Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, the 2003-2004 Departmental Expenditure Estimates.

I am also pleased to table several reports, copies of which have been already distributed: the Manitoba Judicial Council annual reports; the Manitoba Human Rights Commission Annual Report; Discriminatory Business Practices Act, March 31, 2003; MPI '02 Annual Report; Law Reform Commission, '02-03; MPI Quarterly, three months ended May 31, 2003.

I am also pleased to table under The Regulations Act a copy of each regulation registered with the Registrar of Regulations, after the regulations were tabled in this House, December 2002, and more than 14 days before the commencement of this session. I also have a box of these, Mr. Speaker, that the Assembly office will provide.

Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the following Supplementary Information for Legislative Review 2003-2004 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Finance, Civil Service Commission, Manitoba Employee Pensions and Other Costs and Manitoba Enabling Appropriations and Other Appropriations.

Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review 2003-2004 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Manitoba Transportation and Government Service.

* (13:35)

Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review of Manitoba Education and Youth 2003-2004 Departmental Expenditure Estimates.

Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2003-2004 Departmental Expenditure Estimates of Culture, Heritage and Tourism.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Yesterday the Premier talked about money he has used from the rainy day fund, but he has used it for programs that are not working. If the Premier cared at all about these families and about the future of the industry, he would use that fund today to provide cash advances. That is what is needed. It may mean that this Premier might have to make some tough decisions to ensure that his Budget is balanced, but he is the Premier of this province and that is his responsibility.

Will the Premier and his Government show that they have a heart, show they care and will they flow a cash advance immediately from the rainy day fund?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, obviously the continued closure of the border for the majority of producers here in Manitoba continues to represent a real economic challenge for many farm families, many communities, many businesses that are a part of our agricultural economy. That is why we announced a $100-million low-interest loan program. That is why we have announced an amendment to our program to provide for a feeder program and that is why also we agreed with some changes to the APF, including the ability of producers to pay in a more sensitive way. That is why we agreed to join in on the federal-provincial program because we knew the crisis was real and we knew that no matter what our objections were to the federal-provincial support agreements, we had no choice with the crisis that was before us but to have a program in place for federal-provincial funding.

I would point out to members opposite that our $43 million is in place for the provincial share of that program. We want the federal government to sign that agreement now that we have agreed to it with the changes we obtained over the summer. That was the advice we received from the municipalities; just recently the farm organizations, all the farm organizations, to sign that agreement with our $43 million plus the federal program. We want the cash to flow to people involved in the cattle crisis immediately. We do not accept the alternative of members opposite to run a deficit, and I am a little surprised that they would suggest that.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter that was sent to the Premier for the House, please.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier just said that this crisis is real. If he honestly believes that, why does he not open up his heart and show that he cares about families in crisis? Today we find it is 113 days since this border has been closed. Instead of offering leadership, the Premier continues to blame others. As one Manitoban, and this is in a letter that I just tabled, Laura Chartier put it in a recent letter that she sent to the Premier and I quote: If you are waiting for the federal government to be the leader in this situation, you will be saying that agriculture and the beef industry in Manitoba is a lost deal. The federal government will not take a stand in this situation, as has been shown time and time again.

Will the Premier provide the leadership, the hope, the opportunity to those families in crisis and flow money to them today from the rainy day fund?

* (13:40)

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, there is money flowing today from the rainy day fund to deal with the program that we amended without the federal government's support to deal with the feeder program. There is also money flowing today to try to increase slaughter capacity from a very small amount here in Manitoba to a larger amount, particularly targeting for the cattle that we are most worried about, the older animals here in Manitoba.

We have indicated verbally to the federal government and to various municipalities that we also will be putting money on the table for a drought transportation program. We also believe that program should be federally and provincially supported. We also believe, Mr. Speaker, that the major amounts of cash necessary to deal with this crisis should flow with the agreement of Manitoba to have our $43 million in this Budget available to people in crisis and to join in with the federal government with the APF agreement to flow cash immediately.

So, on the feed program, on the slaughter program, on our share of the slaughter subsidy, on a drought program and on the agricultural support programs, Manitoba money is on the table. It is on the table. It is on the table and it is flowing, and we need a federal partner to continue to deal with this crisis.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, whatever table it is on it is certainly not on the producers' table. They are suffering. Manitobans like Laura Chartier want real programs that work for them in this crisis. As she said in the letter, the e-mail that she sent to this Premier, and I quote: You just keep waiting and we just keep waiting for you to make some concrete solutions, and some form of cash, not in the form of another loan, funding that would assist producers through this serious time. Winter is fast approaching and time is running out. Please rise up and show us you care.

Will the Premier do the right thing and show us that he cares about people like Laura? Flow money from the rainy day fund, Mr. Premier, to those producers today. It is a crisis, sir.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has not differentiated himself from his critic who, in the Brandon Sun and the Winnipeg Free Press today, is calling on the Government to run a deficit. When we met with a number of–[interjection]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Doer: Well, of course, we know what programs were going to be cut to deal with the education tax reduction from the member opposite.

Three years ago the members opposite asked us to take $300 million out of the rainy day fund to deal with the grain and oilseeds. They asked us to take another significant amount out two years ago. Both years we put $50 million in to be joined by the federal government for cash support. Again last year they asked us to take another $200 or $300 million out of the fund. We believe that money from Manitoba must flow from the provincial taxpayers to the cattle producers that are in crisis. That is why we agreed with the changes to the federal-provincial program to put our $43 million on the table. Our $43 million is on the table, and we want the national government to immediately deal with their portion of this agreement to have this money flow immediately to the producers here in Manitoba.

* (13:45)

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there is money from the rainy day fund for the feeder program, for the slaughterhouse enhancement program, potentially for a federal-provincial drought transportation program, for forest fires. We believe this is an important program for people. All these programs are important. Obviously, opening the border is important.

I would point out every farm organization we have met with in the last week has told us to sign the APF agreement. You have no choice but to get that money into people's hands. You have no choice but to sign the agreement. They thanked us for getting improvements to that agreement by holding off for a couple of weeks. Members opposite are telling us not to sign. All the major farm organizations are telling us to sign and have a true federal-provincial response to this crisis.

Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans were disappointed to learn the Family Services Minister has not been working throughout the summer to develop a plan to help with families who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to make ends meet. As a new member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, I was disappointed the minister did not have a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Family Services. I want to ask him again what plan has he put in place to help the families through this crisis.

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I would like to again thank the member for her question. Of course, as a western Manitoba MLA joined by my colleague in Brandon West, we are very, very concerned, particularly how the BSE crisis is affecting our own region of the province. I, along with my colleagues in government, have been meeting extensively with producers, with municipal officials. Last night we were in the building until after ten o'clock meeting with elected officials as well as producers. We are responsive to all Manitobans in times of need, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to be so.

Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, the Family Services Minister has not reached out to the families in crisis. He has not developed a plan to help them. He is abandoning the very people he is supposed to be helping.

Can the Minister of Family Services explain to moms and dads who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to get through the crisis why his Premier (Mr. Doer) refuses to provide them with cash advances they so desperately need to pay the bills, to feed, clothe and educate their children?

Mr. Caldwell: I respect the fact the member is a new member to this House and I will presume she does not know that her party cancelled the rural stress line and took away a resource from western Manitobans and rural Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. That was reinstated by our Government after the cut. I will assume the member as a new member of this Chamber did not know that, but certainly as a Westman MLA she should know it.

Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, this is a non-caring minister, this is a heartless Premier and this is a cold and callous government. Children will not have the proper clothes to keep them warm or be able to participate in the usual activities because the money is just not there.

Will the Minister of Family Services stand up for the children and the families whose welfare is supposed to be protected? Will he press his Premier to provide Manitobans with the assistance they so desperately need?

Mr. Caldwell: Again, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member is a newcomer to this Chamber. I really wish she would not read off a prepared text that is full of political rhetoric, because it does not do anything to bring Manitobans together.

Those of us on this side of the House, as I said in earlier responses, have been very, very busy this summer. In fact, we have been very busy since 1999 bringing forth initiatives that improve the quality of life for all Manitobans. We will continue along that tack, Mr. Speaker, and political rhetoric off a sheet of paper read into the record does not help that situation.

* (13:50)

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, Manitoba's livestock producers have very serious concerns about the Government's BSE loan program. Producers have been told there would be or could be a processing fee of up to a thousand dollars. They have been told they could require the services of a lawyer and an accountant and they have been told that all bills payable must go through MACC for approval before the loan is given out. The producers fear they are signing their lives away to the Government in order to come out of this BSE crisis.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: Can the Minister of Agriculture tell this House, and I want to be perfectly clear, I want to know how many producers have formally requested loan applications and how many have been approved to date?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the member has such concern about the application form that is in place for the BSE recovery program because the previous administration put a program in place in 1997 called the Producer Recovery loan. The difference between the two applications is theirs was at a prevailing interest rate, ours is at a 3.2% interest rate and 2.25% interest rate for young farmers.

Mr. Speaker, the application forms are exactly the same, exactly the same. So, if the member is concerned about how this program is being administered, I can tell him it is exactly the way it was being administered when they put in the Producer Recovery loan. We have made some modifications to improve the process, but I can tell you that the member raises issues that bills have to come in. That is not true.

Mr. Tweed: It seems to be harder to get an answer out of the Minister of Agriculture. It is almost about as hard as it is to get a copy of the application that we requested from her office and several offices around Manitoba who do not even know they have it or claim they do not have it. I will ask the minister again, and I will ask her very clearly. We know she has sent out several applications to producers, sent them out voluntarily. I want to ask the minister to clear the record and tell this House and tell Manitobans: How many applications have been requested by producers and how many have been processed?

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the member seems to imply that we are sending out application forms to people. The application forms are available at the Agricultural Credit Corporation office, and we have put additional staff into parts of the province where there are the most serious impacts by the BSE.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that there are close to a thousand applications that are being processed right now and over a hundred have been approved, so there is interest in the program and staff are working diligently to deal with people on their individual cases to ensure that the money we have made available does flow to the producers. The member seemed to think that a cash advance is better than a loan. They forget to recognize that when you take a cash advance, you also have to have security and you also have to fill out an application form.

