LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
April 16, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Phillip Buck, Lloyd Easter, Leonard Naskapow and others requesting the
government to 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.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
June Phillips, Monika Hansen, L. Olafson and others requesting the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider a one‑year moratorium on the
closure of the Human Resource Opportunity Centre in Selkirk.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), 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
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
WHEREAS,
despite that verbal commitment, the government of
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the government of
As
in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid). 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
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of
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
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Third
Report of the committee on Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs
presents the following as its Third Report.
Your
committee met on Tuesday, April 14, 1992, at 8 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Your
committee heard representation on Bill 45, The City of
Deputy
Mayor Dave Brown ‑ City of
Your
committee has considered Bill 45, The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, la Loi sur les municipalites et
d'autres dispositions legislatives, and has agreed to report the same with the following
amendments:
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subclause 4(1)(b)(i), as set out in section 3 of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "town, village or".
MOTION:
THAT
Section 3 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed
subsection 4(3):
Study
of impact required 4(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall not exercise the
powers under subclause (1)(b)(i) or (ii) unless a study of the impact of the
proposed incorporation or the proposed transfer of part of the city has been
conducted and made public.
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed clause 4.1(a), as set out in section 3 of the Bill, be amended by
striking out "town, village or".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed section 4.2, as set out in section 3 of the Bill, be struck out.
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 38.1(1), as set out in section 10 of the Bill, be
amended
(a) in the proposed clause (a), by striking out
"town, village or";
(b) in the proposed clause (c), by striking out
"new town, village or rural
municipality or the part of The City of
(c) in the proposed clause (d),
(i) by striking out "town, village
or" where it first occurs, (ii) by adding "under and in accordance
with The City of
(d) in the proposed clause (e),
(i) in the proposed subclause (iii), by
striking out "mayor or", (ii) in the proposed subclause (vii), by
striking out "town, village
or" in the English version, (iii)
in the proposed subclause (viii), by striking out "town, village or" and substituting
"new".
MOTION:
THAT
section 10 of the Bill be amended by striking out the proposed subsection
38.1(3) and renumbering the proposed subsection 38.1(4) as subsection 38.1(3).
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 38.3(1), as set out in section 10 of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "town, village or" wherever it occurs.
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed section 38.4, as set out in section 10 of the Bill, be amended by
striking out "town, village or".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed clause 38.6(1)(a), as set out in section 10 of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "town, village or".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 38.6(2), as set out in section 10 of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "town, village or" in the English version.
Mrs. Dacquay: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable
member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
* (1335)
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have a
ministerial statement on the report of the CT Scanning Committee and our
radiologist consultant's report‑‑copy of the statement, copy of the
two summary reports for my honourable friends.
Mr.
Speaker, in addressing issues related to the health of Manitobans, I have made
a commitment and demonstrated an approach which seeks the widest possible
consultation and the best advice available in formulating policy and programs
aimed at maintaining and improving the health status of Manitobans. New technologies are reviewed in terms of
appropriate protocols, cost effectiveness and contribution to health status outcome,
including issues of safety and public protection. Examples of this commitment include the
research from the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and the report of the
Working Group on Breast Cancer Screening.
In this context the government of
The
demands being placed on our system have to be evaluated in the context of
questions such as: Can the technology
improve the health status of Manitobans; how can it be integrated into the
delivery system; and what are the future operating costs? These questions must
be posed to determine whether this expenditure of scarce resources will achieve
a greater improvement to general health status than other new spending options
regularly presented to the ministry of Health.
The
provincial radiology consultant, Dr. Douglas MacEwan, provided us with a report
entitled An Analysis of the Current Clinical Activity to Assist in Policy
Development Regarding the Purchase and Operation of Additional CT/MRI Equipment
in
Dr.
MacEwan reports that
Dr.
MacEwan's report says there were nearly 34,000 CT examinations performed for
patients in the last year covered by his initial study. He states such significant usage shows that
with the six CT scanners currently in operation, the public has reasonable
access to imaging services.
Since
1976, Mr. Speaker, costs for medical imaging have risen from $16 million to $68
million. In the past three years, four
urban hospitals, four rural and northern hospitals and the Manitoba Cancer
Treatment and Research Foundation have requested permission to purchase and
operate CT scanners in addition to the six scanners currently in operation.
I
am gravely concerned about the proliferation of new CT scanners without
appropriate clinical justification and access protocols. My foremost consideration is for the health
status of Manitobans and the protection of patients. I was concerned that Dr. MacEwan's report be
reviewed by a cross section of experts and for this reason the CT Scanning
Committee was formed.
Today
I am pleased to provide you with the report of the CT Scanning Committee. The work done by this committee challenges
the escalating costs and choices associated with the technology and has
developed recommendations based on scientific data and on an analysis of the
services which are being provided in the context of the health needs of our
citizens.
I
accept the report and the recommendations of the CT Scanning Committee which
states: 1. That available funds
contemplated for an additional CT scanner installation be used for patient
needs at the present sites, and that no money be allocated for the acquisition
or operation of additional CT scanners at this time; and secondly, that an
ongoing committee be established to deal with all future issues regarding
computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scanning.
Given
the challenges, both financial and program reform, facing all governments
today, including the government of
* (1340)
In
taking this decision, I want to acknowledge the various fundraising efforts
directed to CT scanners.
It
is understood that CT scanners have been purchased by community hospitals and
are planned in rural hospitals based on public fundraising and support. Our older policy allowed such action if no
new costs were to be incurred or actual savings were anticipated. This has been the basis of similar hospital actions
in the past. Manitoba Health has found
that almost all such optimistic projections have been wrong and acceptance of
the recommendation of the CT Scanning Committee means a change in policy. We will not approve the acquisition or
operation of additional CT scanners at this time and will await the
recommendations and advice of the CT Scanning Committee to deal with all future
issues regarding imaging services.
To
achieve such anticipated benefits, Manitoba Health will require the
implementation of protocols for patient access to all existing provincial CT
scanning services including those not approved.
Frequent financial statements from all hospital scanner services will be
required to ensure that there will be no impact on approved budgets or cause
closure of beds or layoff of staff. No
funds will be committed to the operation of additional scanners without the
prior input and advice of the provincial CT and MRI committee and the final
approval for operation by the Minister of Health.
Today
I am announcing the establishment of a provincial CT and MRI committee which
will have the responsibility to deal with all future issues regarding
provincial scanning programs. Dr. Blake
McClarty, Director of MRI at St. Boniface Hospital has agreed to chair this
committee which will begin its work immediately. I have requested that the committee include
in its early deliberations investigations and advice on the operating practices
of all the current CT centres, continue the ongoing assessment of the imaging
waiting lists and develop protocols for utilization of imaging services.
In
addition, I would also like to announce further action taken by the ministry in
response to the report of the CT Scanning Committee. We will establish a Manitoba Imaging Advisory
Committee to co‑ordinate the activities of all the imaging subspecialties
including CT/MRI Committee, the provincial Ultrasound Advisory Committee, the
Nuclear Medicine Advisory Committee and the Radiology Advisory Committee. This new overview committee will include
representatives from the clinical, hospital and professional bodies and the
chairs of the designated subcommittees, which will better enable the
development of health imaging policies for the future of
I
will ask the committee to emphasize patient access and benefits and to provide
an overall provincial program which establishes the context for approving
future capital and operating imaging dollars.
In the future, there has to be a priority to introduce new technology as
a replacement of existing technology and costs as opposed to add on costs and
services. Our difficulty in the past has been a proliferation of technology and
related costs whenever new services are introduced. As I mentioned earlier, costs of imaging in
this province have increased 450 percent since 1976, and this cannot continue
or it will place at risk our ability to deliver all our health services to the
people of
The
CT Advisory Committee will be directed to immediately address the question of
how the current global dollars can best be spent and reallocated if this is
deemed more appropriate.
In
closing, I want to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for the
professional and technical advice which they have provided to us in addressing
this very complex and important policy issue.
Committee representatives will be present today at 3:15 p.m. in Room 254
to present their findings and respond to questions. All of us are aware, Sir, of the benefits
which can be derived from the appropriate use of available technology in the
diagnosis and treatment of illness.
This
government's commitment is to the health and well‑being of all our
people. This government is committed to
ensure that all of our health programs are kept in balance and that they are
managed in a way which preserves the integrity of the spectrum of all services
necessary to maintain and improve the health status of Manitobans. Thank you.
* (1345)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
We
on this side of the House have always said that part of the need to change our
system must be to get a handle on escalating costs tied to new technologies,
new drugs, new treatments for which we have not done proper tests and
determined if the outputs justify the expenditure. So, Mr. Speaker, let that be clearly noted
since the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the associate Minister of Health
like to leave the opposite impression.
Let
me say that this whole area of CT scanners is a very major one for our
hospitals, for our patients, and our community services. We know that there are a number of hospitals
with CT scanners sitting, not being operated in their facilities. They are engaged in a number of fundraising
activities to try to see those scanners operational, and they have requests
before this government for operating those scanners. I do not know on the basis of this statement
if those scanners now purchased will receive operational dollars through the
provincial government. I do not know if
the minister has included those scanners in the overall assessment of what is
the optimum number of scanners. I do not
know if those communities have been told‑‑and those community
facilities have been told to stop your fundraising efforts, we will ensure a
comprehensive system and all patients' needs addressed through this proposal
and this committee and the work of this committee.
We
do not know, Mr. Speaker, if this study has assessed the needs of those
facilities to have standards in the context of the costs associated with
transporting patients with nursing staff, with assistants, with medication and
machinery to hospitals where that scanner is located. We will have to assess all of those questions
and this announcement today in that context.
I
want to say two other things. This is
one small part of that whole issue of whether or not new technology is
warranted vis‑a‑vis the outcome for patients. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds
of tests and treatments and procedures and surgeries and drugs which are now
being used for which we do not know if the output for the patient benefits the
expenditure. What we hope for at some point in the near future is some idea
from this government of how they will handle such a massive undertaking. We believe that such a massive undertaking is
really almost impossible without the benefit of federal government involvement
and a federal health care policy role.
That,
Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons why we have been so concerned about federal
policy which will see the end of federal dollars for provincial health care
systems in a few short years leaving our systems in serious disorder and
without the universal principles we believe in.
How does it make sense for each province to be going off doing these
separate expensive assessments with all these committees and using the time of
professionals and experts when it could be done centrally by the federal
government for the benefit of all provinces?
One
thing, Mr. Speaker, we would like to urge today is that this government once
and for all speak up about federal cutbacks in health care spending, speak up
to save medicare and in the process guarantee themselves a much more cost‑effective,
sensible way to go in terms of quality assurance of scanners, tests, procedures
and drugs.
Finally,
let me indicate that this from the basis of what we can see is a positive
step. All too often, the minister and
the Liberal critic have suggested we have not been constructive in our
approaches. When we have seen some sign
of progress, when we have been presented with some plans, we analyze those as
objectively as possible and, in this case, on the basis of preliminary
knowledge we can say that the government is moving in the right direction.
However,
Mr. Speaker, we remain concerned that we are still operating primarily in a
vacuum without the benefit of an overall plan in terms of the continuum of care
from community‑based services right through to hospitals. We need to know on an urgent basis the
minister's plans in that regard. We once
again put to him our plea on behalf of all Manitobans to tell us what is your
plan and your vision for health care in
* (1350)
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to receive
this report. It says basically two
things. First of all, the process is
opening up. That is another example that
the judgment call on all the health care reform has to be made by the public at
large. That is one step. When the committee is going into Room 255,
that will be another evidence that the people can have full knowledge of these
reports that are very, very important.
That has never been done in any part of this country so far.
Mr.
Speaker, the focus has to be the patient care, how we spend $1.8 billion. As we have said for the last four years, we cannot
deal with the fragmented part of the issues.
We have to deal with first of all what is our
Mr.
Speaker, the issue here is how much we can afford and what is possible. The technology, as we said from Day One, has
its merits but also has some limitations.
We have to see what is necessary, what we can afford, and not what is
required all the time. The issue as I
said many times is that in health care for us is how we are going to save
whatever we have and then we can improve.
That is another example.
The
minister has made a commitment that he is going to come up with two or three
more reports by the end of this month.
We will ask him again to continue with his public education campaign,
tell people how his government is going to spend their tax dollars. That is the essence of the whole matter,
rather than every day the patients in
We
want to make sure that this health care debate is taken out of the hands of
politicians and that is one way of doing it, by having a public education
campaign. The more information we have,
the more informed judgment we can make.
We will again commend the minister to continue to follow the process of
opening the health care reform to all Manitobans. It does not matter which party they voted
for, absolutely, we have to work for all of them and that is our aim. We must keep one thing in mind, patient care
is the most important thing and the money will and should move where the
patient goes, not to any particular interest group in this province.
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 Mr. Obie Baizley, who is the former member for Osborne.
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon here, sir.
Also,
with us this afternoon, we have from the Teulon Collegiate, thirty Grade 9
students. They are under the direction of Mr. Al Reisch. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Federal
Government
Untendered
Contracts
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
* (1355)
Mr.
Speaker, today again we are advised that a company that was given a $245‑million
grant from the Canadian taxpayers to the
This,
of course, has implications for
I
would like to ask the Minister of Finance, what action has this government
taken dealing with their federal Conservative counterparts on the process which
has absolutely no tendering to award a very important contract in the aerospace
industry to the total neglect of other companies in
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose I should probably take the question as notice. I have been on the plane this morning back
from
I
can indicate to the member opposite, however, that certainly we are concerned
about all untendered contracts from the federal perspective. We have always sought balance with respect to
Government of Canada or defence provision of services by way of contract. I would say to the member opposite that given
his information and given the representation he makes by way of questions, I am
sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) will want to
inquire as to the federal government.
I
remind the member, it was a decision that was made in
Federal
Government
Untendered
Contracts
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there are
The
aerospace industry has been identified by all sides as a very important
industry in this province, an industry which quite frankly we are always on
constant vigil to protect because of the preferential treatment of the federal
government, not just this federal government but the previous Liberal
government as well, with the change in the Air Canada maintenance base.
I
would ask the Deputy Premier, given the fact that the contract was awarded
without tender on April 7, can the Deputy Premier advise us, has the Chair of
the Economic Committee of Cabinet, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), picked up the
phone and talked to the Prime Minister of the country about a tendering process
that does not allow for other companies in
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, as far as any details of the
question are concerned and any contacts that have been made or discussions, I
will take this as notice from the Leader of the Opposition. But I can assure the member that this
government, on behalf of the aerospace industry or any other industry, are
prepared to take on their behalf to the federal government their argument and
our argument in support of all the activities possible in this province, and we
do believe in the fairer open tendering process.
* (1400)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would ask again the Deputy
Premier, in light of his statements: Has
this government been alerted by our
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, we were informed that it was an
untendered process that was carried out after the fact.
Health
Care System
CT Scanner
Fundraising
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that there is one
scanner purchased and currently in operation without the approval of the
provincial government in the city of
What
has tended to happen in the past, when new technologies have been introduced,
when first introduced‑‑and certainly this was the case, as my
honourable friend will recognize‑‑in 1979, when we were last in
government and the
So
the committee is trying to come around the global budget for CAT scanning in
the
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let me just try to ask this question again in
terms of some specific examples because I am still not quite sure how it is
going to work.
We
know that at
Mr. Orchard: The installation referred to, it is my
understanding that community fundraising has already supported the capital cost
of the purchase of that scanner. Hence,
the scanner has been purchased, but there has been no approval given to the
installation and the budgetary commitment to operate that scanner.
The
case made by this facility, I believe, is that they can operate this facility
from within their current global budget. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have
indicated in my ministerial statement, and possibly I might quote directly from
my statement because I think it summates‑‑we are asking for
frequent financial statements from all hospital scanner services. This will be required to ensure that there
will be no impact on approved hospital budgets or cause closure of beds or
layoff of staff by diversion of budget to unfunded operations such as the CT
scanner.
In
other words, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared as government to accept criticism
that we are not providing enough money within the global budget when some of it
is able to be diverted to nonapproved operations, Sir.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Well, that does beg the question that we have
been asking for months‑‑what is the overall budget policy for
hospitals in urban
Let
me ask this question giving another example.
Seven
What
direction will this minister give Seven Oaks?
Will it be encouraged to carry on the fundraising? Will it be directed to try and‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is why I recognized in this
statement that for a number of purposes in our hospital system, fundraising
efforts are underway. Some of them are
focused on the acquisition of CT scanners and I say that, Sir, with the full
knowledge that provincial approval for the installation of that was required.
Mr.
Speaker, I applaud the volunteer effort and the voluntary contribution toward
fundraising by Manitobans. Currently,
the tri‑hospital lottery is ongoing.
Two of the three hospitals are wishing to dedicate those dollars, those
profit dollars from the lottery, toward the acquisition of CT scanning
capacity. That is exactly where the
policy of this government has to come down in terms of funding. We have indicated that within the global
budget that is currently there for imaging via CAT scanning, we will want to
assure that needs are met, not wants.
As
I have indicated in my earlier answer, when new technologies have been
introduced, they have been used propitiously but with proliferation of the
technology, protocols for access have gone to the side, and we are insisting
that those protocols be established and adhered to by the advisory committee we
are setting up under the chairmanship of Dr. McClarty.
Health
Care System
Out-of-Province
Patients
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
According
to the information provided by the minister during the Estimates process, there
is about $80,000 per year for the last three years of uncollected bills by the
patients out of this country who have not paid their bills and have been
getting treatment from our hospitals.
Taxpayers' money must be treated with respect.
Can
the minister tell us what measures he is going to take to ensure that the
$80,000 per year tax drainage out of this country, out of this province, will
not happen ever again?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to be able to say that we could give that assurance within the policy
development that the hospitals adhere to.
We
dealt with this issue a couple of weeks ago in Estimates, and I think it is
important to put in context the $80,000 per year that we have not been able to
recover. We provide services to some,
particularly American citizens, and where those services are prescheduled or
electively booked, our hospitals or physicians make the recoveries of the
charges appropriate.
Where
our difficulty has come in with these approximately $80,000 per year, Sir, is
these are American citizens and citizens from other countries who were involved
in an accident and require emergency services.
The compassion of our Canadian health care system applies here in that
we do not check to see if the person is going to pay the bill before we provide
the service. That has left us in the
difficult circumstance where up to $80,000 per year has been uncollected
because after providing the service and recovery of the individual, they have
left the country, and we have not been able to collect those dollars, as
hospitals.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us, what
is the impact of these uncollected bills on particular hospitals because some
of the hospitals were serving those patients?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the obvious first effect is that
they are out the money, because they have provided those services and did not
recover them from the person who was not a Canadian, so that the costs assigned
to providing those services have been absorbed in previous years within the
budgets of those hospitals.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell
us what measures are going to be put in place to make sure that only in the
case of emergency situations there could be compassionate reasons, but in other
cases, where patients are getting treatment on an elective basis, they must pay
their bills in advance?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I think basically most of the out‑of‑country
services are provided in that fashion. I
cannot say that it is perfectly applied because there may well be circumstances
where advance arrangements for an elective procedure may be left unpaid after
the fact, but those, I am told, have tended to be very few and far between.
* (1410)
It
is the very difficult issue where most of the dollars are uncollected and
remain outstanding debts in the provision of emergency service caused by an
accident wherein the person recuperating leaves the country. Those are the very difficult ones because I
think as cost‑conscious as we want the system to be, it is pretty
difficult to make that judgment that if they are from out of country that we
should get a cheque first before we provide the service, and that is always the
quandary health professionals are in, Sir.
Agricultural
Land
Taxation Levels
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, while this government on the one
hand talks about lower property taxes for farmers, it is with the other hand
reaching deep into farmers' pockets to pay for the agricultural budget.
They
are reaching into hard‑pressed farmers' pockets, Mr. Speaker, by shifting
the burden of property taxation away from the residential category onto the
farm category through portioning changes that have been made this year and by a
reduction in the residential mill rate, thereby increasing the special levy to
record levels. The Minister of Rural
Development is using Bill 20 as well to perpetuate an unfair assessment system
and to stifle appeals to that unfair system.
Why
has this Minister of Rural Development abandoned the stated policy of this
government of lowering taxation on farm land, and why has he chosen this
duplicitous act on farmers to force them to pay more?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I have to
remind my honourable friend opposite that it was this government that removed
the ESL on farm land for the farmers of our province. We were then compelled to do the reassessment
and indeed to make up the revenues from general revenue. The farmers of our province have been able to
access themselves of a benefit in terms of having a reduction in the ESL and
the school taxes on their farm land.
Let
me say, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 20 which is before the House at the present time
in no way removes the right of a farmer to appeal if there are some
extraordinary circumstances which impact on the value of his or her
property. When I go back to the
discussions that were held in the assessment bill last year, it is evident that
the member who asked the question was very much on the same wavelength in
committee when that matter was discussed.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of the shift
that is being made by this government now and secretly.
I
will ask the minister a specific question.
Maybe this minister can explain why he has shifted a greater burden of
property tax onto farmers by significant reductions in the portioning on
residential properties which results in a greater proportion of the property
taxes being borne by the farm category, and that is clear in many
municipalities.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that
the reassessment was based on the 1985 value, and that as we move to
reassessment in 1994, as is recommended in the proposed bill before the
Legislature, that assessment‑‑[interjection] Well, it is 1993,
true, but the effect will be in 1994‑‑in fact, then we will be
moving the value of farm land closer to the actual time.
There
are adjustments that are going to be made in the process. The portioning is really meant to make sure
that we indeed are more fair in the way we approach taxation from a global
sense.
Mr. Plohman: The special levy is at record levels, Mr.
Speaker. Will the minister now admit that he and his colleagues, the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) as well, are engaged in a secret act to claw back the
meagre benefits that cash‑strapped farmers are receiving under GRIP and
NISA, that they are reaching back into the pockets of those farmers? That is what this government is doing.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that the
suggestion is somewhat hideous. Let me
say that special levies are not the responsibility of the provincial
government. Special levies are set by
local municipal organizations and indeed school boards. Therefore it is the responsibility of those
organizations to determine what their budgetary levels should be and how they
should assess taxation from their perspective.
Agricultural
Land
Taxation Levels
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
When
the bill was introduced, this was considered real tax reform. We were going to see educational tax removed
from farm land and placed on residence as it should be, and farmers would be
paying a lesser portion of educational tax.
However, this is not true.
Councillors
and farm groups have indicated, as a result of a shift in portioning and
increased special levies, taxes have increased dramatically. Taxes on a quarter of land have increased in
some cases by $50 to $80 per quarter.
Will
the minister admit that there is a flaw in the taxation system that has been
implemented and as a result farmers are picking up a larger percentage of
educational tax?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, that question almost duplicates what was just asked a moment ago, but
let me give the response in the same way.
Let
me indicate, first of all, that it is this government that removed education
taxation on farm land. I think the cost
of that‑‑and I stand to be corrected‑‑was somewhere in
the neighbourhood of $22 million as the cost to the provincial Treasury, so
that was a direct benefit to the farmers of this province.
We
have done everything we can to keep taxes down.
As matter of fact, our fifth budget this year froze taxes, did not
increase taxes to Manitobans. When the
member opposite makes the allegation that we are shifting the tax burden onto
farm families, indeed that is a false allegation.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm to the
House that despite the adjustment, the ESL of one point, the tax burden on
rural residents and in particular the farmers has increased significantly and
that through the special levy, taxation will reach historical levels? Up to $300 million will be raised through
this special levy in the 1992 tax year.
How is the minister going to address this‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Mr. Derkach: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the question is
duplicated from that posed by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), and I say
to you again and to the House that indeed special levies are not something that
are determined and set by the provincial government. The members opposite should understand that
special levies are set by local municipalities and local school boards, and
they have a responsibility in terms of addressing their budgetary requirements
and then assessing the tax levies from there.
Education Support
Levy
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (