LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, March 2, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable
member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House.
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in
today's world; and
It is
the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds
to deal with the crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good
citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, and it complies with
the privileges and practices of the House.
Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in
today's world; and
It is
the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds
to deal with the crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good
citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it
conforms with the privileges and
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 citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in
today's world; and
It is
the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds
to deal with the crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good
citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it
conforms with the privileges and
practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read?
To
the Legislature of
WHEREAS
the loss of elm trees to the Dutch elm disease is a loss of property value and beauty to its
neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS
in 1990 the
WHEREAS
the City of
THEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, and it complies with
the privileges and practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it
the will of the House to have the petition
read?
To
the Legislature of
WHEREAS
the loss of elm trees to the Dutch elm disease is a loss of property value and beauty to its
neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS
in 1990 the
WHEREAS
the City of
THEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
*
(1335)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I have the pleasure of tabling the Annual
Report for 1990‑1991 of the
Mr.
Speaker: I am
also pleased to table the 1990 Annual Report
of the Ombudsman.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Constitutional Issues
All-Party Committee
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we welcome you back to our
Chamber here today and hope you are feeling
well. That is not intended to ingratiate
myself for longer preambles which I
know you will cut me off on immediately,
as you should.
I
have a question to the First Minister. The
parliamentary committee has reported
over the weekend on an extensive list of
proposals to deal with our Canadian federation, to deal with a great number of proposals dealing with
A
number of people have made comments on the proposals. A number
of people are making comments as we speak.
Mr. Speaker,
Mr.
Speaker, rather than each of us going off in our own caucuses tonight with our documents, I would
suggest that it would be better to
continue and build upon the consensus in this
province.
I
would ask whether the Premier would be prepared to reconstitute the all‑party committee
dealing with our Constitution, so that
the proposals that are before us and before
the country today, and I recognize they are only preliminary proposals, could be reviewed and commented
on by our all‑party committee, so
that again we can work with the strength of all parties on behalf of
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his
offer of support, assistance and
participation. I certainly would
acknowledge that I believe it is
important, for me as Premier and for us as a
government, to consult and to be able to in some way involve the opposition caucuses' views in this matter.
As
the Leader of the Opposition will know, I certainly have attempted as much as possible in expressing
my views and concerns about the
document that was tabled yesterday by the
Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee to reflect the concerns that were in the
I
would suggest to him that since he, like I, probably has not had time to go into all of the legal
wording, and I am sure the Leader of
the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) has not as well, that this is a comprehensive document. One of things that is going to be important is that we recognize
it as a point along a process and that
the process will be extensive and will involve
opportunities for a great deal more participation by us as a government representing the views and
concerns of Manitobans.
I
would certainly encourage the two opposition caucuses to be reviewing this and to be, in effect, developing
their concerns and that some way we
will find a consultative mechanism that will
allow those views to be put into the mix as far as we are concerned.
When I go forward to the next meeting, when the Constitutional Affairs minister goes forward
on behalf of
*
(1340)
Mr.
Doer: Mr.
Speaker, again, I would offer up our support to review the document in an all‑party
way, because many of the recommendations
in the document we can comment on from our
all‑party report. There are
other points of departure where we have
never even discussed the proposals. I
think, again, rather than each of us
representing our caucuses, I think having all
parties around the same table dealing with the document on behalf of Manitobans would be a valuable and
continued contribution in our province.
Unity Committee Report
Legal Opinion Request
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A further question to the First Minister. He has indicated over the weekend his concern on the devolution of powers. I think that is again very consistent with Manitobans' opinions in the
public hearings, wanting a strong
national government, a strong federal government and not wanting to move many powers over to
the provinces. I think, intuitively, we all made the same
comments over the weekend on the
concepts that we had heard were contained in the report.
The Premier has indicated that his legal constitutional advisers are going through all parts of this
report to determine all of the
potential ramifications in a comprehensive way.
