LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, March 12, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema), and it complies with the privileges and the practices of
the House and complies with the rules.
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The petition of the
undersigned residents of the
WHEREAS the principles of
health care, namely the universality and comprehensiveness, should apply to the
Pharmacare program; and
WHEREAS the Pharmacare
program's effectiveness is being eroded; and
WHEREAS in the most recent
round of delisting of pharmaceuticals, approximately 200 have been delisted by
the government of
WHEREAS the strict submission
deadline for Pharmacare receipts does not take into consideration extenuating
circumstances which may have affected some people; and
WHEREAS pharmaceutical
refunds often take six weeks to reach people; and
WHEREAS a health "smart
card" would provide information to reduce the risk of ordering drugs which
interact or are ineffective, could eliminate "double prescribing,"
and could also be used to purchase pharmaceuticals on the Pharmacare program,
thereby easing the cash burden on purchasers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners
humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table
the report from the Manitoba Arts Council for the year 1991‑1992.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): I would like to table the Annual Report of
Manitoba Agriculture 1991‑92.
Mr. Speaker: I am also tabling the statutory report of the
Chief Electoral Officer on the conduct of the September 15, 1992, by‑elections
in the electoral divisions of Crescentwood and
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
North American Free Trade Agreement
Government Action
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier.
We have been concerned on
this side about the proposed and signed, initialled, Canada‑U.S.‑Mexico
Free Trade Agreement for some time.
We know this will affect jobs
in the apparel industry in
If the Minister of Health
wants to give us honest answers in this House, it would be better than his
statement.
I withdraw my comments.
Mr. Speaker:
I would like to thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, NAFTA is a very important issue to this
province. The labour standards issue has
been raised and opposed by this provincial government. The lack of any environmental standards has
been raised and opposed by this Conservative government, yet we see the federal
Conservative government planning on passing and ratifying the NAFTA agreement. At the same time, the American trade
representative, Mickey Kantor, the trade secretary, is saying they are not
going to pass it in its present form.
The many Congress people of the
I would like to ask the
government: What action is it going to
take to stop the federal Conservative party from passing an agreement that may
not even be an agreement and certainly is not an agreement in terms of the best
interests of
* (1005)
Hon. James Downey (Deputy
Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat
strange that the Leader of the opposition party, in his questioning and concern
about dealing with
Until the negotiations on
labour and environmental standards are dealt with and enforced and adjustment
programs are put in place as far as the labour force is concerned, this
province's position has been one of not agreeing to proceed until those factors
are looked after, Mr. Speaker. That has
been our position. We have tabled a
document which clearly expresses the position of this government, and it
stands.
Mr. Doer: I ask the government what action it would take to put into
play the document that they tabled in this House.
Mr. Speaker, we now have a
situation where the federal Conservative Party of Canada, under the guise of
the federal government, is going to proceed to ratify a trade agreement on the
basis of electoral considerations to try to get this issue behind them before
June.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker,
at the same time‑‑or fortunately, in my belief‑‑the
Mr. Speaker, what action is
this Conservative government going to take to get the federal Conservative
government to stop their electoral timetable and oppose this trade agreement
for Manitobans and stop them passing this agreement and ratifying it by June of
1993?
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party which is all over the map
when it comes to trading and political posturing for their own political
benefit‑‑I want them to get sincere‑‑this government's
position is consistent. It has been put
forward in a consistent, well‑thought‑out and planned manner. There has been ongoing communication and
discussion with the federal government.
They well know our position, and if there are further activities that
are going to be taken, I will report them to the member.
Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding as well that the Industry and Trade ministers will be meeting in
the near future to discuss some of the issues which are on the minds of those
individuals.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the fact that the
member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) saved the privatization and sale of
McKenzie Seeds when Sterling Lyon and that minister were part of the government
in 1978.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard for
us to take lectures from the Deputy Premier opposite when on the one hand he says
he is opposed to the Tory federal trade agenda and on the other hand he breaks
bread with the Prime Minister at Tory fundraising events.
Motor Coach Industries
Job Relocation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there is a parent company that is
now holding the shares in Motor Coach Industries, that has bought a new plant
in
Can the government advise us
of the status of that change in investment with the parent company and the
status of those very, very important manufacturing jobs in the
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, we are in ongoing contact with Motor
Coach. There is nothing to substantiate
any suggestion that jobs will be transferred out of
They do have an investment
proceeding on urban bus manufacturing, I believe, in
Mr. Speaker, we have
absolutely no indication that the decision of Motor Coach and the parent
company to make an investment in
* (1010)
Consolidation of Health Services
Justification
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, for some time, we on this side of
the House have been critical of what the government is doing regarding
children's services at hospitals. Not
only are we hearing different statements from the minister, but different
statements from his own department.
Today another doctor went
public with his concerns about the minister's handling of children's services.
Can this minister table the
studies that justify his decision to move all children's services to one
hospital, and to justify his claim that it will improve the care of children
and decrease costs?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, yes, I can provide my
honourable friend with a number of the discussions that have taken place. First of all, my honourable friend might
recall that the Urban Hospital Council, which represents all of the hospitals
in
My honourable friend maybe
plays a little quick with his allegations as to what is behind the decision
making. This decision was not taken
lightly. It was recommended and agreed
to at the Urban Hospital Council, No. 1.
Number 2, my honourable
friend might do himself very well to speak to the head of Children's Hospital,
Dr. Aggie Bishop, and understand the kind of development around program to make
this consolidation happen.
Furthermore, my honourable
friend might try to avoid confounding his researchers who immediately start to
question what he says publicly when he says that St. Boniface Hospital will
close completely to children, which is the kind of allegation that leads to
phone calls in my office to understand what is going on and confusion in the
general public.
Before my honourable friend
makes accusations which are not accurate, which do a disservice to children and
their families, maybe he should take time to talk to Dr. Agnes Bishop, head of
Children's Hospital, to understand how the program can and will work.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I guess responsibility for these decisions has
been abdicated to Agnes Bishop over at Children's Hospital.
Mr. Speaker, the minister's
own interim urban council recommended that the pediatrics at St. Boniface stay
open. Why is the minister consolidating
all children's care to Children's Hospital when
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for those cities,
other than the fact that they may not have the opportunity, the size and the
excellence of facility that we have in
Mr. Speaker, my honourable
friend very quickly said an interim report from the Urban Hospital Council
recommended the potential for certain beds to remain at St. Boniface General
Hospital. What my honourable friend did
not mention to those who are listening is that the final recommendation of the
Urban Hospital Council was to make a complete consolidation, and that
recommendation was made at the end of November last year and duly announced.
If my honourable friend wants
to talk about interim recommendations, maybe my honourable friend would have the
integrity to deal with the final recommendation, which was, Sir, complete
consolidation.
Mr. Chomiak:
I would like to ask the minister how he can justify moving surgery beds
from community hospitals which by the minister's own action health plan cost in
the neighbourhood of $400 per day, to the Health Sciences Centre which by the
minister's own action plan cost over $700 a day. How is that justified on an economic basis,
or should I phone Aggie Bishop to find that out?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend would certainly be a lot
wiser on the issue than he has been if he did phone Dr. Bishop. I know that my honourable friend is fearful
of change, fearful of facts and fearful of opportunity to make the system
better.
Mr. Speaker, let me deal with
my honourable friend's concern about costs in terms of this circumstance,
because it seems as if now my honourable friend is fixed on costs. It has been he has tried to make a case on
quality of care which cannot be made; now he seems to be switching to costs.
Mr. Speaker, over the 10
years that Children's Hospital has been operating, significant levels of
service have moved from the community hospitals to Children's Hospital because
of excellence of program. It has left the
circumstance where you have children's wings in a number of our hospitals
occupied at 35 percent and less. That,
Sir, is not an effective use of program resource, nor the opportunity to
promote program excellence. Both cases are being met in this circumstance. My honourable friend would do himself well to
stop misleading the public on this and get on with the reform and change‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1015)
Clinician Hiring School Division Costs
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Education. In this House the minister
stated that, and I quote: Through our
funding formula we will provide both the operating and the administrative costs
for school divisions to hire clinicians.
She has also stated in this
House, and I quote: We have ongoing
discussions on a regular basis with school divisions across this province.
Can the minister tell this
House, has she consulted with rural and northern school divisions to determine
what the actual costs are to hire these clinicians, or is she just guessing?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we provide through
our funding formula an element of fairness across this province, so through our
funding formula, we have provided an enhanced grant for clinician
services. The grant was enhanced one
year ago when the new school funding formula came into place, and it does
provide fairness across the province.
Formal Consultations
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, with another question for the
Minister of Education: Her idea of
fairness is $45,000 which will not cover the cost of hiring clinicians.
Can the minister tell this
House, why do the school divisions indicate to us that formal consultations
have not occurred with the minister or her staff?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I can say to the
member, in all meetings with school divisions, agendas are prepared. School divisions are free to raise issues
that are important within their school divisions, as we in government are also
able to bring forward agendas to discuss with school divisions.
We do discuss issues which
are of concern and are of interest.
Those meetings do take place as requested, and also during visits that I
make on behalf of this government to school divisions across this province.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Speaker, this minister is not taking a leadership role when in fact
she is only meeting with school divisions after it is requested. She should be out there initiating the
meetings.
