LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, April 23, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): I beg to present the petition of Rick Keep,
Cam Wortman, Craig Scott and others requesting the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) consider a one‑year moratorium on the closure of the
Human Resources Opportunity Centre in Selkirk.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), 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 Human Resources Opportunity
Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the
unemployed and people re‑entering the labour force; and
WHEREAS during the past 10 years alone
over 1,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and
training; and
WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the
training centre's recent graduates have found employment; and
WHEREAS without consultation the program
was cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and
WHEREAS there is a growing need for this
program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* * *
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. 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.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Je tiens a vous signaler la presence dans la
galerie publique de vingt‑neuf etudiants de la neuvieme annee de l'Ecole
Viscount‑Alexander, sous la direction d'Amelie Gauthier. Cette
institution est situee dans la circonscription de l'honourable minstre de
l'Education (Mme Vodrey).
Also this afternoon we have seated in the
public gallery, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Premier's
Discussion
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg has always been envied
by Canadian cities and North American cities for being one of only two cities
in this country that has untreated water for our water supply, with the wisdom
of our forefathers and foremothers in the establishment of the aqueduct at
Shoal Lake and the water supply to Winnipeg.
Last week the Premier of Manitoba (Mr.
Filmon) met again with the Premier of Ontario.
He met at a time when there are lobbying attempts going on with one of
the companies, one of the 12 mining companies that have claims in the area of
the Shoal Lake watershed, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the Premier: Can he advise us of whether he discussed the
issue of the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed I did raise the issue
with the Premier, and I re‑emphasized our desire to have the fullest
possible environmental assessment and review done of any proposal that would be
within the watershed of Shoal Lake, the source of the city of Winnipeg's water
supply.
*
(1335)
Shoal
Negotiations
‑
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Certainly, we concur with the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) to oppose the lobbying by the mining industry and the 12 companies that
have the claims in the
The Premier, in his Estimates of March 23,
1992, indicated that he had discussed with the Premier of Ontario the need for
a management plan for the total watershed and work on the development of a
management plan for the total watershed.
Last time we asked questions to the Minister of Environment on this
issue, he indicated that those negotiations were somewhat in limbo, I guess we
can characterize his answer.
I would ask the Premier: Can he advise Manitobans what the status is
of the watershed negotiations that are going on, which obviously makes good
sense for
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is
still the position of this government that we want a complete watershed
management plan. I hope that the Leader
of the Opposition will use his good office to encourage his colleagues in
We had some confusion for a short period
of time between which ministry in
Environmental
Review Process
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Pursuant to the Premier's answer to the
question dealing with the meeting with Premier Rae, last week, when I asked the
question about the changing lobbying from Consolidated Professor, the minister
indicated that they would not be raising this issue formally with Ontario because,
quote: it was not a formal proposal from
Consolidated even though they had the whole mining industry behind them.
In his answer just now he indicated that
he has indeed raised this with the minister, which I congratulate him for
doing.
I would ask the Premier: Did he receive any commitment from the
Premier of Ontario not to proceed with a changed environmental process in the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised, I suppose,
if the Premier would make a decision like that on the basis of a short
discussion with me. I will say that I
was encouraged by his response and his awareness of the concerns of Manitoba,
and I am optimistic that he would be supportive of our position that the
fullest possible environmental assessment review be done on any proposal, such
as the Consolidated Professor within the watershed of Shoal Lake, and in being
supportive, that would indicate that there would not be a change in the
proposed method of operation as we have been discussing it in the past.
Conawapa
Dam Project
Premier's
Discussions
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I have a new question to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier did indeed meet with
the Premier of Ontario last week, and he did discuss the issue of
Another very important project between the
two provinces obviously is the Conawapa Dam and the Conawapa project and the
transmission line that is proposed to go to
Since the government has signed the
agreement with Premier Peterson in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did discuss that matter
with the Premier of Ontario.
Penalty
Clauses
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, many organizations in
I was wondering, in light of the change in
domestic load growth from an early date of 2001 for
*
(1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am a little amused at the
suggestion of the frenzied pace when the agreement was signed in December of
1989, and we are now two and a half years down the road. That is quite some frenzy that we are dealing
with. The fact of the matter is that the
change in load growth that is being referred to by the Leader of the Opposition
was anticipated and was taken into account by the Public Utilities Board in
their review. The Public Utilities Board
review anticipated a possible change of load growth projection when they made
their determination and their recommendation to proceed with the project.
