LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
April 27, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Bob Kuz, Lucille Hiebert, Paul Beaudet and others requesting the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider a one‑year moratorium on
the closure of Human Resources Opportunity Centre in Selkirk.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), and it complies with the privileges and
practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was
launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between
the justice system and aboriginal people; and
The AJI delivered its report in August of
1991 and concluded that the justice system has been a massive failure for
aboriginal people; and
The AJI report endorsed the inherent right
of aboriginal self‑government and the right of aboriginal communities to
establish an aboriginal justice system; and
The Canadian Bar Association, The Law
Reform Commission of
On January 28, 1992, five months after
releasing the report, the provincial government announced it was not prepared
to proceed with the majority of the recommendations; and
Despite the All‑Party Task Force
Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government, the provincial
government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system, an Aboriginal
Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are solely within
provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* * *
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. 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.
* (1335)
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to
table: The Annual Report of the
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 79‑The
Highways Protection and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 79, The Highways Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la protection des voies publiques
et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be introduced and that the
same now be received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor having been advised of the
contents of this bill recommends it to the House. I would like to table the message from the
Lieutenant‑Governor as well.
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 Kirkness Adult Learning Centre, 18 students. They are under
the direction of Laurel Johnson. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway
(Mr. Santos).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Federal
Drug Patent Law
Government
Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we on this side are pleased to
see the announcement of the Apotex facility here in
In 1987 we had a resolution before this
Legislature dealing with drug patent laws or the compulsory licensing laws of
the country. This Legislature was called
upon to vote against the federal Conservative government in terms of the
provision they were providing a drug patent law for the American multinational
corporations and for the protection of consumers, our health care participants,
and for the protection of the generic drug industry.
Today the head or the president of the
corporation very clearly called on all members of all political parties to join
together to oppose the federal Conservative government's position on the drug
patent law and drug licensing provisions, Mr. Speaker, and called upon all of
us to protect the generic drug industry in this country for people in health
care and for the benefit of drug companies like Apotex that is locating in this
province.
I would ask the acting Premier: Will he change the government's position on
the drug patent law, Mr. Speaker, and will they now join with the president of
Apotex to oppose the federal government's position on compulsory licensing in
the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, not that I want to indicate to
my honourable friend that in his question preamble, from 1987 to 1992, he has
mixed apples with oranges, the resolution in 1987 and the subsequent
legislation led to the investment decision by Apotex in
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my honourable
friend that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) has raised it at First Ministers'
conferences. I have raised it with the
Health minister at a conference personally, and my honourable friend the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) has likewise raised it
with his federal counterparts because we share the concerns that were expressed
today about a change in process that is successful and working for
Mr. Doer: I would refer the members back to many of
their own speeches in 1987 in this Chamber.
They refused to support consumer groups, health
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the acting
Premier: Could he table any
communication the government has with the Prime Minister changing the
provincial Conservative government's position now to be in support of the
generic drug companies in this province and in this country and in support of
the provisions that were in the 1969 legislation which the president of Apotex
is asking us to support in his announcement here today?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend again is
trying to confuse the issue and trying to put the New Democrats on the leading
edge of protection of generic drug manufacturing in
While they are applauding that attempt,
which is not accurate, maybe they ought to talk to their Health critic and stop
her from defending the profit making of the pharmaceutical drug companies that
she has been doing for the last three months in this Chamber, a typical flip‑flop
by the NDP when it is convenient to have two different policies to appeal to
people at different times of the week or even the day.
Mr. Speaker, we have consistently, with
the federal government, supported the generic licensing potential, the
protection provided to the name‑brand pharmaceutical manufacturers, which
has led to the growth of the generic drug manufacturing industry in
What my honourable friend is trying to do
is mix apples and oranges and flip‑flop policy again.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely
delighted that this Conservative government has flip‑flopped on their position
on drug patent laws. Whatever kind of
provision or rhetoric they want to use to justify it, I do not care. We are happy that they have changed their
position, and we are happy that they are now claiming to be fighting the
federal Conservative government that is now trying to extend their 1992
announcement, the generic drug provisions that have put our generic drug
industry in jeopardy.
I would ask the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey): Can he specifically outline
what communication the government has had? Have they raised this with the Prime
Minister? Have they raised that with
other First Ministers at the meeting?
Does he have written communication to indicate their change now to
oppose the federal Conservative Party extension of the drug patent law in this
country?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased if my
honourable friend would now speak to the critic that sits beside him to get her
off the case of defending multinationals and pillaging our Pharmacare system.