Department of Education
Reform Philosophy
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Can the minister tell us and give us an answer
which is not contradictory, as we have seen in the past from this minister,
what exactly is her reform philosophy? Can she let us know? Manitobans want to know, and we want to know.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I guess the honourable
member has not had the time to follow me around to see the number of divisions
that I have gone out to visit and have made a point of going to visit and not
wait for a request for the divisions to come in to see me. The philosophy of this government is that we
do not just have to wait for people to come in here into our offices. In fact, the ministers in this government,
and in Education, go out and visit with school divisions in the field.
On those visits, one of the
areas of discussion is the issue of education reform. The process of education reform for this
government has been based on consultation.
It has been based on discussion through those visits where school
divisions raise their issues of concern, where they would like to see the
reform, school divisions as trustees, teachers and parents.
* (1020)
Breast Cancer Screening
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
I have a question for the Minister of Health.
Mrs. Margaret Borotsik of
She has asked me to present
these to the Minister of Health. I would ask the Page at this time if the Page
would deliver this material, plus the letter to the Minister of Health from
Mrs. Margaret Borotsik.
In the name of fairness, will
the minister now agree to the request of these concerned women and provide what
amounts to a relatively modest increase in the
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased my
honourable friend has posed this question, because if we were to go back two
and a half to three years ago, one would have recalled from a throne speech
that we intended, as government, to bring into the
Let me differentiate between
screening program as a method of early detection versus diagnostic mammography,
which is an investigative test where a physician makes the assessment that a
woman may be at risk or may need to have a mammography to determine whether in
fact there is the presence or the risk of breast cancer.
Mr. Speaker, the issue was
turned over to an expert committee in
That committee came back
recommending to the province‑‑and it was accepted by my honourable
friends in the New Democratic Party‑‑that we should proceed with
caution and not implement province‑wide screening because of conflicting
national and international investigation and researches to the benefit and to
the potential risk of screening mammography.
That caution we have taken,
but I want to reinforce to my honourable friend and to those women in
What we are talking about
here is routine screening which originally we were recommending once every two
years, Sir, not once every seven months as my honourable friend alleges the
waiting list to be.
Mr. Evans:
Mr. Speaker, this routine screening that the minister talks about is
still done at the request and on the basis of a doctor's recommendation for the
woman to have an elective mammography test.
So, my question is to the
minister. In all fairness, why is the
minister denying women in the Westman area of this province a level of service
that is available now to the women in the
Mr. Orchard:
With all due respect to my honourable friend, any woman under a
physician's care in the Westman region can receive a mammography if the
physician considers her health to be at risk, within days, not the waiting
period of time.
What my honourable friend is
referring to is women who are put on an elective list for a routine screening,
a substantial difference from trying to determine whether a woman has a problem
which may involve cancer of the breast.
There is a significant difference, and, Sir, the waiting list that
exists in
To date we have absolutely no
evidence that there is any risk to women who need a diagnostic mammography as
recommended by a physician. It does not
exist, Sir‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I would refer the honourable minister
to Dr. Kindle who has evidence to the contrary.
I admit that this is a very‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I would remind the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans), this is not a time for debate.
The honourable member for Brandon East with his question.
Mr. Evans:
Let the minister answer this:
What criteria is the minister using to maintain the level‑‑you
are maintaining this service that you think is not necessary. It is being maintained in the
What criteria are you‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put his question.
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend is touching upon an issue which causes
a great amount of concern and fear to women.
Women hear television ads from the
National study after national
study has cautioned governments about no benefit on screening mammography, and
in fact some studies have demonstrated a risk.
Now my honourable friend should surely read those studies before he now
makes the case that we are putting women at risk in western
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to
tell another side of this story‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1025)
Unlicensed Wheat Varieties
Coverage Policy
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask
the Minister of Agriculture to tell us whether he is going to change the
coverage on unlicensed wheat varieties or whether he is going to cancel the
coverages on these varieties of wheat that are not licensed.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Well, I have to assume what the
member is talking about. She is talking
about unlicensed wheat variety coverage under what?
An Honourable Member:
GRIP.
Mr. Findlay: Okay, okay.
I would ask the member to be careful when she writes her question that
she puts the whole facts out.
I would like to tell the
member that because of the openness of this government and the openness of this
minister, a meeting was held at
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister
whether these varieties, which are illegal varieties, they are not licensed,
are going to be covered under GRIP.
These are the varieties that are lowering our standards around the
world, a reputation that
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Speaker, for years and years, Manitoba Crop Insurance board, by
board order, determined what varieties will be covered year in and year out,
and that process has not changed one iota.
