LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, November 30, 1992

The House met at 1:30 p.m

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement for the House.

As members know, the Manitoba Legislative Internship Program has been in operation since 1985. Each year a total of six interns are chosen for the program. Again this year, two interns have been assigned to each of the three caucuses. Their term of employment is for 12 months. During their term, interns perform a variety of research and other tasks for private members as distinct from members.

My purpose today is to announce the names of the six young people who have been selected to serve as Manitoba's 1992‑93 Legislative interns. They commenced their assignment at the beginning of September.

Working with the government caucus are Mr. Cameron MacKay of Queen's University and Ms. Reagan Whicklow of the University of Winnipeg. Working with the caucus of the official opposition will be Ms. Sandra Johnson of the University of Manitoba and Ms. Paula Gunn of McGill University. Working with the caucus of the second opposition party will be Mr. Derek Boutang of the University of Manitoba and Ms. Kim Morrison of the University of Manitoba. Congratulations.

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lillian Tijal, Karl Schloffer, Elsa Von Kampen and others requesting the government of Manitoba pass the necessary legislation and/or regulations which will restrict stubble burning in the province of Manitoba.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), and it complies with the practices and the rules of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the principles of health care, namely the universality and comprehensiveness, should apply to the Pharmacare program; and

WHEREAS the Pharmacare program's effectiveness is being eroded; and

WHEREAS in the most recent round of delisting of pharmaceuticals, approximately 200 have been delisted by the government of Manitoba; and

WHEREAS the strict submission deadline for Pharmacare receipts does not take into consideration extenuating circumstances which may have affected some people; and

WHEREAS pharmaceutical refunds often take six weeks to reach people; and

WHEREAS a health "smart card" would provide information to reduce the risk of ordering drugs which interact or are ineffective, could eliminate "double prescribing," and could also be used to purchase pharmaceuticals on the Pharmacare program, thereby easing the cash burden on purchasers.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of Manitoba to consider taking the necessary steps to reform the Pharmacare system to maintain its comprehensive and universal nature, and to implement the use of a health "smart card."

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

AND

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to the House with an attachment and copies for all members.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is proceeding with committee hearings concerning Bill C‑91. I am making this statement to the House today because the process precluded my own presentation to the committee. I requested an opportunity to address the committee, but we were informed on Friday last that only six presenters will be heard today and tomorrow.

Speaking for Health ministers across the country, with the exception of Quebec, Elizabeth Cull of British Columbia addressed the committee at noon today in Ottawa. I thank Ms. Cull for the co-operation and consideration in offering the half hour which was allocated for her presentation. In conversation with her over the weekend, we determined that it would be counterproductive to fragment the combined presentation by Health ministers and made by Ms. Cull on behalf of ministers, with the exception of the Province of Quebec.

* (1335)

I would like to table the October 29, 1992, letter sent by Ms. Cull to the federal Minister of Health, The Honourable Benoit Bouchard, which states the position of the provincial/territorial Ministers of Health concerning Bill C‑91. Her letter indicates the amendments agreed to by the ministers during their meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, in September, when they indicated to the federal minister their preference that the bill not proceed.

I believe the current compulsory legislative framework has served Canadians and Manitobans well. We have seen significant investment from generic firms in Manitoba. The unique advantage of this province's economy has seen increased investment and expansion from firms such as Ayerst in the production of Premarin.

Manitoba is opposed to the retroactivity of Bill C‑91 for the following reasons:

The existing compulsory licensing does work. Since the passage of Bill C‑22, the province has enjoyed significant industrial commitments in the health care sector over the past four years by firms such as Trimel Life Sciences, Apotex Biotechnologies Inc., Novapharm, Medix and Medical Technology Inc. They have contributed to an estimated sum of private and public sector funds exceeding $500 million.

These companies are here because Manitoba is the right place to be. It has the scientific and industrial expertise and commitment, the right investment climate and the natural strength of our economy.

We find the retroactive date of December 20, 1991, to be wrong, and we are not prepared to endorse a precedent‑setting bill which may impact future intergovernmental initiatives. Changing the rules of the game may jeopardize both present and future opportunity for generic companies to become world leaders in the industry.

This raises the question of fairness and propriety in advancing C‑91. There will be cost to the government of Manitoba, hence to its taxpayers.

We cannot undertake additional costs at a time when the federal commitment to health care is regrettably not keeping pace with our budgetary pressures. These costs cannot be accurately estimated at this time, but I would predict they would range in the millions, not in thousands of dollars.

Since the passage of Bill C‑22, Manitoba has aggressively promoted its research and development capabilities in the pharmaceutical industry. There is substantial investment by generic companies under the existing rules of Bill C‑22. Of great concern is the impact on future development of our Canadian drug manufacturing companies.

It is my belief that under the existing provisions some of our generic companies will become innovators in their own right, and as a result, Canada will enjoy a home‑grown innovative presence in the global market.

This theme fits with the recent federal government's prosperity initiative whereby efforts were focused upon centres of excellence. Likewise, national medical granting agencies have historically committed significant proportions of their resources to the province of Manitoba due to the acknowledged critical mass of excellence. According to its annual report, the Medical Research Council of Canada has invested 4.5 to 5 percent of almost $40 million to Manitoba over the past five years as a result of peer‑reviewed competition.

In closing, I would like to emphasize my concern regarding the fairness in distribution of an investment by innovative companies. We know that central Canada, Montreal and Toronto in particular, will receive significant new investment. We argue that investment should be extended to the rest of Canada. Manitoba, in particular, should be a large recipient of new investment dollars. I say this because of the already‑in‑progress investments by innovative and generic companies in Manitoba and particularly, Mr. Speaker, because it is the right thing to do. Thank you, Sir.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, responding to the minister's statement today, I am quite disappointed by the minister's real void in dealing with the drug patent law issue in terms of dealing with the total policy issues contained within the drug policy objectives of the federal Conservative government. This minister has left out the fact that the free trade agreement with Mexico, initialled by his federal leader and the past president of the United States as of some time in January and President Salinas of Mexico, has initialled off in the NAFTA agreement the very same provisions that this minister stands up in the House today to condemn.

He knows that NAFTA, as it is presently proposed, will entrench this in the trade agreement, yet ministers opposite in the Speech from the Throne and members of the front bench do not want to talk about NAFTA. They do not want to criticize their federal Conservative government and their corporate trade agenda and what it will mean for Canadians. I am quite disappointed in this minister for thinking he could cherry‑pick this issue into a narrow piece of federal legislation and not know that all of us are following this issue very carefully, Mr. Speaker, and very, very carefully on behalf of the people of Manitoba.

I would refer the minister and the government to The New York Times of two weeks ago, where they state very clearly that the federal Conservative government, a government that many over there campaigned for, has signed off in San Antonio provisions that will entrench the drug patent law in this trade agreement.

The New York Times goes on to say: How could Canada do this? How can the Conservatives do this when they recognize in their article of two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, that we enjoy a 32 percent saving on our drug costs in Canada because of our drug laws, versus the Tory philosophy that is contained in the NAFTA agreement and now is presently before Parliament, yet we hear silence from members opposite on NAFTA. We hear silence on the jobs that are at stake in the generic drug industry in Manitoba. It is not surprising to us, Mr. Speaker, because we remember the initial debate on C‑22.

Oh, yes, the government will say it is different, but it was the first piece of legislation, according to every health economist, that started to prohibit Canada for having a made‑in‑Canada drug policy. These people voted with the federal Conservatives at that point in 1987. I guess, when it gets close to the federal election, they get their ideological house in order in terms of the federal Conservative government.

I would go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that extending the patent life of drugs is likely to cost consumers immediately and add to the burden of government costs for health care. You know, this government talks about health care reform, but when it comes to the NAFTA agreement that will entrench this, they say nothing. Of course, Democrats in the Congress and in the Senate are saying we are slitting our own throats by limiting our options to contain drug costs in this NAFTA agreement.

Where is the intellectual honesty of members opposite and this Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)? It is nowhere, and until they start condemning the NAFTA agreement and the clause dealing with drug patent law, we will just think that this is public relations statements, not statements of substance on behalf of Manitobans.

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am pleased that the minister has finally woken up to what is a critical issue with regard to generic drugs and their production in Canada.

You know, one of the very sad things about the federal government is that they appear to believe that our logical relationship with the United States should preempt our relationship with Canadian people. We know that the most important thing for those who need a drug prescription is the cost, because we know of a great many seniors who quite frankly do not have prescriptions renewed because they simply cannot afford to have them renewed. Even with Pharmacare policies, some of them still put off the renewal of those prescriptions, knowing that because, until recently‑‑hopefully the minister is going to change this‑‑they had to put 100 percent of the cost up.

* (1345)

That is why we proposed a Pharmacare card in 1986, so that they would be in a position where they would only have to put up 20 percent of the cost once they had reached their full limit. Then they would have that 80 percent that they could then spend on the necessity of food, which is also an important component of their health care.

That is why we were opposed to Bill C‑22, because C‑22 began the process that put us on the slippery slope of this present piece of legislation. That is what started it, and unfortunately this government supported Bill C‑22. We could not get them to support even a resolution in this House which indicated their dismay at the type of legislation which was going to harm the generic drug industry but, more importantly, was going to put up the cost of prescription drugs.

Bill C‑91 goes further, but I am also deeply disturbed at the process here. I am appalled that our Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has not been able to make a presentation. I cannot understand quite frankly that this federal government has learned nothing from the process of October 26. It has decided yet once again to not listen to the public, as duly represented by their Health minister from this province. It represents a government that is determined to keep their corporate alliance with American companies alive and well in terms of the federal Conservative government and to not work in the best interests of the people of this province and this country.

I hope that the minister goes further than his ministerial statement here today, but that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) writes an extremely strongly worded letter to the Prime Minister of this nation indicating that provincial politicians, in terms of health care, have a very important role to play and that legislation by the federal government impacts severely upon our ability to deliver good quality health care. I would like to see a letter from the Premier tomorrow tabled in this House indicating that he has gone this one step further and has informed the Prime Minister of the total unacceptability, not only of this legislation, but of the process put in place by the federal government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for the Surface Rights Board and also the Annual Report for the Manitoba Municipal Employees Benefits Board.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence at the table of Judy White, who has been appointed Clerk of Committees to replace Patricia Chaychuk‑Fitzpatrick, who is on a one‑year leave of absence. I am sure that all honourable members would wish to welcome her to the staff of the Assembly.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Also, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have nine student council members from the Sturgeon Creek Regional Secondary School. The students are under the direction of Mr. Wayne Rae. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).

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

* (1350)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

North American Free Trade Agreement

Government Position

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in 1990, during the provincial election, the Premier said he was opposed to free trade with Mexico, no ifs, ands or buts. After that date he equivocated a bit, and then in 1991 he came out with six conditions that would be the so‑called bottom‑line conditions. We asked questions on the six conditions with draft agreements last year. The Premier said, in due time, when the final draft is out, they would in fact tell us what the bottom line of those six conditions were, whether they would support or not NAFTA. The Premier then went on to say last spring that if the Prime Minister disagreed with provinces, he would have a very difficult time implementing this trade agreement if the Premiers of a number of provinces were opposed to it.

In August, when the legal text was released, we were told by his minister that within three weeks we would know what the position of the provincial government is. We understand that they have been holding private meetings with a number of groups across Manitoba over the last three months.

We would like to know from the Premier: What is his bottom line? He has told us in his six conditions that he would give us his bottom line on NAFTA. What today is his bottom line on NAFTA for the people of Manitoba? Is the government for this proposed trade agreement, or is it against it?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that trade is a very important issue to the economy and the people of Manitoba, that this is an issue that Manitobans depend upon for their prosperity, their standard of living, their quality of life. In fact, the throne speech, I believe, indicates that even in 1991, at a time when the economy was obviously in difficulty world wide, our exports from Manitoba increased by 4.5 percent. This year, 1992, our exports are increasing at a rate of some 13 percent at a time again when the economy is still having its difficulties. Trade is a major engine of our economy's growth and operation, so we must ensure that whatever we do ensures that we have continued trading access, continued opportunities to build our economy based on that trade.

We in Manitoba have taken the position, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly points out, that any North American Free Trade Agreement must fulfill six conditions. Those six conditions have been laid out, and those six conditions have been the basis upon which we have been monitoring the negotiations of the Government of Canada. Further to that, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) has been in the midst of consultations with the various sectors of the Manitoba economy, and I know that he will be in a position to report on those discussions and summary of the anticipated effects in the not too distant future.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, today we have the example of a vacuous government in terms of policy. We have one minister complaining about one piece of legislation which is entrenched in the North American Free Trade Agreement; we have one minister for political purposes talking about how this is going to help central Canada and hurt Manitoba, and we have one minister talking about something that we know from The New York Times, the 32 percent increase in cost, yet this Premier (Mr. Filmon) knows that one of his bottom lines was no change to the existing agreement. He is not willing to take a stand three months after.

I would ask the Premier: In light of the increased drug costs for Manitobans and his Health care department, in light of the fact that we are going to lose jobs and investment according to his own Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), can he give us finally his bottom line which he promised to Manitobans a year ago about those six conditions? Is this good for Manitoba, or is it not, and will he tell us where he is at in terms of this very, very major trade agreement in terms of jobs, investment and consumer prices for health in terms of the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) is in the midst of his consultations with all sectors of the Manitoba economy, with all of the producers, and he is in the process of assessing and analyzing the results of those consultations as to what the effects will be on the Manitoba economy based on the proposal that we now have.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Premier that it was his promise in 1990, during the period of time he was seeking a mandate, that Manitobans have to go by, that he was absolutely opposed to it. Then he equivocated with those six conditions, flip‑flop, if you will. He would not tell us about the draft agreements. He would not tell us about his conditions based on public consultations. They would not table the results of the public consultations.

Now surely the Premier who makes the promise is responsible for telling the people of Manitoba what position he has as chair of the Economic Development Committee of Cabinet and as the head of the government. We do not want one minister saying one thing and one minister saying another, like we usually see with deregulation of the airline industry and telecommunications.

Will this Premier tell us where he stands on the free trade agreement with Mexico?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, rather than having a philosophical or a knee‑jerk response, we want our government's position to be based on what the agreement will do for the province of Manitoba.

I have already indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that Manitoba is very heavily dependent upon trade for its standard of living, that increasing trade opportunities are absolutely essential to this province in order to maintain an opportunity for prosperity and growth in the future, so therefore we must consult with all sectors of the Manitoba economy who might be affected by any trading agreement to ensure that we are well aware of what effects the potential agreement might have on their sector of the economy. After those consultations are complete, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) will respond to the Leader of the Opposition on this matter.

* (1355)

Child and Family Support Division

Reporting Process

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, in the Estimates for the Department of Family Services, the Child and Family Support Division has as its two main objectives the planning and development of a comprehensive continuum of Child and Family Services throughout the province and the ensuring that the delivery of high quality services by external agencies is undertaken.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services today why the mandate of the Child and Family Support Division has been expanded now and changed to manage issues that might be embarrassing for the minister and his government rather than spending their time, energy and resources on planning, developing and delivering services for the children of Manitoba.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Family Services has a wide variety of activities. Certainly one of the most important that we are involved in is looking after the Child and Family Services Agencies.

In saying that, we have a lot of reforms that are going on at this time within Child and Family Services. We have recently received the Suche report and have a number of working groups that are putting that into practice. As well, we have recently adopted the high risk indicators which the agencies are working now at in‑servicing their staff on.

The member supported the bill on the Child Advocate in the last session, and this is in process. We hope to have that office up and running in the near future. As well, we are working on the service information system which now is nearly ready to be put in use in the central Manitoba agency and one which will soon be expanded to other areas of the Child and Family Services Agencies as well.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for the House today a letter written at the end of last week to the executive directors, Child and Family Services Agencies, regional directors and regional offices from the executive director of Child and Family Support stating that since the House was coming in November 26, the Child and Family Support Division was asking each executive director of Child and Family Services and regional offices to provide the minister's office with issues every morning by ten o'clock.

I would like to ask the minister if this is an appropriate use of the very small, totally overworked resources of not only the Child and Family Support Division, but more importantly even, the executive directors and the staff of the Child and Family Service Agencies are supposed to be protecting children.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member well knows that government has mandated those agencies to perform those tasks for government, for the Department of Family Services. At the same time, the member brings case‑specific issues to the House from time to time. I recall one such time last session when the member was demanding that the minister know what happened to a child that was left abandoned on a street in the city. The agency had reacted within 25 minutes, and the member was condemning government and the minister for not knowing that.

The need to provide information to the department and to the minister is vital in terms of the minister knowing the activities of all of the agencies that we fund. I would point out to the member that our department relates to 180,000 Manitobans across our various divisions, and in order to be able to work with those agencies and work with those Manitobans, the ministry and the department needs that flow of information so that we are able to work with them and comment on those issues.

* (1400)

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why it so‑called "happens." Is it just coincidence that it is the day before the House sits that this letter goes out, that we have to have immediate response‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.

Mr. Gilleshammer: As you are well aware, we have a hierarchy of officials within government, a deputy minister and assistant deputy ministers. The assistant deputy ministers, on a regular basis, are in contact with the agencies that are mandated and do have a process of two‑way communication going between government and those agencies.