Mr. Speaker, in 1987, the issue was Bill C‑22,
and no one is saying to change that, so do not let my honourable friend try to
mislead the people of
Not only has the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
raised it at the First Ministers' meeting, the January 14, 1992, further extension
of patent rights which we disagree with, the Finance minister (Mr. Manness) has
raised it directly with the Honourable Mr. Wilson. My colleague the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) has raised it with his colleagues,
and I have raised it, Sir, with the Minister of Health federally because it is
not an appropriate change.
The current system is envisioned in C‑22;
1987 is appropriate, leading to investment, leading to diversification in the
economic basis of western
Federal
Drug Patent Law
Impact on
Labour Force
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): More members of the Chamber could have been at
the Apotex ceremony this morning and watched the public spanking of three Tory
cabinet ministers, including the Premier (Mr. Filmon), over the Conservative
drug policy which this government supported.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Dr. Sherman indicated very clearly that the implications of Mr. Wilson's
unilateral decision with respect to the elimination of compulsory licensing
would mean the end of the generic drug industry.
Can the minister indicate what steps he
has taken or his department has taken to identify how many jobs that may cost
Manitobans or the industry we are supposedly nurturing?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Firstly, Mr. Speaker, as is becoming the
pattern far too often, I have to correct the honourable member's preamble. I was at that announcement, and there was
nothing but accolades from Dr. Sherman and Apotex as it relates to the job of
the
Dr. Sherman knows very well, as the opposition
party should know, that we have continually supported the system as it
currently exists with compulsory licensing.
I have supported it at Trade ministers' meetings. I have written Michael Wilson back on March
20 of this year outlining very clearly our support for the current system and
why we support the current system in terms of what it does to health care costs
here in our province and the incredible investment opportunity it presents.
So I would suggest to the honourable
member that he talk directly to Dr. Sherman and get his facts right for a
change when he comes into the House.
Mr. Storie: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
did not answer the question about how many jobs it is going to cost.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
* (1345)
Federal
Drug Patent Law
Impact on
Drug Costs
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My subsequent question is to the Minister of
Health, I guess.
Dr.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer that can
be precisely determined, but if the federal government, in their February 14,
1992, announcement carries on the past, it will lead to higher drug prices.
That is why, Sir, we have opposed that
move at all stages that we can in this government, from the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), the Finance minister (Mr. Manness), Industry, Trade and Tourism,
myself. We have been consistent. We have not tried to mix apples and oranges.
Talk about Bill C‑22, 1987, which is
leading to investment in the generic industry in
Government
Strategy
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, Dr. Sherman said it was going to
cost us jobs and cost the Pharmacare system and the people of
Can the Minister of Health tell us what he
is going to do, other than bluster in this Legislature, to protect medicare,
protect the generic drug industry and create jobs in
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): The first thing I am
going to attempt to do at all times is not fall victim to what I call the NDP
Leader's disease, and you know what that is, Sir. It is mixing apples and
oranges and attempting to create a false impression amongst the people of
Mr. Speaker, we have consistently made the
case ever since Michael Wilson, on January 14, announced formally what we were
concerned about and made our objections to that change in policy by Mike Wilson
as proposed for the GATT negotiations, because we believe it inappropriate for
the Canadian context, for the
School
Closure Guidelines
Ministerial
Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin my question, I want to thank the Minister responsible for
Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) for having delivered to me a Manitoba Senior Citizens'
Handbook, obviously as a direct result of my having turned 50 yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, last year many rural
Manitobans and indeed those who came from rural
Well, last week, Mr. Speaker, I was in
Will the Minister of Education now review
the school closure guidelines? Will she
inform school divisions throughout this province that not just the letter of
those guidelines, but the spirit of the guidelines is to be followed?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): I am very
concerned, as is this side of the House, about schools which may need to be
closed in rural
Education
System
Transportation
Policy Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): It is
recommended in the
Will the minister now review her
transportation policy and inform the Seine River School Division that this is
an unacceptable transportation policy for elementary school children?
* (1350)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): As I
said a moment ago, wherever these issues and these specific concerns arise
across the province, I am more than happy to talk about the specific situation
with the school division and concerned families from that division.
Boundary
Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Talking is not going to
solve the problem for these children.
The tragedy is that if these children could go to the nearby school,
they could go to one 15 minutes away; only it happens to be in Piney,
Will the minister now admit that we need
to have a review of school division boundaries in the
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): We will not be doing a
review of school boundaries at this time because, as I made very clear when I
made the announcement, the education system in
Grain
Export Licence Removal
Government
Position
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board and orderly
marketing system have been under growing pressure from a wide variety of
sources from such predictable sources as U.S.‑based grain companies to
such unlikely sources as former Liberal minister Otto Lang and shockingly even
the Conservative minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Charlie
Mayer. He attacks that which he is
empowered and entrusted to protect, Mr. Speaker, through such actions as
abolishing oats from the Wheat Board, removing the two‑price wheat system
and now, the most shocking of all by the federal Conservatives, the removal of
the export licences for grain moving to the
I ask the Deputy Premier: Can he explain to this House whether he
agrees with his federal cousins in
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the
federal government, over the past few years, has done more for western Canadian
agriculture in supporting than any previous government in the history of this
country.