All the appropriate decisions have been made, and yes, unlicensed
varieties, certain varieties, will be covered as they have been for years by
board order. They are designated feed
wheat varieties that play a very important role in terms of supplying feed
wheat to the people who are in the livestock business in this province. I wish she would wake up and understand what
is really going on.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the minister is not concerned
about our reputation around the world on milling wheat.
Meeting Confirmation
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, it will take half an
hour to answer all the ambiguities and misinformation that member has put on
the record. She totally disregards the
livestock industry in this province, which is the major element of income for
farmers in this province. She totally
disregards them. She says we should not
grow grain to supply that market. The
biggest market for people who grow feed grains in this province is the
livestock industry; she wants to throw them out.
She names
Personal Care Homes
Quality of Health Care
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took a question from
the member for The Maples regarding some layoff notices at Central Park
Lodge. I would like to provide my
honourable friend in the House with information that I have received on the
issue.
I am informed that the
administration of Central Park Lodge issued layoff notices to 25 registered
nurses, three full time, 14 part time and eight casual, and have indicated that
there will be a new staffing mix instituted at Central Park Lodge which will
involve three full‑time registered nurses, three part‑time
registered nurses, four full‑time licensed practical nurses, four part‑time
licensed practical nurses and three part‑ or full‑time nursing aide
positions with the opportunity that they meet the staffing mix criteria of the
Ministry of Health.
The advantage to patient care
of this change in mix at Central Park Lodge is that, in fact, residents of that
facility will receive 2,600 hours more hands‑on care per year, seven
hours per day, for greater, not lesser, involvement with the patients by staff,
Sir.
* (1030)
Centralization of Health Services
Government Policy
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Part of this minister's
health reform package has been the decentralization of services, and we believe
that decentralization of services is a necessity to improve the efficiency in
the system and spend our health care dollar more effectively. Can the Minister of Health tell this House
whether decentralization of services is still the policy of this
administration?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, decentralization of services is,
yes, a part of the restructuring and reform process in the health care
system. There are several agendas which,
of course, are as well part of the reform and restructuring process, such as
the concept of centres of excellence in terms of our
A third area, Sir, that my
honourable friend I know was interested in, that we hoped to see some progress
on this year is, of course, the movement of services from, say, the urban
environment of
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the cytology
work from the Manitoba Clinic is being sent to a private lab instead of the Health
Sciences Centre. Can the Minister of
Health explain how this fits with this policy of centralization of services?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question as
notice because I am not aware of the details of the program. I will provide him with those kinds of
details.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the Health Sciences Centre has
been providing these cytology and Pap smear services in their centre of
excellence. Can the minister tell this
House, once he has inquired about this situation, will he reverse that decision
to make sure that the policy is consistent with the health care package?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my honourable
friend either a yes or no answer to that until I know the details of this
particular test shift as indicated by my honourable friend and the rationale
behind it. I will say to my honourable
friend that I hope to be able to provide him with that kind of detail on
Monday.
Tourism Promotion
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): As members of the Legislature are aware, the
Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the Minister of Tourism. Has he
reconsidered his position on tourism promotion in the
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, at the outset there was no reconsideration of
any position by this minister or this government. We have a request from the community to
support some tourism initiatives in the
We met with them on the
issue. We are looking at the kinds of
things we can do and most likely will end up jointly supporting an initiative
in the tourism area to promote that aspect of their economy.
Mr. Dewar: I would thank the minister for responding
positively to my request for tourism promotion.
Ferry Proposal
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): My next question is to the Minister of Highways.
Since the deadline for
tenders of reconstruction of the bridge is the end of this month, and there is
a possibility that the winter road will close at any time, is the minister
prepared to assist with putting a temporary ferry to link east Lockport and
west
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of
Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what kind of contact the member
has with his constituents out there, but I had the privilege of meeting with a
group from
Government Action
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): The residents of the
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of
Highways and Transportation): I do not know whether it is proper to call a member in this
House naive, but I would suggest that this member acquaint himself with the
fact that this is a federal responsibility.
We, as a province, have been working very closely together with my
colleagues in terms of trying to alleviate the hardship that is being created
by the closing of the bridge, but ultimately it is a federal
responsibility. We have been bending
over backwards to try and help whichever way we can and will continue to do
that. He should try and acquaint himself with the facts before he makes
statements about six months of inaction by this government.
Private/Independent Schools
Funding Levels
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): The Minister of Education says that she is broke. She has no more money for the public
education system. Well, the public
education system, which she says is a priority‑‑there is just no
more money in this government.