I
would ask the Premier: Would he agree to
provide that to the all‑party
committee if he agrees to constitute it, and
secondly, would he agree to make those opinions public in this Chamber and for all Manitobans, so again, we
can be working together on the
ramifications of these reports and the legal
opinions would be available to all Manitobans through this Chamber?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): I
am not certain that we are going to
have everything in detailed legal form, but certainly the principles and the areas of concern that are
going to have to be addressed are ones
that I will state publicly. We have
nothing to hide when we have concerns
that have to be addressed in this constitutional
process. We want those concerns to be
known and understood, not only by
everybody in this Chamber, but also by the
public, so we will utilize as the basis of this the advice that we get.
I see
no reason why I would not share that advice with the opposition leaders or whichever
representatives we want to have to
ensure that all parties' views are brought together on this issue.
Mr.
Doer: It is
very difficult to know in this country what is
the next step. Is it the federal
government and cabinet making another
proposal? Are the First Ministers going
to be involved in it before another
proposal is made? The whole issue, as
the Premier said, is one step along the
way, but it is very difficult to know
what other steps are following from the federal government.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of
Constitutional Affairs have been very, very vague with Canadians on the process under which Canadians will
work with their Constitution. Certainly, in this House, process is very important because, as we know, we had a very
open process in this Chamber, something
that was condemned by the federal government
in the past and something that, I think, served Manitobans well.
Constitutional Issues
Referendum
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask another question to the Premier. The federal document contemplates a consultative referendum on
the constitutional proposal, either to
confirm the existence of a national consensus
or to facilitate the adoption of a required amending resolution.
I am
sure the Premier, his staff and his constitutional advisors have been reviewing this
issue. Is it the intent of the Premier to have the referendum if the
federal government calls one before the
all‑party committee will deal with any
constitutional proposal? Is the
timing going to be a potential referendum
first and then a proposal that comes back to this Chamber after that, or can the Premier shed
some light on the process as he sees
it, especially considering the vague recommendation
of the federal government to have a referendum
nationally and how that would fit with our processes in this Chamber in terms of timing?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): I
must say to the Leader of the Opposition
that it is difficult to be definitive about this one. One does not know what the ultimate process
will lead to.
I
might say that I could not just blame the federal government for not having a process in mind
or having the process defined because I
know that they are getting conflicting advice
from other Premiers. I know that
some Premiers believe that we should
just simply set aside all the rest of it, get to the table and let the Premiers do what they did before
and try and strike compromises.
I,
for one, think that the process has to be a little more extensive than that. I think that there is a place for officials, legal and constitutional
officials, along with the ministers of
Constitutional Affairs to start just identifying the areas of conflict that clearly are
developing throughout the country, and
try and narrow down and focus in on what are the difficult compromises and those sorts of
things.
Having
said all that, the question on the referendum is one that again cannot be answered directly. The amending formula in the Constitution is going to require the
passage of resolutions in
Legislatures. This Legislature will
trigger its own process, the process
that our rules call for that involves public hearings and a minimum length of debate that we know
is set forward and a resolution in this
Chamber that ultimately will have to be voted
upon regardless of any kind of referendum, whether it be a provincial referendum separately or a
national referendum.
That
process would still have to take place in our
Legislature, in every other Legislature and the Parliament of
*
(1345)
Urban Hospital Council
Budget Reduction Proposal
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
I
want to ask the minister on what basis he has asked the Urban Hospital Council to consider the
impact of a further $20‑million
cut to their base budgets for this coming fiscal year, and on what basis he has asked our two
major hospitals, the Health Sciences
Centre and the St. Boniface Hospital, to cut 250 beds between them.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, so pleased to see you back, Sir.
My
honourable friend again is attempting to‑‑how would I say this genteely?‑‑obfuscate the
issue‑‑is that the proper terminology?‑‑because
my honourable friend in referring to the
$19‑million, as she puts it, cut to the health care budget belies the fact that, in the last fiscal year, the
hospitals across the length and breadth
of this province received an increase in
funding, not a decrease as my honourable friend would have you, Sir, and those casual observers in the House
believe. That is not accurate, and my honourable friend knows
that is not accurate.
What
the $19 million involves, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between what the hospitals requested and
what we finally ended up budgeting for
them. That is the $19 million which left
every hospital in the
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Only this minister could ignore the difficult situation he has placed hospitals
in.
I
would like to know from this minister, given the $20‑million proposed cut to urban
hospitals and the 250‑bed reduction
to St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, what impact study has he done to determine the impact
that such budget reductions will have
on services being delivered through our
hospitals, considering the drastic‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, there used to be a member in this
House in the official opposition that used to say, there he goes again.
Well, I am not going to do that because the "he" is a "she", but there she goes again
talking about cutbacks when I have
explained to her that the hospital budgets were increased last year over the year previous.
My
honourable friend can wait with some small amount of patience until the budget and the tabling of
the Estimates to determine what will be
the relative financial position in next
year's hospital budget compared to last year's hospital budget, because I know my honourable friend would
demand my resignation. I cannot share
with her any more details around the budget for hospitals this year versus next.
Mr.
Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend that the Urban Hospital Council is considering a number of
issues, 40‑plus of them, which
involved some very fundamental issues on management of existing resources in the health care
system, a process my honourable friend
the New Democratic critic in Manitoba criticizes,
but her honourable friends the New Democrats in
*
(1350)
St. Boniface Hospital
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
I
would like to ask the minister, considering last year's budget reduction resulted in such drastic
proposals‑‑he considered
the closure of the St. Boniface School of Practical Nursing‑‑I would like to know if
the minister has accepted the fact that
this school has almost 100 percent success rate in terms of graduating, in terms of ensuring
that graduates find employment, and
will he now indicate he is prepared to keep the school open and ensure that LPNs are alive
and well as a health care profession in
the
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, I am not certain I heard in
detail my honourable friend's preamble to the
question. I believe she alluded
that the school of licensed practical
nursing training in St. Boniface was closed.
I do not believe she is able to
say that, because I certainly have no such
request from the board of St. Boniface and I do not believe, as this question is being posed, that decision
has been made.
I
will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that issue has been discussed by St. Boniface and is one of the issues
that they are currently coming to grips
with.
Let
me tell you how government is attempting to deal with the very issue of the value of LPNs in the
nursing system. Because there is some concern over the training
capacity at St. Boniface,
Constitutional Issues
Multilateral Discussions
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
in listening to the Premier last evening, I thought I heard him say‑‑and he can
clarify if in fact he did not say, but I
thought he said that a representative of this government will attend the multilateral talks on the
Constitution.
Can
the Premier tell the House today why we are prepared to go to
such talks, since the
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is
important for us to begin looking at proposals that presumably are going to eventually be the basis upon
which the federal government will put
forth a constitutional amendment to the
country. I believe we ought to be
in there expressing our concerns about
those proposals and attempting to change them.
If
indeed, as I indicated last evening, a number of aspects of them are unacceptable to us, then it is
time for us to get to the table with
the other First Ministers, or with Constitutional Affairs ministers, and try and influence
change so that we do not get faced by
the federal government with a package that becomes a seamless web and one that may be
unacceptable in a variety of ways to
this Legislature.
When
the Prime Minister asked for us to have Constitutional Affairs ministers meet next week to begin
these discussions on the results of the
Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee report, I said yes to it, as I believe many other Premiers
across the country have, because I do
not think we can afford, just simply because Quebec is not going to be there, to stay away when
important decisions, judgments and
negotiations are taking place. I think
Manitobans expect no less.
*
(1355)
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, I could not disagree more with the
Premier of the
Will
the Premier now reconsider and take a leadership role for all of
Mr.
Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, that is an interesting point of view.
I might say that I felt, when the Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee report was tabled, that there obviously were
three federal parties who were working
very, very hard to satisfy
I do
not think there is any question that, as long as the federal government is at that table, and it
would not matter whether it was all
three parties from Parliament, they would be
representing very strongly the interests of
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, we will agree to disagree on that
one.
Referendum
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Se