As it relates to the trade that has
developed between the
I, Mr. Speaker, can assure you that this
government will do everything we can to make sure that the farmer is put in the
best position possible to maximize the benefits for the price which they
receive as well as maintaining the integrity of the marketing system that has
been put in place in this country.
Reinstatement
Correspondence
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, will this Deputy Premier table
any correspondence that he or his Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) or
indeed his Premier (Mr. Filmon) have had with the federal ministers Mayer,
McKnight, Jelinek or any other ministers on this issue, asking for the
immediate reinstatement of the export licence for grain moving to the
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have no correspondence
personally. I will ask the Minister of Agriculture
to respond to that question in detail when he is able to do so.
As far as the government's position is
concerned in dealing with the export of products, it is a position that we have
taken that we have to maximize our export opportunities. As far as the information the member is
bringing to this Legislature, I am sure there will be a further response from
the Minister of Agriculture.
Government
Position
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, is this
Deputy Premier now saying in this House that he is supporting the removal of
the authority of the Wheat Board for grain going to the
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): No, it is not, Mr. Speaker.
* (1355)
Council on
Nursing Education Status
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, last week in Estimates, I
questioned the Minister of Health on the status of the Ministerial Council on
Nursing Education, a body that is less than two years old. The minister said then that there had been no
change in status except for the resignation of the chair, Professor Trevor
Anderson. Now it appears in fact that
this council has been disbanded and its activities suspended until some unknown
date in the future.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health
if he would like to have this opportunity now to correct the record to
eliminate this false information on the record and explain the status of the
Council on Nursing Education.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend had one thing right.
The chairman of the nursing council had tendered his resignation, and I
had discussions with him very recently about that. That is about the only thing that is
accurate, Sir.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister then explain
the February 17 minutes of this council, which indicate, and I quote: The chair stated that the Deputy Minister of
Health had proposed a moratorium on council's activities and had announced his
intentions that the Ministerial Council on Nursing Education suspend its
activity for some months.
Mr. Orchard: That is significantly different than my
honourable friend's allegation that the whole council has been disbanded and
thrown to the wind. Get your facts straight
when you come to Question Period with these allegations, these rumours and this
fearmongering.
Yes, without a chairperson, Sir, the
activities of the council are suspended until we find a new chairperson. I will even go further, my honourable
friend. Should we get into the
discussion of the LPN nursing issue, we will have new members on the council
and a replacement of some members to put a focus on LPN nursing. Will my honourable friend say then, oh, we
are disbanding the old council? Of course,
she will.
Chairman
Resignation
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I do not
have to correct the record. He had an
interim report which we have accepted, Sir, and that is all that my honourable
friend should be concerned about, because the collaborative program at the
Health Sciences Centre accepted students last fall, will graduate students in
baccalaureate‑prepared nursing in collaboration between the
Economic
Growth
Retail
Trade Sector
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, when I asked the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) why
Mr. Speaker, if we had today the same
proportion of retail sales in this country that we had in 1988, despite the
recession, there would be some $300 million more retail activity in this
province in this year than there currently is.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why, after four years of his
program, this situation exists. Why has
his program failed so significantly?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I
refute the preamble of the member, at least the facts behind it. I just point
out to him the press articles as recently as last week indeed where
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think
the member would be glad to hear I just had an opportunity to look at the early
forecast for the month of April and once again, sales, actual sales are far
beyond those that had been forecast.
Might I point out that the forecasted levels certainly were in a range
acceptable or comparable to all other provinces across
Sales are occurring in our province, yes,
in a fashion that maybe is not as robust as we would like to see, but let me
say, Mr. Speaker, vis‑a‑vis other provinces in
Mr. Alcock: Well, Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada says that
the minister is wrong. We fell further
than the rest of the country. We lost a
greater proportion of the share than
* (1400)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, they are not failing. Again, the growth for
I say to the member, obviously he is
wanting to look selectively at some activity over the last several years. I am forecasting what is happening over the
last several months. I am here to tell
you, Mr. Speaker, and anybody who wants to listen that we are holding vis‑a‑vis
other provinces.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, sales are up one month to another.
Year to year, we are down some $300 million.
