship 11 unique product lines, and thi s means" - I' m quoting from Mr. Calmenson, "that Win nipeg will have the global product mandate for the supply and export of these 11 disc drive products and , over the next two years , exports from the country from this plant alone will be $60 million. " Thirdly , Unisys will invest $3.4 million to ensure that this facility will be able to meet the new manufacturing demand gene rated by these increased responsibilities. And fourthly . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please .

Potash mine, Binscarth-Russell - status of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Mad am Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Many people in the Binsc art h-Russell area have been patiently awaiting an announcement, or at least an intention, from the Minist er with reg ard to the status of the proposed potash mine in the Russell area.

In view of the fact , Madam Speaker, tha t the Canadian potash market is somewhat depressed , and in view of the fact that there is a potential of a penalty fee being assessed to the potash markets by the United States , there is indeed a concern by the people in that Binsc arth- Russell area . My question to the Minister is this : Can he indicate when he will be making an announcement with regard to proceeding with the potash mine in the Russell area? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Ministe r of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The

preamble was a lengthy one that raised a number of questions in addition to the question itself .

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 The potash market right now is in fact slow, but we aren't selling potash today, Madam Speak er. We're talking about developing a mine that will sell potash six years from now or seven years from now. We expect at that stage that the market will in fact be strong, because historically the market has gone in cycles. There have been peak cycles when demand has been high, and lower cycles when the demand hasn't been that high. We, in fact, are in a trough, and we in fact are gearing our plans so that we will hit the market at the appropriate time. We are conducting the feasibi lity study .

We've indi cated that we expect that feasibility study - of a technical nature on the financial aspects - will be compl eted by the end of the spring or sometime during the sum mer. We certainly would expect then to have discussions with a numb er of countries and companies that have expressed interest. We already have India expressing interest through a Letter of Intent. We have other countries that are coming to see us.

We have other companies that have expressed interest and we would expect that, when the circums tances are right to pull together a consor tium, we would make the appropriate production decision, but we aren't making a production decision today, Madam Speak er. All we are doing is making sure that Manitoba is in the best position to take advantage of its natural resource, namely , the world's richest deposit that is not yet a potash mine. As a New Democrat Party Go vernment, working with other companies and countries, we'll make sure that happens, Ma dam Speak er. MR. L.

DERKAC H: Madam Speaker, the answer the Honourable Minis ter just gave is one that he has been reiterating for some time. He announced, prior to the last election, that he had some intentions of reaching an agreement with India. But I'm asking the Minis ter right at the present time: Is he any closer to an agreement or is he any clos er to makin g that announcement for the proposed potash mine? HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, Madam Speaker , we have been proceed ing with the technical study and I think we've moved some dis tance.

I ind icated when I was in the Roblin area that was the case and this would take about a year. We are proceeding with that. We expect it to be completed. We've certainly been given a further, more specific response from the Indian Government. We're pleased with that, and I might indic ate that other parties are expressing interest. I'm not at li berty to say who those are right now, but we are certainly hopeful. I would not want to specify a specific time because, in negotiating with other entities, if you set a time ahead of time, then you reduce your negotiating flexibil ity.

In fact, we are very confident that over the course of the next year , year -and -a-half, we would be proceed ing with the potash development. At the same time, we would make sure that we watch the markets, see how things are developing over the course of the next three, five and six years, to make sure that we make a prudent, yet a very good investment for the people of Manitoba. 735 Sales Tax - take-out food MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Minis ter of Finance with respect to the new sales tax of 7 percent on take-out food that was contained within his Budget, Madam Speaker. Given that there is an exemption for someone eating meals in a restaurant and sales tax does not apply under $6, could the Min ister ind icate how ind ividual exemptions would apply to the new 7 percent sales tax on take-out foods given, as an example, an average Manitoban purchasing take-out food for a family? Will they be requi red to pay 7 percent tax on the total purcha se pric es less the $6 exemption?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Fina nce. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll supply the member opposite with a copy of the information being provided for retailers, but it is going to be in a manner that is consistent with the application with respect to the other exemption that takes place with respect to food that is purcha sed and eaten on premis es. MR. G. MERCIER: Is the Min ister then indicating that the purchaser will be able to claim an exemption for the four or five or whatever number of persons whom the food is bought for? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: As I indicated, it will be done in the same manner that is done for food that is purchased for consumption in the restau rant. The member knows that there is a process whereby, if the pu rchase is below the limit, there is no sales tax applied. If it is above that level, the sales tax is applied. As I ind icated, it will be done in a manner that is consistent with the other exemption. Seniors' residence fire - alarm system and regula tions MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Over the weekend, there was a significant million­ dollar fire at a seniors' residence at 18 5 Smith Street. Fortuna tely, Madam Speaker, there was no loss of life in that event, but a signif icant amount of damage. Can the Mini ster of Housing advise the House why or if there were no alarm systems in place in order to warn, first of all, the residents of the building and, second ly, to alert the Winnipeg Fire Department that a fire was in progress?

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to indicate to the member opposite that we are also, on this side, very thankful that there were no serious injuries and no loss of life. The matter is presently under investigation by the Fire Commissioner's Office .

I can indicate that the standards of the fire by-laws met the standards at the time the building was built, which I think was about 1972, and that building is one of a number of buildings that we have designated for fire upgrading to meet the new City of Winnipeg fire by-law standards . Presently, the causes of the fire are under investigation and the safety standards that were in place were those that conformed to the by-laws of the day. MR. J. ERNST: A supplementary question , Madam Speaker.

If memory serves me correctly , the Winnipeg existing building upgrading by-law required that all apartment buildings meet certain standards by October 1, 1986. Can the Minister advise if 185 Smith Street met the deadline for those requirements and , if not, why not? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, it's my understanding that we have been meeting the requirements of the by-law that is being introduced in stages, that there are three stages of fire upgrading and that there have been discussions and negotiations between my department and the city and the Fire Commissioner's Office where we have an agreement that, in a number of cases, we will not just proceed with stage 1 or stage 2 and stage 3 separately, but it will be to our advantage and will save us a considerable amount of money, with the amount of upgrading and the amount of units that have to be upgraded, if we can do all of the units at the same time .

So we have negotiated an agreement that in some cases we will be ahead of the required dates and in some cases the total fire upgrading will be behind but , in total, it will all be done by the final deadline. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired . COMMITTEE CHANGE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, I have a change in the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs: Kovnats for Pankratz. ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 13, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson . 736 ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 13 - THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT ACT MADAM SPEAKER: Debate on Second Reading on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs , Bill No. 13, the Honourable Member for Emerson . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you , Madam Speaker . My comments will be relatively brief on this bill, and what I'd like to illustrate - and I'm glad, Madam Speaker , that the Premier will also hear these comments .

What we have in Bill No. 13 is another example of incompetence of behalf of this government, because we have Bill No. 13 that was given Second Readi ng yesterday and here we are in sort of a rushed position . The bill is being called again today with the intention of trying to have the bill passed through Second Reading today so that it can get to committee . What I'm trying to illustrate here , Madam Speaker , is this is about the third or fourth time that we've had this kind of incompetence surface from the government side .

First of all, there is some criticism that has to be directed to the House Leader for the planning of when the Session started, because we had to deal in a rushed situation with Bill No. 8. We had to deal in a rushed situation with Bill No. 2, the Daylight Saving Time Bill, and here we are again moving on a bill at an unu sual rate. Madam Sp eaker, that denotes to me incompetence. Madam Speaker , it shows the incomp etence of the Minister of Urban Affairs and it shows the incompetence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who have both been involved in this assessment problem for a long time .

The planning obviously has been scatterbrained from the start . Obviously it has, because there is just no synchronization or total planning in this stage . Madam Speaker, if this is how we are going to be running this Session , I've never seen anything like it in my time, that we've been operating sort of by the seat of our pants , so to speak, because there is no planning . Madam Speaker, why is Bill No. 13 before us?

To accommodate again another misfunction within the departments involved in terms of how they've set up their legislative business for this Session, and the House Leader included as well , because if we had these kinds of bills, obviously if the government had done any planning at all, they would have brought these things forward . We would have either started this Session sooner, or we would have had tandem bills coming in. There is total lack of understanding and competence on the government side when they bring forward this kind of bill.