Mr. Tweed: When the minister was out doing her tour of rural Manitoba and supposedly listening to the producers, she was also told that the producers could not afford another loan, did not want another loan. In fact, one guy expressed the sentiment that by taking out another loan on debts he cannot pay now would be like eating his seed corn in the spring. It just does not work, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister now: Will she acknowledge that her loan program is failing Manitoba producers at their biggest time of need in the crisis under the BSE problem, and will she move to a cash advance program to ensure the stability of our producers in rural Manitoba?

Ms. Wowchuk: I am not sure where the member was when I was in Hartney. I cannot remember whether he was at the same meeting, but when I met with producers there, producers there said we need a cash flow, we need lower interest rates for our younger producers. We recognize that. When we were at the meeting in Hartney, the Manitoba Cattle Producers when they made their presentation said they would like to see something similar to the producer recovery loan, Mr. Speaker, and I guess the member does not talk to his leader who just sent out a letter earlier on saying that a low-interest rate program would be good.

* (13:55)

Mr. Speaker, the program is working, cash is flowing to the producers. I would encourage more of these people to encourage people to take this cash flow until such time as the feds come on board. We need the feds on board. We need the Opposition to stand with us to put pressure on the federal government. Our money is on the table. Why do they not stand together and stand up for Manitobans and put pressure on the federal government?

Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Jake Harms is a 65-year-old cattle rancher in the Kleefeld area. Mr. Harms has lost $200,000 as a result of feeding his herd throughout the summer, money he knows that he will never recover in his lifetime. He is now unable to access the minister's loan program which she says is working because he does not have sufficient collateral to meet the minister's needs. The Minister of Agriculture has failed Mr. Harms. What is her plan to make sure producers like him are able to live and survive?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Members across talk about cash advance versus a low-interest loan. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell others, whether it is a cash advance or a loan, even if it is a federal loan that the people who sell wheat get, they still have to sign a security. They still have to sign a security–[interjection]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the situation with BSE is very serious and causing pressure from many families. I would ask the member if he knows of individuals who are having difficulty getting their loans, that he send their names to my office and we perhaps can work with those people, rather than rankling at me on the floor of the Legislature.

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, at a cattle producers' meeting in Grunthal, Manitoba, on August 19, ranchers asked the Minister of Agriculture what they should do if the border did not open by the end of September. Should they go bankrupt feeding their cattle over the winter? Would there be a cull program? Someone suggested that they just directly deliver their cattle right to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks later they are still waiting for an answer. What does this minister expect ranchers to do if the border does not open by the end of this month?

Ms. Wowchuk: I would remind the member that this is not the Manitoba border that is closed. It is the Canadian border that is closed and it is an issue that cattle producers across the country are facing, Mr. Speaker, and one we have to work very diligently on. The priority is to open the border.

I have talked to many producers who are making decisions, producers who are rolling up straw, producers who are finding different places to house their cattle. Producers are making their decisions and I have been calling on the federal minister to put together a team of people to put together a national strategy on a cull program, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be having that meeting very shortly.

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, agricultural reporter, Harry Siemens, stated in the last edition of Farm Watch that the Manitoba government had failed to provide leadership on the BSE crisis. He said that producers in desperation were left to turn to friends, church, social services, farm organizations, family doctors or anyone else that was prepared to listen. Why is the Minister of Agriculture not listening? Will she tell ranchers what they are expected to do if the border remains closed? Give them a plan.

* (14:00)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have been out listening to producers and I have been talking to people in church groups that have been very supportive. I think we all have a responsibility to be supportive of our neighbours through this crisis. It is something that I have talked about to farm organizations: to be there, to support their neighbours.

The member talks about if the border does not open. The goal is to open the border. There was a partial opening to cut meats, Mr. Speaker. That is one step. A few products are going over the border. There are close to 200 permits that are in the process of being approved, and I think many of those will be approved very shortly. That is what we have to work toward, getting that border open and putting in place plans on how we will deal with cull cows.

We have taken the step to increase our slaughter capacity, something that the previous administration neglected in all their years of office. It is a shame that they allowed that to slip down to 16 000 animals–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. For 72 days the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba refused to meet with any farm group, refused to meet with a cattle producer or even a farmer, yet he had all kinds of time to munch shrimp cocktail with the rich and famous in Hollywood.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please. I have to be able to hear the questions and hear the answers in case there is use of unparliamentary language or a breach of the rules. So I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mr. Schuler: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. For 72 days the Premier of Manitoba refused to meet with any farm group, refused to meet with a cattle producer or even a farmer, yet he had all kinds of time to munch shrimp cocktail with the rich and famous in Hollywood.

Why did it take 72 days for this minister to convince her boss, the Premier, to meet with the cattle producers in Manitoba?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I have to tell the member the Premier (Mr. Doer) does not like shrimp, but he has been eating an awful lot of roast beef.

I can tell the member that he is wrong about the Premier not meeting with producers. He met with them on June 23, Mr. Speaker. I have to also tell you that the role of the Premier is also to represent the people of this province at a different level.

He raised this issue in Kelowna. He raised the issue with the Prime Minister. He raised the issue with leaders in the United States when he went to Minnesota.

All of these are important issues, Mr. Speaker. I am very proud of the position our Premier has taken in standing up for Manitobans.

Mr. Schuler: The Premier running over a cow with his SUV does not constitute a meeting. The cattle producers want meaningful meetings with this Premier.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. A farm family states that the kids have all outgrown their snowsuits and boots; we cannot afford to buy new ones.

Why did it take 72 days for this minister to convince her boss, the Premier, to meet with any farm group, her boss with time to stand around with the rich and famous in Hollywood licking caviar off his fingers?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has time for Hollywood, California but not for Rockwood, Manitoba. Shame on him.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in his comments. I can tell you that although the Premier was not meeting face to face with the cattle producers when we were in Kelowna, it was at the Premier's insistence that the western premiers' meetings stopped and that we had the opportunity to call back to each of our provinces respectively to see whether the program that was being put in place was the right program. We called back and talked to the Manitoba cattle producers. We are in constant contact.

I can also tell the member that there are regular meetings with staff in my office, and I meet on a regular basis with the cattle producers to discuss this very important issue that is impacting on cattle producers all across Canada.

Mr. Schuler: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. As the Premier of Manitoba sipped champagne with the rich and famous of Hollywood, a farm family asks: What are we going to do? We have children to feed, children to clothe and children to educate.

Will the minister insist that her boss the Premier live up to his promise to be a leader for all Manitobans and not just be a follower of the rich and famous?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I think it is really important that we not trivialize a very, very serious issue here in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, it is important, I think, to recognize that Manitoba was invited to host Canada Day celebrations in Los Angeles. Last year Premier Klein did so in the same city and the year before on Canada Day the British Columbia government hosted.

I would point out that all Manitoba agricultural products were served, promoted and deals were signed dealing with agricultural diversification, including selling carrots to California.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the issue is extremely serious. We have tried to adjust our programs accordingly and I think it is time to stop trivializing this issue. I think it is time to deal with the money that we have put on the table for the federal-provincial agreement. Our money is ready to flow tomorrow. Let us get the feds onside and start dealing with the real economic crisis.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): On July 15 this Government announced a $15-million feeder program and yesterday in Estimates the Minister of Agriculture said there was only $10 million in the province's feeder assistance program.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture tell this House why her Government misled Manitobans announcing a $15-million program for feeders one day, cutting that amount to $10 million and then finally dumping the whole program altogether?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I explained this to the member in Estimates yesterday, but I guess he does not understand so I will explain again, that is that we had a $15-million program that was put in place for the slaughter deficiency program. We changed that program to a feeder program at the request of the Manitoba producers. It was within that package that we are doing our slaughter program and our feed program, but the most important thing is that the program is being replaced. We now have money that will be flowing through the APF to the Manitoba producers, but if there is a deficiency in the program we will work through it with the cattle producers.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about this issue with the cattle producers yesterday. My department will be meeting with them tomorrow, but I can tell you that the decision that was made to change the program from a slaughter program to a feed program was done in consultation with the cattle producers.

Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is another group in Manitoba that feels as betrayed right now as the Manitoba cattle producers and the people in rural Manitoba.

Can the Minister of Agriculture tell this House how much money the Manitoba government actually paid out under the feeder program and how many people benefited from the program before they yanked it a couple of days ago?

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the program that was put in place will be expended. The whole program that was put in place will be expended. As well, we have put in $43 million that is there waiting to flow as soon as the federal government will allow us to flow that money so that there can be bridge money, there can be funds.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a $50,000 low-interest loan that can be used by producers to help them bridge until such time as the border opens or other money flows.

* (14:10)

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, never before have I seen the blame game played as well as this Government is playing the blame game.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What do you say to a struggling farm woman who writes, and I quote: If you are not going to help your own farmers, at least have the decency to say so. Then at least I can leave the keys on the bank manager's desk.

Is this what you want, Madam Minister, for this young farm woman to do?

I think it is time that I ask again, Mr. Premier, for your minister to resign, and if she will not resign, at least have the decency to remove her from office because the cattle producers in this province cannot wait until November.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I recognize the honourable First Minister, I would just like to remind all honourable members when putting a question or answering a question to please put it through the Chair.

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, last night and again the week before that, and the week prior to that, all the farm organizations applauded the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) for getting improvements to APF, including the way producers have to pay and have latitude to pay into that program. All of them advised us to sign the agreement. The member opposite would not sign the agreement, would not have any program in place. Two years ago it was $300 million out of the rainy day fund, last year it was $300 million out of the rainy day fund, now it is $350 million out of the rainy day fund, now it is going into the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, we know that agriculture is a federal-provincial program. Our $43 million is on the table with an improved program, albeit deficient program, that we have agreed to, to get the cash crisis dealt with. They would not sign the agreement. They are all over the place, Mr. Speaker. This Minister of Agriculture is dealing with this crisis in a straight ahead way with a federal-provincial solution in place.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday, the minister indicated that a requirement for cash advances or interim payments under the Agricultural Policy Framework is that a particular proportion of the provinces, representing a certain proportion of the industry, must sign on. I would ask the minister whether she can clarify the requirements for cash advances or interim payments to flow to producers affected by the detection of the case of mad cow disease in Canada.

