ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Faneuil ISG Inc. Agreement
Preferred Shares
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Madam Speaker, during the announcements of the Faneuil deal with the Province of Manitoba and the Manitoba Telephone System, there were some notable details lacking.
Following the announcement, we have now received the annual report of the Manitoba Trading Corporation. The Manitoba Trading Corporation reports that part of the deal that was arranged by the government is for $19 million in notes or debt to be transferred from the Manitoba Telephone System to the Manitoba Trading Corporation. Yet only $16 million in so-called preferred shares were traded or sent to the Manitoba Trading Corporation.
I would like to ask the Premier, why are we $3 million short on this transaction and, secondly, what was the role of Mr. Bessey in all of those transactions?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice and attempt to come back with the detail for the member.
Role of Michael Bessey
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, that raises the question of whether Mr. Bessey ever informed the Premier at the press conference he attended about the financial arrangements that were made between the Telephone System, Faneuil ISG corporation and the Manitoba Trading Corporation. The fact that the Premier does not know the answer to that question, the fact that it was not in the press release that was attended by the Premier, raises some serious questions.
I would like to ask the Premier, what was the role of Mr. Bessey to negotiate and be the initiating department, according to the Order-in-Council signed by Stefanson and Filmon, on this arrangement? Also, he is the vice-chair of the Manitoba Trading Corporation and he is now employed by principals of Faneuil ISG, by one of the principals in Stanton Europa. What was the role of Mr. Bessey in financing a deal, initiating a deal in terms of the Province of Manitoba and the $3 million?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, in response to the preamble, the member is asking about something, the detail of which obviously I would have had at my disposal some 15 or 16 months ago when the deal was announced. I believe, and I will verify it, that the issue is the present value of the debt instruments that are being transferred because the debt instruments are being taken over time whereas the shares were given up front on a present-value basis. I will have that all clarified for him so he understands the issue, and I am sure that he will be satisfied with the information.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, Mr. Bessey negotiates this deal and initiates it for the Industry, Trade and Tourism department. He finances it through the Manitoba Trading Corporation. He is now receiving a tuition fee and a book advance from a company that involves one of the principals of the original deal that was negotiated by Mr. Bessey. The Premier is saying that he will have an internal investigation of the Clerk of Cabinet.
Given that these arrangements were across many government departments, Madam Speaker, would it not make more sense for the people of Manitoba and for the ethics of the decisions that were made to have an independent investigation by an individual qualified on ethics rather than having an internal investigation into these questions that we have been raising?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, with respect to all of the allegations that the member has made consistently for three days now in Question Period, with respect to all of the allegations that have been made by the Winnipeg Free Press in its portrayal of the situation, I have said that I requested the Clerk of the Executive Council go to the Department of Justice and to the Legislative Counsel and request that a review be made.
I did not say that the Clerk would be in any way involved in the review. The Department of Justice is taking on the responsibility. I further suggested that it would be my strong desire to have it done by an outside counsel, and I can confirm that indeed that is what Justice has done. So when that review is done, I will make it public so that the member's allegations can all be responded to.
* (1345)
Faneuil ISG Inc. Agreement
Preferred Shares
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, Volume 1 of Public Accounts for l994-95 confirms that there was a $3-million subsidy in effect that is being given by Manitoba Trading Corporation and the Manitoba government to this deal. I refer the Premier to Volume 1, 1994, pages 3-3 and 3-11.
Madam Speaker, as part of the deal to develop the Faneuil ISG corporation, Manitoba Trading Corporation received $16 million in convertible preferred shares, the par value of $16 million.
Can the Premier tell the House what was the purpose of the $16-million convertible preferred share purchase on the part of MTC? What was the purpose of that $16 million?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I want to correct the position that has been put forward and alleged by the member opposite. As I recall, and I said I will get the complete details, the Faneuil corporation does not get the benefit of the transfer of debt instruments immediately. They do not get 19,000 at once, they get it spread over time, and so the repayment is based on--the asset that they have lodged in its place is the present value of what they will be receiving. But I will confirm that detail because I cannot operate from memory 15 months later.