Madam Speaker, I personally do not like to approve the Second Reading of this bill. I will consent to it, but I don 't like the process , and we've been faced with that three or four times now. I want to indicate to the Government House Leader that , if we're going to have more of these cases, there are going to be some major problems developing, because if you can't plan your business any better as House Leader and as Ministers, then don 't bring forward any bills .

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina . MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, my comments will be rather brief. They will be a follow-up and an affirmation of what my colleague, the Member for Emerson , has said. We have had before us assessment review since the change of government in 1981. The Weir Report was presented to the NDP Government shortly after it came into office in 1981. They have frittered and tinkered and toyed away with reassessment in th e implementation of the Weir Report for now over fiv e years .

Madam Speaker, I simply want to point out that we probably wouldn 't even be sitting in this House right now if it were not for a written agreement that we had , signed by the Government House Leader in the NDP, to start the Session in February in return for, you might recall , three additiona l hearing s in MTX and MTS at which the Telephones Minister shamefacedly resigned or half -resigned his Cabinet responsibilities for MTS . He should have resigned all of them.

But if it were not for that agreement, I submit to you , Madam Speaker, we would not be in this House yet because there is one thing that the New Democrats and the Pawley administration fear the most. That's this House because , when we get in this House, they have to table reports that show $37 million hidden losses in MPIC, $84 million hidden deficits in the Workers Compensation Board , deficits that should have come out prior to th e electi on but were hidd en . This New Democratic Party fears this Chamber because then all of the ir cover-ups become public.

In complianc e with the agreement that we had written and sign ed with the Government House Leader was that we start in the month of February . But when did we start? In the last available day of February - not a week earlier, not two weeks earlier -(Interjection)- Well, my honourab le friend, the Government House Leader , if he w ants to say something , he's got his position in the Hou se. He can stand up and debate this issue instead of yapping from the back row like he's want to do ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please .

May I remind the honourable member that we are debating Bill No. 13 before the House, and may I remind the honourable member of our Rule No. 30 on relevancy? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: With all due respect and patience , Madam Speaker, you will entirely see the relevancy of this. Madam Speaker, we had Bill No. 8 presented to us in a great rush by the Minister of Urban Affairs. It had to be passed some three weeks ago . It was urgent, it was immediat e, it was needed. That was not the case, Madam Speaker .

Now we were assured and , I believe it was in Hansard - if not Hansard, it was a quotation in the newspapers - where the Minister of Urban Affairs says: " We can establish these classifications by regulation under the existing legislation. " 737 But what have we got now? We've got a bill given to us. These two Ministers , the Minister of Urban Affairs and th e Minister of Muni cipal Affairs , share their incompetence in handling reasses sment .

So it 's the old two-step shuffle trick where he bring s i n one bill of incompetence, Bill No. 8, and then the Minister of Municipal Affairs , the more incompetent of the two, brings in Bill No. 13 some two-and-a-half weeks later, after we 're assured by the Minist er of Municipal Affairs that such a bill would not be needed. Now , Madam Speaker , what the problem with this government is, had they started the House two weeks earlier , there would have been no rush on this legislation. This Minister could have brought this bill in immediately after the Throne Speech. There could have been no problem.

But there is not competence over there in the handling of the assessment issue . It's bumble, fumble and drop the ball, and then expect this House to speedily pass legislation. Now , Madam Speaker , as has been said many time s, when we move in haste in this House, often we don 't move effectively. I think the Member for St. Vital knows of what I'm speaking , being a long-term member of thi s House and an observer from your Chair , Madam Speaker, very competently for four-and-a-half years.

So, Madam Speaker , we've got this government demonstrating its abject incompetence to handle anything of relative importance to the people of Manitoba. We've got bumbling and fumbling from one bill to another bill , to amendments that weren 't needed that are now need ed . Where does this incompetence stop , Madam Speaker? When will Manitobans be treated to a government that knows what it's doing and knows where it's going?

It certainly won 't happen until after the next election, Madam Speaker, because this current government doesn't have the ability to demonstrate competent government , and to bring competent government to the people of Manitoba . Bill No. 13 is yet another example , and it is an example twofold because the Minister of Urban Affairs some three weeks ago told us he did not need additional legislation to establish these categories. Now we have the incompetent Minister of Municipal Affairs co vering for the incompetent Minister of Urban Affairs.

This is some dog and pony show that we're calling government in the Province of Manitoba, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, Walter Weir and his committee tabled his MARC Repo rt , I believe it was , in 1982 with the present government. Five years ago, Madam Speaker , that report was tabled with the members opposite , five years ago of inaction to this point.

Madam Speaker, it was absolutely refused to be dealt with by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, was refused absolutely by that same former Member for Springfield , because he felt that the problem existed and that the City of Winnipeg should stand on its own and not be dealt with at all. But the Minister of that day, the former Membe r for Springfield , had absolutely and categorically refused to deal with the whole issue of reassessment. He

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 clouded it in great terms of tax reform or assessment reform. They produced all kinds of little pamphlets, Madam Speak er, to distribute around the province and no body could un derstand because it was more gobbledygook put forward by that particular Min ister of the day. There was no assess ment reform taking place, Madam Speak er, because the govern ment opposite refused to deal with that issue, along with many others, before the last elect ion. Final ly, Madam Speak er, the Member for St. Johns in her private capacity before she became the Member for St.

Johns and several of her cohorts took the City of Winnipeg to court to force reass essment, because the government and members opposite refused to deal with it. That, Madam Speaker, came to pass and culmina ted in the judgment of the Honourable Mr . Kroft in October of 1985 when he ordered reassessment for the City of Winnip eg to take place in 19 87. Madam Speaker, last fall during the last stages of that Session, the Min ister of Urban Affairs brought forward a bill to deal with classifica tions, Bill No. 57. That classifica tion bill, Madam Spea ker, with our support, passed through this House.

That, Madam Speaker, was yet several months ago. Yet now, at the last minute, after the Min ister of Urban Affairs and the Min ister of Municipal Affairs had publicly stated there would be six, had originally stated that there would be six classifications for property in the City of Winnip eg, subseq uently amen ded to eight classifica tions to deal with two issues that arose, Madam Speaker, after the initial go-around and, I think, after ind ications came forward from the public that there were going to be anomalies and that they had to be a ddressed, these two additional classifications were brought forward.

After all of this had happened, months, years - it didn't happen yesterday, Madam Speaker. It didn't happen two weeks ago. All of a sudden now, we have to have a bill before us to legitim ize the actions that the Min ister of Municipal Affairs had taken earlier in his statements about classifica tions, those additional classificat ions that he and his cohort, the Min ister of Urban Affairs, had announced, that they were going to save the go lf cour ses, Ma dam Sp eak er, from horrendous tax hikes, and they were going to treat condominium owners in the same way that single-family homeowners would be treated.

Madam Speaker, don't get me wrong. There's nothing the matter with that. All I'm suggesting is that at that time they ought to have checked to see whether or not they can do the things that they claim to be able to do, to check with their legal departments, to check with their legal opinion to determine and to make cer tain, Madam Speaker , that they don't go and shoot off their mouth in public until they know that they are standing on firm ground.

Madam Speaker, while the Min isters have collectively dealt with the question of at least eight classificat ions now, tonight we are going to hear, I un derstan d, some 55 delegations, many of whom are going to come forward to say that there should well be a ninth classifica tion; that the Min isters responsible, both Municipal and Urban Affairs, have in fact not dealt with that issue, have ignored it and have thrown up their hands, saying we've got enough classifications now. It doesn't matter what their problems are. It doesn't matter what their concerns are.

It doesn't matter if it's fair to them because I'm not going back to my Cabinet 738 or my caucus with any more classifications. That's it, they'll live with it, too bad. Madam Speaker , that's not the fair way to deal with it. I think the Min isters are going to have their eyes opened tonight when they do hear from all of those people who have come forward and state the case, state the problems. Why for instance, Madam Spea ker, should somebody residing in south St. Vital or in Headingley be resp onsible for the City of Winnipeg's transit deficit for which they have absolutely no service from?

It's not a question necessarily of them having sewer or water or anything of that nature, but why should they be resp onsible for a transit deficit which is of no earthly benefit to them at all? They have no service, no buses go there, Madam Speaker. Why should they be responsible for that? I think that's the kind of thing that the Min isters collectively have not been addres sing. I think it's something, Madam Speaker , that they're going to have to address, that the people of south Charleswood, the people of Heading ley, the people of South St.

Vital, the people of Old Kildonan, the people of south Transcona, Madam Speaker, all of those people have to be - (I nterjection)- The Mem ber for Radisson should be fully aware of that. Problems exist just as well for those people in South Transcona as they do, Madam Speaker, for the people of Headingley and the people of South St. Vital. So the Mini ster has to add ress that. He has to look at those particular issues and he has to see, Madam Spea ker, the folly of his ways. He has to see that a new classification needs to be put into place for those people. Thank you, Madam Speaker .

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member tor Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on Bill 13, and I plan to make a few comments and will touch, as I see it, on some of the concerns that have come to me, not only from taxpayers but also from the Union of Mun icipalities in some discussions that I have had.

I note with interest the colleagues of mine that have already spoken their concerns, and one cannot debate legislation and dis cuss act ions or a dir ec tio n the government is going without taking a careful look at who is proposing and who is providing the information for the legislative body to make their decisions.

And you know, it seems somewhat strange that we have two actors involved in this whole process, one being the House Leader who has not been very well equipp ed or prepared to present it in a manner which would flow through the normal legislative process without having to ask our House Leader and our caucus and his own caucus to give leave to speed up the process. My colleague from Emerson clearly points out that this is the fourth time that this legislative Session has been asked to do it.

My colleague from Pembina points out that, when you proceed to rush these kinds of things through, you don't always get the best kind of results and, in fact, I think you don't get the best cross-sect ion of people to come in or they are not always given the opportunity to express themselves, and that's how the process works. But I can't let it pass, Madam Speaker, without touching on the Mini ster who has introduced this, with his recent track record and the dir ections that he has given the Public Insurance Corporation. It's a major bill, Bill 13. It's dealing with assessment and major

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 implic ations for the Province. We want to make sure that there isn't anything that is being kept from the Legislative Assem bly. He's had a habit of doing that. The record speaks for itself. But the Ho use Leader is anothe r one, Madam Speaker, whom this Legislature is taking di rection from. I think, if my memory serves me correct ly, he was the Mi nister responsible for Workmen's Compensation at one particular time of his career. And where do we find it today?

I think, Madam Spea ker, we found him, as chairman of Treasury Board, responsible for a lot of the Crown corpora tion's spending - the ERIC Committee of Cabinet. You know, I think that the whole question has to be raised to the compe tence of the Government House Leader and his activities as a Cabinet Minis ter. I would think that some of the Cabinet Min isters who are around him would start to say everything that he's involved with doesn't seem to run very well. It's kind of costly not only for the taxpayers, but for the political image they are leaving.

So one has to trust the ind ividual and have an idea from the kind of basis in which they are prepared to work. I say, Madam Speaker , on Bill 13 that I think the government is proceed ing, a nd as was said by my colleague yesterday , in somewhat of a backward fashion. He's asking the Legislature to pass a category or two new categories for assessment, which I don't think have been debated in a very open fashion with the mun icipalities that are involved.

I'm aware that there were discussions last year, I am sure, with the municipal corporations on Bill 57, I belie ve it was, and that they didn't have any concerns with the categories or the classifications at that time. I think there are some concerns starting to rise now with those indi viduals with again another move by government to incr ease the classifications.

I ask the Minis ter simply if he or if any of the Min isters have clearly dis cussed with the Union of Munici palities and those people who are representative of the taxpayers if they have got the full endorsement from them, because in the discussions that I have had with some of those individuals, there are some concerns, As I understand it, it's based on people, particularly people moving into rural Manitoba, taking on a small acreage, expecting or demanding the services to come from those munic ipalities, and that land base or that property in which they are living or have bought is not carrying a fair enough share of the services that they are expec ting.

That's a major concern which has been brought to my attention. I'm sure there are some municipalities that are not too far from some of the urban developments that it would have serious impl ications. I would also ask the Mi nisters of Muni cipal Affairs and Urban Affairs if they have taken the opportunity to dis cuss with the Keystone Agricultural Producers, a group which in a large way represents a fair num ber of farmers in Manitoba, which I think would reflect what their feelings are.

But again, I think it boils back to the whole qu es tion, when it comes to deal ing with assessments and such bills as we've had before us, that the legislators, municipal officials, city or rural, people who are going to be affected haven't really got a clear handle on what the longer -term imp lications are. 739 Assessments are compl icated and taxation is a concern because you get a particular piece of property locked into a classification which is incor rect, the Min ister says it can be appealed.

Wel l, I'v e had some experiences with appeals and I'll tell you - and I'v e met with some people from Landsdowne and my colleague from Ste. Rose had a group of people in awhile ago who were appealing their assessments. And you know what, Madam Speaker? They were totally ignored, because let's see who's sitting on the appeal process. There was an individual from the Brandon University. Again, I have nothing against that individual. A ME MBER: Then why raise it? MR. J. DOWNEY: Then why raise it? Because I don't feel, from what I have heard, that he had a good handle on what his job was.

In fact, he didn't have a sympathetic ear at all. I'm not saying that you should have people on there that have a sympathetic ear, but I think he should have a little better understanding of the problem that was being presented to him. I don't want to deviate, Madam Speaker, from Bill 13, but I do have to say that this Min ister in his board activities, the history speaks for itself. We've had the appeal process through the Surface Rights Board, which hasn't worked as well as it should have either.

So he and his statement on appeals, I don't think is very comfor ting, particularly to me and I'm sure to those people from the Gl adstone area who appealed their assessments that they are very comforting to them because of the way in which they were dealt with. So I'm not going to be sold on the appeal process that, if you're put in the wrong category, you can be appealed. That's an interesting point, and we'll hope tonight at commit tee to have this clarified. Can the classification or the land which is put into a certain classification be appealed? Can that classification be appealed?

Or is it the assessment only on the land that can be appealed? And I would hope the Minis ter would be able to respond to that. I know that there have been some concerns within the member's own caucus - and I have to raise this because people got a little bit upset with me when I took the position. The City of Winnipeg said it was going to cost $3 million because of delay in passing of this bill. I make the argument, Madam Speaker, that it isn't going to cost the city anything; it's going to cost the taxpayers.

If they don't collect the money from the taxpayers for another month, it's in the hands of the taxpayers. So there really isn't a true cost of $3 million. It is a delay in getting the money in, but to say there's a $3 million cost hasn't got foundation. The other thing that has been brought to my attention, and I have to dis close this as well, is that when you take it off of one area of the city - and this was answered by the Mi nister's Deputy in one of the meetings that we had - the transfer of that tax would come from those outlying regions to some of the core area taxpayers of the city .

The taxes actually had to be colle cted and, if they didn't come from those suburban areas, then they would be shifted and paid for by the more urban areas. Now I think that the Mem ber for St. Vital probably has some constituents who fit into that category. I'm

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 sure the Minister of Culture and Recreation, or whatev er, Lotteries ' responsibility probably falls in that same category. So I think that the government itself hasn't got a clear understanding of what the implications are, un less some of them have and they are trying to move a little quicker than they should . I'm not going to oppose it on those grounds , but I think they are points that have to be raised and answers given at the committee stage.

I note a letter that came from the Deputy Minister on March 27 to my colleague, the Member for Charleswood , and the question was raised by my colleague from Pembina that the government is now passing legislation - maybe my colleague from Morris talked about it yester.day - which covers what they have already done , and that's by setting classifications by Order-in-Council without the proper legal authority to do so. He's hanging on two words. One, he's using the word "size" and the other "ownership," I be lieve are the two words that they are using to justify this need.

Well, if it's needed for these two additional class ifications, why was it not needed for the other classifications that were put in? So maybe a more proper name for this piece of legislation would be CYA. It would be a better terminology to call this legislation . A MEMBER: What does CYA mean? MR. J. DOWNEY: CYA for the NOP. Cover your "A" is what it means and I think rather than calling it

An Act to amend The Muni cipal Assessment Act, it would be cover The Munic ipal Assessment - we could use part of the words that are here, Madam Speaker , it wouldn't need to be amended too much - amend The Municipal Act to cover the Minist er of Municipal Affairs ' particular part of his anatomy . I'm serious, Madam Speaker, that we have got again a p iece of legislation that has major implications , cost implications for taxpayers. The Minister says appeal - yes, appeal. Will that appeal be satisfactory and will it cover the areas that are essential to be covered?

One will have to watch as to how successful the appeal is. The whole area that begs question here is that the Minister of Agriculture, through all this process , has not paid much attention to it and I'm surprised at that. When you deal with municipal assessments and taxation bills, it usually has major implications for the farm community . What I'm surprised is that he hasn 't participated in any debate or put any position forward.

He is being led along by the Minister again who cost the taxpayers through the insurance program , which he is in charge of, several millions of dollars and I think that he should be paying more attention. Madam Speaker , I will look forward to the questions and responses tonight at committee because I'm sure there will be some individuals come forward who are going to demonstrate that they equally have some legitimate concerns . You don't move on assessment quick ly. Our rec ord is clear.

We had the Walter Weir Commission, which I th ink did an exce llent job in providing some direction as to taking some corrective measures. I think that was a piece of work that has to be continually commented on. We had the former Member for Ste. Rose who did a disastrous job as the M inister of Municipal Affairs. He didn't have a clue 740 what he was doing, and we now have another Minister who really thinks that this Legislature should jump to the tune of him, whether it 's on The Time Act , whether it's on The Municipal Assessment Act.

Madam Speaker, he has about run his string as far as I'm concerned in getting leave on matters to accommodate him and his incompetent government. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. J. WALDING: Thank you , Madam Speaker . I wasn 't really prepared to speak on this bill this afternoon . I had hoped to have a word with the Minister to tell him of one particular concern that I had but, since there seems to be some urgency about moving the matter through this afternoon, I'll try to address the particula r concern that .1 had.

I raise it in the form of a question to ask whether it has been properly considered and whether it has been properly thought through. It's a matter that really hasn't been addressed by members opposite so far. Maybe it's the sort of thing that should be addressed at the committee , having to do with just a part of the bill , but there is a principle involved in there and it has to do with the defining of classes of property. Now I realize the intent of the bill, • and that is to have different classifications of assessment .

It hasn't been really possible before, and this is enabling legislation to allow that to happen or, to be specific, to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in­ Council the power to make regulations to set up thos e particular categories. It's always a bit of an embarrassment to the House , I suppose, to pass an amendment to a bill. It suggests that we didn 't do it right the first time , and now we've got to come back and do it properly and fix it up a second time.

So that is always a concern and we should also be concerned with the amendments that we're putting forward and making sure that they are proper and that we won't be coming back in a month or a year's time to amend the amendment to get that right . What I was concerned with had to do with tha t

section giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the pow er to make regulations, and it does so on the certain bases of size , ownership , types and uses. What we 're dea ling with here is the taxa tion on real property, and it's taxation on the property itself via assessment that is a concern here. We're not talking about taxes on peopl e or taxes on income or taxes on wealth, simply on real property, and that is the land and the buildings itself .

The Cabinet, according to this bill , may mak e classes on the bas is of size, which is reasonable when you consider that a class might have to do with a large parcel or a small parcel or some particular parcels in between . When it has to do with the types of land, then you can consider that land of a particular type might be put into one category; land of a different type might be put into another category , etc. That again is taxation on the property itself . The use of land might well be put into a different category, whether it is used for growing potatoes or for golfing on or for building a highrise on .

That make s sense. But there is one other word in there that has

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 to do with ownership which means that the land might be put into a different category depending on who owns it. So the difference is going to be made somehow on one owner as against another owner. And what will the di fferences then be made in the ownership of that particular parcel of property? So when the Cabinet then comes to say, well, we'll put this parcel of pro perty into this category because it's owned by a certain party or parties, and we'll put a different parcel of land into a different category because it's owned by someone else.

But where are they going to make the divisions there? Are they going to say it's men as against women? Or is it owned by a corporation or against an individual or a trade union, or land owned by Protestants against Catholics or any other differentiation that you wish to make? You will then run up against the Charter, which has an equality provision which says that all people must be treated the same. They're all equal under the law and before the law. So what this is doing is to give the Cabinet the power to tax real property on the basis of the ownership.

But the Charter, on the other hand, says you can't differentiate, you have to treat everybody the same. I know that it's being done so as to make owner­ occupied condominiums be in the same category as single-family dwellings, but what is being said here is that, if you live in the pro perty, it can be taxed in one way and, if you don't live in the pro perty, it presumably can be in a di fferent category and therefore taxed in a different way.

I don't know whether the Mini ster has considered that portion of it or whether a judge in a year's time, or whatever it happens to be, will have a regulation brought before him by an aggrie ved citizen who says, you really can't tax me that way, because you are taxing my neighbor in a different way. You're taxing indi viduals differently and you 'r e ma ki ng them as ind ividuals different before the law. Are we then going to come back and be asked to change this to mean something else, to mean that a differentiation can be made on the pl ace of residence of the owner as agai ns t owner ship?

Otherwise, changes will have to be made on the category of the ownership of the particular prop erty. I ask the Min ister , because I haven't had the opportunity to speak to him personally , to consider that point and to think it through quite carefully in case changes have to be made at committee stage, so we won't find ourselves back here in a year's time making - is it the third or the fourth attempt? - to get this thing right. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Municipal Affairs to close debate. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We'll just respond to a few of the concerns or questions that have been raised by a number of members with respect to Bill 13. As was acknowledged by the Mem ber for Arthur, the reasse ssment and property taxation is not a simple matter. It's a fairly complex issue, and what we are dealing with at this time specifically is the matter of the court-ord ered reasse ssment for the Ci ty of Winnip eg. And what is being done is to try to develop 741 a fair taxation system that will deal with the problem of a lack of a proper assessment for the past 25 or so years in the City of Winnipeg.

Now as was referenced by a numb er of members, the Weir Comm ittee did considerable work in late 1979, early'80s. The report was received by this government. A number of the rec ommendations were adopted, and certainly the Weir Comm ittee report did comment on the number of classes. Interestingly enough, one of the rec ommendations was that there be a separate cl ass for golf courses. If one reads the report, one will note that in a case of pr ivate golf courses the Weir Commit tee recommended that there be a separate class on the condition that the priv ate golf courses be made accessi ble to the public.

I don't know exactly what was meant by that, but I do know that many of the pri vate golf courses in Winnipeg are being used by the public during the wintertime for cross-country skiing and so on. They are used for social functions throughout the year. For that reason, there's been no hesitation in providing a separate class to deal with very serious problems that the private golf courses were faci ng. Now Bill 57, passed by this House last year provided the authority for Cabinet to designa te the number of cla sses and, as was indicated this past Janu ary, some six classes were designated.

As we moved away from the termination of the City of Winn ipeg reass essment, we were being provided with more and more information from the city as to the potential im pact on the taxpayers of the City of Winnip eg. We could only move as quickly as that information was being provided to us and, as I recall, the first concrete information that we received as to the potential im pact of reasse ssment on golf courses, on sing le-family residential housing, on apartments and so on was provided to us near the latter part of Februar y.

My colleague, the Minis ter of Urban Affairs, and I had a numb er of meetings with senior elected officials from the City of Winnipeg, at which time we were asked to consider the addition of two more classes, one to assist the golf courses, one to assist the condominium owners, and it was at our instigation that cooperative housing was included.

As an outcome of the meetings, of the letters that we've received from various individuals, from executives of golf cou rses, from elected officials, we as a government appr oved in principle the addition of two new classes, one being residential 3 which should encom pass owner-oc cupie d con dominiums and cooperative housing and a golf course class.

These two classes were developed in response to requests from, as I ind icated, tenants of cooperative housing projects, owners of condominiums and from executives of golf courses, from people I'm sure of all political shades, and from elected officials from the City of Winnipeg, unlike the situation of the large lot owners who were unable to convince their city councillors to appr oach the city asking for a further class. The reason that the bill is here so late is basically because we have not been provided with information on a timely basis by the City of Winnipeg.

As I ind icated previou sly, it was not until the latter part of Febru ary, possibly the earlier part of March, that we were given any kind of concrete information as to what the potential

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 impact would be on these property owne rs. We were also alerted by the Chairman of the Finance Comm ittee as I recall , being the first one , to the fact that Onta rio has had legislation in place since 1979 providin g a specia l classification for residences of cooperative housing projects and condom ini um owners . However, when this matter was discussed with departmental staff , it was recognized that the re was a need to redefine

section 31(2) of The Municipal Assessment Act to list as one of the criteria , ownership and size: ownership so that we could develop a special class to accommodate condominium owners and residents of cooperative housing projects who, as members, are owners of the project ; size to accommodate golf courses so that we wouldn't find ourselves in a sit uation where somebody with a miniature golf course would feel that particular property should be in the golf course classification . There are a number of them that would have fitted that category.

So the reason the size has been included as a criterion is that a minimum size will be specified for a property to be qualified to be classified as a golf course . I listened with some interest to the, I would almost say, rabid reaction from the Member for Pembina , which is I guess the usual, and I think his reactions , not because of the timing of the bill , but because of the realization that this government is dealing in a responsible manner with a very complex situation. Not only that , we can talk to the City of Winnipeg .

We can discuss issues that are of concern to them , and we respond positively to provide the city with the flexibility that it needs to provide for a fair system of taxation .­ (lnterjection)- Well , yes. He laughs about the concerns of Winnipeg , of course. A MEMBER: And co-ops. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: And co-ops , that's right. The Member for Pembina knows full well that we , as a government, and the Member for Arthur knows that we, as a government , are moving towards province­ wide assessment reform . I believe both were present at a meeting in my office about a week ago . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Member for Pembina on a point of order. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I wouldn 't want the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs to leave a misleading statement on the record. Any laughter that I engaged in was not predicated on remarks he made. Quite frankly, I didn't hear him . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . What is the honourable member 's point of order? MR. D. ORCHARD: So I'd like him not to leave a misleading statement on the record that I was laughing at the City of Winnipeg , or whatever his stupid comment was . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Minister. 742 HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: indicated members opposite know full well that the province is moving in an ordered fashion towards implementation of province­ wide tax assessment refo rm , hopefully within the next three years or so, and th ey also app reciate the comple xity of that issue.

However , despite the fact that we had the provincial assessor there and the Deputy Minister to provide the information, I know that there are some who still do not understand or at least would leave us believe that they don't understand what we are proposing to do with these bills to deal with the City of Winnipeg assessment issue.

I will admit to the Member for Arthur that the decision to include two new classes , golf courses and a class for owner-owned condominiums and cooperatives , was not something that was discussed with the executive of the Union of Manitoba municipalities .- (lnterjection)­ Yes, I admit that and that's been brought to my attention. However , I would ask the Member for Arthur as to how many cooperative housing projects are located in our rural municipa lities in Manitoba - very little .

The fact is that we do have in the City of Winnipeg , or we are proposing eight classes, and it does provide the city with the flexibility to impose whatever mill rate it wishes on each class. If it's the city 's wish , they can have a uniform mill rate for all eight classes . They can do whatever they wish with their mill rate. That is the flexibility tha t we are providing to that elected level of government to deal with this issue.

Madam Speaker , I will review the remarks made by all members and respond further to any questions they may have and we in this House look forward to representation from the public tonight as to their views as to what this bill proposes . Thank you . QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. J. COWAN : I would move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Health Estimates will continue in the Committee Room and Agriculture Estimates will continue in the Chamber . MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture; and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for the Department of Health . CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: Committee , please come to order . This

section of the committee will deal with supp ly of the Health Department .

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask some general questions. My suggestion would be on this one that we probably go line by line, or program by program. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I was going to make the same suggestion because of the staff, but we will be very cooperative if, for some rea son, we have to come back or something. MR. CHAIRMAN: Where do you want to start then? MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, what we'll do, Mr . Chairman, with the first sec tion, it was rather all neatly tied in together so that's why I suggested the consideration of the whole works . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we go on line by line. MR. D. ORCHARD: We'll go line by line now. MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't want to go back to anything in the first sect ion? MR. D. ORCHARD: No. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You'd better not. We voted on it, no sense going backwards. MR. D. ORCHARD: We didn't vote on it yet, Mr. Chairman. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, we did. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, no we've got your Salary in there yet. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, no, but the first sec tion, we passed that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Inci dentally, am I now meeting the new Deputy Minis ter here again today, or what's ... HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Don't hold your breath, and I will tell you if there's any change in the Deputy Min ister. He knows. This is something between him and I. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: No, it's not something between the Min ister and I. It's a ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: Between you and my Deputy Minis ter, whatever it is. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, Mr. Chairman, some overall questions first off, going by the organization chart, the ADM in Community Health Services, Dr.

MacDonald, is responsible for, as near as I read it, all of the sections in sect ion 2 and sect ion 3 of the Estimates, in other words, Resolution 84 and 85, with the exception of 743 medical supplies and home care equipment. Is that correct? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's correct. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now again, Mr. Chairman, in the terms as set up of the Estimates, it begs a ques tion. I think we got into this a bit last year. Why is medical equi pm ent and suppli es not part of this ADM's responsibilities? Why is it segmented off to the ADM of Admin istration and Finance, Mr . Maynard? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Which one is that? MR. D. ORCHARD: Medical suppl ies and home equipment, what makes it unique in this series of program deliv ery that you've got a different ADM looking after it? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The medical equipment and supplies is the warehousing of all equipment and supplies and so on needed for continued care, for home care, and the policy of this is constantly under that Deputy Min ister or the ADM. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, that doesn't answer the question. HON. L. DESJARDINS: It doesn't? MR. D. ORCHARD: No.

If all of this equipment was so essential for whatever - you mention the continuing care - why isn't it part of the ADM's respo nsibilit y, Dr. MacDonald, and not Mr . Maynard's? Why is it under Mr. Maynard if it's primarily for continuing care and home care? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I understand that's been, for a number of years, historical and there's no better reason than that. I can tell my honourable friend that we're looking, I said earli er, at the Commission but we're also looking in the department. So any changes - that's something that we could consi der. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, do the medical supplie s have to be over here as a war ehousing operation? The ADM of Financial Admi nstration is presumably more technically capable, in terms of making sure that inventories are kept in order , than the ADM of Community Health Services. To me, it doesn't make sense, if all of the materials are used for the continuing care and home care program, to have it branched off in a split re sponsibility between Deputy Min isters. Having the ADM of Adminis tra tion and Finance looking after primarily a warehousing operation might make sense if it was primarily an accounting function.

But you've just ind icated to me earlier on that it's highly coordi nated by the ADM, Dr. MacDonald, in terms of needs and requirements for continuing care. HON. L. DESJARDINS: We certainly could look at that. I certainly have no hang-up on that at all. It's been something that was done for a numb er of years now and it kept on like that. I don't really know why, to be honest with you.

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay. Mr. Chairman , in terms of budget, we're looking at some $88 million of expend itures that fall und er the purview of this ADM , less of course the medical suppli es and equipment , so we're probably close to 84 or so. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Gerontology is not under the MR. D. ORCHARD: You've got $80 million worth of expenditures here, roughly. HON. L. DESJARDINS: But you understand that Gerontology and Medical Equipmen t a nd Health Information Resources are not under the ADM. MR. D. ORCHARD: The rough figure $80 million would still apply. Mr.

Chairman, when I made my opening remarks, one of the things I asked of the Minister in a rhetorical sense but in a very serious mode was, he's now got a budget that approaches one-and-one-third billion dollars in total that he's administering . I've always been of the opinion, I mentioned it last year, that that is a considerable amount of money. That's roughly $1,300 per Manitoban to provide for their health care on average . Manitoba and Medicare has indicated that there are upwards of $45 million if we bring our hospital per day costs down to national averages . That is a conservative estimate, if you will.

The Minister, I questioned him yesterday as to whether he can assure that within the department the funds allocated are spend efficiently, cost-effectively and are reaching the individuals who these programs are deemed to serve . Now I found out yesterday that there is basically a split responsibility and presumably a pyramidal responsibility where the ADM for Financial Services is responsible for internal audits, does his work or his staff does the work on internal auditing .

But it's up to the ADM or the director, as the case may be, to assure that any recommendations for change in procedure or any correction of problems is done. Then after that presumably , there can be further pressures put on by the ADM of Finance, the Deputy Minister and then the Minister. The question I have for the Minister is: Is he satisfied, under Dr. MacDonald's stewardship of roughly $80 million, that there is sufficient accountability and efficiency in spending? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: There have been some changes in just the last year or two years ago in the whole - we're trying to beef up the Community Health Section, the programs and so on. I can say without any hesitation that Dr. MacDonald has been very productive. As far as the administration and so on, then we would rely, I think there are enough safeguards in there through the Deputy Minister, like all the others. I've no reason to think we need any more in that area. Of course , up to a certain point, you might say we are pioneering and we're trying new programs.

I think we'll see much more of that, because we are trying to kind of shy away a little bit from the institutional model, as I mentioned yesterday, to go in the Community Health , and there will be some changes . I'm sure that there will be more safeguards, if I might say this, or more scrutiny of the 744 programs as we go along. Some of them will be kind of pilot projects, if you may, and that will be looked at. But the point is that we are going away from putting everything around the institu tion .

We're saying th at could be done better, in some instance s better , and certainly more economically by going to the community health. I think we're changing the whole outlook on that, how to provide health care to the people of Manitoba. As you go along this year and next year, I think you will see a big change. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman , that is something I think all of us are aware of, that the delivery of health care is changing. My question was rather specific . Is the Minister satisfied th at proper financial accounting , proper expenditures of existing budgets are occurring in this changing system?

HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm sure it's not perfect but, yes, I am satisfied . I want to inform the members of this committee tha t I have to rely on staff . There is no way that I could be responsible for policy, for changes in the delivery of the service at this time, attend six months or more of the Session with a budget, as my honourable friend said , of over $1 billion , and not rely on the people who have a responsiblility for the administration of funds. I think there are so many safeguards and, at times , I think there are too many. Anything new we must go to Treasury Board.

It has to be approved and is scrutinized at Estimates time . I'm not saying that there can't be some mistakes that could happen but I think that , all in all, we have a Director of Administration also who pretty well up to a certain amount , has a responsibility in all the departments , not talking about the Commission and the administrator in each branch. So, yes, if there's something that my honourable friend thinks or knows that should be tightened up, I'd be very pleased to hear but , as of now , the inform ation that I get and so on, yes , we are satisfied . MR. D.

ORCHARD: Then , the Minister 's expression of satisfaction, does that indicate that the conversation with his Deputy Minister, that he's been told that everything has been moving according to Hoyle in the expenditures of line-by-line budget? There are no difficulties, there 's no problem? This is what the Minister is indicating? HON. L. DESJARDINS : There are certain concerns or certain problems that are certainly taken care of with the senior personnel. It doesn 't necessarily all come to me to be rectified.

I'm not talking about something that is radically wrong, or something that is against the rules or direction of the department . I'm talking about if something has to be tightened up. They 're meeting constantly at the senior management. That isn't discussed at this time. I'm not trying to say that I don 't accept all responsibility, of course, as Minister I must, but the day-to-day administration is done by the people and , unless something is brought to my attention, I have no way of knowing. MR. D. ORCHARD: A second area I want to briefly discuss with the Minister on the responsibilities of this

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 ADM, we had a fairly lengthy dis cussion last year on Dr. MacDonald's role. The Mini ster replied - just as background to refresh the Mi nister's memory. I spoke to the Minis ter of staff morale problems and those staff morale problems, not only within some of the di rectly­ funded areas under this ADM but indeed within the Regional Services deli very, morale was not good. The person, the individual most often named in that of course was the ADM, and the Mini ster had taken some exception to me bringing that to his attention.

The Min ister, on page 2115 of Hansard, has ind icated and I'll read this back to the Mini ster: "Dr. MacDonald has the full confidence of the Minis ter, I can tell you that. There has been the best morale in the department. There's a lot of dead wood in the department, people who have been there a long time, an old boys' club who have been protecting each other and who do not like any changes at all." Now it goes on to justify that Dr. MacDonald basically was stepping on toes, etc., etc.

Can the Mini ster ind icate to me whether there has been a substantial change in the role of this old boys' club that he identified in last year's Estimates? Has Dr. Ma cD onald laterally moved any people or stalled anybody's career path, or demoted anyone to come to grips with this dead wood and the old boys' club that was in the Deputy Minis ter's department? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Well, first of all, let me make it quite clear, when any civil servant takes an oath of being loyal to the department and to the government that it serves - and I'v e never refused to meet with any personnel at any request, and I'v e had some requests. Now if they go out then, which is certainly not the way to go, if something is brought to the attention of the government or the department, fine. If they're not satisfied or if something - a criminal action or something - and if they don't get sati sfact ion from the department or the government, that's one thing.

But that is not the case at all and, if they go and give their information - you're talking about problems with morale with a big department and a department that's changing and that's bound to happen. But these things are never brought to my attention except from yourself. At times there are innuendoes. I don't get the full story. I certainly don't know who's making these accusations, if any, and I can't take that too seriously because their duty is to come and tell me as the Minis ter responsible for the government.

There is no doubt that there has been - I did mention - an old boys' club at one time, and I think that was known amongst some of the people, most of the people in the department that such a thing existed and do they not want to see changes, any changes at all. Some of them have retired, some should retire fairly soon, and there's been that concern. And yes, Dr. MacDonald has stepped on toes. We are comm itted to changes, not only Dr. MacDonald but the department is in certain ways. We're committed to change and if the people that do not want to change, well, they have only one option.

That option is not to go and criti cize behind the department's back, behind the Mi nister's back, and not have the guts to come and report it to me. I can't deal with it if it is not brought to my attention and if there isn't any merit. I'm not saying that everything they say has no merit. 745 Now Dr. MacDonald, there was a commitment from the department that we wanted change. Yesterday, I was told that there was no leadership in the government.

Whenever we're talking about leadersh ip, then as far as the mem ber is concerned, well then, it's a confrontation with the medical profession or somebody else or that the morale is low. We don't know who's making these accusations. How can I take that seriously if it is not brought to my attention? I am not blaming the Opposition at all. If they've got this information, fine, they're going to use it, but that's not the way to change or to impr ove a department, getting a certain thing a bit at a time and present it like that. The thing is you look into it.

Now my honourable friend has been saying for years that there's bad morale in there. I know that everybody is not satisfied. I expect that, but I don't think that there is that. You know there's never been a hatchet job or looking at trying to fire people. I've never done that. I've inherited all kinds of people. It wasn't like in the Lyon years where everbody that was supp osed to be friendly with the then-government were kick ed out. There wasn't a single one. I kept Deputy Minis ters; I kept everybody. All I ask is loyalty.

They can take the respon sibi lity also if there is poor mo rale in the department for their actions. Sure Dr. MacDonald has a tough job. We're changing it, something new, and there are a lot of people who don't want change. That's one of the difficult things, that the public itself will probably resist change as much as possible because they're comfortable with certain programs that we've had for a long time, but there is no option. We can't keep up with that. It is probably not the best standard in many instances, and even if it was, financially it is impossible.

We will lose everything we have if we don't make those changes and we are committed to the changes. Sure I said last year or the year before that could defeat a government, and it still might. But if we don't do it, the government might stay, but what are you going to get? You're going to lose the best health care program in the world. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister makes an interesting observat ion.

He made the same one last year, talking about staff loyalty, etc., etc., and I brought out some instances last year where I would have hoped that in the interim period of time the Minis ter would have taken some effort, in dis cussion with his senior staff, to make sure that staff morale ... The Minis ter, of course, just now indicated that he expects there to be some low staff morale when changes are going through. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, I said some resistance. I didn't say low staff morale. MR. D. ORCHARD: We won 't deb ate that, Mr . Chairman.

Can the Mi nister ind icate whether, in dis cussion with his senior staff, if members of staff who have problems and have identified those problems to a di rector, an ADM, if those are hand led expedit iousl y so the employee's career path is not jeopardized? Can the Minis ter offer me that assurance now?

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: You'r e asking me to give you assurance of a big department, everything that goes on in the department. Let's be practical and let's not pla y games. I have a responsibility as Min ister. I spend six months in the House. I'm trying to run a department, and I'm sup posed to know everything that happens in the department. That is ridiculous. I've got to, and I must accept responsibility if anything goes wrong. I can't di vorce myself from that. But there is no way in the world that I can know every single thing that happens in the department. There are safeguards.

I started when I was at the Commission, the Policy Comm ittee, where there were regular people and people who were invited if they requested or if we were looking at a certain program. I'v e repeated until I am blue in the face that people were coming there as equals, as individuals. They didn't have to look at the Deputy Minis ter or the ADM's who wanted to see if he would be or she would be offended by anything that was said. They said their piece. I'v e always encouraged that.

How can I assure, how can my honourable friend expect an answer to assure that I know everything that happens in the department if it's kept from me? I would hope that it isn't. I don't know of any cases like that. Undou btedly, there are certain things that are not brought to my attention. It would not be humanly possible to know of everything that goes on in all the discussions with all the ADM's and the Deputy Min ister and all the di rectors in all the hospitals and so on. I always said that we try to work as a team.

As the head of the team, I must accept responsibility and I do, but to say that I know everything that's there, I'd be lying, and my friend knows that. That is utterly imp ossi ble. As far as I kn ow, whenever there's something serious enough, it is brought to my attention, and it is not up to me necessarily to settle every little argument or settle any discussion or people who might have dis agreements. That's why we hir e Deputy Min isters and ADM's who are a hell of a lot better paid than I am to start with.

So let's look at that and I'm ready to accept my responsibil ity, but there is no way that I can gi ve a commitment or something to say that I know everything that happens in this department. I don't know of any Minis ter who does, or certainly any Min isters of Health. I'l l accept responsi bil ity. If there's something wrong, let my friend tell me and I'll look at the situation immedi ately, but I've never refused anybody to come and see me directly if they requested that. If fact, there's an awful lot of people that do.

I'v e encouraged that, if anything, without trying to undermine my senior staff, and I will continue to do that. But if it's not brought to my attention by either the person who might have a complaint or a concern or by the staff, I don't know what I can do. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the reason I posed these questions to the Min ister is that he is saying that the proper role is that staff should report problems to their superiors and ulti mately to the Minis ter.

Failing to do that, the Min ister is saying that they are not loyal people if they perchance were to provide information, if that was the case, to members of the Opposition or to the media for that matter. •1 . 746 HON. L. DESJARDINS: They make a commitment not to do that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Chairman, that's why I asked the Mini ster if he has the assurance from his senior management, which aren't all that numerous even though the department is large that, when staff bring legitima te complaints to dir ectors, ADM's, etc., those complaints are dealt with, including complaints which deal with the di rector?

And I think the Mini ster unde rstands what I'm saying. You've got staff unde rneath the di rector who may be complaining about the way the di rector or the ADM is running that shop, and they come to that person and they point out to him, I don't think you're doing things right. That's hardly a nice situation for staff to do, and I'm asking the Mini ster: If when staff does that, are their complaints forwarded through? Are they acted upon or do those staff not get treated as well as they maybe should have and maybe they're shunted aside? That's what I want to know from the Minis ter. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, I understand the question, but how do I know if the person who has a beef doesn't let me know and, for some reason or other, the dir ector or ADM or Deputy Min ister doesn't tell me? How can I say, yes, he tells me everything? How do I know? The situation is that I am satisfied as far as the information that I get. They are not necessarily telling me everything because it is their job to settle it. If it is something serious or if they can't do it, then they have to report to me.

But let's go back and let me say publi cly, in a case where somebody has a beef, is critical of the ADM or of a di rector, then I would say it is difficult to go and tell an ADM or a Deputy Min ister, you don't know what the hell you're doing or you're not doing it right. But if they are not getting sati sfact ion after dis cussing it with these people and if they're convinc ed that they're right, then I say public ly, all they have to do is get hold of me. Then I will know, but that hasn't been done. There was a case that came to me, and there was a lot of work done on that; there was one case. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Min ister if the ADM is the point person, if that's the termin ology to use, who would be the fi rst respondent to solve problems in the regions where service problems, del ivery problems in the regions are identified. Is the ADM the one that's respon sible to assure that a regional dir ector is undertaking changes that may be recommended or changes that may be necessary? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Normally the first line would be the ADM who is responsible for that - well, first the dir ector and then the ADM in that sect ion, the executive di rector, and then finally the Deputy Mi nister and the Minis ter. But oftentimes I under stand that they - I know that there's a senior management commit tee that meets constantly and those things are dis cussed there at that time, or the dir ector or somebody might feel that he should warn his superior and get the assistance or the help of the superior , the next one in line, and that is done. But this is a judgme nt call.

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 It could be something that a dir ector - you can't see every single executive dir ector running to tell the ADM and the Deputy Mini ster and the Min ister and the members of Cabinet every little thing that happens. It depends what it is. It's a judgment call. I might, even at the level of the Minis ter, try to solve it and, if I feel that I can't or for some reason or other that it has to go to the Cabinet, then I tell the Cabinet because the Cabinet is responsible for me.

So I'd like to help my honourable friend, but I can't guar antee that I know everything that is happening in the department. I'm not trying to hide anything from anybody. I have no reason not to trust the senior people who work with me - no reason at all. I'm not saying they're perfect. I'm not saying they don't make mis takes, but to say I don't trust them, fine. I hire people with skills and weaknesses, the same as members of Cabinet and members of the MLA. Fine, I go for their skill mostly and then we try to com pensate if there is some weakness.

I'm not saying everybody is perfect, but I trust the people who are with me until it is shown to me that I shouldn't or if they have been playing games behind my back, but I have no reason to beli eve that is the case. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the Min ister's collective remarks so far this afternoon that he would still make the statement that he did last year on page 21 16: "The thing is, Dr. MacDonald has a job to do. She's doing it; she's doing a damn good job." HON. L. DESJARDINS: I think she is, and I think the people working with her think she is. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, can I ask the Min ister, yesterday there was an indication that he could provide me with the growth program over expenditures. Is that information available today? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I unde rstand that it is, yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay. Can I ask another question while I'm awaiting that information? Were there one or two Special Warrants that the Minis ter took to Treasury Board for appro val of overex penditures this year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I think there were two Special Warrants. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, will the details of those Special Warrants also be made available? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, this is a general question and it probably should have been posed yesterday, but the ADM of Finance is still here. Were the Special Warrants sufficient so that the department with printed authority plus the authority given through Special Warrants did not exceed that authori ty, i.e. overexpend beyond the prin ted estimate in the Special Warrants? HON. L. DESJARDINS: What year is my honourable friend talking about, '86, '87 or - my information is 747 that, no, we didn't exceed - we exce eded, of course. That's why we went for a Special Warrant, but you said over and above that? MR. D.

ORCHARD: Yes. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oka y. I'v e got some general questions and this involves digging into not only Appropriation 2 but also 3 , because the difference between last year's print over print is that, under Community Health Services Operations, you've elimi nated Operation Support and you only have Regional Services under sect ion 3. The question is, where do the three staff, I believe, from last year and the budget of 13 2,700 that was in the printed Estima tes last year, is that part of Program and Operation Support that we're dealing with on the first item with 2.? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: That was amalgamated this year. There has been some change of presentation of this to try to make it easier for the Opposition with the other information that we've had also, with the added information that we provided the members of the House. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, that stimula tes the question, if I follow my SY's from last year, there were 19 in Program Support and I presume that Program and Operation Support, according to the Sup plementary Information, is the same thing because it ind icates 20 SY's. I'll just finish the question because it ties in.

Under Operation Support, which was under Operations last year, there were three SY's. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You'r e talking about voted last year? MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes. HON. L. DESJARDINS: See, now I've got to adjust this. I've got to look in three different things. MR. D. ORCHARD: I know this gets confusing, but the basic question is, if you amalgamated the Operation Su pport with Program Supp ort, you had 22 staff between those two sections last year. You've now got 20. Was there some reallocation of staff somewhere? HON. L. DESJARDINS: One went to Mental Health and one went to the Region.

Werbeniuk went to Mental Health and a vacant staff who went to Region. MR. D. ORCHARD: Ok ay, that clears up the amalgamation. Mr. Chairman, in the detail of Program Operation and Support, acc ording to the subsuppl y, we've got a sizable incr ease in qu alification pay, from $40,000 to $90,000.00. Now the definition of qualification pay, if I follow it closely , is additional remuneration to the basic salary rate for nu rses and doctors based on qualifications possessed by an employee as negotiated in the collective agreements, GEMA and MMA. Mr.

Chairman, I note that there are some vacancies in the Operation and Support presently. What's the

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 extra $50,000 in qualification pay to be used for this year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: This is to more acutely reflect the pay for the negotiated salary of all the medical, the mental staff, with the MMA agreement. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, does that mean that we've got now more than double the numb er of staff in this 20-SY Program and Support Branch? Have we got more than double the numb er of staff who req uir e qualification pay, or has the rate of qualification pay doubled? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, last year some of that pay would be under the Salary line.

To be more accurate, to reflect more truly the pay of the medical profession as per the agreement of the MMA, this has been pulled out and put in this line. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Chairman, not that I want to nit-pick with the Minis ter, but that answer doesn't make any sense because that is the whole purp ose of the adjusted vote is to show the difference year over year of such things as qualification pay because, if it was part of Salaries last year, it could have been pulled out and shown as qualification pay in the adjusted vote. But is the Mini ster saying that . . . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I am just talking about this year, why this happened this year. That's the information that I'm getting. You asked me what that line reflects and that's the information that I'm getting. MR. D. ORCHARD: But, Mr . Chairman, that answer doesn't make sense because, if part of the qualification pay last year was included in Salaries, the adjusted vote should have pulled it out and shown it. Now that's either saying that the qualification pay of $40,000 that's in the adjusted vote for 19 86-87 is und erstated, or my question still stands: are you paying double the number of staff? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: No, it was und erstated. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr. Chairman, if it was understated, why didn't the adjusted vote show it stated properly and not leave the impr ession that you're doubling qualification pay? HON. L. DESJARDINS: This is what I've been trying to say, that it has been corrected to reflect the true picture this year. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay. Then let's make sure we unde rstand what we're talking about: (

a) there is no dif ference in num bers of staff who are eligible for qualif ication pay year over year; (

b) nor is there a doubling of the size of qualification pay year over year. We're talking apples with apples when we compare adjusted vote last year to the requested vote this year. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The situation is that there were vacant positions last year where we didn't anticipate that we could get the medical staff to fill these positions, and this year we are. 748 MR. D. ORCHARD: I guess I won't spend too much more time on it, but last year's SY

summary didn't show any vacancies. But I accept the Minister's answer on that. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, the added bit of information that I'm getting is that some of these positions were filled with people who were not medical staff last year because we felt that we couldn't recruit the medical staff, and this year we anticip ate that we will. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Chairman, that's all the questions I have on this Programs and Operations. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a)- pass. 2.(a )(1) - the Mem ber for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr . Chairman.

Like the previous speak er, I am somewhat concerned about the qualification pay and I still don't understand the explanation of exactly what it is. I mean the qualif ication pay, is it provided to those 12 SY's who are on the professional technical staff? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The qualification pay is to qualify for that. The maximum is $1 0,000.00. We hope that we will recruit more to go to the 90, that it would be 9, and last year it was the 40. We're trying to recruit more doctors. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I'm still very confused. I really don't understand. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Well, I understand that this qualification pay is to attract the type of people that you wish, and it's an added $10 ,0 00 as per the agreement over and above the salary. This is as per the agreement that we have at the MMA. Last year there was 40,000.00. If they've raised the maximum, that was 4, and now we expect to recruit 9, I guess, if we go to the maximum, 5 more, and that's why there are 90 ins tead of 40. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr . Chairman, exactly who of this 20 staff - obviou sly, not adminis trative support of which there are 6, so are there 14 people in this particular

section who are eligible for this qualification pay? HON. L. DESJARDINS: They would be part of the profes sional, the 12, and there are 9 of them. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: So when you are hiring, you can ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: If they're qualified, if they qualif y. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I'm really confused about this, I'm sorry. You've got 12 professional staff. Presu mably , they're primarily doctors or nurses. These individuals wouldn't really be hired under normal circu mstances because the job would not be attractive enough, and so you therefore have to offer them additional pay?

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's part of the negotiated agreement with the MMA for specia lty. These are people who, before that, some of them did not have this specialty . When you can't get exactly what you want, the best, well you get second-best, the same as we've done in mental hospitals with psychiatrists and so on. But now we are trying to attract those kinds of people with specialties and, as for the agreement with the MM A, there's $1 0,000 for those who are qualified over and above their salary to entice them to train in community medicine. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: All right. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It's just the same with public health nurs es and so on. They're not always the easiest thing to recruit. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Can the Minis ter explain what stand-by refers to? It's a new qualification. It wasn't in last year. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That again is an effort to be more specific. That was in Salaries last year. These are doctors who are working on weekends and so on. That was also part of the ongoing discussion and agreement with the MM A. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIR MAN: Any more questions on 2.(a)( 1) ? 2.(a) (1) - pass; 2.(a)(2) - the Mem ber for River East. MRS.

B. MITCHELSO N: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're on now then to Commun icable Diseases? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Min ister, under Salaries, there are two staff, both managerial. Are they the same people who were there last year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's the same as last year. One is Dr. Fast, the other was the same vacancy that we had last year. MRS. B. MITC HELSON: The same vacancy. So, there is no one else there? I was wondering why the decrease in managerial salaries. MR. CHAIR MAN: Could I have a clarification from the Member for River East? Are you talking about 2.(a)(2), or 2.(b)(2), or 2.( b)(1) ?

HON. L. DESJARDINS: 2.(b). We passed 2.(a). 2. (b), Communicable Dis ease Control. MR. CHAIR MAN: We passed 2.(a)( 1) . Now are we talking about 2.(a)(2)? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, we passed it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oka y, that's what I asked. So we're at 2.(b)( 1) . MRS. B. MITCHLESON: Mr . Chairman, can the Minis ter explain to me, there's $8,000 in overtime here again in this line, and I notice that was the adjusted vote for 749 last year and, for the upcoming year, there is an increase to $12, 000.00. Can the Minis ter explain how he can know ahead of time how much overtime and how much money can be allotted for this?

HON. L. DESJARDINS: This is something that is very difficult to estimate, and we had underes tima ted last year. You can have a few emergencies or something and it could change the whole thing. You could have a spill or you could have something . . . MRS. B. MITCHELSON: So, Mr. Chairman, the Min ister is then indicating that the adjusted vote from last year then of $8,000 was not enough? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's correct. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr . Chairman, I'd like to move right into AIDS if I can and ask the Min ister some questions.

Can the Min ister tell me how many cases of AIDS we have to date in the province? How many carrying the virus? How many are infected, have a full-b lown case of AIDS, and how many have died? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Of 17 known cases, 6 died and approximately 100 are known as being infected. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr . Chairman, so 6 of those 17 have died already, or there are 17 further cases? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, 6 of those 17 have died. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: And those are the upda ted figures as of right now? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The latest that I have. MRS. B.

MITCHELSO N: I just would like to quote from the Throne Speech when the Min ister of Finance was on his feet stating that: "My government will intensify its efforts to seek innovative solutions to the challenges of health care and to maintain our province's leadersh ip in this field." I have to say that I don't feel that, in this area of health care, this government has taken any direction or any leadersh ip. Last year in the Estimates when we were dis cussing AID S the Min ister said that in a month or so AIDS should become a reportable dis ease.

Now this was back in July of 1986 and, to date, AIDS has not been made a reportable dis ease. I'd like to ask the Mi nister where it's at and what's happening right now with making it a reportable dis ease. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member talks about leadership. Certainly, members are entitled to their opinion. It is true, that, quite sinc erely last year , I expected that there would be some information that I would be able to - it is true that I didn't deliver the commitment that I made, if you want to call that a commitment.

Now the reasons for that is that it took an awful lot long er, through the Attorney-General and the Human Rights and so on and so forth in dis cussing with different groups, to arrive at a decision. But let me tell my

Tuesday, 7 April, 1987 honourable friend who has made a lot of noise lately on the question of AIDS, let me ask my honourable friend: What big difference will it make if it is a reportable dis ease? Because we have the information now, not the names, but we have the information, and that is the main thing if you're going to have research. We talk about leadership. This is something that you work together. All provinces are not going to reinvent the wheel. We are working with the Federal Government. There's a federal committee on this working with the di fferent pr ovi nces.

We'r e getting a lot of the information. The Federal Government also has an information program. We have dis cussed that with the doctors to start with. There's a lot of misunderstandi