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I did indicate that we are prepared to sign on to the Agricultural Policy Framework agreement. I hope that other provinces that have not signed yet will sign on as well. There has to be 50 percent of the provinces signing on. Right now there are four provinces, Manitoba will be the fifth.

The federal government has told us that when a program is implemented, they will then put in an interim payment that will flow the money. The federal government is administering the program and they will be the ones. I can also tell the member that the federal government has $600 million that is available that they could be flowing to the provinces now and they are refusing to flow that money until people sign on to the APF. I would ask him to talk to his colleagues and encourage them to loosen up some of the money that is not tied to the APF. Our money is on the table. I want the federal money to flow, too.

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the minister: Is she not aware of the federal government's communication of August 12, which I table, which indicates very clearly that the federal Agriculture Minister can indeed flow the cash advances or interim payments once the bilateral agreements are in place and there is not a requirement for 70 percent of the provinces with 50 percent of the industry?

I would ask the minister: Was she not aware of the announcement on August 12?

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member that the federal minister did put out a press release saying that he could flow the bilateral money and then he changed his mind on that. He is not flowing bilateral money. I would be quite happy to sign a bilateral agreement and have the money flow to Manitoba. I can tell you Alberta and B.C. have signed their agreements, but there is no bilateral money flowing there. He needs the whole agreement to be approved.

Mr. Gerrard: I think what is important to producers is when the cash advances will flow. Can you tell us when the cash advances will flow?

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the federal minister, who the member I believe knows, could flow the $600 million right now because it is not tied to the Agricultural Policy Framework.

I have asked the federal minister to courier us a copy or come here and sign the agreement immediately, as soon as possible, so that Manitoba will have a bilateral agreement and then we can make some decisions on flowing the money. I would ask him to call his colleagues in Ottawa and ask them when they are going to loosen the purse strings and start recognizing how serious the situation is on the Prairies.

Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines. Population growth is an economic indicator of how well a province is doing. Could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines update the House in regard to the recent interprovincial migration statistics?

Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question and indicate that some of the numbers we have received in the last two quarters and projected for the next do show a positive trend for interprovincial migration, one that has been particularly challenging particularly in the nineties and early part of the 2000s. We have traditionally seen a net loss of people from our province. It looks like we have turned the corner on that and, in fact, we have seen over 600 people across the country moving into Manitoba. That, coupled with our international migration, means that Manitoba is growing and I hope to see even stronger numbers in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, now we have seen in the House today the Liberals and the NDP both trying to blame Ottawa for not flowing enough money into the pockets of producers who have actually gone from being contributing members of society. Progressive agricultural producers have been turned into broken beggars who are looking for support anywhere they can get it. There will be people who will survive this industry, but they will survive in spite of what government may or may not be doing to provide assistance.

Today the entire Question Period we have seen this Government unwilling to take responsibility for the fact that they could flow some cash as an advance, and the fact that they are prepared to sign on the Policy Framework is the perfect reason that they could shorten that time frame that is required for people to get some cash from the federal program.

This Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), Deputy Premier, member of the Treasury bench, she is sitting beside the gentleman who could make that decision, the Premier (Mr. Doer), and she seems to be unable to exercise enough influence to have him realize that there are people out there who can and do need this Government to step up and fill the void that is temporarily out there in a cash flow situation that is all to do with the closure of the border and not the direct fault of this industry. This industry could absorb a normal drop in industry prices. They could afford a normal problem in agriculture. They cannot afford a totally abnormal trade situation, and this minister and this Government is abdicating their responsibility by not stepping up to the plate.

* (14:20)

Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to recognize a very important community organization in my constituency, the St. Vital Agricultural Society. The St. Vital Agricultural Society's mission is to encourage excellence in horticulture, baking, handicrafts and graphic arts and provide educational and promotional opportunities for the wider development of these skills, to instil a love of gardening, especially amongst our youth, to promote beautification of our homes and environment and maintain an awareness of St. Vital's agricultural traditions.

Mr. Speaker, St. Vital was known as an agricultural community in its beginning days with its many market gardens and horse racing on the river. I had the opportunity to attend the 94th annual display and fair in August at the St. Vital Centennial Arena celebrating the rich agricultural traditions of St. Vital. The many displays included sewing, handiwork, baking, cut flowers, painting, photography, vegetables, a woodworking display, preserves and a junior gardening competition. This particular competition is intended to make young people aware of gardening and encourage them to develop long lasting gardening and environmental skills. This year they added an opportunity to have antiques appraised, and it was a welcome addition to the festivities.

I would like to thank the many volunteers and the board of directors who worked tirelessly to produce this event. Their commitment ensures that the fair is still thriving, and I know they want to make it another five years to mark 100 years.

Congratulations to all the exhibitors for their creative participation in this very worthwhile event. I would also like to extend my thanks to the many sponsors and advertisers for supporting the fair and remembering the steep tradition of agriculture in St. Vital.

Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): The weekend of July 25 to 27, I had the pleasure of attending the centennial of the village of Brunkild. This vibrant southeastern Manitoba community was host to a weekend of celebration, festive activities and remembrance of the past 100 years of growth and development.

Brunkild was established in the 1890s as the first permanent settlers began to populate the area setting up farmsteads and businesses to serve the local agricultural community. During this centennial celebration, many people attended various events throughout the weekend, visiting their favourite sights and reuniting with family and friends. The weekend celebration began with the wine and cheese party on Friday evening and following a Saturday morning pancake breakfast, there was a lively parade led by rural RCMP members Sue Laforte and Arnold Kliewer, Jr.

Saturday afternoon there was a brief but touching ceremony honouring the former consolidated Brunkild School No. 1281. Miss Elsie Steinke, a student from decades past, shared her memories of the four-room school, including experiences with frozen inkwells and how the school was heated before electricity was installed.

Mr. Speaker, in the early 1970s, the school was closed and subsequently demolished. Today all that remains of the consolidated Brunkild School is a stone memorial with the end of the inscription stating: Wisdom creates stability conquering all fears.

Shortly thereafter, the new centennial flag was raised by Mr. Henry Stein at Brunkild Hall. It was during this ceremony that I had the privilege of presenting a plaque to Len Poersch, chairman of the Brunkild Centennial Committee.

Iit was an honour for me to participate in the Brunkild ceremony this weekend and to share the experience with you today. It is important to recognize historical moments in our province and within the constituencies we represent. It was with great pleasure that I could participate in and recognize publicly the celebration of Brunkild's 100th anniversary celebration.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My home community of Cranberry Portage has a long and distinguished history. For thousands of years, Aboriginal peoples used the portage between Lake Athapapuskow and First Cranberry Lake. Later, explorers, adventurers and prospectors also used the portage.

Mr. Speaker, in the 1780s, the noted mapmaker and explorer, David Thompson, traversed the area. On one of his maps, he called what is now Cranberry Portage the Cranberry Carrying Place because of the profusion of low-bush cranberries growing on the portage. Trappers and prospectors continued to use the portage until the arrival of the railroad in 1928. This year, Cranberry Portage celebrated its 75th anniversary from August 1 to 4.

Over 2000 people, many of them former residents of Cranberry Portage, participated in the numerous events and activities planned by the homecoming committee. Former residents from all over the world, including Europe and the Middle East, enthusiastically joined in the celebrations with the citizens of Cranberry Portage.

The homecoming celebrations were an exciting time to renew old friendships and visit family. Many people visited the comprehensive historical display at the Cranberry Portage Elementary School to relive the history of the community.

The largest parade ever seen in Cranberry Portage was held on Saturday, August 2. A large and eager crowd cheered on over 60 entries. Over the weekend numerous fun activities took place including a fish fry, a fish derby, dances, barbeques, as well as a massive fireworks display on Sunday. A beautiful cairn in the form of a canoe was unveiled at the lakeside park during the homecoming. The canoe is a perfect symbol for Cranberry Portage.

I am proud to represent my home town, the friendly community of Cranberry Portage. I wish to thank the community of Cranberry Portage, the 2003 homecoming committee and its many volunteers for organizing and staging a successful and memorable celebration of our colourful history. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I would like to arise today to commemorate the superb efforts of members of the community of Somerset.

Mr. Speaker, April 27, 2003, marked a momentous occasion that took place in Somerset, Manitoba. Despite the frigid, snowy weather conditions, a committee consisting of the Somerset Village Council, volunteers, representatives from Regional Child Day Care and various youth members of the community joined together for the Petits Chou Day Care sod turning ceremony.

This ceremony was intended to mark the beginning of a project that is expected to have an immense impact on the Somerset community. In January of 2000 a committee was formed to engage in negotiations pertaining to the development of a much needed child care centre.

Since then the committee has been working very closely with the Regional Child Day Care co-ordinator to ensure that all rules and regulations which pertain to setting up a licensed child care centre are recognized to ensure the efficiency of the development process.

With donations amounting to $45,500 from within the community and Community Places program dollars and through fundraising and loans, the centre officially opened last week and is now operating and providing its services. The 2150 square foot structure is located next to the school and will provide school-aged children with convenient care before and after school.

I would like to take a few moments congratulating all the individuals who participated in this project. I would be remiss by not personally recognizing the Minister responsible for Community Places program and the Minister responsible for Family Services (Mr. Caldwell) for taking an avid interest in this particular portfolio and allowing Somerset to have the 35 licensed day care spots so that the caregivers can offer more exciting programs and convenient care to children between the ages of 12 weeks and 12 years. It will be staffed by Cindy Curry, Claudette Foidart, Rachelle Preject, Sandy Thomsen, Ethel Raine and Claire DeGraeve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Petits Chou Day Care committee and their project manager, Mr. Roland Charbonneau, and honour their contribution to the Somerset community and to the children who will enjoy the services of the centre for youth. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, may I ask for leave from the members of the House to include a paragraph from my member's statement into Hansard which I missed?

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to include the paragraph that was omitted? [Agreed]

Mrs. Taillieu: I believe I left off in mid-sentence, so I will start at the beginning.

Shortly thereafter, the new centennial flag was raised by Mr. Henry Stein at Brunkild Hall. It was during this ceremony that I had the privilege of presenting a plaque to Mr. Len Poersch, chairman of the Brunkild Centennial committee and proud representative of his community. I also extended congratulations to the Town of Brunkild on 100 years of prosperity and vibrant community spirit. The evening festivities continued with dinner and dancing and Saturday night was capped off with an elaborate fireworks display.

* (14:30)

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, just as a result of the motion yesterday in the House on government business, given that we will be going into Estimates every day until Estimates are completed, there is no other government business available, I am wondering if it is necessary for the House Leader to call that. I wonder if you could just automatically call supply after grievances each day.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreement of the House?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: So the announcement will be that right after grievances the Speaker who is in the Chair will bring forward Committee of Supply, and also on Thursday mornings Committee of Supply will meet, until the hours have expired. Right?

The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply.

* (14:40)

Mr. Chairperson (Harry Schellenberg): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order? This section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Health. As had been previously agreed, questions for this department will follow in a global manner with all resolutions to be passed once the questioning has been completed. The floor is now open for questions.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I would like to tie up some loose ends from yesterday and revisit with the minister the vacancy rate. The minister did not know whether or not there was a vacancy rate being maintained in his department yesterday, and I asked the question. I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to check into it.

It would seem to me that it is a policy issue or a government decision and that instructions would be given from either Cabinet at a decision made there or by the Premier (Mr. Doer) in terms of some cost controls. I know other departments are certainly maintaining vacancy rates. I would like to ask him again if he has had any time to look into that and find out whether or not that is being carried out in Manitoba Health.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairperson, I think the member mischaracterized, as is often the case, my response. I did not say I did not know. I said I would check to confirm the particular information that the member asked for.

Mrs. Driedger: Does the minister have the answer? He has his staff here. I would assume that the deputy minister would be knowledgeable about this issue.

Mr. Chomiak: Yes, in fact, the deputy minister is knowledgeable about this answer.

Mrs. Driedger: Then do I have to ask the deputy minister the question or is the minister prepared to ask him and present that information at this table?

Mr. Chomiak: No, I wanted to correct the member again, who inaccurately stated the position I took yesterday. I just wanted to make certain from the start that the member will accurately reflect my comments, even though they are as recent as yesterday. I wanted to make sure that the member was aware that she mischaracterized again the comments that I made.

There is a general government vacancy ratio of 6 percent.

Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Chairperson, I am curious why the minister is being so manipulative about this situation. I mean, it is such a straightforward question. I do not understand why the carrying on about it and making such a big deal about how the question is being asked. I think it was asked in a very straightforward way. All I was asking for is a straightforward answer.

This is so typical of how we go through Estimates in Health that it is very tiresome and, I think, very insulting to Manitobans. I think it is extremely insulting that the minister cannot be more forthright instead of as we have gone for several years now. It is like a tango as we proceed through Estimates. I do not think it has to be that painful a procedure for either of us.

Mr. Chomiak: And I agree as long as the member does not mischaracterize my statements. That is fine. When the member, as is often the case, says something that is inaccurate it is incumbent upon me to set the record straight.

Mrs. Driedger: I think it is incumbent upon the minister to be forthright with his answers instead of the process he chooses to follow all the time.

I would like to revisit the Rick Dedi issue and ask the minister if he has for me today any more information about the special projects Rick Dedi is in charge of?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Dedi is involved in a number of projects, as I indicated yesterday, that are of a planning nature and at this time I do not wish to make public.

Mrs. Driedger: Well, prior to Mr. Dedi being moved to Special Projects, and the minister indicated yesterday that his special projects were related to planning and workforce, which was what the minister told us yesterday, but Mr. Dedi was the ADM of Health Workforce. So is this new position redundant and is it absolutely necessary? Do we have a duplication going on?

Mr. Chomiak: If the member would check Hansard, I think the member would see that I answered that question yesterday.

Mrs. Driedger: Is Mr. Dedi paid at the ADM level?

Mr. Chomiak: As it is reflected in the Estimates, yes.

Mrs. Driedger: How many staff are in Mr. Dedi's area? How many staff is he responsible for?

Mr. Chomiak: There are none directly reporting while he undertakes these special projects.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister clarify then: Is he basically a one-person show?

Mr. Chomiak: I do not think anyone in Health is a one-person show.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister please tell me that, if Mr. Dedi has nobody reporting to him then, if he is working alone in this special projects area?

Mr. Chomiak: There are a number of capacities and a number of endeavours that he is involved in, and it involves interaction with both internal and external organizations concerning the work he is doing.

Mrs. Driedger: Well, the minister did not answer my question at all. How many staff are reporting to Mr. Dedi?

Mr. Chomiak: I answered that two questions ago.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister has not answered it at all. He has been somewhat evasive about this, and I am trying to clarify: In this area where Mr. Dedi is assigned, in the area of special projects, the minister indicated that he seems to be working alone in that area. Is that accurate?

Mr. Chomiak: As I indicated to the member three questions ago, there is not anyone directly reporting to him. I will repeat it again. There is not anyone reporting directly to him. There is not anyone reporting directly to him.

I also indicated that as he undertakes his ventures, he has to work with other individuals.

Mrs. Driedger: It seems strange to me that he would be paid at an ADM level when he does not have anybody reporting to him, while other ADMs have what appears to be much greater reporting responsibilities from other people. It just seems a bit odd that there would be one person, an ADM, working by himself as an ADM in special projects.

I mean, the minister has to certainly see that this is presenting somewhat of a strange picture as compared to the responsibilities of other ADMs, where they, I am assuming, have staff who report to them, people who do their correspondence, perhaps a receptionist, perhaps an assistant. They have a number of people reporting to them, and it would seem to me that this seems strange and costly to have an ADM that does not seem to have anywhere near the same responsibilities as the rest to be paid the same amount of money.

Mr. Chomiak: The member has offered her opinion.

Mrs. Driedger: I am sure we will have a chance over time now with this issue to take it forward at other levels. It certainly appears that the minister is being extremely evasive about this particular issue, and I will indicate that from his answers. It appears to me that more work needs to be done to look into what is actually happening with his management of his department and the roles that are being assigned there and everything else that is attached to it.

Can the minister tell us how much the cardiac review cost?

Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I can Mr. Chairperson. Although at this point we have not received all of the invoices in respect to the review that was undertaken, we estimated that it will be in the vicinity of $100,000 to $150,000.

Mrs. Driedger: From our discussion yesterday, I am left with a bit of discomfort. It does not appear to me that the causes of the problems leading to the deaths of patients have been rectified to any large degree. We must wait for an unspecified amount of time before the Koshal recommendations will be implemented.

I would like to ask the minister if he can assure us that the necessary measures are in place today to ensure a safer program from the time the patients were dying in that program.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, as I indicated to the member yesterday, there were recommendations from Doctor Koshal to proceed and that we follow those recommendations both immediately and pursuant to that.

I also indicated to the member that, for 20, 25 years, recommendations when she was in government and she had the opportunity to implement, she did not implement, Mr. Chairperson. That is not what this whole review is about. This whole review is about a purpose of implementation.

I read to the member specifically the recommendations of Doctor Koshal concerning implementation. I am very sorry the member has misinterpreted the recommendations which talked about immediate implementation. I am sorry the member has acquired an inaccurate assumption as to the very precise activity that was undertaken. I was very careful to quote directly from the report to the members so the member would not misinterpret my answer. I quoted directly, literally and word-for-word from the report regarding the implementation.

Mrs. Driedger: I find the minister's sarcasm and his patronizing very insulting. It is not just to me. I am here as a representative of the people. I think it is very unbecoming of him as a minister to treat this issue this way.

As for me misinterpreting anything, I have spent a lot of time on this issue. I have not misinterpreted anything. I am just asking the minister: Is he confident enough that the necessary measures are in place today to ensure that we have a safer program? Can he actually say to Manitobans we have made enough changes that even before the whole report is recommended, things are already better? Can he give us those assurances and that comfort level as a people of Manitoba facing this issue?

* (14:50)

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, the Koshal report indicates, and I am quoting from page 9: "That cardiac surgery has a many year history of internal conflicts and challenges. This history has been well documented in numerous, external reviews that have been conducted in the past and will not be discussed in this report."

Consistently identified in all of these recommendations, and now I am quoting again, "are the need for strong leadership, particularly in cardiac surgery, a need for dedicated human and financial resources for the post-operative and intensive care management of cardiac surgery patients and 3) the need to consolidate cardiac surgery at one site while maintaining a strong cardiology presence at both sites with respect to that."

The report indicates that there are a number of recommendations in the report. Let me go through them specifically. Again, because I have had a history of the member misunderstanding sometimes issues that are raised. One, he recommends a regional cardiac science program, that is to establish a regional cardiac science program in Winnipeg, with the main centre of operations being St. Boniface Hospital. He indicates this program must be amongst the highest priorities of the Province. That has already been announced, Mr. Chairperson. It was announced the day the report came out. The day the report came out, we announced that.

He also indicated we should have a regional program medical director and we should immediately recruit a regional program medical director responsible for both the clinical and academic mandates of the program. In fact, the implementation team, the day the report came out, began that process with respect to that recruitment.

He talked about the establishment of a regional cardiac sciences program leadership team comprising the regional program medical director and a patient services administrative director. The day the program came out, Mr. Chairperson, that assignment was undertaken by the implementation team.

He also asked for the St. Boniface Hospital to be directly accountable to the WRHA for the operation of the regional cardiac science program. This accountability relationship must be carefully structured in a detailed service contract that includes clear direction. We have undertaken to begin that process. The member must understand that, of course, that could not take place in one day. That is a very complex process and the outlines, Mr. Chairperson, under his recommendations, a number of recommendations that we should follow through with respect to following up on that.

He recommends the establishment of a dedicated envelope of funding, operating capital that provides sustainable long-term support for the cardiac sciences program. As I indicated, on the day the Koshal report came out, which is in fact August 18 of 2000, on that very day, I outlined for the public what measures we would be taking with respect to the program financing. That of course is still an on-going development, because, Mr. Chairperson, the envelope funding is related to both the fiscal and treasury cycles of the Province as well as the fact that there is an $18- to $20-million investment that we made several years ago overlooked by the member opposite with respect to the cardiac enhancement project as well as the fact that the reconfiguration–I do not know if the member is aware, but when one takes that volume of surgeries and moves it to one centre, it will result in reconfiguration and movement around the entire system in order to support those kind of volumes and that kind of program.

He also called for a cardiac sciences council with representatives from the medical nursing discipline involved in the care of cardiac diseases. As I understand it, the implementation team has already had initial meetings with leadership in that particular area to deal with that regard. With regard to cardiac surgery per se, he obviously said in recommendation 8 to consolidate all cardiac surgery at SBGH site, combining the best practices for both the HSC and CBGH model. I point out to the member that the member may not acknowledge it, but in fact there are some very well-trained and well-dedicated people in these programs and dedicated process in these programs, all of whom can and should be incorporated.

He asked us to take time to deal with some of these issues. He points out–let me just point this out to the member on page 33 of the report: The cardiac services enhancement project is proceeding on schedule.

Mr. Chairperson, the one that the member seems to forget and seems to overlook, the cardiac services enhancement project announced by this Government, rejected by the member's party, is proceeding and is part of the implementation as indicated from Doctor Koshal's report. With respect to cardiac transplantation he says: Surgical and post-operative care for any planned future cardiac transplantation services should be located at SBGH.

Well, obviously, Mr. Chairperson, we cannot implement the transplantation program at this point because it is a longer term implementation issue. If I were to say we are implementing everything within a year, the first thing the member would do would be to stand up and say, gosh, recommendation 8 you have not lived up to, you have broken a promise or something like that, which has been the pattern.

It is obvious if one reads the report that this is one of those examples of something that should evolve. In fact he says in the commentary, the natural evolution of the cardiac surgery program should include the provision of cardiac transplantation services.

Under recommendation 10, he indicates we should designate three operating rooms for cardiac procedures required to handle the volume of cases. This has also been ongoing. We began the day the implementation team was put in place in order to try to organize in that fashion. He also talks about ward beds and provision being made for 37 dedicated cardiac surgical ward beds to handle up to 1500 cases. The member will recall yesterday, she had some difficulty with those numbers. It was up to 1500, which is the long-term planning, not the short-term with respect to the number of cardiac cases. Again, that is part of the implementation team structure and planning process.

Under recommendation 12 he indicated we should recruit a section head of cardiac surgery. That began the day that the report came out, on the 18th, when we enacted the implementation, a team, following the direction of Doctor Koshal.

On profusion services, he asks that we ensure that profusion services within the cardiac sciences report on special matters to the medical leadership of the cardiac surgery and anesthesiology. As I understand it, and if one reads the report, there has been some discussion. The implementation team was charged with the task and has begun meeting with all of these professional groups in terms of combining services and dealing with some of the issues related to those provisions.

He indicates we should also, under 14, recruit a section head of cardiology. That began immediately as well. On the day that the report came out we began the process of doing that. With respect to cardiology service location, he indicated that the majority of cardiology activity should continue to be located at SBGH, but a strong cardiology service must be maintained at HSC. Of course we have taken that recommendation to heart, but, again, that is not something that can happen tomorrow. In point of fact, the service is provided now at two centres. There is an evolution that will take place over a period of time. The implementation team is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that.

With respect to coronary care units, he indicated we should have a dedicated coronary care unit under the direction of the cardiac science program at the SBGH site to monitor and treat extremely ill cardiology patients as well as plan to proceed as detailed in the critical services redevelopment project.

Mr. Chairperson, the member might note the critical services redevelopment project was the one that was cancelled by the previous government and that we have actually brought forward. It is now under construction, the one that had been planned almost 20 years ago, now under construction under this Government with respect to this particular matter. I might add that some of the capacity will be acquired when this construction project is complete, a project that was put on the drawing board when the member was the legislative assistant to the Minister of Health and did not go forward.

Under No. 17, in terms of interventional cardiology, he indicated we should develop a cost-effective model for interventional cardiology that meets the need of HSC and children and make some recommendations in this regard. Those are some significant programs and design features that we have to work on with our implementation team.

With respect to cardiac catheterization referrals, he indicates triage nurses at both sites handling cardiac catheterization lab referrals would be an asset and of use to the system. There is, as I understand it, one site and then the process of looking at developing it at the other site. The implementation team has been charged with the task of, in fact, implementing that.

With regard to bed base, he indicates the WRHA should dedicate beds to the cardiology program, including coronary care, step-down and ward beds. They should be directly managed by the proposed cardiac sciences program. Of course, until the proposed cardiac sciences program is, in fact, up and running, they cannot be management of that program, Mr. Chairperson. But it is the implementation team that was set up immediately after the report came out that was charged with that responsibility.

He indicated we should give education support through the department of medicine for dedicated positions for cardiology resident and fellowship training. As I understand it, discussions have also been undertaken by the implementation team that have, in fact, representation from the Faculty of Medicine and others to, in fact, put in place those particular supports.

Mr. Chairperson, with regard to technical support, he indicated we should provide adequate resources to support the technical services, including the echocardiography program and improve the information technology support. We have some ongoing measures in this regard. In fact, some of those measures were contained both in the cardiac redevelopment project, the enhancement project that was announced several years ago and not supported by members opposite, as well as some of the initiatives we have undertaken over the past several years to train additional professionals after programs had been cancelled during the 1990s.

* (15:00)

With respect to intensive care resources, he talks about also recommending an early extubation management program as practised at HSC should be incorporated in the consolidated program at St. Boniface Hospital. Again, this is another example of a program that is very effective, Mr. Chairperson. It is very interesting that he should recommend that the program should be transferred over to St. Boniface Hospital because it has been very effective.

He also called for a dedicated cardiovascular intensive care step-down unit at the SBGH site under the direction of the proposed cardiac sciences program to support the consolidated cardiac surgery program, and that has been put under the auspices of the implementation committee in order to implement.

With regard to ICU staffing, he indicated cardiac anesthesiologists and cardiac surgeons trained in intensive care management should be encouraged to participate in this staffing of the ICU step-down unit, and the development should be developed to provide for service in the cardiovascular ICU step-down unit.

With regard to anesthesiology services, he indicated we should create a single cardiac anesthesiology section under the leadership of a section head. Again, Mr. Chairperson, the implementation team has been charged with the tasks of ensuring that this happens in initial meetings, and, in fact, meetings are ongoing because of the complexity of some of these issues.

Perhaps one of the reasons why members opposite did not put in place the changes that were recommended to them by previous reports is it is a complex process that entails the integration of a number of services in a number of professional organizations and the input from a number of individuals in order to do so.

With regard to a section head, he indicated a funded position for a section head of cardiac anesthesiology, and a move to recruit into this position should take place. All of this has been tasked to the implementation team. As I indicated to the member yesterday, who was looking for assurances, I indicated that, in fact, notices for a number of these positions had, in fact, closed yesterday.

He also indicated we should consolidate the cardiac anesthesiology services at the SBGH, and anesthesiologists at the HSC who wish to continue to provide this service should be given the opportunity to integrate into the regional program. He talked about some of the difficulties that have occurred in the past and recommended that we do that.

He indicated we should maintain the chronic pain program for cardiac patients at HSC, and the program should be appropriately represented at the cardiac science program.

At this point, I might add, I am not sure if it is at this point in the recommendations, but he certainly recommended that one of the projects that had been put in place by this Government with respect to dealing with angina had been an overall success and that we ought to continue that particular program as being innovative and world-class and is, in fact, being studied, as I understand it, by officials from the United States federal department.

Mr. Chairperson, with respect to a quality assurance officer, he indicated that a quality assurance officer for cardiac sciences should be created, and a subcommittee of the cardiac sciences program should assume responsibility for developing that. Again, the implementation team has undertaken initial steps to deal with this matter.

I might add, at this point, Mr. Chairperson, that it should be pointed out that as a result of the Thomas and Sinclair inquiry, positions were put in place with respect to responding to issues in this regard, and this will be building upon some of those recommendations, because I do not know if the member recalls, but the problem in the baby deaths scenario was that nothing happened in the system. Warnings were not heeded. There was no follow-up. There were no critical incident report follow-ups, et cetera. That was recommended by Sinclair and Thomas, and that is one of the things that I am proud of, that we have come out of Sinclair and Thomas with systems in place that help deal with that.

Mr. Chairperson, he talked about we should also conduct morbidity or mortality reviews within the surgery and cardiology program as standard. He indicated joint rounds should be undertaken between cardiologists, cardiac anesthesiology and cardiac surgery, and intensive care medicine should have combined rounds on a scheduled basis to discuss matters of mutual interest.

While he recognized that physician assessments have been already implemented, he thought that we should establish specifically for physicians and surgeons in the cardiac sciences program a standardized process for assessment and evaluation. Of course, again, that particular implementation has been given to the implementation team and will be addressed, but, again, as the program is developed and up and running.

With respect to wait list management, he recommended standardized definitions and methods of collecting data relating to wait times for cardiac procedures requiring all surgeons to enter and provide needed wait list management data and set internal benchmarks for mortality rates on the wait list based on existing experience and that of other cardiac centres.

Ms. Marilyn Brick, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

As I indicated to the member, we do follow the Ontario guidelines, something that was put in place prior to our coming into office, a system that we followed that was put in place by members opposite. Unfortunately, since this information just came in, in 1999, we have been unable and we cannot directly connect data about how many people died on the waiting lists during the 1990s with respect to the cardiac program, of which we know there were many, but we have not been able to collect that, so we cannot do any kind of comparative data, but he does call for us to increase the wait list management system.

He also indicates we should establish a formal process to ensure that patients on the cardiac wait list are appropriately monitored. This should include utilizing standard wait list criteria established by clinical leaders and regular contact with wait list patients to inform them of their place on the wait list and determine their current health status. Patients on the wait list who have been bumped as a result of the need to deal with a more urgent case should be scheduled for the next available surgical spot.

To that end I thought this was a very crucial issue that the member might want to–with respect to the wait list management, we have already, as I understand it, asked the wait list manager who has been in place for several years to contact all patients. All patients are contacted regularly by the wait list manager pursuant to some of these recommendations, as well as taking steps to ensure that all the wait lists are now put on and that more adequate follow-up be done, as a key recommendation. It has come out of the Koshal inquiry. We have already taken those steps.

In addition, Doctor Koshal also indicated that the changing of the staffing patterns at St. Boniface Hospital that occur on the weekends has succeeded in improving the situation with respect to wait list management and the number of bumping and the number of bumps that occurred with respect to the wait list management and to deal with the bumping issue. So that is another specific recommendation that was made and, clearly, some action has taken place. I would hope the member would note those as very significant developments.

