LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, March 10, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Jennifer Aitken, Laura Kaminsky, Debra Matesicka and others requesting the
government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by
considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Daniel Fillion, George Shrier, Mandy Peters and others requesting the
government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by
considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Shauna Nevistiuk, Karen
Kouhi, Denise Tattrie and others requesting the government show its strong
commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against
Child Abuse campaign.
Mr.
Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Louise Davidson, Christie Flett, Kim McDonald and others requesting the
government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by
considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr.
Speaker: 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 (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
THAT the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was
launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between
the justice system and aboriginal people; and
The AJI delivered its report in August of 1991
and concluded that the justice system has been a massive failure for aboriginal
people; and
The AJI report endorsed the inherent right of
aboriginal self‑government and the right of aboriginal communities to establish
an aboriginal justice system; and
The Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform
Commission of
On January 28, 1992, five months after
releasing the report, the provincial government announced it was not prepared
to proceed with the majority of the recommendations; and
Despite the all‑party task force report
which endorsed aboriginal self‑government, the provincial government now
rejects a separate and parallel justice system, an aboriginal justice commission
and many other key recommendations which are solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the
Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today, Mr. Newell Searle, who is a
Deputy Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome
you here this afternoon.
Also this afternoon, we have from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome
you here this afternoon.
*
(1335)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Budget
Post-Secondary Education
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last year the government stated
one of their priorities was allegedly the Education department of the
government. Unfortunately, after they
stated this in many speeches and in many proclamations, they came forward with
their budget last year, which produced a reduction in the size of the PACE
program in the province of
My question to the Premier is: Is he going to restore the 11 percent cut
that he made and his government made when he was head of Treasury Board in our
post‑secondary education area, particularly in the area of community
colleges and other areas which are key to
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, last year, despite very, very
difficult circumstances that saw us with virtually flat revenues, almost no
increase with which to deal, this government was able to pass along an increase
of $90 million on health care spending and also a 3 percent increase to
education in
I invite the Leader of the Opposition to wait
for tomorrow's budget and to make his judgment as to our commitments to education
based on that budget.
Budget
Post-Secondary Education
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the new head
of Treasury Board. Last year's budget
decisions in the department of post‑secondary education, the second
largest behind Natural Resources' decline in government support of 11 percent
reduction, as I said before, resulted in over 1,000 course opportunities being
lost in the enrollment numbers in the community colleges, and we lost 5,000 people
who were involved in adult education through the evening school grant program.
I would ask the Minister of Finance, head of
Treasury Board, whether the decisions they made last year in government by the former
head of Treasury Board were cost effective in terms of investing in our adults,
investing in our youth and investing in our future.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I regret I did not bring with me the detail of
the third quarterly report, but I do have the gross amounts for the Department
of Education. Mr. Speaker, 1991‑92,
as compared to the year previously, we have committed cash‑‑an
additional $66 million flowed in '91‑92 in the first three quarters of
the fiscal year as compared to '90‑91 in education. A goodly portion of that was in post‑secondary
education.
I do not know on what basis the member is
preparing his question. I can say to him
with respect to the budget that is forthcoming that there will be announcements
that will flow from it with respect to re‑establishing some market‑driven
training, and I am sure that he will be happy with those announcements.
Community Colleges
Applied Sciences Courses
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would quote from documents
relating to a $10‑million or 11 percent decline in the budget year over
year and 142 staff years that were lost.
After the Premier (Mr. Filmon) accused us of fearmongering on 100 jobs,
we ended up losing 142 last year in the department.
A further question to the minister, head of
Treasury Board. Last year, the government cut the applied sciences courses at
Will the new head of Treasury Board reverse
the bad decision that the former head of Treasury Board made by cutting this program
and start investing in the future, rather than cutting back as the Premier did
as head of Treasury Board last time?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I find it deplorable the manner in which the
member asks the question, given my newer responsibility as head of Treasury
Board, Mr. Speaker, as compared to the Premier in his past role.
