LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, March 2, 1992

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

       

PRAYERS

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

 

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 province of   Manitoba humbly sheweth

      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 Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the   government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with   Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child   Abuse campaign. (Ms. Barrett)

         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 province of   Manitoba humbly sheweth

      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 Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the   government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with   Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child   Abuse campaign. (Mr. Reid)

         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 province of   Manitoba humbly sheweth

      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 Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the   government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with   Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child   Abuse campaign. (Mr. Chomiak)

         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 Manitoba:

      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 Province of Manitoba spent over $2   million to manage Dutch elm disease and $700,000 of that amount   was allocated to the City of Winnipeg; and

      WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg has maintained its commitment to   the management of Dutch elm disease while the Province of   Manitoba reduced its support to the city to $350,000 in 1991,   half that of 1990;

      THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative   Assembly will urge the government of Manitoba to consider   restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to the City of   Winnipeg to fight Dutch elm disease. (Mrs. Carstairs)

         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 Manitoba:

      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 Province of Manitoba spent over $2   million to manage Dutch elm disease and $700,000 of that amount   was allocated to the City of Winnipeg; and

      WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg has maintained its commitment to   the management of Dutch elm disease while the Province of   Manitoba reduced its support to the city to $350,000 in 1991,   half that of 1990;

      THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative   Assembly will urge the government of Manitoba to consider   restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to the City of   Winnipeg to fight Dutch elm disease. (Ms. Friesen)

* (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 Manitoba Arts Council.

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 Canada and our   Constitution.

      A number of people have made comments on the proposals.  A   number of people are making comments as we speak.  Mr. Speaker,   Manitoba has had a great strength dealing with the Constitution   over the last number of years, a strength where all parties work   together to develop a consensus position on behalf of Manitobans   and Manitobans' vision of a strong and united Canada.

      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 Canada and Manitobans, and work together in   a co‑ordinated and united way in this Chamber.

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 Manitoba Constitutional Task Force.  The concerns I believe   that I have expressed are in keeping with those that the task   force really laid out as areas of concern and the positions that   they took, the all‑party committee of this Legislature.

      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   Manitoba, we will want to know that we have the views and   concerns of both opposition parties with us when we go.

* (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   Canada.  It would only be the seven provinces and 50 percent of   the population plus the federal government that would trigger   in.  If there are elements that require unanimous consent, of   course, again that would require a separate process of votes in   Legislatures and Parliament.  None of the proposals, however   vague they are, could override the need to have this Legislature   debate and ultimately decide upon a resolution.

* (1345)

 

Urban Hospital Council

Budget Reduction Proposal

 

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, at this time   last year, we raised a number of questions about $19 million   being cut from urban hospitals by this government and about the   significant number of bed closures that were being extended from   summer right through winter to this coming summer.  The Minister   of Health at that time said that we were fearmongering, that we   were making up these figures and that none of this was true, all   the while overseeing and authorizing these budget cuts.

      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 province of Manitoba with an increased budget   this fiscal year over last, not less as my honourable friend   would have all Manitobans believe.  The premise of her question   is not correct.

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   Ontario are currently setting up as good government policy.

* (1350)

 

St. Boniface Hospital

School of Licensed Practical Nurses

 

Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  I have a question, Mr.   Speaker, for Manitoba's Minister of Health.

      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 province of Manitoba?

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,   Red River Community College and elsewhere in the province of   Manitoba around LPNs, we in government have decided that we   should know what the current employment numbers are and what will   be the future requirement for LPNs in the health care system;   hence, the survey that went out in January to determine those   needs so we can provide informed advice on any request when we   receive it, if we receive it, about training school capacities   not only for LPNs but for RPNs, for Bachelor of Nursing graduates   and all nursing professionals in the health care system.  We   intend to proceed with this with a better information base than   any government previous has had at its disposal.

 

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 Province of Quebec has indicated they   will not attend?

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 province of Manitoba.  I think this is an   extremely slippery slope towards the presenting of a so‑called   English Canada position.  I think that is fraught with danger.

      Will the Premier now reconsider and take a leadership role   for all of Canada and say that he is not prepared to sit at a   conference table on the Constitution, which affects all   Canadians, without a principal player, one of those provinces not   being there?

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 Quebec in   that report.  As a result, they did a disservice to many other   provinces and regions in the country, including Manitoba.

      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 Quebec, in fact too   strongly in my judgment.  That is why I think it is very   important for the rest of the country to be there to find some   change and to effect some change in the proposal that ultimately   is presented to the country, because as it stands, this proposal   has great weaknesses and I do not have any fears that Quebec's   views are not represented.  In fact, they are too strongly   represented in Dobbie‑Beaudoin.

Mrs. Carstairs:  Mr. Speaker, we will agree to disagree on that   one.

 

Referendum

       

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Se