We want to ask the Minister
of Education: Will the minister
acknowledge today that the government of which she is a part has increased the
spending to the private, independent and elite schools in this province by more
than $60 million above the formula which was in place when they came to the
government, part of the time that she was in government, a cumulative amount
over those five years of an additional $60 million to those private and
independent schools? Will she
acknowledge that today?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Let me clarify any
misunderstanding which my friend may be attempting to stir up. The independent schools of this province in
the funding announcement that was made this year received the same 2 percent
reduction as all other schools. In addition,
through the letter of comfort, though they were to receive an incremental
phased‑in increase, they did not receive it.
Mr. Plohman: It certainly was a letter of comfort for a
number of years. Will the minister‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this minister has not disputed
the $60‑million figure, additional increase of funding. Will the minister acknowledge that that same
$60 million, if this government had chosen different priorities, could have
been used at the current rate of inflation to fund at inflation, as the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) promised, the public schools for the next five years? Will she acknowledge that as well?
Mrs. Vodrey: I cannot accept the preamble that the member
has attempted to put into this question by any means. I will tell you that this government has
continued its commitment to education in this province. We have continued to fund it in a way that
has been fair and equitable.
This year, we have now asked
the educational system to look very carefully at its own budget on behalf of
all Manitobans. In examining their
budgets, we have asked them also to consider first and foremost the students
and the integrity of the classroom.
* (1040)
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of
priorities. You had a choice, and you
chose to put it into the private and elite schools.
Special Needs Children
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Will this minister also tell this House how
many children requiring the special services of the Diagnostic Centre, which
she cut this last week, and of the speech pathologist and psychologists who
help special needs kids in this province, attend these private, elite schools
such as St. John's‑Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Well, let us speak about the
areas of priorities and a bridge that my honourable friend felt was important
and a priority for his government that did not go into educational funding of
that government. The Diagnostic Centre
has provided support for school divisions, particularly school divisions
outside of
In addition, through our
Diagnostic Centre, however, we have maintained two positions, one position that
will assist across this province for the emotionally behaviourally disordered
children and another for the severely learning disabled young person.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs
and the Minister responsible for
The government of
There are two Metis
communities, one in
Mr. Speaker, my question to
the minister is: Will the government of
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the issue which the member raises
is not a new one for the communities that fall along the Reindeer river system,
of which is the joint water system between
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
[agreed]
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, tonight at the Winnipeg Arena, a
young man will be honoured for his magnificent achievements as a member of the
Mr. Speaker, I would like to
deal with that young man from a bit of a different perspective. Teemu Selanne‑‑my wife always
corrects me on the pronunciation of his name‑‑is going to be
honoured tonight. This young man comes
from a country which is very similar to ours.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of
the accomplishments of this young man, people in
In short, our country and our
city should be proud this young man is working and living here, and I think the
measure of what he has done on and off the ice is something that serves as an
example both to the children of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister of Education and
Training have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed!
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great
sense of pride to rise today to extend my sincere congratulations and best wishes
to three students from ecole Viscount Alexander. On Thursday, March 11, 1993, Lise Brown,
Morag Crawford and Jennifer Oakes received the 1992 Kids are Authors Award for
their book, The Stars' Trip to Earth.
The winning authors were
Grade 8 students at ecole Viscount Alexander when they wrote and illustrated
their book. As Manitobans, we should be
extremely proud of these three young and talented students. Not only will their book be published in
I would like to commend the
two teachers from ecole Viscount Alexander, Madam Mona‑Lynne Howden and
Miss Leslie Mesman, for their dedication to this project.
On behalf of all members of
this Assembly, my sincere congratulations to Lise, Morag and Jennifer.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that notwithstanding Rules 65.(6.1) and (6.2)
and the established practices of this House respecting the introduction and
referral of the government's expenditure Estimates, the Estimates of the
Department of Highways and Transportation shall be tabled, referred to the
Committee of Supply and considered by the section of that committee meeting in
the Assembly Chamber; and that the Estimates of the Department of Family
Services shall be tabled, referred to the Committee of Supply and considered by
the section of that committee meeting outside the Assembly Chamber prior to the
tabling, and referral to the Committee of Supply of the Main Estimates book
containing expenditure Estimates of all government departments.
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), with some co‑operation with the official opposition, is
doing is very unparliamentary. What the
government is suggesting by moving that motion is that we as a Legislature
condone this government in not being prepared for this session.
Let me expand upon it, Mr.
Speaker. What the government is asking
us to do is to go into the Estimates of specific departments with not having in
our hands the Main Estimates. This has not been done before in terms of
recorded history inside this Legislature as long as Hansard has been here, from
what I understand. We have had Estimates
debated prior to the budget speech, from what I understand, but we have not had
Estimates and the line‑by‑line prior to the Main Estimates being
tabled.
As legislators, how can we
possibly enter into any legitimate debate or questioning not knowing what other
areas of expenditures, what the government is doing scattered through all the
other departments and agencies. That is
irresponsible.
What this reminds me of is
what the Minister of Finance did a number of years ago when he walked out of a
committee room. The Liberal Party did
not condone it then, we do not condone it now, and we do not condone what this
government is trying to do. What this
government is trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is undemocratic, as far as it is
unparliamentary. We have not done that
previously. What we have done, on the odd occasion since 1983, from what I
understand, is we have allowed the Estimates to enter into debate and questions
as long as the Main Estimates were tabled, but that is not, in fact, what the
minister or the government House leader has been asking us, as an opposition,
or myself as the House leader to do.
* (1050)
It is wrong, Mr.
Speaker. I believe that, as the Speaker
of this Chamber you have to review this very seriously, to look at the
tradition, not only of the Manitoba Chamber, but also what has been happening
in
At the very least, have the
common decency and stop wasting taxpayers' dollars and adjourn this House until
you are prepared to be able to address the needs‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This is a very serious matter.
The honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has put up
speakers on bills. We are prepared to
pass bills.
By the motion, we have two
departments, Family Services and Highways.
What that tells me is the fact because the government chooses one, the
official opposition chooses the other, that the government House leader (Mr.
Manness) has been successful in conning the official opposition.
The Liberal Party will not
tolerate any deviation from the rules in this Chamber and calls upon you to act
and to not allow this to occur.
As a group of seven
individuals in this Chamber, and I speak on behalf of the group of the seven of
us, the minister is denying us the ability to perform in a responsible fashion
dealing with the Estimates.
The onus, Mr. Speaker, is on
you.
So at this time I would like
to move a motion and suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter should be
dealt with prior to our even considering doing what this government and the
official opposition are suggesting.
Having established a prima
facie case for a breach of privilege and having raised the opportunity at the
earliest possible opportunity, I move, seconded by the member for River Heights
(Mrs. Carstairs), that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections for examination.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Opposition, on
the same matter of privilege.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Yes, rising on the matter of
privilege and not taking the bait of some of the emotive language used by the
Liberal House leader (Mr. Lamoureux), I, Sir, would advise you to look at the
precedence in terms of Estimates and the point raised by the member for
I am not a parliamentarian in
the sense of knowing all the precedents from all times, but I would certainly
suggest that you look at the legislative point raised by the member for
To me, this is not a one‑dimensional
debate. We have been called back on
March 1. We have, by all estimations, a light
legislative agenda at this point before us.
We have been critical of the government for that and they are
accountable in the public arena. They
will disagree with that point. That is a
public dispute, a dispute over the facts, perhaps, a dispute over our own
beliefs, but that is fair enough.
Mr. Speaker, we would prefer
to have the budget and all the Estimates.
That is the way the government has proceeded in past years. That is the way we have proceeded in past years,
and we would prefer that. There is no
question about that.
Secondly, if we cannot have a
budget in all the Estimates, we would prefer the Estimates, period, for all
departments. Now, we have some idea of
where those Estimates are going. The
government has announced major spending decisions in probably two‑thirds
of government, with Education and health care, not all of the capital decisions
in Education, not all of the capital considerations and other decisions in
health care, but we are getting a bit of a range of what the government
spending decisions are.
We do not have all the
revenue items, but we know now that the government is about 33 percent over
budget from last year, and their deficit is accordingly going to show for this
fiscal year and the government is acting accordingly. So we would prefer, yes, to have all the
Estimates. No question.
Having said that, we would
prefer then to have something to debate rather than recess, because we believe
it is important under these crucial periods of time for the government ministers
to be accountable in this Chamber and to answer questions in the House. So we do not see this as a one‑dimensional
debate.
We disagree, with the
greatest of respect, with the member for
I also believe that the
people of
Having said that, the
government has indicated to us and this is‑‑you know, we make our
decisions based on what we have available to us. The government has said to us that they can
make the Estimates available for the Department of Highways. We will have complete information by early
next week, and they will make available for us, initially the Department of
Family Services, with information available on Monday and complete information
available by Wednesday.
Do we like that compared to
having a budget in all the Estimates?
No. Do we like that compared to
having all the Estimates in front of us?
No. But is that better than not
having the decisions? We would say we
would prefer to have them.
The reason for that is there
are some decisions in Family Services that have not been communicated to the
external agencies. We believe that
moving the Family Services' Estimates forward will allow those agencies that
may or may not be cut back to get earlier notice‑‑and so that we
can debate those issues in this Chamber.
Now, that is not perfect, and I do not know how it fits in terms of all
the parliamentary traditions.
It is not perfect but this is
not a one‑dimensional debate. It is not, either everything or either not,
because I think it is important for the people of
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this is a very unprecedented move
on behalf of the government of this province.