The fact of the matter is that the
environmental assessment and review process will be carried out in as
reasonable a fashion as it possibly can.
We see no reason why the Leader of the Opposition or anybody would want
to unreasonably deter or in fact delay the project. The review will be done. People have had almost two and a half years
to prepare for the review on both sides, to prepare their case, to prepare
their information. Now when they go
before that very thorough and complete review, they will be able to make their
case.
I would assume that the Clean Environment
Commission and the joint review process before a panel of experts will give it
a very thorough, very complete and very well‑considered response whenever
that time arises. There is no reason on
our part to accelerate it, and there is no reason on the part of the opponents
to delay it. The process should take
place in a reasonable fashion, and it will take place in a reasonable fashion.
Premier's
Discussions
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, did the Premier raise the
concerns from the Manitoba MKO organization that Mr. Michael Anderson, the
research director of the organization representing 24 bands, has said that the
one‑month period that they have to present detailed presentation to the
panels is not enough time to deal with this issue? Has the Premier discussed some of these
concerns coming from bands which are most directly affected in terms of the
proposed transmission line? Did the
Premier discuss that with the Premier of Ontario, or can the Premier advise us
what he did discuss when he discussed the Conawapa project with the Premier of
Ontario last week when he met with him?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that all of these people
including the bands have had almost two and a half years to consider the
proposal and the potential impacts of that proposal. I say, the Leader of the Opposition, from his
chair in opposition, has the great benefit of being able to be all over the map
and change his position very regularly.
I would like to just quote, Mr. Speaker,
what he said in July of 1988, in the debate on the first budget of this administration: We will fight the mothballing of our Manitoba
Hydro program right down the line this session and next session of the
Legislature.
He wanted this project and this proposal
to proceed expeditiously, as quickly as possible, because he wanted that hydro
project to be developed.
Now for his own political purposes, he is
changing 180 degrees and now talking about slowing down, slowing down,
obfuscating, delaying, all of those kinds of things. He cannot have it both ways. I know every day in this House and every day
out there he tries to have it all ways, but this is carrying it to a ridiculous
extreme, I would say.
Conawapa
Dam Project
Justification
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, that certainly has not been the position of the Liberal Party in
Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly
clear that not only is that power not needed in the
*
(1345)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, let us not go from the sublime to
the ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is, this project
and the economics of this project were considered by an objective third‑party
review under the Public Utilities Board, and they determined that the economics
of the project were positive. They
determined that given the fact that there was an assumption that the projected
load growth could be out on either side, positive or negative, and they still
felt that the economics were positive.
I now find it rather amusing that the
Liberal Party argued against this project on the basis that Ontario had made
too good a deal, that the Liberal government of David Peterson had put one over
on us and made too good a deal on this, and that now we should be concerned
about it. Now the people appearing
before a similar review in Ontario are saying that Manitoba made too good a
deal, that Ontario is paying too big a price and that David Peterson got
snookered, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I wonder just what exactly the
Liberals want. Did they get snookered,
or did they not get snookered? Is David
Peterson a good negotiator, or is he not a good negotiator? Make up your mind.
Public
Utilities Board
Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Well,
with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the arguments that are being made in
Mr. Speaker, the question being asked is
one that is very simple. The Public
Utilities Board decided this issue on information provided to them by Manitoba
Hydro, information which some three months later proved to be terribly
inaccurate. Why is this government so
afraid to take this deal back to the Public Utilities Board to ask them to re‑evaluate
it in light of new information provided by Manitoba Hydro?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party
began her question founded on the credibility of those who were appearing at the
public review in
The fact of the matter is, the PUB report,
after the review of the capital projects of Manitoba Hydro, including Conawapa,
said, and I quote: The level of the DSM
target assumed for planning purposes today will not significantly affect the
conclusions concerning the profitability of the Ontario sale, nor will it
affect any current decisions regarding the construction of facilities.
They took it into account. It does not have to be rereviewed. They already took it into account. I invite the Leader of the Liberal Party to
read that report and to go and consult with the Public Utilities Board about
this matter instead of making outlandish suggestions.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, with the greatest respect to the
Premier, the Public Utilities Board is supposed to be an arm's‑length
body from politicians and not to be one that is consulted with, one that
studies and observes.