He also indicated with communications with families that a better communication strategy be put in place to ensure that patients and their families have accurate and timely information. He recommended some other jurisdictions that utilize patient care co-ordinators and some preliminary work has been done by the implementation team with regard to following up on those particular items.

With respect to human resources, he indicated we should develop and implement a comprehensive human resource plan to meet the current needs of the cardiac sciences program. Fortunately we have expanded the number of physicians and a number of the technicians, technologists and nurses in this area, although there are some challenges with respect to some specialized area that we are working on with the implementation team.

He also indicated we should improve the efficiency of the pre-operative clinic to increase the proportion of patients who are admitted the day of surgery. He asked us to target a benchmark of 90 percent to 95 percent to deal with pre-admission clinic. That is not the case now and the implementation team has been tasked with that task to improve that particular procedure.

On data management he said we ought to improve the process of data collection and reporting it by developing a centralized database. That has been charged to the equipment team.

He also indicated we should develop a capital equipment plan to meet the needs of the cardiac sciences program. As I indicated to the member in my earlier comments, both on the day of the announcement and continuing we are working on that. We still at this point have not achieved a total and still data is going back and forth and being analyzed with respect to the capital transition plan.

He talks about making adequate provision to ensure HSC physicians and staff cope effectively with the transition. This, of course, is more difficult to do and cannot be done over night, dealing with people who have been working in one centre, another centre over night. Dealing with related labour relations issues is a more difficult task and the implementation team, as I indicated earlier, has met with staff and many individuals and continues to do so in order to deal with the transition process, as recommended by Doctor Koshal.

With respect to the Critical Services Redevelopment Project, he indicated we must ensure the consolidation of cardiac surgery has no impact on the critical services development project. I might point out to the member that this is the $100-million redevelopment of Health Sciences Centre that has been on the board for a number of years.

He also recommended that profusion and cardiac surgical on-call services should be provided at both SBGH as well as HSC. The member asked about implementation. I have gone through all of the recommendations in the report and pointed out specifically recommendations that have been asked to be put into place by Doctor Koshal, but let me quote from Doctor Koshal's report: This program has been reviewed extensively over the years with very similar recommendations to those in this report emanating from these reviews. The creation of an integrated cardiac sciences program, the consolidation of cardiac surgery at one site and the need for strong leadership are recurring themes. The commitment made by the Minister of Health to conduct a review of the implementation status of the recommendation of this report within one year of the completion of the review should be assistance in this regard.

I hope I have been helpful to the member by answering her question.

* (15:10)

Mrs. Driedger: Actually, I find the minister somewhat condescending in his response, sitting, reading off Doctor Koshal's report. I have read it myself. I was asking for the minister to speak directly to immediate, immediate types of measures that are being put into place that led to the deaths.

It is interesting the misleading statements he tends to put on the record too about us not supporting other measures he has put into place in cardiac care over the years and seems to have a huge sensitivity when we do not pat him on the back for recognizing some of the good work. I do acknowledge that. When he said that we did not support what he did, he is misleading the House, because that actually is not even a true statement.

So for the minister to be so manipulative in the information he puts forward, again, I will say, is insulting to Manitobans. I find over and over again when he cannot defend his actions he personally attacks the messenger. I have certainly been getting a number of phone calls from people, particularly women, that find this offensive out of this Minister of Health, that he does not answer his questions in a straightforward answer.

It is hard to have confidence in a minister that plays games like this. Yesterday he did not know how many cardiac surgeons were working in Winnipeg. That is a basic, basic safety issue to this whole cardiac surgery program. He stumbled around that. He cannot tell me why one of his own documents said that a few years ago there were 12 surgeons here, and he could never explain that one. While the minister likes to personally attack the messenger, he fumbles around with a lot of his information and his numbers and then just sits back and smirks about it.

I think he has grossly mismanaged this issue. Patients have died. Eleven patients have died. Family members have lost somebody. Naomi Levine, a lawyer in Winnipeg, on a CBC station called this negligent politics. The minister has brushed aside serious warnings about this. They made an election promise to stop the consolidation of this program back in 1999, when, had the experts been listened to and this program been moved forward, we could have had a consolidated program by now and we might not have had patients die.

But a promise was made in St. Boniface by the now-Premier, who was out there without any understanding of the issue, without any advice from the medical experts, who were all calling for a consolidation of the program.

When you have got a Minister of Health and a Premier that have played politics with this issue right from the very, very beginning, it is very, very hard right now to have any confidence in what this minister is saying, especially when he is so manipulative and misleading with a lot of his information that he puts forward and then sits back with a smirk on his face thinking he is so cute in trying to put all this forward.

I think this is a very serious issue. I am not at all confident even with the minister's response. Perhaps he doesn't understand the questions I am putting forward in terms of the immediacy and the urgency of some of the changes like doctor shortages, nurse shortages, bed closures, some of those immediate things that could begin to make a difference.

I certainly look forward to leaders being put in place, chiefs of programs being put in place on a very timely, immediate basis so that we can have the leadership in this. I truly hope that the leadership from this Minister of Health can be a little bit more straightforward and in the best interests of the patients so that patient safety is no longer compromised.

That just leads into what we were talking about yesterday too which was Paul Thomas' report, and the minister has made reference to it. He, in his report, related to the baby deaths. He called for more transparency regarding political involvement in decision making saying that it would ensure a clear focus for accountability and avoid discretionary accountability. Certainly with discretionary accountability, we can see a minister duck certain issues if he wanted to, especially the messier, touchy ones and just make himself visible on the feel good issues. With this Minister of Health, in the early days we saw him totally invisible from making any comment on public health issues. He said it was not appropriate for him to do that and then later we find out that he makes himself visible and available for comment on public health issues. So he has been on both sides of this one. We have not heard a peep from this minister on the Internet pharmacy issue, particularly the health aspects of it, but the Industry Minister (Ms. Mihychuk) has been very visible discussing the economic side of it.

With the closure of rural hospitals, the minister keeps saying they will not be closed yet one RHA for some time now has been saying through various members of that RHA that some will be closed, that that is their intent. The minister does nothing, says nothing to that RHA. We hear no public statement from him addressing the specific comments of a specific RHA, so we certainly do see discretionary accountability and cloudy accountability clouding up all these issues.

Paul Thomas said and I quote: "There is an initiative underway to clarify the relationship between the minister and the RHAs," and that was in the report that he put out. I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he could describe that initiative that Paul Thomas has referred to.

The Acting Chairperson (Ms. Marilyn Brick): I would like to take a moment and remind all honourable members on both sides of the table to please address their questions through the Chair. I respectfully ask for the co-operation of all honourable members in this matter.

Mr. Chomiak: I am sorry the member took offence to the fact that I went through the 42 specific recommendations made by Doctor Koshal, on August 18, and pointed out the status of the implementation. The member indicates to me that was not the question. The member asked about implementation. I pointed out the steps taken on the 42 recommendations with respect to the implementation. I do not know what more the member wants with respect to this matter, but certainly I answered the question the member put to me. Again, the member can interpret the information, as is often the case, any way the member wants, but the 42 recommendations, the implementation team has been put in place. I pointed out to the member yesterday that we very, very carefully want to implement and follow the recommendations of Doctor Koshal because Doctor Koshal pointed out in his report the failure in the past has been not following the reviews that took place.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister did not answer the question and I would like to ask it again. Paul Thomas, in his report, said that there is an initiative underway to clarify the relationship between the minister and the RHAs. I would like to ask the minister if he could describe that initiative.

Mr. Chomiak: I announced those at a press conference that I was at, a public press conference, that I think notice went to all of the media, including the members own chambers, with respect to the performance contracts and the performance deliverables that were put in place between the Department of Health and the regional health authorities. It was a very public meeting and a very public process where we sign these performance deliverables. I am sorry the member missed out on that.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister please indicate specifically what was in that news release then in terms of those performance deliverables?

Mr. Chomiak: I will go one better and I will give the member a copy, maybe perhaps by the end of the day or certainly tomorrow, of the press release that dealt with that in case the member missed that particular press conference.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister tell us if the deliverables were more related to specific programs like palliative care and other such programs?

* (15:20)

Mr. Chomiak: This is a multiyear task that has never been done before in the province of Manitoba. It is the ability to establish a different relationship and to have accountability and standards that are put in place between regions and the Department of Health. It is a multiyear process that deals with accountability.

I think it is quite significant and I am glad we have had an opportunity to talk about it because I think we are one of the first jurisdictions. There are a few others, I understand, who have been experimenting with this, but we are one of the few jurisdictions to put in place this accountability framework and this accountability structure that now the member is looking for a generic–there were some generic performance indicators in the first year. There were others that were orientated toward different types of populations and different types of issues that were specified, some of the priorities that can and should be met by the Department of Health. Some of that will be contained in the document. I will make certain that the member gets a copy of the release outlining that very significant document that was signed by the Department of Health and all the regions pursuant to recommendations by Paul Thomas in following up the Sinclair inquiry.

I should indicate there are other issues with respect to the Thomas report that we have also followed up on with respect to some amended legislation and the like. But the key factor, if I can gather from the member's question with respect to the new relationship, is that of the performance indicators and the accountability structure that has now been put in place that was not in place before. As we develop and mature in terms of our relationships between the Department of Health and the regions–the member may not be aware, but this has been a process of growing. There were no regions in Manitoba prior to the legislation that came about in 1997-98 that developed regions. This has been a developmental process over a number of years that has taken place in terms of how the regions and the Government interact.

I was a participant in the debates in terms of the initial establishment of regionalization and how they would develop. It was very clear at the time that this would be an evolving relationship. This is part of the evolving relationship from regions. It is not just coincidental but, in fact, quite deliberate that recommendations from the Sinclair-Thomas inquiry were able to be incorporated into the process to ensure better accountability between the regions and the Department of Health, to put in place performance guidelines and performance measures that would take into account not just the overall health status in the various regions but would deal with some of the specifics to other regions.

The member might be familiar that there was a Treasury Board directive when the member was the legislative assistant to the Minister of Health. There was a process of business plans that were put in place. I am not sure if the member is aware, but there were business plans that were put in place. We now have in place performance standards and contracts and guidelines that are much more specific and provide for much more accountability and transparency and reporting structures between the Government and the regions.