There would be $317 million more retail activity in this province if we
had just held constant. We have not; we
have lost badly. I would like the
Minister of Finance to explain why we have lost that $300 million in retail
activity in this province.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker, not accepting the member's
figures at all, in case he is not aware, the national economy is in recession,
has been for the best part of two years.
That is well known.
Mr. Speaker, we have also, in the
Mr. Alcock: Wrong, Clayton.
Mr. Manness: Well, the member says,
"wrong." The member seems to
be so right at everything he says, in his own mind at least, but I say to him,
Mr. Speaker, revenues in
Core Area
Initiative Program
Economic
Impact
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, for two years, two Tory
governments have jeopardized
I would like to ask the Minister of Urban
Affairs: Has he investigated the impact
of those lost two years on the absolute economic decline of the city and on the
lost opportunity costs for both the city and the province, and will he table
that report?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the member for Wolseley, in
referring to Core Area Initiative programming, should well know that in fact
the program was extended for a year in order to ensure that the money that was
allocated in the original program was spent and those programs were carried
out, those people were employed and those people were trained. All of those things would not have happened
had that program not been extended for that additional year.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister confirm that the decline of
capital investment and the loss of training opportunities as a result of the
ending of core area funds two years ago have played a significant role in the
comparatively poor economic performance of
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite surprising that
the member for Wolseley would try and translate an economic recession that is
at least North American if not worldwide into a reduction in programming in the
core area for which she is wrong. That
program, the training programs for Core Area Initiative, are ongoing today.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister confirm that the federal
government's contribution to the new urban agreement consists of a repackaging
of existing programs representing no new money from a federal government whose
entire economic strategy has been to transfer more than a thousand
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the House
on several occasions previously and to the member on more occasions than that,
we are still in discussions with our two partners with respect to the potential
for a new agreement for
Social
Assistance
Off-Reserve
Status Indians
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, the jurisdictional dispute
involving social assistance for treaty Indians is continuing. The federal government says it will not
pay. The provincial government says it
will not pay. Now cities such as
Thompson are deciding that if they have to pick up the burden, they may not pay
either, leaving the aboriginal people who are on social assistance being the
victims.
I ask one straightforward question to the
Minister of Family Services, and this is on behalf of those individuals. Will he assure them that the province will
not sit idly by and see a situation develop whereby they will lose what little
they have in terms of social assistance?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): The
question of the jurisdiction for the paying of social allowances is one that we
have been dealing with for over a year.
Our position on this has not changed.
It is the obligation and the responsibility of the federal government to
pay for the social allowances for status Indians off reserve. We are currently working with MAUM and UMM
officials who support us in this initiative, and we are asking the federal
government to live up to that responsibility that they have maintained for
decades.
Mr. Ashton: In supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and once again on
behalf of those individuals: What
assurance will the minister give to the aboriginal people who once again are
being caught in these kinds of jurisdictional disputes, that they will not lose
what little they have? These are social
assistance recipients. What assurance can he give those aboriginal people?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, when we last met with the
aboriginal leadership, they were onside with the
Social
Assistance
Off-Reserve
Status Indians
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we can argue about who
is going to take what side, but I ask a question. I will perhaps ask it as a follow‑up to
the Minister of Native Affairs.
What assurance will he give that these
people will not be cut off social assistance, or are we going to have to rely
on the same government that also has lost the Northern Development Agreement
for northern Manitobans, which is a lousy record of dealing with the federal
government? Are these aboriginal people going
to be the next victims, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for
Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
would not want to abuse the rules of the Legislature and take several minutes
to point out the proactive and the initiatives that have been started in
northern
On the question of making sure that there
are payments, my colleague the Minister of Family Services, municipal
governments and ourselves have been working very hard to make sure the federal
government lives up to their responsibility.
Maybe the member for Thompson would put his position forward on the
record as to where his party stands. Do
they support us, or do they not?
* (1410)
Child Care
Workers Salary
Enhancement
Grants
Ms. Becky Barrett (
The turnover rate for
In light of these abysmal salary levels
and very high turnover rates, why has this government, through its fee
restructuring program of last spring, eliminated the Salary Enhancement Grant
for child care workers in daycare?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the honourable member likes to bring forward examples from
The report that the honourable member
refers to was a national report dealing with the wages of daycare workers. I would point out that only
Ms. Barrett: Second out of 10 when even the first out of 10
is 50 percent of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Private
Child Care Centres
Government
Support
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the vision of our government is that people should have a choice of
what level and kind of daycare they wish to access.
I point out that the member for
Child Care
Workers
Salary
Enhancement Grants
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, why is the provincial government
cutting its support programs for child care workers' salaries through the
elimination of the Salary Enhancement Grant and other elements of the fee
restructuring program when the Manitoba Child Care Association and several‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):