Why is this government, in light of
significant new information, still refusing to do what is in the best interests
of the ratepayers of this province, which is to ensure that our money is being
spent appropriately?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, there is no new information. The Public Utilities Board said the level of
the DSM target, that is the domestic‑load‑growth target assumed for
planning purposes today, will not significantly affect the conclusions concerning
the profitability of the
*
(1350)
Department
of Education and Training
Deputy
Minister's Salary
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
Minister of Education and Training.
Mr. Speaker, in this budget, the
government talked about belt tightening for all Manitobans. It tells school boards and universities to
hold the line, yet the government in its actions does exactly the opposite by
giving great increases to elite schools while starving the public school
system.
Now, this year, we are being asked to
increase again the salary of a key appointment of the Conservatives, a deputy
minister, to $100,000 this year, which is a 7 percent increase this year and a
37 percent increase in the last three years.
How can this minister justify this
increase while telling everyone else to hold the line?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to correct first of all some of the information that the
critic has tried to put on the record.
In fact, we have increased our funding to the public school system in
this province. We have increased our
funding to the university system. We
have increased our funding to community colleges, and we have increased our
commitment to training.
The further issues that he has raised I
will be happy to answer for him during the Estimates process.
Executive
Support
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Perhaps the minister can tell me therefore why
the Department of Education, in the last three years, has increased its
expenditures for Executive Support to the minister by 40 percent or $150,000.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): To ensure
that my critic understands it, there is a general salary increase necessary;
however, the details I will be happy to discuss in Estimates.
Deputy
Minister's Salary
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, will the minister have the
courage to limit the increase to her deputy minister at least to the same level
that she has given to public schools in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I will be more than happy to debate the issue with my honourable
friend during the Estimates process.
Health
Care System
Deinsurance
‑ Impacted Wisdom Teeth
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker, in the past, this government
has deinsured a number of services under medicare. Today we have learned that this deinsurance
has been extended to now cover the removal of impacted teeth under certain
circumstances, with new definitions, in hospital when anesthetic services are
required.
I would like to know from this minister
why this decision was made, what savings he will incur, and what is the impact‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes, we
have had discussions, since approximately June or July of last year, with the
providers in terms of the insured removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom
teeth. Those procedures have been
undertaken in the past from time to time, without medical necessity, in the
hospital at a cost to the system when there was not the medical necessity for
utilization of hospital facilities.
The regulations that we have recently
passed assure the continuation, Sir, of medically required surgical removal of
impacted wisdom teeth so that this service will continue to be available to
those Manitobans who require hospitalization for that because of the medical
necessity, either of their personal health or the condition of their impacted
wisdom teeth.
However, the system will now reflect
removal of impacted wisdom teeth where asymptomatic ones will no longer be
undertaken in the hospital with medicare coverage.
*
(1355)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Could the minister please tell this House what
consultations he has had with professional groups, the Manitoba Dental
Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the anesthetists of this province,
as well as consultations with the consumers in Manitoba, particularly the
seniors in this province, and what were the results of those deliberations and
consultations for this deinsurance move?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, before my honourable friend
leaves the impression that medically needed removal of impacted wisdom teeth is
deinsured, let my honourable friend not spread that falsehood.
Medically required removal in hospital
will still be available and insured under the medicare plan in
Now let me indicate to my honourable friend
that we have had discussions around this issue for approximately 10 months with
the Dental Association. We have had
discussions with the MMA through the anesthetists because that also was part of
the discussions.
Mr. Speaker, although my honourable friend
may wish to attempt to raise a great consternation about this, I simply say to
my honourable friend that the regulations that we have now brought into
existence in Manitoba parallel long‑standing regulations in other
provinces where only medically necessary removal of impacted wisdom teeth are
covered, such provinces as Ontario.
Health
Care System
Deinsurance
‑ Impacted Wisdom Teeth
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
I would like to ask the Minister
responsible for Seniors if he could tell this House if he was consulted about
this decision and what impact this will have on seniors' access to our
universally high‑quality, accessible medical system.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): Yes, I
was consulted. I think the Minister of
Health explained it very well. When
there is a health problem, it will be dealt with in the usual manner, and that
was very well explained by the Health minister.
Health
Care System
Deinsurance
‑ Impacted Wisdom Teeth
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
The minister has signed an Order‑in‑Council,
and it does clearly indicate that some of the services will not be insured.