They ask us to act in responsible manners, as members of the
opposition. Well, I would suggest that
we cannot act in a responsible manner if we have no basis of comparison with
this government's overall economic strategy.
We are going to be presented
with two Estimates. We are not being
presented with the overall Education Estimates, which are 18 percent of the
budget or the Health budget Estimates, which are 34 percent of the budget. We are going to be presented with one item
which represents about 11 percent of the budget and then with another item
which represents less than 5 percent of the budget. We are supposed to make rational, reasonable
decisions as to whether the government has made good judgment or bad judgment
on the basis of that information.
* (1100)
I would suggest that
information is woefully inadequate, and that is exactly the reason why in
previous years when it has not been possible, for whatever reason, to present
the overall budget the government has been prepared to present the Main
Estimates book, so that while we do not have revenue, as the budget would
indicate, we would not have increases in taxes, as the budget would
indicate. We would know what this
department's Estimates are in relationship to the other departmental Estimates.
We are being asked to go into
Estimates on Monday without any information at that moment of time. I do not know what other members of this
House do with their Main Estimates budget, but I do not just look at the ones
that I am to critique.
I look at every single
budgetary line of this government, so that when I am looking at a cut in a
particular social program or service, I am looking at other departments that I
think perhaps would deserve a cut more or would be more rational than the one
that they have chosen to make.
I cannot do that if I do not
have the information available, so I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I
cannot act in a rational and responsible manner, do the job that my
constituents have elected me to do, if I do not have that information available
to me.
As to the suggestion that we
should adjourn until the Main Estimates book is available, we are not asking
that the session be overall shorter, we are suggesting that until we can do our
job as legislators effectively that we should not be sitting in this
Chamber. If we are going to go into a
line‑by‑line debate of Estimates then it is essential that we have
the Main Estimates book.
Since the government is not
prepared to give us that then we have no business going into the Estimates
process until that happens. I would
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in our phone calls across this country,
including to the House of Commons, this is unprecedented. I would ask you to review that legislation,
because I think this is a legitimate matter of privilege and one which impacts
in the future, not only on this Chamber but every other Chamber in this nation.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the matter of
privilege. Let me say, a lot of good
commentary has been provided by all speakers to this point in time,
particularly the Leaders of the opposition parties.
The Leader of the Liberal
Party says that this is unprecedented. I
acknowledge that in many respects. I can
also indicate the reason that it is unprecedented is that I had a budget date
in my mind of March 18, next week, but also unprecedented, Mr. Speaker, was the
knowledge of significant revenue reductions that I received and which caused
the whole budgetary process to be thrown off track.
Now I can be held accountable
for that, and I am and I will be. I will
take the blame for that, but there was no way that I was going to hold to a
March 18 day, and that was the date I had in my mind with respect to having to
make decisions, pressed with the knowledge of new revenue information.
I can care less what the
House leader of the Liberal Party wants to make because these are decisions
that are impacting significantly on all elements of society in our
community. I was not going to be pushed
to make them with that type of knowledge and that short a period of time.
The best plans that we laid
out last fall, when indeed we agreed that we would come back to this Chamber
March 1 or March 8 by joint agreement, were made with the best intentions of
all of us. So we are here. We came back March 1 with the full intention
to bring down a budget March 18.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I
will now acknowledge when we are bringing the budget down, and this will be
unprecedented too, where a Minister of Finance‑‑and you can do all
your checking‑‑has made an announcement of a budget day when he is
dealing with a motion of privilege, that is unprecedented, and maybe the
members opposite would want to say because that has never happened in the past,
it should never happen now.
Mr. Speaker, the budget date
will be April 6, Tuesday. I acknowledge
there are some unprecedented actions that are happening that have never
happened before, and I am troubled with that.
Nevertheless, we are assembled here and there is work to do.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of
the NDP party says that we have a light legislative calendar, and I make no
apology for that. Yes, we do. We are not bringing in 90 bills this session. That is our philosophical makeup. I do not know if we will bring in 50 bills
this session, and I look at the co‑chair of our legislative review
committee within the government caucus.
So we will not be bringing in that heavy legislative load. We are assembled and for the first two weeks‑‑and
I have sort of a commitment that the opposition will debate the bills that are
on the paper and with due respect to the NDP, that has happened.
Mr. Speaker, the party now
that wants, of course, to see this House rise, they put up virtually no
speakers and indeed, when we accede to the emergency debate, the mover does not‑‑I
cannot say this‑‑there was a dearth of Liberal members in the House
on a motion that they brought forward.
That is fine. The government sits
back and watches this unfold.
We come to this point in
time, Mr. Speaker‑‑and I served notice some time ago to the
opposition parties as to what I was contemplating, not particularly happy about
it. That was to allow the consideration
of certain departments, and as the Leader of the official opposition has said,
we have made significant announcements around funding to public schools, to
municipalities and to universities. I
would say next week there will be another significant level of announcements
made with respect to those recipient groups who are waiting for
announcements. That will be coming next
week.
Mr. Speaker, I am mindful
also of the public commentary that has been written by one of our more
enlightened media who said, make sure that there is something to do. I do not think the members of this House want
to necessarily recess and wait to come in after mid‑term break and start
in April‑‑at the same time that will take a Budget Debate and then
not moving into Estimates until basically the end of April, beginning of May.
There still are 240 hours
that this House uses, devotes towards that process, the only House in the land
that does that. We have talked amongst ourselves. We have talked to the opposition and asked
whether or not‑‑yes, unprecedented‑‑they would allow us
to bring forward this motion that would let us debate the Estimates of Highways
and Transportation and a portion‑‑starting off next week‑‑of
Family Services, to be followed immediately, as soon as we can, fully expecting
by the middle of the week to have the full Estimates of that department
forward.
Mr. Speaker, what are we
talking about? We are talking about one
week and a third, because the second week after that, not next week but the
week after that, I have to bring in Interim Supply.
I know the members opposite
are going to want at least two days to debate Interim Supply, because without
passing Interim Supply the cheques cannot be cut in the new fiscal year, so I
am asking for a week and a day or two.
Yes, unprecedented. Let us underline that four times. It is unprecedented. That is what I am asking for, and yet what
the community is asking for is greater understanding and co‑operation in
working together in this Chamber. That
is what the community is looking for, and the member can shoot across
responsible government. Fair
enough. I have thick skin, but what does
society want, and what does the community want?
I tell you the community want
us to be in this House, and they want us to consider meaningful work. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, the most
meaningful work that we can move into in the next week and two days is
beginning to review the Estimates of a couple of our departments.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you
that the member does not have a prima facie case. He says never before, but I say to you never
before has a Minister of Finance in this province had to deal with the
unprecedented lack of knowledge with respect to income and revenue change over
the course of the last month and a half. I ask you to take that into account
because that is important, very, very important.
* (1110)
You know, there is a little
humour in this because the House leader of the Liberal Party says that I conned
the NDP. I have been the House leader
for four years. I have never conned the
NDP once. The only one we have ever
conned is the House leader from the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, this is an
unparliamentary move. I bring forward a
motion sincerely developed, and I ask for the support of the House to allow us
to do the people's business. Yes, in a
fashion which is different than in the past, but bearing in mind the
announcements I have made today with respect to the budget date, with respect
to the Interim Supply that has to come before‑‑and I think we are
agreed that we are going to take the mid‑term break off. I think we have agreed to that. Giving that, I am asking the indulgence of
the House to spend next week in the most productive fashion. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their advice on this matter, a matter of privilege which has been raised by
the honourable member for
The hour being 11:13, right
now, I am going to recess the House until 11:30, at which time, the buzzers
will not even ring. I will just take my
Chair at 11:30, and I will have a ruling on this matter.
* * *
The House took recess at 11:13 a.m.
After Recess
The House resumed at 11:40 a.m.
*(1140)
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for
As I understand it, the
government, by this motion, which is a debatable and amendable motion, is
seeking the approval of the House for a special course of action on this
occassion.
To be a matter of privilege, it
must be shown that there is an act which obstructs members in their
parliamentary work. I am not convinced
that there is a prima facie case that demonstrates that members' parliamentary
work is being obstructed because the members will be able to do their work
within a short period of time when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) tables
the entire Estimates.
I should also point out to
the House that this is a matter concerning the methods by which the House
proceeds in the conduct of its business and, therefore, is a matter of order,
not privilege.
As Maingot points out, on
page 190: "A breach of the Standing
Orders or a failure to follow an established practice would invoke a 'point of
order' rather than a 'question of privilege'."
Furthermore, there are
several, several precedents of similar occurrences in the Canadian House, found
in the Journals for March 16, 1883, June 1, 1898, April 8, 1948, April 24,
1961, and May 14, 1964. Clearly, then,
both the authorities and our practices allow for standing orders to be
suspended or amended by motion on notice.
Consequently, I must rule the
member's motion out of order.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second
Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect, I have to challenge the ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair having been
challenged, all those in favour of sustaining the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in
the members.
The question before the House
is, shall the rule of the Chair be sustained?
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Doer,
Nays
Alcock, Carstairs, Cheema, Gaudry, Gray, Lamoureux
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
Yeas 40, Nays 6.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The hour being 12:30 p.m,
this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.