I will take that as notice, and when I have the information I will return here with it for the benefit of the member opposite.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the Premier acknowledge that what really happened here was that the Manitoba Trading Corporation gave to Faneuil ISG a long-term licence to use Manitoba Telephone System's data, one of the telecorporation's most valuable assets, for $16 million in convertible preferred shares which have no market value and virtually no assets behind them?
It was the data that was transferred, was it not, Mr. Premier?
Mr. Filmon: What did happen was that we had a corporation come to Manitoba, make an investment that will see a thousand jobs created. They already have created several hundred. They are ahead of their target.
Mr. Sale: Will the Premier tell the House what was done to obtain a fair and independent valuation of the worth of the MTS database which was transferred to the Manitoba Trading Corporation for a nominal fee of either a dollar or $10--we cannot find the transaction--and was then transferred from MTC to the Faneuil ISG corporation for the convertible preferred shares?
What was done to obtain an independent and fair valuation of this asset which was transferred?
Mr. Filmon: I can tell the member opposite that we had more lawyers and more individuals from an economic standpoint, from a valuation standpoint with respect--[interjection] There are investments being made by Vision Capital who did their own due diligence, massive investment--I believe something like $11 million--by BCE enterprises. The largest telecommunications corporation in Canada is the major investor in this corporation.
There were something like 90 separate agreements that had to be entered into. The due diligence on this was greater than was done for any other transaction that has ever been conducted in the province of Manitoba.
* (1350)
Health Care System
Emergency Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Yesterday the Minister of Health tried to undo some of the damage that he has created in the health care field with his announcements about the emergency hospitals. We were very surprised to hear the comments of the Deputy Minister of Health who said yesterday that two of the hospitals, the Misericordia and one other north end hospital, probably the Seven Oaks Hospital, would no longer be acute care facilities.
Can the minister today confirm that in fact is government policy, or hopefully deny that it is government policy, and will he table the information that has led to this conclusion that has been made by his Deputy Minister of Health?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I will confirm that in response to the emergency services team's recommendations, we announced that in future there would be emergency services delivered at Children's Hospital, two tertiary centres and three community hospitals. That leaves two community hospitals without emergency departments in the future, and I will confirm that work is being undertaken to determine the appropriate use to be made of the two hospitals that will not have full emergency departments.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Health, who have no mandate from the population of Manitoba to close hospitals, to shut down acute care facilities, who by the closure of these acute care hospitals will rip the heart out of those communities, be it Misericordia or be it Seven Oaks and areas that serve tens of thousands of people, can they pledge today that prior to making the final decision, they will at least go into the community and listen to what people in the community have to say and present their data, and allow the public to have a say on their hospitals prior to the closures?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, by his comments the honourable member seems to be suggesting that we do not listen.
Madam Speaker, the actions taken in yesterday's announcement and other actions taken by this government indicate precisely the opposite.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Health explain why they are going to close emergency hospitals and change acute care facilities in the north end of Winnipeg when at Seven Oaks Hospital, for example, it has a higher emergency room ratio, by the government stats, than some of the hospitals that are being kept open and where, by government stats, we know that it has the largest family practice, 55 family practice physicians at Seven Oaks Hospital, and where--I will table a letter from the psychiatrists saying they serve 3,000 people in regard to their psychiatric outpatient treatment program.
Why are they choosing to close those north end facilities?
Mr. McCrae: I hope the honourable member will discontinue his approach, Madam Speaker, of being very, very selective in his criticism and making policy suggestions.
Is he rejecting, for example, or will he be rejecting the advice given by our Urban Health Planning team members who are there to provide advice on the various clinical disciplines in our hospitals? Is he choosing today to reject outright before he even knows what it is, the advice that we are going to be getting?
Misericordia General Hospital
Emergency Services
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, yesterday our community hospital, the Misericordia, was given a half hour's notice of a press conference which would effectively end its role as a general hospital. As late as December 8, the hospital board had no idea that this was the government's intention, and I think that is a shameful and cynical way to treat that hospital.
The minister has had since August a detailed report of Dr. Reda which documented the increased use of the Misericordia emergency services, which documented the acute care of the many patients who present there for admission and which documented that this is adjacent to one of Manitoba's poorest communities.
Let me tell you what that means, Madam Speaker. It means no phones, it means no telephones, and it means none of the family supports that many of us take for granted.
I want to ask the minister why he has chosen to cut what is literally one of the few life lines for this community.
* (1355)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member clearly has neglected to remember the level of consultation that has indeed taken place with the people involved with the Misericordia General Hospital. The honourable member fails to take into account the personal interest that I have taken in Misericordia General Hospital, the work that we have done with the Misericordia General Hospital to establish Winnipeg and Misericordia Hospital as the centre for breast screening in this region of Manitoba, the whole issue of the ophthalmology centre of excellence located at Misericordia Hospital. The honourable member ignores that and suggests that, I guess, all of those things were all done without any consultation too.
The honourable member is just plain wrong about this, Madam Speaker. Our consultations have been extremely extensive.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister acknowledge that Dr. Reda's report on the current use of the Misericordia emergency services has never been seen by his integrated Emergency Services Task Force and that the minister has neither medical nor community consensus on the closing of this emergency ward?
Mr. McCrae: No, I cannot accept what the honourable member is saying, Madam Speaker.
We have worked very diligently with health care providers and consumers in coming to the conclusions that have been arrived at and, indeed, this is a recommendation made by the emergency services team which is part of a larger organization which is headed up by Dr. Brock Wright, which is the Urban Health Planning team groups that are looking at all of the different disciplines.
So I just cannot accept what the honourable member is saying. We have been extremely careful in arriving at the decisions we announced yesterday.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, could the minister table for us the cost of sending the 25,000 emergency care patients at the Misericordia to the higher-cost teaching hospitals? Will he table that information? Will he call a community meeting and will he give the community a voice in its future?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member should be reminded, too, that at no point in the process has cost been the bottom line.
Madam Speaker, the bottom line is the most appropriate care to provide for people when they find themselves in serious life-threatening emergent situations, when they find themselves in urgent medical situations and, indeed, when they are involved in nonurgent situations.
The honourable members opposite are being foolish if they suggest that we have been using emergency rooms appropriately in the past. It is appropriate that we look at the proper use to be made of the various types of emergency services.
We want to encourage ambulance personnel who come across a life-threatening situation to take people, preferably, to the trauma centres when the services of perhaps neurosurgery are required, because that is where neurosurgery happens, Madam Speaker, is at the tertiary centres.
We want people to understand that Health Links is there, for example, which is another service provided by Misericordia General Hospital which will allow people to speak directly to a nurse on the other end of a telephone and to advise--
An Honourable Member: It is a phone service.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member stresses, this is a phone service, Madam Speaker. Is she or is she not interested in public education when it comes to health issues?
Autopac
Rate Increase
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. It is regarding a topic, if you like, the politics of Autopac and the setting of the rates.
Prior to the last provincial election, there was a zero percent increase applied from MPIC to the Public Utilities Board. Now there is a 6.1 percent increase.
This is nothing new. In fact, it happened when the New Democrats were in government, when the then-Leader of the official opposition posed a question about the politics.
My question to the Premier, to use his words of Friday, the 12th of February, 1988, posing the question when he was in opposition, today the Premier: "Is the Minister now going to admit that there was political manipulation involved on the part of his government in setting the Autopac rates?"