Those services will not be covered by anesthesia coverage also. As the minister
would know, there is a major case in
The minister should tell us: Has he had enough consultation process to
make sure that the procedures which are going to be done because of this Order‑in‑Council
are not a serious risk to any given person?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, since my
honourable friend has the Order‑in‑Council with the attached
regulations, he will find in those regulations a significant amount of
underpinning which would define medical circumstances under which impacted
wisdom teeth removal would be insured in the hospital system. There are a number of medical circumstances
outside of the condition of the teeth, per se, which would qualify and keep
that removal of wisdom teeth insured and delivered in the hospital. It is the asymptomatic removal, where there
is not a demonstrated medical need for hospitalization, that is not being
covered.
I simply say to my honourable friend that
the kind of circumstance that happened in Ontario‑‑I cannot
prejudge the findings of the inquest‑‑but should that, for
instance, have been caused by a medical condition of the patient, I think the
regulations that were passed provide the kind of protection so that will not
happen in Manitoba.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the issue is the safety of the
patient. If the procedures are done,
because of this regulation, outside the hospital, it will expose them to
unwarranted risk.
Can the minister tell us: Has he had any consultation? Can he table his consultation in this House
so that patients can have some sense of relief that everything possible was
done before this decision was made?
*
(1400)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with the
issue of consultation. I will openly say
that the MDA did not agree with the final regulation because it does have an
impact on practice patterns of some of their membership, and I understand that.
Mr. Speaker, the key issue my honourable
friend raised was the assurance of safe care to the patients. We are talking asymptomatic; in other words,
no indicated health problem with the wisdom teeth to be removed. In the past, the removal of those teeth,
which, if there is no medical problem, has always been the responsibility of
the individual to pay either through their private insurance or through their
own resources, has from time to time been undertaken in the hospital system, so
that the taxpayer pays for it, when there is no medical necessity for that
removal to take place in the hospital.
What we are doing is assuring that needed
medical removals of impacted wisdom teeth are undertaken in the hospital to
assure that patient's safety; others will not be paid for by the taxpayers when
there is not the demonstrated medical necessity.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the question still remains the
safety of the patient when the patients are going to be served outside the
hospital system and with a general anesthesia or any other form of anesthesia
that will expose them to unwarranted risk.
The question is: Can the minister tell us how he can assure
that such incidents as occurred in Ontario‑‑a very, very major
tragic incident, a young boy died. Mr.
Speaker, we want the minister to tell us why he has taken such a drastic stand
without proper consultation.
Mr. Orchard: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I reject my
honourable friend's allegation "without proper consultation." We did have consultation going back to last
summer with the Manitoba Dental Association.
We agreed to disagree on some parts of the procedure.
Let my honourable friend not mislead the
people of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Furnace
Inspections
Carbon
Monoxide Levels
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Health.
As the minister is aware, health concerns
due to faulty furnaces are mounting. In fact,
many people such as Dan and Linda Welsh, who have suffered headaches, rashes
and nausea over the past year, finally were told that they were at acceptable
limits of carbon monoxide.
Since the written results are now
available and show that they are well over the acceptable limits, can the
minister investigate why the testing in this particular case took so long and
why they were told wrongly on Friday that they had nothing to worry about?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, without
accepting some of the preamble and allegations, I will investigate the role
that my ministry had in this issue. The
primary role has been undertaken through the Department of Labour, and I will
provide my honourable friend with as much information as I can.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I just received a message a
minute ago that in Landmark a furnace was shut down, and it had very high, top‑level
carbon monoxide figures.
My question to the minister is: Are people whose furnaces are being
condemned, such as this person in Landmark, being told to immediately take
blood tests? How many other cases of
carbon monoxide poisoning that exceed acceptable limits has this minister's
department heard from in the past month?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am, as you might expect, unable
to respond to the last‑minute information of a furnace in Landmark that
my honourable friend refers to.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think quite
possibly what my honourable friend is trying to accomplish is a greater public
awareness of the issue of the gas furnaces, apparently made by one manufacturer
in
I think, if my honourable friend is trying
to raise public awareness of individuals in Manitoba who have those furnaces,
that brand of furnace, that they ought to investigate and access whatever
resources available to investigate, I suggest, Sir, that my honourable friend
is serving the public of Manitoba well because certainly that is what we have
been trying to do on this side of the House.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would simply
check with the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), who sits right behind
him, he would tell him that he was informed last Friday of the situation in
Landmark‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Question, please.
Furnace
Inspections
Faulty
Heat Exchangers
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary, since I
am not getting answers from this minister, is to the Acting Minister of Labour.