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledged last year, when
we made decisions with respect to our community colleges, that we were going to
go through a re‑evaluation of some certain number of courses, that we
would remove those that were not delivering a product that the market
needed. We did that. We fully indicated what our plans were, and
we said that in this fiscal year, once there was an opportunity for adjustments
to flow through the system, we would build in programs in keeping with the
market demand.
Those announcements will be forthcoming in due
course. I say to the member, he will be
satisfied with those announcements.
*
(1340)
Health Care System
Spending Decisions
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
We would like to ask the minister today, for
the sake of dealing with fear among Manitobans and poor morale in our hospitals,
will he please come forward with the information about the options he has
presented to our urban hospitals and decisions he has been making to hospital
budgets and bed cuts?
*
(1340)
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I welcome my honourable friend's
question which was premised on evidence and decisions, et cetera.
The decisions made by this government have
been consistent in the last three and a half years. Our decisions in the management of $1.8
billion of health care spending will have one overriding focus and that is
provision of service to the patient, to the individual Manitoban who needs to
access health care services in the
That has led us to decisions, for instance,
such as vastly increasing the Home Care budget so that we can care for more individuals
in the community rather than relying on expensive institutional care. That is why we announced earlier this year, after
several years of study and preparation, mental health reform which moved
services from high‑cost institutions to the community, again for the
patients' sake and to provide quality health care services to those patients in
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, in light of this minister ignoring
our concerns last year and then cutting hospital budgets to the tune of $19
million, will the minister today accept responsibility for informing the public
of critical decisions this government is making with respect to health care,
come clean and let us know the actual decisions‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, I would have hoped my honourable friend, after numerous reminders,
might stop using misleading statements in her questions such as cutbacks,
reduced funding.
My honourable friend well knows that in four
successive budgets we have increased the funding of health care, including hospital
budgets, significant increases to the Home Care budget to support institutional
care when it is moved from the institution to the community.
We have taken seriously, although my
honourable friend does not care to admit it, the advice that she and other
observers of the health care system have made that we must change the focus of the
system, centre it on the service delivery to the patient, not on where the
service happens but what the service is and its availability to the
individual. That is why we have moved consistently
from institutions, where appropriate, to community‑based services for the
benefit‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: The numbers he refutes are alive and well‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. This is not a time for debate.
*
(1345)
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): How can this minister cut beds, close wards,
lay off nurses, as he did in the case in
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I did not expect my honourable
friend, in her naivete, to deal with the
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: The word cut‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: On a
point of order? Order, please.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, while my honourable friend was in cabinet deciding the Home Care
budget for the city of
Health Care System
Bed Closures
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The Minister of Health has long criticized the
NDP for the policy for ordering the closure of beds for a financial reason. Mr.
Speaker, now we have learned, and Manitobans know, that there will be at least
a closure of 100 beds in the
Can the minister simply tell us what his
reasons are, what statistics he has? Can
he share with us today so that people can make a judgment?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have in the past criticized my
honourable friends when in government, as New Democrats, in making decisions
without a planned information base to judge their decisions.
Mr. Speaker, in the example of the
We have increased substantially the Home Care
budget, Sir, which allows people to be cared for in their homes, where they want
to be. We more than doubled that budget
in
Mr.
Cheema: Mr.
Speaker, if 200 beds from the smaller community hospitals are to be
distributed, can he tell this House where these beds are going to go, and can
he again share with us information so that people can make a judgment which
hospital needs‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, as I stand here today, I cannot give my honourable friend those kinds
of indications. What I can indicate to
my honourable friend is that in our program delivery, our funding and our
management within the health care system, to the degree possible within
government, one individual will remain at the centre of our planning
decisions. That individual will be the
patient receiving needed health care.
My honourable friend has criticized in the
past, and rightfully so, that it is inappropriate, at $800 per day average bed
cost at a teaching hospital, that we have a person panelled for personal care
home waiting. We agree. The only thing is that two and three years
ago, when my honourable friend made that criticism, we did not understand the dynamics
of the system and how we could make the system work to provide that needed care
in a more appropriate location. We think
we do now.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Urban Hospital
Council is attempting government to craft in terms of program and policy with
the patient needs at the centre of our decision making.
*
(1350)
Bed Closure Co-ordination
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, with the major changes coming,
can the minister tell this House who will be co‑ordinating action between
the hospitals so that acute care services are not totally eliminated out of
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, I know my honourable friend is seeking as much information as I can possibly
provide him. Let me simply give my
honourable friend the assurance that in terms of acute care services, i.e., bed
admissions for major surgeries and for accidents, et cetera, those will remain
a very key and integral part of hospital care delivery. That, Sir, is what our hospitals are meant to
do and will continue to do.
I do not think anyone made the case, however,
that hospitals, particularly as my honourable friend has indicated in the past,
teaching hospitals ought to be where we panel long‑term care patients in an
interim period of time. That service is
not appropriately delivered in a sophisticated teaching hospital. That is the
kind of reform in process, with the patient again at the centre of all changes,
that we make to guarantee that the services as needed are provided to the
patients of
Education System
Funding Formula
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.
Last week we heard about 50 job losses at St.
Vital School Division. Yesterday, it was
Evergreen School Division's turn to cut jobs.
Tonight, Transcona‑Springfield School Division will be forced to
cut further positions, and not just one or two.
Does this minister have any idea what the
effects of her funding model will be on school divisions? How many more divisions will face layoffs as
a result of the government's inequitable funding model?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my
honourable friend that this government supported an increase to the public
school system of 3 percent, much greater than the 1 percent of
Independent Schools
Funding Formula
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
My supplementary is to the same minister.
Can this minister outline what the job
situation is at private schools that got an 11 percent increase last year and will
get 10 percent increase this year from this government, Mr. Speaker?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the honourable
member again that the funding for independent schools has not yet been
announced.
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr.
Speaker, the minister knows full well the formula is locked in‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Education System
Funding Formula Support
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the
same minister.
She has indicated that the funding formula has
been approved by all of these groups.
Can she table one letter from MAST, MTS, MASBO or any single
organization involved in education that approves of this funding model and the
effects it is having on education in the province?
*
(1355)
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the proof is that those members
came together around the table and developed the formula, so the proof is in
the action and in the behaviour of those members who developed the funding formula.
Free Trade Agreement
Lumber Tariff
Mr.
Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
The Free Trade Agreement is supposed to
protect jobs for Canadians. Since the
Free Trade Agreement has been in existence we have taken a severe beating in
terms of job losses. Seven out of nine
rulings recently have gone against us, and as a result of those rulings against
us, we have lost jobs. We have not protected
those jobs.
My question is for the Minister of Finance,
again. Yesterday, the Prime Minister took time out to acknowledge that this
country will be losing millions of dollars of jobs with new American duties on
lumber. My question is: What action has this minister and the
government taken to protest the potential job losses that are there?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, the decision the honourable member is referring to is a preliminary
decision brought down a couple of days ago.
The process is that a final decision still remains and the case will be
put forward by the federal government.
That decision is being made in July of this year. Based on the findings of that decision, there
is still another mechanism in terms of the appeal mechanism through the Canada‑U.S.
Free Trade Agreement.
This issue is far from over at this particular
point in time, and there are other processes to be followed for a final
decision to be reached.
Mr.
Lathlin: Mr. Speaker,
we know that this government is‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. Question, please.
Mr.
Lathlin: My
question is very straightforward, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister contact today the major
sawmills of this province and put forward a united fight to preserve those important
employers in rural and northern
Mr.
Stefanson: I should
point out, how this originated is there was a previous export tax in place in
provinces across
In the long term, with the removal of that
tariff, the opportunities for the lumber industry in
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas)