LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, April 14, 1992

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Genevieve Bruce, Phyllis Simard, Madeleine Michaud and others who request the government show its strong commitment to aboriginal self‑government by considering reversing its position on the AJI by supporting the recommendations within its jurisdiction and implementing a separate and parallel justice system.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Terry A. Holunga, Brenda Holunga, Tom Holunga 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 John Herard, Veronika Stevenson, William Sinclair and others requesting the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider a one‑year moratorium on the Human Resource Opportunity Centre in Selkirk.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Susan Stanton, Susan Lowery, Cathy Byington and others requesting the government consider restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to fight Dutch elm disease.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), 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?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth:

THAT the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and

The problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk, particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being perpetrated.

* * *

I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), 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 province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Dutch elm disease control program is of primary importance to the protection of the city's many elm trees; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Natural Resources himself stated that, "It is vital that we continue our active fight against Dutch elm disease in Manitoba," and

WHEREAS, despite that verbal commitment, the government of Manitoba has cut its funding to the city's DED control program by half of the 1990 level, a move that will jeopardize the survival of Winnipeg's elm trees.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the government of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to consider restoring the full funding of the Dutch elm disease control program to the previous level of 1990.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

* (1335)

PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): The Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 76‑The Pension Benefits Amendment Act

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 76, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon, from the River West Park School, forty Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Colin Wilson. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst).

Also this afternoon, from the Ralph Maybank School, we have sixty‑five Grade 5 students. They are under the direction of Ken Park. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Mr. Speaker: I inadvertently did not see the honourable member for Burrows under Introduction of Bills.

Bill 65‑The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that Bill 65, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, the purport of my bill is to change the schedule in the regulations of The Residential Tenancies Act in order to change the rate at which costs of landlords are passed on to tenants in order to prevent excessive rent increases.

Regrettably, this bill cannot pass until the government proclaims The Residential Tenancies Act, something they have had two years to do but have not done yet.

Motion agreed to.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Manufacturing Industry

Shipment Statistics

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last year, unfortunately, Manitoba had a decline of 13 percent in manufacturing shipments in the country, the largest decline in shipments of any province in Canada. Today, we heard from Statistics Canada that February of 1992 shipments of manufactured goods from Canada had in fact gone up. In Canada they had gone up 4.4 percent which was seasonally adjusted to 1.1 percent for the country, something that indicates for the first time in six months of manufacturing that we may have some good news.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, like we saw last Friday with the labour force statistics and like we have been watching in a number of other areas, Manitoba was going in the opposite direction. Manitoba went down close to 1 percent in February, keeping the trend from 1991 in terms of manufacturing shipments.

I would like to ask the Premier why Manitoba continues to go the opposite way of the national average in manufacturing shipments, and what impact will this have on jobs in the province of Manitoba.

* (1340)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the member may well know, there are a number of areas that may be particular to Manitoba that are not to other areas of the country. In particular, last time I looked at it, those so‑called manufacturing shipments included production of base metals and export of base metals which was down substantially as one of the items.

The member may well know that, as well, Versatile just got back into production after a shutdown of more than six months, and they will just be beginning to see the shipments come through after the end of February. Those were two major items.

The good news, of course, is that according to Statistics Canada, Manitoba is expected to have the highest increase in manufacturing investment in the country this year, an indication of confidence in this government's policies by the manufacturers of Manitoba.

North American Free Trade Agreement

Sectoral Briefing

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier will note that the number of manufacturing jobs in Manitoba in 1988 was some 63,000. It is down to 55,000, and that is a steady decline in manufacturing jobs.

In 1988, in this Chamber, the Premier talked about growth in manufacturing, and part of the increase in manufacturing would be through the Free Trade Agreement. He said in this Chamber that Manitoba will gain, according to his empirical studies, 10,000 to 15,000 new jobs with the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and that is the best thing we can do to help the unemployment rates in Manitoba. That is why we support the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Mr. Speaker‑‑the Premier's words in this Chamber.

Since that date, we have seen the Free Trade Agreement and its operation in this province, and it has not been the producer of the 10,000 to 15,000 jobs that the Premier indicated.

This week, the Ministers of Trade were briefed on the free trade agreement with Mexico. They were briefed on all the sectors of the free trade agreement with Mexico and the North American free trade agreement.

Can the Premier advise us of the briefing on all the sectors in trade that took place at the federal and provincial meeting, and the impact on the so‑called six conditions that the government of Manitoba has for supporting free trade with Mexico, a position that is of course contrary to their original position of being opposed to it?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there was a very lengthy preamble to that question, and I will try and touch on all of the various points that the member raised.

The member wants to be very simplistic in looking at comparisons over the last couple of years, totally ignoring the fact that there is a world recession on and that the biggest consumers of our manufactured goods are the province of Ontario and the United States, both of which have been in an immense recession.

The province of Ontario has lost 260,000 jobs, and its economy has been the weakest in Canada in that period of time. The United States has not only had the recession, but there has been a large change in the value of the Canadian dollar during that period of time. In fact, during last year, it peaked at 89 cents versus the low 80s at the time the forecasts were made.

The reality is we have had some major changes with respect to the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Among other things, the United States now is the recipient, the purchaser of fully one‑third of all of our agricultural products which are exported from this province. That is a huge, huge change and obviously a very positive one for people in the agriculture industry.

I might say that the position we continue to maintain with respect to the free trade negotiations with Mexico is that it is important for us to be at the table so that we do not get sideswiped by a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, that this could have even more negative implications to Canada and Manitoba.

If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we pull away from the table and allow a bilateral agreement which could have extremely negative impacts on Manitoba and Canada, then I say to him that this would not be a very wise move.

* (1345)

Public Hearings

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, again, the Premier did not answer the question. I asked him what the sectoral briefing was on the free trade negotiations, and the Premier failed to answer the question. I guess he does not care about the sectoral impact of free trade or does not know what is going on. He just has an ideological position, and he will just go along all the way.

Mr. Speaker, we have secret negotiations going on in hotels in Canada, Mexico and the United States. We have trade ministers that report to the Premier going to secret meetings dealing with the very important sectors in the Manitoban and Canadian economy. Thousands of jobs are on the line, and these secret sectoral discussions are going on. Ministers are being briefed, but there is absolutely no input and no access to any information by the Canadian people and by the Manitoban people.

I would ask the Premier what success did he have with the First Minister at the First Ministers' meeting and with the Minister of Trade at this recent meeting yesterday on public access, and why is this government not calling out for public input into the trade negotiations, as the B.C. government is in public statements that they are making in their Legislature?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I want it to be absolutely clear that there is only one Leader in this Legislature who is ideologically hide‑bound and absolutely fixed in stone with respect to the issue of free trade, and that is the Leader of the Opposition.

He is the one who, without knowing anything about it, without having any concept of what was on the table or what was being discussed, said, I am opposed to it; now tell me what it is. He said, I am opposed to it; now tell me what is on the table. That is blind ideology if I ever saw it.

The fact of the matter is, this government has taken the position that we have six conditions that must be met before we will give our consent or our support to any trade agreement with Mexico. Those six conditions were made public, and we are the first province in the country and perhaps the only province in the country to give them a comprehensive response that said these are the conditions under which we believe an agreement would be beneficial to Manitoba and Canada.

I would say to him, as well, that in the discussions with the First Ministers in Toronto, the Prime Minister indicated, as is his right to indicate, that the final decision would be the decision of the government of Canada. Constitutionally, the entire issue of international trade is fully within the responsibility of the government of Canada, and there need to be no consultations, but he did assure us that there would be consultations, that the input of the provinces would be sought, and this province has done a variety of sectoral consultations with people who would be affected.

In fact, parts of the draft agreement that we have had have been discussed with various sectors in Manitoba to try to assess what would be the impact on those sectors, to try to come at this with knowledge, not just blind ideology, as the Leader of the Opposition has.

Seven Oaks General Hospital

Operating Budget

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): The Minister of Health told this House on March 20 that there would be close to a 5 percent increase for each hospital budget in this province. Employees at the Seven Oaks General Hospital have been told to expect a $1.2 million reduction in the operating budget of the Seven Oaks General Hospital which represents about a 3 percent reduction.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Does this mean that the costs at Seven Oaks General Hospital have gone up 8 percent and they are cutting back to 5 percent, or is Seven Oaks General Hospital really only getting much less than the 5 percent promised by this minister and this government?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, without the benefit of having my Estimates book in front of me because we will be dealing with this this afternoon, but memory tells me that last year this Legislature approved some almost $900 million dollars for hospital funding in the province of Manitoba.

This year, I am seeking approval for in excess of $950 million in hospital funding from the taxpayers of Manitoba. Fifty million over $900 million is a little better than a 5 percent increase in hospital funding, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: That does not explain how a hospital could be cutting‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.

* (1350)

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to ask the minister very specifically, what will be the impact of a $1.2‑million reduction on beds, staff, services and patient care at the Seven Oaks General Hospital and Winnipeg's north end community?

Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, a very insightful observer has noted with interest that the last concern my honourable friend expressed was patient care. That is the first priority of this government in all of the decisions that are being made in the province of Manitoba around the delivery of health care services.

Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, for now in excess of a month, has dillied and dallied in Estimates and has fixed on one aspect only of health care, that being hospital funding. The whole department is a composite of home care services, community‑based services. All of those have not received one word of concern from the NDP who claim to understand reform and to have a desire to move the system from institution to community.

The only thing my honourable friend and her New Democratic Party colleagues have fixed on in the last three and a half weeks of Estimates is hospitals. Surely the health care system in Manitoba is more than hospitals, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, since the administrator at the Seven Oaks Hospital has told staff that this $1.2‑million reduction is only the first shoe to fall and that a government‑directed decree for system‑wide bed cuts will be in addition to today's announcement, when will the second shoe fall, and what will it mean in terms of patient care, bed cuts, staff layoffs and delivery of services?

Mr. Orchard: I congratulate my friend on her quick learn. She put patient care first this time, something we have put first every step of the way. That is why the budget in the ministry of Health has increased at least in the greatest amount of any budget, other than possibly Education the odd year, possibly Family Services the odd year, as a commitment of this administration to the preservation of quality health care services.

Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend wishes to deal with health care reform without full explanation of what it really means a la NDP. What I have indicated in my opening remarks which have been reviewed extensively by her minions in the caucus back‑rooms‑‑and we have clearly indicated that we intend to put the patient first in health care in Manitoba and move the budget with the patient to assure that the most appropriate level of care in the most appropriate and cost‑effective location is achieved in the reform of the health care system in Manitoba. The patient comes first.

Youth Unemployment

Government Strategy

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, just as the patient should come first, so should young people come first.

I raised last Friday my very deep concern about the loss of job employment opportunities for young people. When I gave a series of numbers, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) from his chair kept saying wrong, wrong, wrong. I went, Mr. Speaker, to his documents, not mine, his documents, and I compared the number of young people that would be served by youth unemployment programs in the 1991 Family Services Annual Report with the ones estimated in the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review. This is the figure: In '91, 16,352 job opportunities would be made available for young people; in 1992‑93, 13,400 job opportunities‑‑a difference of 2,952.

Will the Premier tell us how his new initiatives meet the needs of these young people who have an unemployment rate of 18.6 percent?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the budget that we are debating in Estimates now contains the CareerStart program that I think the member is referring to. The CareerStart program is maintained within this budget at last year's level.

In addition to that, later this week, we are going to be announcing the Partners with Youth program, a program that we think will allow municipalities and nonprofit organizations across the province to bring forward projects to employ many more youths between the ages of 16 and 24 in the province of Manitoba.

* (1355)

Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the annual report of this minister's department for 1990‑91 shows that 4,736 young people could take advantage of CareerStart. This year they are hoping 3,400 will be able to do that. They watched the northern job corps disappear. The Youth Job Centre which provided for 10,348, they are now estimating will provide for 9,000. The STEP program which used to provide for 444, they are now saying will be 300, and even if you put in their new 700 Partners with Youth, they are still down by 2,952.

How can this minister say he is adequately serving the needs of these young people whose unemployment rate in the same period of time has jumped by 5 percent?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting into more detail on that this afternoon as we pursue the Estimates process. The budget amount allocated within Family Services for CareerStart in this budget is the same as last year, and we expect we will serve the same number of young people this year, if not more through that program. In addition, we are adding a new program which I have indicated we will be announcing later this week.

Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this new program will still leave the young people of this province with 2,952 fewer employment opportunities. What is this minister going to do for those nearly 3,000 young people?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Last year through the CareerStart program, we were able to accommodate, I believe, every employer who brought forward a request for funding. In fact, we were able to go back later on after the initial intake and have some of the employers access a second grant. We have maintained that program at last year's levels, and we anticipate being able to serve the same number of students.

As well, the federal CHALLENGE program is on‑stream again this year and provides the same wage assistance that the CareerStart program does, and while it perhaps is not going to be able to accommodate all young people in Manitoba, we think that within the budget and within rather difficult times, we have been able to maintain that program.

Provincial Highway

Map Exclusions

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, this morning, I attended the MAUM convention, where the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) said that there were brighter days ahead for rural Manitoba, we should see industrial growth.

Mr. Speaker, our road structure plays an important part in the promotion of rural Manitoba. However, this government recently printed a provincial map on which many roads have been removed. We have identified at least 10 roads, and there are many more, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach): Can he tell us what impact the changes on these maps are going to have on the economic growth of rural Manitoba? Did he have input into this decision, and how could he allow something like this to happen to rural Manitobans?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I just want to indicate to the member‑‑and I appreciate the fact that she has looked at the new map. I think it is a very nice map. As indicated by my colleagues, we have all of Manitoba on our map, not the way it was in the previous administration.

I think it is a very positive thing we are doing in terms of promoting tourism with the kind of map that we have. We have a cross section of pictures in there that are going to be very positive.

In regard to the 2,000 kilometres that were turned back, they are not on those maps, Mr. Speaker, and that was the decision that was made over a year ago by this government. We have gone through a painful process with the municipalities and have indicated many times‑‑the municipalities did not like that necessarily, but we also compensated them for the turn‑back of the roads to some degree. I do not know where the member has her argument. That argument should have been based over a year ago here.

* (1400)

Ms. Wowchuk: . . . arguments over a year ago‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for Swan River, kindly put your question now, please.

Ms. Wowchuk: Since this government says tourism is important to rural Manitoba, what message is this government sending tourists when they put out maps that have roads leading to nowhere? One time you tell us you are promoting tourism and then you have no roads.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the member is getting a little exercised about her question there. I just want to indicate that if the member would want to take a little time and compare the record of her administration when they were in power, what they did with the highway program in this province, where the highway program was $100 million under my colleague who was Minister of Highways at that time, and by the time when I took over the highway portfolio in 1988, we were spending $83 million on highways. Instead of just keeping up and helping to develop the rural area, we went in the opposite direction.

I am pleased that at least we are maintaining this expenditure on highways in this province, not compared to B.C. which has cut 50 percent of the highway programs and Saskatchewan which has had a cut of 25 percent in their highway program.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this government is causing absolute confusion with what they have done with the roads.

I ask the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach): Will he request that these maps be recalled and have these roads replaced, so we can go back to the number system where people understand where roads have been and have those roads put back on the maps?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the provincial map is to show people where the highways are and where they are going. If the member would put away the old maps, I will make sure that the members get the new maps which show them exactly where the roads are and which are the provincial roads and which are the PTHs in the province.

Bill 45

City of Winnipeg Resolution

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, Bill 45, an omnibus bill enabling general exit permits from the City of Winnipeg goes before committee tonight. I would like to table a resolution from Winnipeg City Council of March 25 directed to the Minister of Urban Affairs, and it was forwarded to the minister at that time. It requests the province to make Bill 45 specific to Headingley and to delay any other changes to the city until the Winnipeg Regional Committee adopts a regional development plan.

My question for the minister is: Has the minister responded to this motion in any formal way? Will he table the specific proposals he has placed before the Winnipeg Regional Committee to develop a Winnipeg regional policy?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we have embarked upon a process with the capital region municipalities to look at some regional planning for the capital region. That is going to be a long process. We have to address a great number of issues. We have to build a consensus from amongst the municipalities within the capital region because the top‑down approach, the one endorsed in the original Plan Winnipeg, did not work. That additional zone municipality situation giving planning authority to the City of Winnipeg did not work. There was no consensus. There was no co‑operation.

Mr. Speaker, we have to build upon that, and that is what we have started. We undertook at our last meeting, at the end of February, the beginning of that strategic planning process. We are working toward that end. We will be continuing it over the next period of time, but the building of that consensus is not going to happen overnight. It is going to take some length of time.

Minister's Authority

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that the new powers given to the minister in Bill 45 to alter city boundaries and hence the tax base at will and by regulation with no public discussion will seriously limit the ability of the city to fulfill its own planning responsibilities? Will he consider withdrawing those sections of Bill 45?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly disagree with the preamble of the member for Wolseley.

Secession Referendum

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that it is government policy to give additional powers to the minister to determine by regulation without public discussion and to determine who shall vote in secession referendums and on what basis that franchise will be?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, when a regulation is passed, it is passed by Executive Council, not by a minister. When a bill provides for power by regulation, that regulation is a consideration of the entire cabinet.

Nopiming Park

Forestry Environmental Mediator

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.

The integrity of the environmental review process is extremely important to maintain in this province, and we in the Liberal Party have been pleased, unlike our other two counterparts, to consistently speak in favour of the integrity and support of the Clean Environment Commission's process throughout. Mr. Speaker, whether or not we like the decision of the day, we respect the importance of the CEC.

The CEC came up with a decision on forestry in March of this year dealing with Nopiming Park and Abitibi‑Price's requirements for new logging sources. Unfortunately, the compromised position which was reached between the various interested parties, both unions and the environmental groups, fell apart over the weekend.

My question for the Minister of Environment is: Will he now respect the request of the environmentalists to appoint immediately an environmental mediator, which is provided for under the act, to deal with this issue and get the parties back together, in particular since they have clearly shown that they can reach an honourable compromise on this issue which is extremely important environmentally and in terms of the jobs in eastern Manitoba?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I, too, respect the environmental process that is in place in this province, and I am not sure why the member would want to characterize me as otherwise.

The recommendations that we have from the Clean Environment Commission are recommendations. We have said that some of them are in effect recommendations on policy which will be part of a larger debate.

The specifics of whether or not we can bring in an environmental mediator, the suggestion is good; however, both sides have to be willing to come to the table to mediate, and unfortunately, without going into detail, Mr. Speaker, that does not appear to be possible at this time.

Negotiations

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, can the minister elaborate on that last response, given that the party that pulled away from the table is the same party that is suggesting the mediator? Is the minister saying, from his answer‑‑do I understand him, that the unions involved who had reached an agreement and are accused over the weekend of committing some bad faith advertising, some untimely advertising‑‑who is saying they are not willing to go to the table?

Will the minister do everything possible to make sure they do get back to the table?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to negotiate in relationship to recommendations from the Clean Environment Commission, nor do I choose to get into a debate, publicly or privately, about the good faith or not on either side. It is my opinion that both sides have acted honourably, but the fact is that there is an extreme amount of distrust between the labour unions on one side and the corporation and those groups who are environmentally concerned.

I have to say that unless there is a willingness all the way around to come to the table for discussion, then that cannot be forced. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think that we want to be a little bit careful and a little bit circumspect on how we view this type of process. I believe in an open, public process when we are talking about public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the people of Swan River or the people of Dauphin would be adequately represented where there is only discussion of the nature that the member is talking about, and I very much support the type of process that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is proposing to embark upon when we talk about further policy issues in a very broad public spectrum.

Land Division

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the minister's commitment to an open public policy process, will he indicate today his support for the April 10 agreement which called for the division of Nopiming into two parks, one where forestry is permitted and one where it is not, with additional lands being added to the wilderness park to make up for that loss of protected land which appears to be an eminently reasonable solution? Will the minister commit publicly to that as part of his public policy development?

* (1410)

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, if I were to make a commitment immediately, I am sure it would be characterized as the position of the government. I just finished saying that we want the policy aspects of the recommendations taken to a broader public debate. I would go this far, however, to say that those are useful suggestions and those are the types of things that need to be put on the table.

Without trying to characterize the member's position unfairly, I believe that he is saying that he is interested and that probably the Liberal Party is interested and looking at some of those principles. If that is the case, then I see a very fruitful public debate ahead of us where we can talk about those broad policy issues and it can be a win‑win situation.

Abitibi-Price ‑ Pine Falls

Feasibility Study

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Deputy Premier, who I also believe is on the Economic Development Board of Cabinet.

Following on the question of the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), this issue is obviously extremely important to the people of Pine Falls. As the member has indicated, and as we know, there are negotiations ongoing between various groups and the government to resolve the outstanding issues. They include not only the question of environmental policy, they also include the question of public financial input into what we hope will be a satisfactory conclusion to these negotiations.

My question to the Deputy Premier is: Given that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) indicated on March 27 that the Economic Development Board of Cabinet had been apprised of this issue, can the minister indicate whether in fact the government has received or reviewed a feasibility study on the proposal for the buy‑out of Abitibi at Pine Falls?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, let me say that we as a government are very interested and supportive of further developments that would support that community in the activities that have been carried out there. There has been a series of activities taking place, of work being carried out as it relates to that whole activity which I do not think it would be fair at this point to express publicly because there are negotiations and discussions taking place. We do not want in any way to jeopardize the activities that are going on in that particular area.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, of course, the government and the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) have chided us on many occasions for not wanting to be positive. We are positive about wanting to resolve this issue. We also want to know what the government intends to do with respect to the input of public dollars, taxpayers' money.

I assume, and perhaps the Deputy Premier can tell us whether in fact they have reviewed the feasibility study on the issue of public input into Pine Falls.

Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for putting forward a positive support for the operation at Pine Falls. I think would be remiss if I did not thank him for the support of activities going on there.

There are currently discussions taking place which I do not believe would be in the interests of the discussions or the operations that should be disclosed. I can tell you that we are anxious to see a resolve to the long‑term activities at that mill.

Mr. Storie: It is not apparent to the public of Manitoba that the government is dealing with any factual information. Certainly they are not prepared to share it.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Deputy Premier is, tomorrow we are meeting with another group from Pine Falls who have a vested interest in the success of this project. Will the Deputy Premier undertake to provide members of the opposition with feasibility studies and reviews of the implications for both the environmental policy and the public purse before the government proceeds to negotiate any further with this group?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member who represents the area, and the ministry of I, T and T have been working, as well as other individuals within government, to take a positive approach and to try to make sure that all avenues are pursued to make sure that the operation of the mill at Pine Falls is continued.

I want to assure him that every effort will be put forward by this government, by my colleague the member who represents that area and the Minister of I, T and T to make sure that all avenues and all options are followed up and considered.

Health Care System

Anesthetist Manpower Review

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. I want to raise the issue of the field of anesthesia in this province. Last week the question was raised by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), and the major point was missed because of angry words between the two, the minister and the member for St. Johns.

Mr. Speaker, the report has been given to the Department of Health, and it is recommending that under the new plan, there will be a decrease in anesthesia in community hospitals.

Can the minister tell this House how these recommendations will coincide with his policy of moving care from large institutions to community hospitals, because when you are cutting services, you are cutting hospitals in the long run?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend has made a rather quantum leap in conclusion. The report that my honourable friend the New Democratic Health critic indicated we had for 10 months was made available to the department on the 24th of March in draft form, and the meeting we held with the respective facilities took place as soon as possible, on March 30.

We are asking them to reply back to the recommendations which are in that draft report, one of which indicates that the sessional fees in terms of national ranking for compensation to anesthetists are more than adequate, and part of the resolution is an internal reallocation from sessional fees to fee‑for‑service, fee‑for‑service being the problem that I have long identified in anesthesiology where the MMA, in dividing the taxpayer pie, have left anesthetists in the province of Manitoba on the short end of the stick.

That reallocation would not compromise or have the sort of consequences that my honourable friend is predicting.

Mr. Cheema: Can the minister tell us then whether he is going to get in touch with his Department of Health and ask them to follow his own recommendation, what he has said in the House, so that the Seven Oaks Hospital and Concordia Hospital will not lose their anesthesia manpower?

Those are very essential services, and they are going to lose if they follow this drafted report which is dated March 24, as the minister has said.

Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the process that is in place right now. That report which says draft, I think my honourable friend would acknowledge, was given to the CEOs at a meeting March 30. We are asking them to reply as to how they believe the major recommendations, one of which I have already shared today and last week, how that will impact on service delivery.

In addition to that, we have made the commitment that we would pick up one month of the shoring‑up that the hospitals had found internally in their budgets last year in order to make the month of April more smooth in its t