I hope that answers the member's question with respect to the issue that she raised concerning the specific relationship that has been entered into as a result of recommendations of the Thomas inquiry.

Mrs. Driedger: I think the minister does not have to be so patronizing. I have seen that news release. I know what is in it. I still do not think he has dealt with the issue of removing discretionary accountability from the problem that can occur with the RHAs and the minister's office. So, while he may try to pass off the performance documents as something that is going to achieve that, it still leaves him in a position where if he wants to have discretionary accountability, it is still there.

I would also like to ask the minister if he is aware that a deal has been cut, that questions and answers are five minutes each. Otherwise, the minister will end up manipulating all of the Estimates, and there are such few hours in Health, he will burn them off, and then this makes this an absolutely ridiculous process.

Mr. Chomiak: I was not aware of that. I am just looking to my colleagues to confirm. Is there a five-minute–does anyone know?

If there is a five-minute limit, I would hope the member would then put her question because if the member would think just for a minute about the question she asked me, the member asked me about the relationship and the recommendations from the Thomas inquiry with respect to accountability. I answered the question, and then the member's response was, oh, I have that anyway and I am really talking about something else.

So if the member would put a precise question, perhaps I could shorten my answer, but if the member persists in doing that, it will be more difficult to answer those questions.

Mrs. Driedger: As my colleague reminded me, the minister just turns around and blames somebody else for his misunderstanding of the questions, typical of how this Government is doing business.

I will ask a very, very specific question of this minister. In February of this year, can the minister tell us how much the federal government committed to Manitoba and over what period of time?

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, is the member referring to the accord that was entered into between the federal and the provincial governments, the first ministers' accord in February of 2003?

Mrs. Driedger: Was there another accord in February of 2003? If not, then that is the one I am referring to.

Mr. Chomiak: I will look through that information within my book to provide that information to the member.

Mrs. Driedger: I just wish to say to the minister that is not acceptable; that is why he has all these staff here to provide him with that information. I will wait patiently while he can indicate how much the federal government committed to Manitoba in that accord. I would have thought, again, if he knew his department, that would be something that he would know immediately.

* (15:30)

Mr. Chomiak: We are not able to find out about this five-minute limit. As I understand, that is not in effect from discussions I have just had, but perhaps we should adjourn and discuss whether or not the committee will adopt those measures. I am not aware of it, but nonetheless, the gratuitous comments of the member I will simply ignore with respect to her comments. I just came from a federal-provincial Health ministers' meeting in which it was not clear and where the Minister of Health from Alberta and the Minister of Health from Ontario both pressed the federal government to confirm what in fact the funding arrangements were with respect to the health accord. There is some disagreement at the federal-provincial level as to what, in fact, is contained within the health accord because of the fact that some of the money booked by the federal government has been, by provincial calculations, previously booked and by federal calculations is "new money."

In addition, there is also some dispute as to whether or not the $2 million contingency fund that was agreed to in the health accord is in fact a specified booked fund or not, Madam. Chairperson. So I just want the member to know that all Health ministers from all provinces, including Liberal Health ministers and Conservative Health ministers have been very wary about specifying the specific funds coming from the federal government because of uncertainty with respect to how the funds can and should be booked with respect to that.

A fund was set up for diagnostic medical equipment to support the acquisition of specialized diagnostic and medical equipment, including staff and support for training. We estimate that somewhere in the vicinity of $6 million should accrue to Manitoba in that regard. All levels of government, that is all 14 levels of government, although it might not be 14 because I think there might have been a tangential agreement between the territories and the federal government, but they all agree to establish a Health Reform Fund of $6 billion over three years to address three priority areas of primary care, home care and catastrophic drugs. Manitoba's share this year is in the neighbourhood of $37 million.

I should tell the member, and I find it very frustrating because the member makes accusations, but I should tell you at the recent conference of last week we were unable to arrive at particular earmarked criteria for that funding, and until we can come up with some earmarked criteria, there is some doubt as to how and if that money would flow, and I do not believe that that money is flowed into a trust in that respect.

There is also Primary Health Care Transition Fund, an investment of $800 million over four years, April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2006. The problem with the Primary Health Care Transition Fund is, I believe, some of that money flows out of the 2000 agreement as well. It is not just new money. So we are estimating, although it is not totally certain, that we may obtain $8.5 million in this fiscal year from that particular fund.

In addition, a fund has been set up to support investment in diagnostic and medical equipment over a three-year period, and Manitoba's share of that should be in the vicinity of $17 million or $18 million. Now, again, part of the problem, Madam Chairperson, is that some of this funding flows over a two- and three-year period. Some of it is money that was announced previously with respect to primary care reform and makes it difficult to calculate specifically how much is flowing through to the Province in any one particular year, and I should indicate there is also additional funding that is contingent upon some agreements that have yet to be concluded.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister indicate why in early February when all of this was happening, he had indicated–well, the one article I have in front of me from the Winnipeg Free Press–to the reporter that Manitoba will be getting $365 million of the $12 billion. Now, it was out of $12 billion. He indicated $365 million. The reporter has it over three years. I have heard over five years.

Mr. Chomiak: Again, I went through this very precisely with the member last year. Let me try again. The Primary Health Care Transition Fund flows from April 1, 2002 to March 3l, 2006. It overlaps a previous Primary Health Care Transition Fund that was put in place. The health care reform fund that is put in place operates over a three-year period. There is also the diagnostic funds. I believe those monies are made available. On top of that there are the existing cap-ups with respect to the CHST that is going to be converted in several years as well as some contingency money that is supposed to flow through January 1, 2004, depending on the federal government's financial statements.

The member will note that every single Health minister in every province came away from the March 2003 agreement with some specific numbers that have yet to be realized in every single jurisdiction that we are working on on a continuing basis.

Mrs. Driedger: If the minister says it is so hard to figure out exactly what all the money is, how is it that he could tell the Free Press that in February that accord settled on Manitoba $365 million? How could he say that then in February and right now he is saying it is too hard to say exactly how much money? I am just looking not even at the breakdown right now, just back it up a little bit and out of the total amount was there a commitment in that health accord that Manitoba would see in this particular specific accord, do not get it mixed up with other things that are happening, but this particular accord, was there $365 million committed to Manitoba over three or five years?

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Acting Chairperson, the accord as it was understood by the Province at the time it was entered into with all of the understandings at the time, the number that was given, my calculation would be Manitoba's portion over the period of time that the accord was in place keeping in mind that some of the funding in the accord is retroactive. Some of the funding goes beyond a two or three-year period and some of the funding is a compilation of funding that was previously provided in the Primary Health Care Transition Fund.

Mrs. Driedger: If it is that complicated, how could he tell the Free Press that it was $365 million? I mean, he gave them a straightforward number. He did not mix it up with anything else. He basically said that Ottawa is going to hand over this amount of money. The reporter does say it is over three years. I have read some place else it is over five. So this is a straightforward question to the minister. I am not asking for anything other than did he say that to the Free Press in February, that $365 million is Manitoba's share of the 12 billion that is going to be coming from the accord.

Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I did say that to the Free Press.

Mrs. Driedger: Now the minister just a few minutes ago indicated that none of that money has actually flowed. Is that correct?

Mr. Chomiak: No, I did not say that.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister answer the question how much of it has actually flowed to Manitoba already then?

* (15:40)

Mr. Chomiak: I know the member is concerned about time. If the member were to look back in Hansard, I answered the specific question of the flowthrough for the year '03-04 in the context of my comments earlier.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister likes to say people get their information all mixed up and all wrong. I am giving him a chance to provide a straightforward answer to a question. If he has to repeat it again and again, I think that is what Estimates is about. How much of that $365 million has actually already flowed to Manitoba?

Mr. Chomiak: I indicated the numbers to the member opposite. I will repeat the numbers that have been budgeted. I want to again outline to the member that she not fall into the trap that happened last year both in Estimates and in the House when money was committed. Then the member came up and said, oh, but you have not spent it yet because invoices had not gone through because expenditures had not taken place.

That is what the member did last year with respect to the equipment fund because, quote, the money had not flowed through our entire process. The member made allegations that the money was not spent. I want to make sure that the member does not misunderstand how this works. Some of this money goes into trust; some of this money goes into the process; some of this money goes into the budget.

I want to know, does the member understand that?

Mrs. Driedger: I am stunned by the arrogance of this minister.

I am disappointed that he does not take this process more seriously. What a horrible insult to Manitobans in how he approaches this. I think it is absolutely shameful.

If he recalls, all I am asking for is he has asked for straightforward questions, he is getting straightforward questions. We will flesh this out through the rest of the day. That is what these are, they are very straightforward questions. All I am asking the minister, without any patronizing answers and sarcasm, is just for some honesty in his answers.

I would like to ask the minister how much of that money has actually already flowed to Manitoba. Has all $365 million or do the feds hang on to some of it and disburse it over five years or three years? The minister has not even acknowledged that component of it. The Winnipeg Free Press had said three years.

I would think the Minister of Health should know this.

Mr. Chomiak: As I understand it, the agreement was over five years. Some portions of the agreement had three-year flows, some had several years' flows, with some retroactive. Not all the money is flowed to the Province.

Mrs. Driedger: How much of it has flowed to the Province?

Mr. Chomiak: Based on projections, based on interpretations of agreements that have yet to be signed, and I just returned from a federal-provincial conference when there was not an agreement on how some of this money can and should flow, based on that, as I indicated in my previous three answers ago, with respect to the Diagnostic and Medical Equipment Fund, that is, the one to support acquisition of specialized diagnostic equipment, we are anticipating $6 million this year.

With respect to the Health Reform Fund, which is broken down into three areas, primary care, home care and catastrophic drugs, Manitoba's approximate share this year should be in the vicinity of $37 million. I want the member to know that particularly in that area there was not an agreement at the federal-provincial level with respect to what the minimum standards would be with respect to the flow-through of that particular money.

Just let me digress for a second so that the member understands. Has the money been committed? It has been committed as a result of the accord. Has the money flowed? The money has not flowed. Has the money been budgeted? We are budgeting for this money within our framework.

In terms of the Primary Health Care Transition Fund we are anticipating in the area of $8.5 million and we are anticipating our share of the Medical Equipment Fund should be in the area of $18 million.

Again, on the Medical Equipment Fund, Mr. Chairperson, the process that was put into place took several years and the last one for the money to flow through. We are hoping for a faster flow through.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister seems to have made a couple of–now I could have heard wrong but I need clarification, because I thought I heard him say the money flowed, then I heard him say the money did not flow, then I heard him say, well, it is in the Budget, but then I heard him say it did not flow. So if the minister would not mind just clarifying for me: Has any of the money flowed to Manitoba?

Mr. Chomiak: The member asked what money flowed. I indicated to the member what money we were anticipating to receive in budgetary year 2003-2004, subject to the matters that I raised at the beginning of my response. That is there are several subsequent agreements that have not been finalized with respect to some of this funding. If the member would take a look at the accord, which is about 8 to 10 pages, it is a relatively complex documentation with respect to how and when and if money should flow. I do not know where the member is confused. I outlined what we thought Manitoba should get this year. I indicated that there are provisos on most of those scenarios. They are related to a number of factors.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister seems to be confused with this. The question is straightforward as he asked them to be. How much of the money has actually flowed to Manitoba? If there is none, say none, or if a certain portion of it, say the first year of the five-year amount has flowed, can he indicate that?

He said two things just now. He said it has flowed and then he said it has not flowed. Has any of that money actually flowed into Manitoba?

Mr. Chomiak: Some of the money has been committed; some of the money is still in budgetary Estimates; and some of the money is contingent on other factors.

Mrs. Driedger: Does "committed" mean we have it?

* (15:50)

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, that was one of the main subjects of discussion over two days in Halifax with all Health ministers–Liberal Health ministers, Conservative Health ministers and NDP Health ministers–in terms of the actual commitments of the money that we were getting from Ottawa.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister indicate, because he has now said the money has flowed, then he said the money has not flowed, then he said that the money is built into Estimates, can he indicate in the Estimates where some of this money might be seen?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, as per the agreement with respect to the federal government, a lot of the money and a lot of the resources with respect to the accord has been allocated with respect to some of the major priorities that came out of the accord, most notably the primary care initiative, the home care initiative and the catastrophic drug program.

I know the member thinks that she is somehow capturing some confusion, but let me outline this for the member. There are basic minimum standards–[interjection] If the member would do me the pleasure of paying attention perhaps. [interjection] Well, if you are not going to listen.

The accord calls for minimum standards for primary care, home care and catastrophic drugs for the allocation of the money. Okay, let us just talk about one package of the four-piece package. Is the member still with me? Okay, so one package, three different component areas of which minimum standards must be acquired. Manitoba and other provinces put together a package of minimum standards that has to be met for the federal government to flow through the money.

The question then becomes if Manitoba standards are met on, for example, catastrophic drugs, do we have the ability to flow money from the catastrophic drug category to the home care category if, in fact, we have not met the minimum standards. In point of fact, Manitoba I believe has met the minimum standards of both home care and catastrophic drugs. Therefore do we have the ability to take the entire $37 million that is due to us this year and put it into primary care? That was one of the main items of contention and one of the reasons why the entire conference almost broke down, the assertion from the Province of Alberta that there was the ability to move funding around those three component areas and the assertion of the federal government that certain levels had to be met before money could go into each of one of those particular areas.

So Manitoba is entitled under this particular portion to $37 million. It has not been made clear under what criteria Manitoba could utilize those funds in either our primary care, our home care or our catastrophic drug program, over a period, I understand, of five years, this being the first year of $37 million.

So we have developed standards with the other provinces to meet minimum standards. We think that we have met all of the criteria for all of those areas, and we think we will be entitled to the entire $37 million from the federal government this year if they are in agreement with the way that the funding is allocated, but there is no consensus around the table as to how that funding is going to be allocated or flow.

Mrs. Driedger: So can the minister just clarify for me then, because he said the money flowed; then he said it did not flow; then he said the Manitoba share for this year is $37 million and it will flow if they can demonstrate that it met the criteria. Is that accurate?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, in the accord that was entered into in 2003, certain monies were allocated from the federal government to the provinces to deal with the health accord. Certain criteria were outlined in regard to which money would flow and how it would be passed onto the provinces.

Mr. Chairperson, I gave the member the outline of what Manitoba anticipates we should receive from the federal government this year flowing out of the accord.

Mrs. Driedger: So, then, Mr. Chairperson, for absolute clarification, no money has flowed yet. Is that accurate?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, the use of the word "flow," I think, is causing difficulty for the member. Some money has been put into trust for withdrawal from particular funds by the federal government. Some money is pending and some money is pending as a result of certain clarifications that have to be made regarding standards.

Mrs. Driedger: If the minister is indicating that some of that money is put in trust, has it been flowed into Manitoba and put in trust here or has the federal government kept the money and put it in trust and will flow it after Manitoba meets its criteria?

Mr. Chomiak: Just to explain to the member how the federal-provincial process works, in the last round with respect to how, quote, money flowed, monies with respect to the equipment fund were put into a trust that could be drawn down from the provinces automatically as a result of the federal government. Money with respect to primary health care required a very lengthy process and an application process and an approval process from the federal government before the money could be drawn down.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister asked for straightforward questions. He is getting them, and I am not getting straightforward answers from him, because he said yes it has flowed, no it has not flowed, $37 million will flow if he meets his criteria. Now he is talking about trusts, but we do not know if the money flowed, and it is in trust here or the money is still with the federal government and in trust there.

I mean, Mr. Chairperson, it is so straightforward, and I will ask the minister again. How much of that money–which, by the way, if we were looking at five years and if I were to do my calculations, $365 million divided by five is well more than $37 million. Has any of that money flowed to Manitoba?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I outlined my answer to the member. I gave her the specific numbers that arose out of the fund, and I indicated how much money was anticipated this year.

Mrs. Driedger: Is the minister then refusing to answer the question?

Mr. Chomiak: I answered the question.

Mrs. Driedger: Well, the minister has answered it in the most convoluted way. He is going to turn around and accuse me of going out there and making all kinds of statements, when in fact he has given me all kinds of answers. If I wanted to go and have a heyday with this I probably could. I am looking for some clarity in this.

Mr. Chairperson, how much of that money has actually flowed to Manitoba?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I have indicated twice the answer to the member and I will go through it again. There were a number of funds and a number of fundings that were set up with respect to the agreement arising out of the February 2003 accord between the federal and the provincial governments.

We are anticipating some funding under the Diagnostic and Medical Equipment Fund. We anticipate $6 million in that regard. We anticipate approximately $37 million under the Health Reform Fund which includes three areas: primary care, home care and catastrophic drugs. I cannot give the member a specific allocation to each of those areas because the specific allocations have not been arrived at, and that is one of the entire discussions that occurred at the Health ministers' conference that occurred in Halifax last week.

Also, we are anticipating money under the Primary Health Care Transition Fund which, as I understand it, is also engaged with the previous primary fund, but we are anticipating somewhere in the vicinity of over $8 million, and then there is a medical equipment fund in which we are anticipating somewhere in the neighbourhood of $18 million this fiscal year.

With respect to the accord that was entered into in February 2003, I must again emphasize to the member that a number of these areas are still, with respect to specific allocations, unclear vis-à-vis the federal and all provincial governments, not just this provincial government in terms of the actual funding and the actual flow-through of the money.

In fact, Mr. Chairperson, I have looked at the numbers that were anticipated by other provinces and some of their calculations are different than some of the calculations that we had anticipated.

* (16:00)

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister indicate if any money has flowed to Manitoba, yes or no?

Mr. Chomiak: I have indicated specifically the funds and specifically how some of the money has been allocated.

Mrs. Driedger: I am only asking for a very straightforward answer. Has any of the money flowed to Manitoba, yes or no?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, some of the money has been allocated to Manitoba.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister indicate if any of that allocated money has flowed to Manitoba?

Mr. Chomiak: Let me perhaps try another approach to make the member understand. If the member were to ask me, for example, of the money that we have allocated to, say, the provincial Pharmacare program, if the member were to ask me how much of that money have we flowed in this 2003-2004 year, I could not give the member an accurate number. I have an estimate in the book that we are reviewing of what we anticipate will flow, if that is the word the member wants to use, this year. I do not have an actual number of invoices et cetera, and I may not even have when we reconcile the financial statements next year an actual number as to how much money has flowed.

What the member is asking for, let me again clarify there is some money in trust from the federal government that can be drawn down. There is some money that is still subject to agreement and there is some money that is still subject to invoicing of the federal government. So for me to give an exact amount of flow is not only inaccurate but would not be appropriate.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister made reference that he could show me in the Budget where that federal money is allocated for Pharmacare. I wonder if he could do that now.

Mr. Chomiak: I did not say that.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister, if he says he did not say that, is there money in this Budget allocated to drugs from this health accord funding?

Mr. Chomiak: Yes.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister show me in the Budget where I should look. What page can I refer to, to see where that Pharmacare money is represented from the federal money?

Mr. Chomiak: If the member looks on page 103 of the supplementary Health information she will see that we are estimating expenditures of $171,859,000 under the Pharmacare program this year.

Mrs. Driedger: Contrary to the other initiatives of primary care and equipment, it does not indicate in there in the notes that any of that federal money went to the Pharmacare program. Can the minister explain then if he is using some of that federal money for the Pharmacare program why it is not specifically identified on page 103?

Mr. Chomiak: We have attempted in the Estimates book and documentation to provide additional information. In some cases we have pointed out where there is some direct funding. In some cases we have not. That is how we have allocated the particular funding and the estimates that we have made within the supplementary Estimates.

Mrs. Driedger: So is the minister saying he made a mistake by not indicating on a note that some of that Pharmacare money was coming from that federal health accord?

Mr. Chomiak: No. If the member read the accord it would note the accord indicates we have to document after the expenditure of the money where the money was spent, and the member will note, this is why it gets so frustrating dealing with the member, I pointed out to the member that the provinces are unclear with respect to how the three funds: primary care, catastrophic drugs and home care, how the money can be allocated. It is, in fact, an ongoing disagreement at all levels as to how that money can and should be shown. So the member precisely has walked into the area that is under discussion between the federal and the provincial gov