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, one of the things that I know is helpful when you quote history is if you learn from it. I would say to the member that the very big difference that occurs today versus what was there in February of 1988 is that we have turned over the rate setting and approval process to the Public Utilities Board. In the days in which I was asking that question, they were able to be manipulated by virtue of government fiat because it was the cabinet that set the rates each and every year.
In this case, since 1989, all of the rates have been set by the Public Utilities Board, and so all that Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation is able to do is apply for an increase and then the Public Utilities Board does its own independent analysis and in some cases, approves, and in other cases, modifies, and in other cases, rejects the presentation of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
All he need do is look at the decision of the Public Utilities Board with respect to the application on behalf of the motorcycle drivers just a year or so ago.
So they are totally independent of government and they set the rates independent of government and of the MPIC. They have, in fact, changed the rates.
The application that is in right now is for 6 percent. It may well not be approved by the Public Utilities Board. That is the basis on which I can assure him that no political manipulation has taken place under this administration in the setting of the rates.
Mr. Lamoureux: Then maybe the Premier can tell us why, going into an election, there was no request for any increase from this government to the PUB when this government in fact had a member, a Conservative MLA, sitting on the MPIC board. Why was there not any increase requested from PUB going into an election?
Mr. Filmon: The board of MPIC, based on the projections that are provided for by the administration of MPIC, puts forward a request for an increase that is independently assessed by the Public Utilities Board. They put it out to their own independent economic and actuarial assessment. They have amended it on a number of occasions and, in fact, have rejected the proposal.
So he would have to ask the Public Utilities Board then, why they have approved or not approved particular rate increases or why they have set rate increases that have been inconsistent with the proposals of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. That is not a matter that is in any way decided upon or influenced by government.
Mr. Lamoureux: Why did this government, through MPIC, not apply for a rate increase in the year leading into an election when the Crown Corporations Council told this government and MPIC that it needs to build up a stabilization fund in which 2 percent of the increase this year could have been saved last year?
Mr. Filmon: The point is that in previous years they have made profits. This year they have a $38-million loss. That is the difference between what they have put in for an increase. You do not put in for an increase after you have had consistently high-profit years. That would be very difficult to justify, so the corporation put in for an increase consistent with the information it had available to it. This year they had increased vehicle damage claims of some $29 million.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, there have been a number of questions raised in this House about deals involving MTS, the sale of the coaxial cable. Serious questions have been raised about the MTS Faneuil deal.
Now, after saying nothing in the election, after in July saying that MTS would remain a Crown corporation despite reorganization, after denying repeatedly in committee that MTS is being considered for privatization, under questioning from the opposition on Friday we learned from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that in fact the government is now looking at the biggest deal of all, the sale of some or all of MTS.
I would like to ask the Premier some questions in regard to the news release that was put out after we raised this matter in the House on Friday in which it was indicated that tax regulatory, legal and financial advisers have been engaged to examine the possible privatization of MTS.
I would like to ask the Premier who these advisers are, what the cost is of the contracts and when they will be reporting to government.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I think the member has been very clearly told that we are in the process of evaluating MTS with $800 million of debt and how we can refinance MTS for the future in terms of making it a competitive telephone company in the Canadian structure. We have, as the member mentioned, given indication that there will be tax regulatory, legal and financial advisers. They are Richardson, Wood Gundy, and RBC Dominion Securities.
Mr. Ashton: We have already heard reference to one former chief official of this government; I am just wondering if another former chief associate employee of this government, one Barb Biggar, has been engaged in any way with contracts either related to privatization or any other matter related to MTS.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that MTS is engaged in a contract to do communications work for them.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Premier can then indicate to Manitobans, given some of the serious questions that have been raised about former associate Mike Bessey, the clear hiring now of, some would say, the communications chief, chief communicator for this government, whether indeed anyone in this province can trust this government related to dealing with MTS when they have already had two bad deals, when we are now seeing clear politics being imposed in terms of MTS and the ideological agenda of this government, which is to privatize MTS.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the conflict-of-interest rules that apply to senior officers of government and to each one of us in this Chamber clearly say that people are barred from taking employment with a corporation that they have worked with directly, as part of their responsibility, for one year.