I would like to ask the Acting Minister of
Labour: How many brands of furnaces,
other than Flame‑Master, have been found to have cracked heat exchangers?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Acting Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, as acting minister, I will take that question as notice, and I am sure
that the minister will be more than willing to respond with any information.
Federal
Trade Tribunal
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, to the Acting Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism, as a result of an unequal application of federal
tax policy, three Winnipeg cabinetmakers have been denied over half a million
dollars in rebates which other cabinetmakers in this country have been paid.
The federal Trade Tribunal has ruled in
favour of these three cabinetmakers, but still the federal government is
refusing to rebate the funds to them.
I would like to ask the Acting Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism whether or not they have made any representations
on behalf of these three businesses in
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the
specifics of the matter, but I will certainly take that information back to the
minister and have him provide an answer in due course.
Federal
Trade Tribunal
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Premier
the same question.
Has the Premier or his office made any
representations on behalf of these three
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, that matter, I know, has been
reviewed by a number of people in this government. It is a matter that has been referred to the
Department of Finance, with respect to looking at the decision that was made by
that tribunal and in attempting to determine whether or not there is a role to
be played by this government. To my
knowledge, no decision has been made on that matter.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to let these
people know when a decision will be made?
Can the Premier tell us when his government will come to some sort of
decision, or whether or not they are prepared to assist these three people who,
it has now been proven, are out over half a million dollars?
Mr. Filmon: When the review has been completed, Mr.
Speaker.
Seniors
Housing ‑
Lounge
Repair
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, we hear in this Chamber the
rhetoric and the discussions about seniors, how important their programs are
and how committed the government is to help the seniors and on and on and on.
At
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, first of all let me correct the
record. The lounge was not
destroyed. There was an arson that took
place at that building. The ceiling of
the lounge was destroyed. The ceiling
has not yet been replaced.
When the matter was brought to my
attention about a week ago, I made significant inquiries in my department as to
why it has not been repaired, and I concur with the honourable member, it
should have been.
Seniors
Housing ‑
Lounge
Repair
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the next
question to the Minister responsible for Seniors.
I think that is the same minister who
deindexed the 55 Plus; now he has the opportunity to stand up for the seniors
and get something done because the lounge is very, very important to the
seniors.
Will he now consult with the minister to
get immediate action?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): To the
member who did not deindex the pension plan over there, for over 10 years they
did not increase the 55 Plus.
To the member, there goes to show, it was
this Premier of this province who established the Seniors Directorate. I consulted with the member from Housing in
consultation with the Powers seniors home.
It is because of that that the minister has answered that it will be
repaired, and he has asked his staff to quickly do that.
Seniors
Housing
Security
Systems
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, my third question is to the same
Minister responsible for Seniors.
Security is a great concern for all
seniors in
*
(1410)
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr.
Speaker, I have toured blocks, seniors accommodations throughout the province,
and there are different security problems throughout that area. I will continue to review all those blocks.
Mr. Speaker, there are 20,000 units
throughout the province to review.
Decentralization
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): My questions are for the Minister responsible
for Decentralization.
In the past two budgets, this government
has cut over 25 Civil Service jobs in Selkirk with the closure of the school of
nursing and the Human Resources Opportunity Centre. Fortunately, we were able to stop plans to
move 25 Highways jobs from Selkirk to Beausejour. Unfortunately, it now appears that the government
is once again considering such a move.
Will the Minister responsible for
Decentralization (Mr. Downey) assure this House that he will forcibly argue
with his cabinet colleagues to stop Selkirk from losing any more Civil Service
jobs?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, I would have to say that to this point in time, this government has
decentralized somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500 Civil Service positions to
various rural locations in
Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is up to
each and every department to assess the requirements for staffing within their
departments, and those decisions have to be made by those departments. Where possible, we are trying to accommodate
communities with decentralization moves.
There are still over 100 positions that have to be decentralized, and
certainly we will be working as diligently as we can to ensure that our
commitment is maintained.
Decentralization
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): My question is for the Minister of Highways.
Is Selkirk going to lose 25 Highways jobs
to Beausejour?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, within my department, for
the past four years, we have had ongoing reviews of how we deliver our highway
program through the province, and that is a continuing process that is going on
right now. I cannot give the member an
indication whether there is going to be any changes in Selkirk at this time or
not.
I want to indicate that we are looking at
regionalizing to some degree. We are
looking at the concept of regionalizing to be able to deliver a better service
to Manitobans.