Child and Family Support Division

Reporting Process

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this is really quite unprecedented. Either the minister does not have a normal reporting procedure, which I hope for the sake of the children of this province he must have in place, or he has decided that the only time the agencies need report to him is when the Legislature is in session, so that the needs of the children are only important the four months that we sit in this Chamber.

Would the minister please explain to me just which one of those two it is? Does he not have a regular reporting procedure, or is he only really interested in children four months a year?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): The Leader of the third party is well aware that there is a regular reporting procedure within this department and within all departments.

Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why the executive directors, Child and Family Services Agencies, the regional directors in the regional offices received this fax on November 25 at approximately five o'clock, 5:01 according to one agency, the night before the session was to open? How does he explain that this is not a blatant political act by his department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated in the past that opposition members and politicians in general, I think, have made too much politics out of child welfare in the past. The officials within my department are in regular communication with all of the agencies that we work with, and if some officials are trying to enhance and clarify that reporting structure within the department, that is something that they will do on an ongoing basis.

Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason the minister thinks that too much politics is involved is because it is only when we ask questions in this House do we even get an answer. When we write him letters, we get answers which say, we will bring this to the minister's attention. I have at least ten of those letters without any follow-ups, and when I asked his staff last week for a reply to one of these letters, I was informed, oh, we do not have to reply; that is not necessary. So can the minister‑‑

An Honourable Member: Are we into Orders of the Day already and this is a speech, or what?

Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, it has generally been the rules that the Leaders of the two opposition parties get a preamble to all three questions. Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would like to change that, and he will shorten his own answers.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: Will he rescind this letter and not try to make an extension of political staff all of the people who work in these agencies?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The member has indicated that my department does not give responses to requests and information that come from the public or other members. We turn our correspondence around in two or three weeks. We have found that there are times when we have responded to correspondence in the Liberal Leader's office, and maybe it has not been drawn to her attention.

In reference to the question, I have not seen the correspondence the member is referencing, but I will have a look at it.

Transportation Industry

Employment Security

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, in 1984 Transport minister Axworthy and former Transport minister Mazankowski argued as to who was the real godfather of deregulation. On November 12 of this year, the light finally came on for the Manitoba Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) when he recognized the failures of deregulation, a policy which he had blindly followed.

My question is for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Will this Minister of Transportation explain to Manitobans what success he and his government have had in preserving and protecting transportation jobs in Manitoba?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I think the public is aware of the fact that there are changing issues out there in the transportation industry, whether it is the airlines, whether it is the railways. They are affected in Manitoba and in Canada like they are in other parts of the world.

Mr. Speaker, we have continually put forward the position that we would like to have the least minimum impact in terms of employment within the province, and we will always continue to take that position forward.

Mr. Reid: My supplementary question is to the same minister, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the announcement last week that CN was slashing its work force, along with Air Canada's announced layoffs of 168 finance department employees and 33 pilots, how many transportation jobs does the Minister of Transportation expect will be left in Manitoba when his government refuses to take any action?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody is aware of the fact that CN is challenged with trying to cut down overhead costs and operating costs in order to be competitive and to remain in business. I think members are aware that there are discussions taking place between CN officials and the union officials at the present time.

The position that both myself and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) have put forward with CN is, if there are going to be layoffs, and I hope there will not be any, but if there are layoffs, that we will be treated as fair as the other provinces are treated. You have to consider the fact that we are the second highest employer in the country in terms of jobs with the railways, next to Quebec. We are very concerned that there will not be layoffs, and if there are layoffs, that we at least be treated fairly.

Mr. Reid: My final supplementary is to the same minister, Mr. Speaker.

Since the minister has stated that Manitoba is not a major player in the airline industry, which is quickly becoming a reality, what strategy does this minister have to protect the airline jobs in Manitoba? Will he now call for reregulation of the transportation industries in general?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure exactly what the member wants with a question of that nature. If the member has read the comments that have been made by both myself and our government in terms of the airline industry, I think he would have an idea of the position that we put forward‑‑the least economic impact and least impact on jobs for Manitoba, whether it is the present potential deal with Canadian and American Airlines or whether it is the impact that it has on Gemini possibly. These are all things that we are gathering information on. Once we come forward with some kind of a proposal, we will deal with it at that time.

Video Lottery Terminals Revenues

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, when this government first introduced video lottery terminals to rural Manitoba, they did it under the guise of rural development. There was an assurance that all money that was raised in rural Manitoba would be reinvested to create jobs. Millions of dollars have been raised, but nothing has been reinvested.

I want to ask the Minister of Rural Development why this government is not keeping its promise. Where are the millions of dollars that have been taken from rural Manitoba? Where are the jobs that this government was supposed to be creating?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in response to this question, because over the past few months, we have indeed seen some very positive activity in rural Manitoba with regard to investors investing in our province and indeed using the vehicle of the REDI program to do so. It was because of the REDI program that we were able to assist the Ayerst plant in locating in Brandon. Not only will we have the direct jobs, but we are going to be looking at approximately 1,000 jobs in this province and millions of dollars of investment as a result of our ability to assist in bringing Ayerst to Brandon.

Mr. Speaker, additionally, I can report to the member that we have well over 100 applications which are being considered under the REDI program. Many of these come from very small businesses in rural Manitoba, and indeed we are looking very actively at a very positive response to those applications.

* (1410)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, that is $1 million out of much more that has been raised.

Can the Minister of Rural Development tell us how much money has been raised from video lottery terminals? How much money does he have in the REDI fund, and is all this money that is raised from video lottery terminals going into the REDI fund, or is it going into general revenue for this government?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that there were other programs that have been announced under the REDI program which the member should be well aware of.

We sponsored the Green Team project in conjunction with Natural Resources. We were able to provide 200 jobs for students in this province in rural Manitoba through REDI. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we have also participated in the Partners with Youth program which created many jobs for our youth in our province.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the exact number or exact details with regard to the amount of revenues raised through REDI, but indeed that will be made known as soon as the report is tabled.

Job Creation Strategy

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Rural Development, since he just attended the UMM convention where delegates spoke so strongly about lack of growth in rural Manitoba and concern about this draining of funds, is he going to listen to the advice of delegates of UMM and take the video lottery money and create some real jobs in rural Manitoba, show some leadership?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the critic for Rural Development has now changed her position with regard to Grow Bonds and with regard to REDI.

I look forward to her voting for the throne speech which talks about economic development not only in the city of Winnipeg but in all of rural Manitoba.

Economic Growth

Government Strategy

Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

We have now had six Speeches from the Throne, six speeches which have promised us a firm foundation for economic growth in this province. They promised us high‑quality, full‑time jobs, and they have promised us a revitalized private sector that would spur investment.

Mr. Speaker, almost since the day that this government came into office, this province has lost position in this country, this province has lost wealth in this country. I would just like to ask the Premier, after sticking to his plan for five years now, how does he explain this failure?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at the question from the member for Osborne. I see that he is polishing his skills for Parliament. I certainly want to help him in that, and I thank him for asking me that question.

I want the member to know that this year, 1992, the Conference Board is forecasting a growth rate in Manitoba‑‑[interjection] No, it was 10 months at the end of October that they said the Manitoba growth rate was 2.2 percent, which was tied for second best in the country.

The unemployment rate in Manitoba, as of the most recent figures, is second best in the country. In addition, Mr. Speaker, total capital investment in Manitoba is expected to rise at the second highest rate of any province in the country this year. Private capital investment is expected to rise at the highest rate of any province in the country. In addition to that, manufacturing capital investment is expected to rise again at the highest rate of any province in the country.

All of those would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the things that are happening in Manitoba, the fact that we have not raised taxes for five straight budgets; the fact that we are making Manitoba so competitive that the internationally known business location consultants the Boyd Company have indicated that Winnipeg specifically, Manitoba in general second, is the lowest cost place to start a small manufacturing business, a light manufacturing business in Canada and fourth best in North America, so all of those things obviously are positive. They are matters that the member as Finance critic should inform himself of so that he would be better understanding of economics here in Manitoba.

Full-time Employment Decline

Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): It is true we have had six years of expectations. The problem is we have had no delivery, absolutely none. Today we have fewer full‑time jobs in this economy than we had when this Premier came to office‑‑fewer, not more. Mr. Speaker, had we just held even to '88, we would have had 13,000 more full-time jobs.

I want to ask the Premier right now: How does he account for the loss of these jobs? Why? How did it happen?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if the member is preparing for Ottawa, he has a lot more studying to do because he had better find out that there has been an international recession in the world over the last two years. I could educate him a great deal, and given the time of my response to the throne speech, I will help in his education so that indeed by the time he throws his hat in the ring, he will know a great deal more information about the things that have been going on in the world around him while he has been consumed with other issues more important, I am sure, to him.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this year we are not talking expectations. We are talking reality.

The Conference Board said at the end of October for 1992, the growth rate for Manitoba would be tied for second best in the country.

This year, as according to Statistics Canada, the most recently available information that our unemployment rate is the second best in the country.

This year, Mr. Speaker, total capital investment in Manitoba is expected to be second best in the country.

This year, Mr. Speaker, private capital investment is expected to be the best in the country.

This year, manufacturing capital investment is expected to be the best in the country, and in addition to that, manufacturing shipments for the first‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, our rules are very clear that answers to questions should be brief. I noted earlier that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) lectured members of the opposition that they should save their speeches for debate on the throne speech. I am wondering if you might give the same advice to the Premier and ask him to come to order.

Mr. Speaker: I would just like to remind the honourable First Minister, I believe he is dealing with the matter raised, I do not believe he is provoking debate, but to keep the answer as short as possible.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that he lecture his own people about preambles, for a second, of his questions.

* * *

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, this year manufacturing shipments in Manitoba have risen for the first nine months of 1992 at the highest rate of any province in the country. All of those things I would suggest to the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) that he study and learn about because it is very, very important information that he will want to know before he throws his hat in the ring for the federal scene.

Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Premier that while the country has been in recession‑‑

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

* (1420)

Capital Investment

Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): My question to the Premier is: How does he explain the fact that over the last five years, private sector capital investment in this province has fallen more sharply here than it has in Canada as a whole?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The reality is that we had to put in place policies that would attract private capital investment. As a result of that, this year Manitoba is expected to have the highest increase in private capital investment of any province in the country.

Manitoba Intercultural Council

Review Release

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne last week, not once did we hear the words equality, social or economic justice, culture, immigration or multiculturalism, to name but a few of the omissions. This government's narrow view of development is also negligent in terms of accountability.

If this weekend's Manitoba Intercultural Council bi‑annual is any indication, the people of this province are not going to stand for being ignored and not having their governments accountable to them.

My question is for the Premier: When did the government receive the copy of Don Blair's report on the review of the Manitoba Intercultural Council? When will it release this report in its entirety to the people of Manitoba and the board members of the MIC?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson).

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I have a few more questions for the Premier.

How does this Premier expect the Manitoba Intercultural Council to respond to the review of its operations and role if it does not receive this report? Will the minister commit, because of these things that I have just said, to releasing in full the review, the report in its entirety, including who was consulted by this review?

Mr. Filmon: I will take that question, as well, as notice on behalf of the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.

Manitoba Grants Advisory Council

Accountability

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary, also for the Premier, is: Why is there no accountability of the public money that is spent by the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council? What does it take to get very clear information from the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council on what money is spent and on what that money is spent?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice as well on behalf of the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson).

Health Care System

Budget Reduction Targets

Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Health refused to acknowledge the budget cutback targets that he has imposed on our teaching hospitals, cuts which go much deeper than the 264 bed closures. Despite information from his own department that I tabled, the minister suggested that the $20‑million budget cutback target is a result of hospital‑incurred deficits and just normal budgeting practices. That was wrong. It was inaccurate. It was misleading to the public, and it was unfair to the hospitals involved.

Will the minister today, once and for all, reveal his hidden agenda and tell us his real budget reduction targets and what impact this will have on patient care in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my hidden agenda for the health care system is the most open book of reform in Canada. Now I realize that my honourable friend, when confronted with an action plan that has integrity, is underpinned by science and research which has, I think it is fair to say, been endorsed by administrators, boards, trustees, health care professionals and the citizens of Manitoba in terms of the best plan to protect and preserve medicare for the citizens of Manitoba.

I have no hesitation in further explaining to my honourable friend the implication of that very open public discussion started on May 14, preceded by three and a half years of consultation with many groups, providers and citizens of the province of Manitoba.

If that is a hidden agenda, Mr. Speaker, I simply am at a loss to provide my honourable friend with more clarity.

Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis: Mr. Speaker, again, since the minister will not answer the question and be straightforward with the people of Manitoba, I will table new information from his own department showing clearly that his government has imposed budget cutback targets on our teaching hospitals which is totally separate and apart from hospital‑incurred deficits and information management expenditures.

I would ask the Minister of Heal