The assignment that he is referring to is well beyond the one-year limit and does not apply. If he is suggesting that a person should be barred from doing work forever, for life, that is not true. He knows full well that the Clerk of the Executive Council for Howard Pawley received a contract the day he left the Clerk of the Executive Council position with the government of the province of Manitoba, a contract that he had designed and in fact went on to fulfill. So he ought not to be so pious and not to make those kinds of indiscriminate accusations.
Faneuil ISG Inc. Agreement
Preferred Shares
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): While I am on my feet, I have been given some information with respect to the questions of both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).
Madam Speaker, indeed, as I had thought I recalled, the difference between the two figures that are put forward is that the $16 million figure is the net present value of the loan capital that is being paid out over five years, $6 million in year one, $5 million in year two, $4 million in year three, $3 million in year four and $1 million in year five. It is a net present value of $16 million.
The corporation Faneuil, of course, pays interest on that $16 million and has already made its first annual instalment of interest on that to the government, as is part of the agreement.
* (1410)
Hog Industry
Marketing System
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, it is hard for anyone to understand why the minister is moving towards dual marketing of hogs when all indications are that it will be the vertical integrators who will have more benefit from this than the independent producers.
One vertical integrator, Elite Swine, has not been following the rules and not been paying the required levy, so in fact has an unfair advantage right now.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he is not directing his department to do their job in collecting the over thousands of dollars that are overdue in levies before he starts to design a new varied levy rate for producers.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, what the member refers to, of course, is part of the concerns that this government has had, generally speaking, in the hog industry.
Those hogs, regrettably, are not being processed in the province of Manitoba, have for the last year left in their thousands every week to places other than Manitoba, along with the jobs, I might add.
The specific issue that she raises is being addressed. There has been contact between Manitoba Pork and the firm in question. The Manitoba Marketing Council, which supervises all marketing boards, has been asked to look into the matter.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, I hope to see those levies collected soon.
Can the minister explain to independent producers why he would take the advice of one Gerry Moore, co-author of this report that he so often refers to, when Mr. Moore's business has shares in Interlake Weanlings, which is tied to Puratone which is one of the vertical integrators that has been pushing for dual marketing and stands to gain the most from this move? How can he accept this advice?
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, I and all my colleagues have heard this member for Swan River persistently challenge me that I am supposed to take advice from hog producers. Now she finds out that one of the advisers has in fact an interest and understanding of hogs, and I am not to take advice from him.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister explain then why his decision just happens to benefit people like Cubby Barrett, who is building three new hog barns but just happens to be on the board of the Manitoba PC fund and who just happened to give $1,000 to the minister's campaign in the last . . . .
Madam Speaker, is this just a coincidence, or are these the people that the minister is trying to help out with this decision?
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, how long would it take to ask all Tories to stop producing hogs? I do not know whether they will accept that advice from me, but if that makes her feel any happier, I will undertake that assignment from her. I mean, please--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, I apologize. This is a serious issue. The issue is regrettably--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable minister's response.
The honourable Minister of Agriculture, to complete his response.
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, there is little to be gained by trying to be divisive in this question of pork production.
It is common knowledge that we have three types of pork producers in the province. Thirty-seven percent of Manitoba pork is produced by one group, the Hutterian Brethren on their large colonies, in their large factory barns. Another 30 percent roughly is produced by the 1,800, 1,900 independent, modest and small-sized producers. Another 30 percent or 33 percent is produced by what you refer to as the integrators, by what in fact are independently owned farms in the Elite Swine group, and the one more integrated operation that we have is the Puratone group. So we have three classes of producers, if you like, in the province of Manitoba that constitute and produce the 2.5 million hogs that are currently being produced.
Surely she is not suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture of this government should now determine who can and who cannot produce hogs in this province.
Department of Highways and Transportation
Layoffs
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay).
Last fall, this minister announced that he was laying off 140 Engineering Aide 2s for the first time in Manitoba history, as a one-time-only temporary layoff because he claimed that the road construction projects had been finished early.
Is the minister willing to allow these aides to use up their overtime, rather than big payouts of tax dollars and layoffs?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I think the member is aware that roughly 150 individuals were identified as not having sufficient work through January, February and March to warrant keeping them on the payroll. Of the 150, 15 employees accepted permanent layoff and 16 of those employees are being retained for the winter roads work. That leaves 119 who have received the layoff, and in direct response to the member's question, about half of the savings will be going to the employees in terms of using their banked time, so that reduces the impact on them, so their banked time will be used to reduce the impact during the three-month layoff period and they will be recalled on April 1.
Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question: In order to keep these long-serving qualified crews, most of whom have been working for the province in their local communities for well over a decade, will the minister assure the House and rural Manitobans that these positions will not be turned into seasonal positions?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the member must realize we all have a limited budget. We have to live within it. My commitment to Manitobans, I will maximize the amount of that budget that I can spend on road capital building, rebuilding, bridge building and maintenance of the roads, and the kinds of decisions that are needed to achieve that will be an ongoing process of the Department of Highways.
Highway Construction Projects
Delays
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question to the same minister: Can the minister explain why many construction projects such as the main street in Steinbach, PR 303 east of Steinbach and Highway 16 east of Shoal Lake were postponed until next spring when the minister claimed the layoffs were occurring because all work had been completed?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, it is a very basic situation: a very good summer, a lot of projects moved along very, very quickly. There was not the degree of holdover predicted for the end of the season that one might expect. We have a budget of $103 million for capital expenditures and we are right at that. We could not spend $110 million or $115 million because we were budgeted for $103 million and we live within our budget. So, in a situation where you get close to the end of the year, you have to scale down the jobs in terms of their completion in order to live within your budget. It is a simple, basic fact.
Education System
School Bus Maintenance
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.
Over the last four years this government has extended the replacement cycle of school buses from 12 to 15.5 years. This has resulted in increased maintenance cost of this elderly fleet to be paid for by local municipal governments. In rural areas, increases average between 20 percent and 25 percent, and in one urban division, over 40 percent.
My question to the minister: Will the minister explain to this House and to the people of Manitoba how her government could extend the use of school buses to transport our children to 15 and a half years when the policy for replacement of provincial government vehicles, cabinet minister vehicles, is between four and five years?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for Government Services. I can speak for Education, and I would indicate that, first of all, you are looking at a specific type of vehicle when you look at a school bus. A school bus is manufactured in a specific way to the extent that it is identified as such in The Highway Traffic Act as the only kind of vehicle that is deemed safe enough to transport students. It is the only vehicle that is one that is approved for use for students for transportation in the school system. The buses that are being driven are all subject to inspection. No bus is allowed to be on the road if it is not roadworthy, if it is not safe. They have safety inspections and--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1420)
Ms. Mihychuk: My final question to the Minister of Education: Will the minister tell this House what percentage of the existing school bus fleet in this province exceeds 12 years and what research was used to justify these extensions?
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I do not have the percentage here, but I will get it for the member and provide that percentage to her.
I indicate to the member that consultations on school transportation vehicles for students are the subject of a wide variety of experts, of educators, of people who are vitally concerned with the safety of students and the effective transportation of students. As well, Madam Speaker, there are many divisions that choose not to own bus vehicles themselves but contract out that service.
But I assure the member these decisions are not taken at whim. They are well researched by people expert in the field.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the loge to my right where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Clayton Manness, the former member for Morris.
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.
MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Emergency Health Care Services--
Community Hospitals
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I move that under Rule 27, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the threat to the health care system posed by the government plans to limit health care services in the city of Winnipeg community hospitals, specifically regarding the closure of Misericordia and Seven Oaks General Hospitals.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Kildonan, seconded by the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that under Rule 27, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the threat to the health care system posed by the government's plans to limit health care services in the city of Winnipeg community hospitals, specifically regarding the closure of Misericordia and Seven Oaks General Hospitals.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, perhaps no more important issue is before this Chamber and before the public of Manitoba today than the mishandling of the health care system, the mishandling of the emergency care system and the mishandling of health care that has been perpetrated on the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba by this Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and by the government.
Yesterday the Minister of Health and his deputy minister called a press conference to try to deal with the damage as a result of the community hospital emergency room situation, and at that time the Deputy Minister of Health, and today the minister, confirmed that at least two hospitals in the city of Winnipeg are no longer going to be acute care facilities and their emergency wards will not be reopened.
Madam Speaker, this decision affects, in the situation of Seven Oaks, over 50,000 people in the vicinity of Seven Oaks Hospital and a similar group of people in the Misericordia region, all of whom have not been consulted and have had no opportunity to deal with this significant change.
We have public hearings when we construct environmental sites, we have public hearings when we construct roads, but something as integral to the welfare of Manitobans, namely their hospitals, their very foundation, the very nature of their hospitals, and the government, by executive decree, by the minister's closed little executive body, his troika of committee members, have made decisions to close hospitals. The public has had no opportunity to discuss this issue.
Madam Speaker, this minister and the deputy minister indicated this decision was imminent, that this decision would take place in January prior to having any opportunity to deal with this change. The decision has virtually been reached. The government is implementing it; they will attempt to do it outside of the session when they can get less public scrutiny on their policies. They are attempting to change the nature of health care in this city and the province of Manitoba.
What is more important, what is more fundamental than the emergency room of a hospital? What other resources are available than the emergency room of a hospital? What other resources are available, in a government that has cut back community services, than the very hospitals of Misericordia and Seven Oaks Hospital?
Madam Speaker, the decision is imminent, the decision is being made, meetings are going on to direct people as we speak, and we require an opportunity to discuss this. It might be argued that we are in the throne speech debate and there may be an opportunity--the throne speech which made virtually no mention of this issue. Imagine, a throne speech came down, made no mention of this issue of a fundamental change in our health care system, and it is not just the hospitals, but it is other health care issues.
Madam Speaker, we would even be out of order because we would not even deal, because the matter was not even mentioned in the throne speech debate. I would say shame on the government for not mentioning it in the throne speech debate, shame on the government for implementing this policy.
We require an opportunity in this Chamber to discuss this issue. We require an opportunity to voice the opinion. We require an opportunity to provide the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) with an opportunity to listen to what the public have had to say in this regard.
We presented petitions; they did not listen. Sixty-thousand names were presented; they did not listen. Now we require an opportunity of consultation with the communities, and only through this Chamber and only by having an opportunity to discuss this matter in this Chamber will we be able to do so.
Madam Speaker, I cite the fact that there was a previous precedent. The Liberal Party brought in an emergency debate prior in the previous session dealing with the closure of the emergency wards, and the matter was allowed to proceed. This is just as urgent, that is, the closing of the hospitals, the continuing closing of the emergency wards. The opportunity is limited in throne speech debate. Many members had already used up their opportunity to speak before the government revealed its ill-founded policy.
I urge you to consider this of urgent importance and to consider the fact that there are no other opportunities for Manitobans since this House will be adjourning on Friday. Many members have had an opportunity already to speak on the Throne Speech Debate, and in fact the matter was not even mentioned in the Throne Speech Debate, which makes it difficult to speak about. I urge you to allow us to have an emergency debate on this very crucial matter.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that this indeed is a very important issue. I would request that those members who are carrying on private conversations to please do so in the loge or outside the Chamber.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, you are quite correct, matters of urgent public importance ought not to be raised on a frivolous basis, but ought to be a very serious matter. But if this motion were raised in a courtroom, I am sure any judge would stand up and say that the honourable member's intentions here are both frivolous and vexatious.
On two counts alone, his motion should be out of order. Firstly, the question of urgency. If he had raised this matter yesterday, if he had raised it last week, if he had raised it two months ago, it would have been a lot more urgent than it is today because yesterday the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) announced that four of the five currently closed emergency wards are now going to be open tomorrow. So the question of urgency and having a debate about it today will change very little, if anything, because four of those five emergency wards will open tomorrow.
His argument with respect to urgency might have been made a lot more serious yesterday or the day before than it is today because of that announcement by the Minister of Health. So I think, on that ground alone, it should be ruled out of order because he is simply being frivolous and trying to play politics with this particular issue.
The second, Madam Speaker, is the question of opportunity. Certainly, they have had an opportunity since last Wednesday to deal with this entire issue, to talk about it. We have, in fact, talked about it in Question Period virtually every day and many members have raised the issue during their debate on the Speech from the Throne.
We also have further opportunity. We have this afternoon until 6 p.m. to talk about this particular issue. Every member on the other side can raise that in his or her debate, and if they will, they can curtail their debates efficiently so that more members can speak with respect to this issue. Certainly, we have tomorrow until 6 p.m. or until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, the time of the vote, in order to discuss the very same issue, and we have it again on Friday.
* (1430)
So, Madam Speaker, there is ample opportunity for members opposite to raise this issue in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. You need not have any emergency debate on this issue because, quite frankly, it is not urgent and there is a lot of opportunity. I think by bringing this forward he is simply being frivolous. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: I want to thank all honourable members for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) should be debated today.
The honourable member did provide the notice required under our subrule 27.(1). According to our Rule 27 and Beauchesne Citations 389 and 390, the two tests for a matter of urgent public importance to proceed are (1) is the subject matter so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought out early enough, and (2) has it been shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.
While the honourable member for Kildonan has spoken to the subamendment to the throne speech motion, he could indeed speak to the amendment and the main motion for an address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. In my opinion, the scope of that debate is broad enough to allow for the issue of the health care system to be addressed. So, indeed, there are other opportunities for the debate to occur.
In regard to the second test, while health care services is a matter of great public concern, I do not believe that the public interest will be harmed if the business of the House is not set aside to debate the issue today.
Therefore, I am ruling the matter brought forward by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) does not meet the criteria set by our rules and practices, that is, there are other opportunities for the matter to be debated and the subject matter is not so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I challenge your ruling.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please rise.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 28, Nays 24.
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.
* (1440)
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
St. Mary the Protectress Millenium Villa
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, do I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Martindale: On Sunday, October 29, 1995, the Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral of St. Mary the Protectress celebrated their 70th anniversary and also dedicated and officially opened their new elevator. This is a progressive parish whose members have worked hard to build their beautiful sanctuary to sponsor Millenium Villa seniors building and recently have acquired an empty building which will be renovated for youth activities, banquets and other parish functions.
Their new elevator is particularly important since now the sanctuary and hall are accessible to both seniors and the handicapped so no one is denied the opportunity to worship or participate in the life of the parish.
I want to congratulate the Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral of St. Mary the Protectress. May God's blessing be upon them as they serve God and the community.
1995 Lieutenant Governor's Medal for Literacy
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a nonpolitical statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Flin Flon have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Jennissen: A short while ago a resident from Cold Lake-Sherridon, Mr. Blaine Klippenstein received the 1995 Lieutenant Governor's Medal for Literacy for developing a series of books for children.
I was privileged to work with Mr. Klippenstein several years ago when he was first developing culturally relevant reading material for children, specifically aboriginal and northern children.
Not only northerners but all Manitobans are justifiably proud of Mr. Klippenstein's latest achievement. On behalf of all members here, I salute a great educator, Mr. Blaine Klippenstein.