LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, December 1, 1992

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

PRAYERS

 

Speaker's Statement

 

Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Routine Proceedings, I have a statementfor the House.

            I must inform the House that Elijah Harper, the honourablemember for Rupertsland, has resigned his seat in the Houseeffective November 30, 1992.  I am therefore tabling hisresignation and my letter to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Counciladvising of the vacancy thus created in the membership of theHouse.

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

PRESENTING PETITIONS

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to present thepetition of Donna Hardman, Ellen Enns, Michael Kalmakoff andothers requesting the government of Manitoba pass the necessarylegislation/regulations which will restrict stubble burning inthe province of Manitoba.

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to presentthe petition of Marie‑Jeanne Buccini, Alice Szarkiewicz, MaureenMonk and others urging the government of Manitoba to pass theregulations which will restrict stubble burning in the provinceof Manitoba.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to presentthe petition of Chief Louis Stevenson, Lloyd Stevens, LeslieDaniels and others requesting the government of Manitoba show astrong commitment to aboriginal self‑government by consideringreversing its position on the AJI by supporting therecommendations within its jurisdiction implementing a separateand parallel justice system.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, I beg topresent the petition of F. Pyryhora, I. Pyryhora, T. Weiss andothers urging the government of Manitoba pass the necessarylegislation/regulations which will restrict stubble burning inthe province of Manitoba.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to present thepetition of Monica Linklater, Sylvia Spence, Eileen Moody andothers requesting the government of Manitoba consider reviewingthe state of Highway 391 with a view towards improving thecondition and safety of the road.

 

* (1335)

 

TABLING OF REPORTS

 

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to table the Annual Report of the Department of UrbanAffairs.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to table the report of the Teachers'Retirement Allowances Fund Board, the Annual Report, 1991.

           

Introduction of Guests

 

Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attentionof honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us thisafternoon, from the F.W. Gilbert School, thirty Grade 5students.  They are under the direction of Ms. Merle Stepaniuk.This school is located in the constituency of the honourableMinister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).

            Also, from the Linwood Elementary School, we have thirty‑fiveGrade 5 students.  They are under the direction of Mr. Ed Hume.This school is located in the constituency of the honourablemember for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).

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

           

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

 

Poverty Rate

Provincial Increase

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, we havebeen saying for some time now that the government is out of touchand this Premier is out of touch.  Unfortunately, today thepoverty figures have been released for the province of Manitobaand for Canada.  Unfortunately, the poverty numbers indicate thetragedy that is taking place in our communities, where Manitobanow has the second highest poverty rate of any province inCanada, and the child poverty rate remains the highest ofanywhere in Canada.

            Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated two weeks ago, in a speech hemade to his own faithful, that all Manitobans are better offunder Conservative government.  Given the fact that the number ofpeople in poverty between 1988 when this Premier took office and1990 has grown by 10,000 Manitobans, can the Premier pleaseexplain to us and to all Manitobans, if they are better off, whythere are 10,000 more people unfortunately in poverty today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, certainly we as agovernment, as I believe all people in elected office ought tobe, are concerned about the trends for continued poverty in oursociety, and we as a government have taken some very determinedaction since these figures, which relate to 1990, have indeedbeen collected.

            I am sure that the member opposite knows that we continued toincrease our social allowance rates at, for instance, 3.6 percentlast year, which was the second highest rate of increase in thecountry, and this year again at the rate of inflation.  We addedincome assistance for disabled at $60 per month, which is risingto $70 per month as of next month, and a monthly supplement toreplace the provincial tax credit.  It is also one of the reasonswhy we are placing great emphasis on economic priorities to getthe economy rolling again.

            Mr. Speaker, we take no solace in these figures.  In fact, weare very, very concerned.  I would say that I would hope themember opposite would recognize that this is not a partisanissue.  If it were so, it would have been settled and it wouldhave been addressed during the time when the member opposite'sadministration was in government, because the figure that ispublished in this report for 1990 is lower than it was in 1982,'83, '84, '85 and '86 and at the same level that it was in '87.

            That is not good news, but we are doing things that arewithin our power, and we would hope that the members oppositewould continue to work with us to try and improve the lot ofthose who indeed have to live in poverty in this province andright across the country.

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier to look at thetrends and look at the numbers.  The amount of people thatdecreased in the poverty list between '82 and '88 was a 40,000decrease in the number of people living below the poverty line inthe previous government, and now we see a 10,000‑person increasein people living in poverty in the province of Manitoba.  ThePremier on the one hand said this is not a partisan issue, andthen he proceeds to produce partisan numbers.  Well, we canrespond to those partisan answers of the Premier if he so desires.

            Mr. Speaker, the government said that they remain committedto strengthening and supporting Manitoba families, caring forthose less fortunate and protecting Manitoba's vulnerable anddisadvantaged citizens.  That is in the Speech from the Throne.Why do we see an increase of 10,000 people under his first twoyears in government, and how many more are going to be living inpoverty with the actions and economic policies of thisgovernment, because we see a decrease of 25,000 jobs in ourprovince and decreased opportunities for our people?

 

* (1340)

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, the figure is 17.8 percent of peopleliving below the poverty line.  In 1982 it was 20.5 percent inManitoba; in 1983 it was 18.6 percent; in 1984 it was 18.4percent; in 1985 it was 18 percent; in 1986 it was 18.6 percentagain and so on.  So those are the figures we are talking about,and I am saying that that is unacceptable.  I am saying that thisgovernment has increased the rates, the welfare rates, that wepay at rates that are greater than what is being increased inmost provinces in the country.  In fact, last year only oneprovince had a higher rate of increase, plus we added theparticular additional payments for disabled people who were at aparticular level last year and are rising again as of January.

            We are working as well on the economic side because we knowthat ultimately, as the report indicates, that the ultimatesolution to this, of course, is to ensure that we restore theeconomy to economic health, because that is the long‑termsolution that we have to address in this issue.  That is why thethrone speech deals with the economy as the central focus,because it is jobs, it is a healthy economy that is the long‑termsolution to improving the lot of these people.

 

Poverty Rate

Provincial Increase

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, thePremier is right.  It was 20 percent in 1982, and it went down to16.6 percent in '88, a decrease of 40,000 people.  From 1988 to1990, it went up to 17.8 percent, an increase of 10,000 people inthe poverty rate.  That is exactly the point.  You know, you donot have to listen to these statistics.  The Premier could go 200yards across from his office, across the street, to really seewhat is going on in this province, and we have been saying thatthis Premier and this government are totally out of touch withwhat is going on in terms of the realities of people in thisprovince.

            Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of months, this governmentchose to offload millions of dollars on social assistancepayments to municipalities or the larger municipality of Winnipegand other municipalities that were paying provincial rates, whichwill result in either a decrease in provisions like food forchildren or increased taxation.  Now the Premier had promised noincrease in taxation, so I would ask the Premier what is theimpact of the cutback on benefits, such as food for children, onthe poverty rates of Manitoba.  I would ask the Premier to standup and answer this question, because he did not answer it lastspring when we asked him the very same question.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Mr.Speaker, I would like to point out to the Leader of theOpposition that the number of recipients on social allowances isa small component or a partial component of the people living inpoverty that this study reflects, and I think that what happenswith statistics like this is that you draw a national povertyline based on the cost of living in some of the urban centreslike Toronto and Vancouver, yet the cost of living in Winnipeg,for instance, is lower than 11 other major urban centres acrossthis country.  I would also point out that we have the thirdlowest incidence of citizens on social allowances per capita inthe country, and our rates are about the sixth highest in thecountry.  So Manitoba is relatively positioned with the socialallowances that other provinces pay at this time.

 

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Autopac Rate Increase

 

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):  Mr. Speaker, I would like toaddress a question to the minister responsible for Autopac (Mr.Cummings).  The Conservative‑appointed Public Utilities Board hasnow approved the request of the Conservative‑appointed board ofMPIC for the highest real increase of Autopac rates in thehistory of this province.  Non‑merit private passenger vehiclesapproval is 13.5 percent which is 10 times the rate ofinflation.  The average increase of 9.7 percent is about seventimes the rate of inflation.

            Mr. Speaker, how can this minister who led the charge a fewyears ago, how can this minister sit there complacently andjustify these unconscionable increases?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  First of all,Mr. Speaker, I reject the member's reference to the quality andthe standard of the work being done by the PUB.  We deliberatelymade sure that the Public Utilities Board was given theopportunity to look at the rate structure and make sure that itwas properly reflecting the costs and the real cost of coveragethat the corporation was taking on.

            Mr. Speaker, in looking at the recommendations of the PublicUtilities Board, it very clearly demonstrates to us why it wasthe proper thing to do in referring these types of rates to thePublic Utilities Board, because it clearly references the factthat we need to make sure of what is required, that the level ofcoverage in this province is correct and adequate and make surethat no increases are brought forward that do not reflect theactual costs of the claims that have been incurred.

           

* (1345)

 

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, my next question is, talkingabout costs, why did the government interfere in the MPIC requestto limit agency fees?  How can you interfere on behalf of thebrokers, but not on behalf of the consumers of Manitoba?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the corporation isundergoing a major review of the Autopac agents compensationpackage as we bring forward Autopac 2000.  That is the fair andpractical manner in which they have brought forward theirpresentation to the agents, so that as they review thatcompensation package and as they change the entire method ofwhich we do business with the public and with the agents, thosechanges will be incorporated.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, my final question is for theMinister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh).  I would ask theMinister of Consumer Affairs if she at least will act on behalfof the consumers of Manitoba who are now being asked to payoutrageously high increases in Autopac rates, given the fact thatthere are so many Manitobans who have not got a job‑‑they arelosing their jobs‑‑and given the fact that incomes are decliningin this province.  Will this minister at least stand up on behalfof the consumers?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, that demonstrates the lack of acumenon that side of the House.  They are asking that we now run thecorporation into the ground in order that we not reflect the realcost of insurance.

              

Poverty Rate

Provincial Increase

 

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, I want to ask some questions on behalf of those peoplewho cannot afford an automobile, the genuine poor of the provinceof Manitoba.

            On December 13, 1991, the Premier, in his speech to thisHouse, said that he was willing to work co‑operatively with alllevels of government on any programs designed to eradicatepoverty with respect to the children of our province, anyprograms whatsoever.

            Can the First Minister of the province tell us, if that washis genuine desire less than a year ago, why was child poverty,which for two years in a row is worst in this province of anyother province in this nation, including Newfoundland, not evenmentioned in his Speech from the Throne?

           

 (1350)

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I would point out thatthe figures which the Leader of the third party is referring toas being for two years in a row date back to 1990, before thespeech that I gave that she references.  As I said earlier, thisgovernment took action during the past year and raised welfarerates in this province at a rate of 3.6 percent last year, whichwas greater than any province but one in the country and, inaddition to that, brought in additional income assistance fordisabled, $60 a month, which is rising to $70 a month inJanuary.  In addition to that, we used a monthly supplement toreplace the provincial tax credit, but we know that this is notenough, and we have said‑‑[interjection]

            Mr. Speaker, the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), if herLeader allows her, will be able to ask a question later.  I amsure that we on this side would be happy to respond to herquestion.  All she has to do is convince her Leader that it isher opportunity to speak.

            We on this side have indicated that we must continue tosearch for ways to improve the economy so that we do not justhave people relying on government social programs for support,and that is in the report that was released that she is quotingfrom the newspaper article on, the report by the National Councilof Welfare that the long‑term goal has to be work on the economy.

            That is what the throne speech is all about, is improving theeconomy so that people do not need only to be dependent onwelfare, social allowances and provincial government for theirsubsistence, that they must have the opportunity to go andimprove their own circumstances, and only through a healthiereconomy will we be able to accomplish that.

 

Social Assistance

Food Allowance

 

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, the Premier likes projections.  Well, I think that heshould take a look at the projection of the National Council onWelfare.  The projection of the National Council on Welfare isthat the figures on poverty will be worse for '91 and worse againin 1992 than they were in 1990.  At the same time, thisgovernment has made it an unfortunate circumstance that foodbudgets will be cut for those 93 percent more people on welfarein the city of Winnipeg.

            How can this Premier justify less money for food for thechildren already suffering and living below the poverty line?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  As I indicated, our provincialgovernment increased welfare rates by some 3.6 percent, which wasthe second highest in the country last year, and again by therate of inflation this year.  In addition to that, the member maybe aware of the national program, the federal program, entitled:Brighter Futures, which is to add support to the children.[interjection]

            Mr. Speaker, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is on hiscampaign box, and perhaps he would like to give the answer to hisLeader because he does not seem to want to listen to my answers.

 

Social Assistance

Food Allowance

 

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, the government's offloading to the City of Winnipegamounts to some $5.6 million in money that should have gone tosupport the 93 percent additional plus those already on socialassistance.  That money is used for food.

            How does the Premier of this province think that singleparent moms, who suffer from the greatest poverty levels in thisnation and in this province, are supposed to feed their kids?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status ofWomen):  I would really like to respond and ask the Leader of theSecond Opposition party to get her facts straight.

            There is not one single mom who will receive any less underthe new system that has been put in place than before.  Allsingle mothers in the province of Manitoba are on provincialwelfare, not on city welfare, and they will receive a 3.6 percentincrease in funding as a result of this government's decision.

           

Bill 70  Impact on the City of Winnipeg

 

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, there is no limit tothe hypocrisy of the Filmon government who in their throne speechcriticized the federal government for offloading expenses to theProvince of Manitoba and at the same time have offloaded millionsof dollars to the City of Winnipeg.  Regrettably, the Minister ofFamily Services denied on April 13 that this would happen.

            Now that the minister has announced the regulations to Bill70, will this minister admit that is the effect of Bill 70,offloading millions of dollars of expenses to the City ofWinnipeg?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Theintent of Bill 70 is to standardize the intake procedures and therates across this province.  We have many municipal corporationswhere the rate was below the provincial rate.  We had twomunicipal jurisdictions where the rate was higher.  Bill 70 willallow for one rate across the province, and municipalcorporations at their own expense have the ability to give higherrates if they wish.

            I would like to point out the many other enhancements that wehave added to the social allowances program in addition to the3.6 percent.  Recently we announced the ability for certainrecipients to keep their health card as they make their way fromsocial assistance into the work force, I think a very progressiveway of allowing people to leave social allowances and get intothe work force, something that my honourable friend has failed tocomment on.

            We have also increased the supplement for the disabled.  Thiswas a new initiative last year.  We have been able to increasethat by $10 a month this year.  These are just two of the manyreforms that we have brought in in the last two years.

Mr. Martindale:  Mr. Speaker, why has this minister offloadedexpenses and forced the City of Winnipeg to pick up millions ofdollars of expenses, since we know that Manitoba has the secondhighest rate of poverty in Canada?  We have the second highestrate of poverty for families and the highest rate of childpoverty.

            How can this minister offload millions of dollars of expensesto the City of Winnipeg which may force more people to becomedependent on food banks and soup kitchens and force familiesdeeper into poverty, deprivation and hopelessness?

Mr. Gilleshammer:  Mr. Speaker, the number of people living indifficult circumstances in Manitoba and in other provinces acrossCanada is a concern of all governments.  We have seen with therecession an increased number of people added to the socialallowance rolls right across this country.

            Again I would point out that we have the third lowestincidence of citizens accessing social allowances across thecountry.  We also have the sixth highest social allowance ratesacross the country.  If the member is suggesting that Manitobashould have the highest rate, that is not in keeping with thecost of living across this country.  Manitoba is placed relativeto the cost of living, well positioned at sixth place with otherprovinces across this country.

            At the same time, we have also addressed many other issuesthat the member has raised in the last two years.  We haveincreased the liquid assets exemption, something that has beendiscussed by poverty groups and something we were able to act onlast year.  As well, we have dealt with the head of the householdissue, something that was a long‑standing issue that had not beendealt with through the '70s or the '80s, but something that wehave been able to deal with in recent months.  Those are againtwo more of the reforms that we have brought in in the last twoyears.

Mr. Martindale:  Why has this Minister of Family Services, byoffloading $5.6 million of expenses, forced the City of Winnipegto choose between cutting rates, especially for people infamilies, many of their rates were higher, especially forinfants, or to increase property taxes when everyone knows thatproperty taxes are a regressive form of taxation?

            Why is this minister forcing the City of Winnipeg into thatkind of choice?

Mr. Gilleshammer:  I can tell you that this government has haddifficult choices on raising taxes, and we have made thosedifficult decisions over the last five budgets.  I think that theCity of Winnipeg, all municipal corporations, have to make thosesame decisions.  These are tough times to be governing in, toughdecisions to make.  I am sure the City of Winnipeg will give itdue consideration and make the appropriate decision.

            Again, I would point out that besides increasing the rates by3.6 percent we have also dealt with a tremendous volumeincrease.  Last year we put an additional $40 million into oursocial allowances budget which we expended, and we overexpendedthat by another $40 million.

            The rates would seem to be appropriate when you compare themwith other provinces across Canada.  I think the reforms that wehave brought in have been very well received by the groups thatlobbied for additional rate increases and enhancements, thatlobby government regularly on that.  We have brought in at leasta half a dozen, if not eight of these enhancements, over andabove the general rate increase.

           

 (1400)

 

Grain Transportation Proposal

Tabling Request

 

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Speaker, the Crow benefit hashistorically been put in place to provide a level playing fieldfor producers to ship their grain to export markets, but thereare enemies to this proposal, some of them right here in thisLegislature.  The latest effort to dismantle this historicbenefit was made in an alarming proposal by the federalgovernment at the Agriculture ministers' meeting in Toronto onNovember 16 and 17.

            I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he receiveda copy of a draft proposal on grain transportation reform and, ifso, will the minister table that proposal in this Legislature sothat we all can see what is being proposed by the federalgovernment on this important issue?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, thequestion the member raises is an issue of grave importance to thegrain industry of western Canada and we all know the GATT processis moving along.  We all hope there is a resolution, and there isno question that it will create disciplines on the kinds ofsupport we put in place for our farm community.  It will have amajor impact, on particularly the WGTA as it is presently paid tothe producers.

            Certainly we also have issues like the pooling of the costson the Great Lakes, as to who is paying for them.  We know thatthe Alberta Wheat Pool and the Alberta government and theCanadian Wheat Board are certainly putting pressure on changingthat, and if it is changed without our involvement in theprocess, it will have negative impact on us.

            A proposal was brought to the Ministers of Agriculture acrossthe country called the Whithers proposal, commissioned by thefederal government, which we received at a meeting not too longago in Toronto.  From that we had a fair bit of discussion andput together a framework for further reform, which I have takenback to the stakeholders in this province.  I met two days afterI got back with about 40 different people representing 30different farm organizations to lay out those proposals and haveasked for a response from them.  I am receiving those responsesfrom those stakeholders and we will decide how to respond when weget all those responses in.

           

Government Support

 

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  This minister continues to use GATTas an excuse for change, Mr. Speaker.  The fact is that we have acopy of that draft and he should have tabled it in this Housewith the opposition in this House as well.  If he is going toconsult, consult with the opposition in this Legislature.  I havea copy to table.

            Does the minister support the proposal that would see thelifting of protection on the branchlines according to thatproposal and a tripling of the grain transportation rates on railover the next four years?  Does the minister support thoseproposals in that draft that was proposed to the ministers?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  As I indicated, Mr.Speaker, in my first response, we have asked our stakeholders,many and varied across Manitoba, to give a response, and we areawaiting all those responses to come in.  There are about 20 or30 issues in that paper, one of which the member has raised andcertainly if there is branchline abandonment there is significantimpact on the province.  There is no question about it.

            We have grave concern about what that impact will be, so weare in due process of analysis and the discussion will continue.We will continue to consult with the stakeholders in the provinceof Manitoba.  The member has a copy; I would welcome his commentson the draft proposal.

             

Consultations

 

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Speaker, the minister talksabout due process.  Then will he support the government ofSaskatchewan's position that they will not negotiate these kindsof draconian changes until there has been extensive consultationwith the producers throughout this province as was asked for bythe producers at transportation talks and meetings last year?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, as Ihave indicated in both my answers previously, we are involved inextensive consultations in an ongoing way and many groups havethanked us for that opportunity.  We do not take a knee‑jerkreaction this way or that way.  We are in continuousconsultation.  That process will not stop.  We will not take aknee‑jerk reaction like that member would like us to take.

           

Health Care System

Community-Based Services

 

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, my question is forthe Minister of Health.  When the minister released the ActionPlan for Health Reform last May, we said it was better late thannever.  We supported that plan in principle.  We in this partywanted the health care reform to succeed and therefore we wantedthe minister to succeed.  The progress has been very slow and wehave many more questions for the minister.  In fact, we gave theminister an advance copy of a question last week when we releasedthe report to the media.

            My first question is:  Will the minister provide more detailson the new community‑based services that will replace the bedswhich are going to be closed at St. Boniface as well as HealthSciences Centre?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I verymuch appreciate my honourable friend's continued support for theprocess of change in the health care system of Manitoba, becauseI think my honourable friend recognizes that that type of changethat we have proposed is essential to be undertaken if we aregoing to preserve medicare for the provision of health careservices to Manitobans and Canadians.

            Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend makes the case thatprogress to date has been quite slow.  I simply say that that isa matter of perspective, because in fact I have been buffeted atrecent occasions that the process is moving much too quickly bysome of those involved in the shift of services from our teachinghospitals to the community.  So I take my honourable friend'sobservation seriously, but I would suggest to him that theprocess of change is on target as we had announced May 14 in thetabling of our action plan document.

            The announcement 10 days ago of the 246 beds and theidentification of those beds at our two teaching hospitalsinvolve a process of retirement from service over the next fourmonths approximately, with replacement services being enhanced inthree community hospitals and the concurrent provision ofcommunity‑based services which my honourable friend I will sharewith him as they are in place and as the beds are retired fromservice.

Mr. Cheema:  Mr. Speaker, the health care reform has to succeed,because in this province and in this country we have no choicethan to have the health care reform.  The question is that tohave that success, we have to have an alternate way of services.

            Can the minister tell this House exactly what new servicesare going to be put in place to make sure those patients who aredisplaced will be provided care in the community?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, depending on the type of service beingprovided, the new services range from a reinforcement of ourContinuing Care program, a reinforcement of mental health serviceprovision in the community through enhancement to the crisisstabilization unit which is proposed for early next year, anincrease in the number of mobile crisis team individuals inservice to provide early intervention at the place of residencerather than admission to an acute psychiatric facility.

            Those types of services, although new to the system, are notnew in concept and build upon a success that we know is availablefrom a community‑based services basis, the redirection of somemillion dollars from our departmental expenditures in mentalhealth services three years ago to invest in community‑basedsupports which we know work and will serve the system well as,for instance, it changes to more community‑based, orientatedservices.

 

Obstetric Services

 

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, one of the majorconcerns from the parents as well as the physicians and the otherhealth care providers is that when you are transferring servicesfrom the teaching hospital to a given community hospital whatback‑up services for neonatal, for anesthesiology, for emergencytransfers will be put in place to make sure, for people who needthese services in their teaching hospital, they will beprovided?  Finally, who will be paying for those transfers?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I presumemy honourable friend is referring primarily to the issue ofobstetrics.  I think there has been a substantial amount of quiteopen discussion around the safety of obstetrics, both within ourteaching hospital environment and in the three communityhospitals, the Victoria, Grace and Misericordia.

            Mr. Speaker, I can say it no more eloquently than theadministration of Misericordia Hospital, who shared statistics ontheir experience over the last five years of a very safe birthingenvironment for women in their hospital facility, an environmentthat they believe, within existing resources, they cansubstantially add to, creating a win‑win situation across thesystem.

            The second piece of information that I know my honourablefriend will want and I will share with him is the review of theLDRP program at Victoria Hospital, where for about a quarter of amillion dollars less in spending in obstetrics, they haveincreased the number of deliveries by 20 percent.

            Mr. Speaker, the important point to remember here withVictoria General Hospital is that 20 percent increase was chosenby women to be there because they liked the environment, thesafety and the benefits of having that program and their birthingat Victoria Hospital.

 

* (1410)

 

Lockport, Manitoba

Tourism Promotion

 

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for theMinister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson).

            It now appears that the Lockport bridge will be closed formost of 1993, and this would effectively and unfortunatelydestroy the tourism industry in that region.

            My question to the minister is:  What action is he preparedto take to promote the tourism industry in the Lockport region?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation):Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the member that we are stillproceeding with negotiations with the federal government in termsof seeing whether we can get a plan in place.  The problem thatwe have faced as a province is that Public Works Canada has notapprised us of all the information that we require and certainlythat the merchants' association requires out there.

            We have ongoing meetings that are taking place as of todayand some more following this week, and we will try and resolvethe issue.

           

Lockport, Manitoba

Tourism Promotion

 

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, my question was to theMinister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

            What is he prepared to do to help the tourism industry inLockport when the bridge closes?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):Mr. Speaker, obviously the honourable member did not listen tothe answer from the Minister of Highways as it relates to theprospect of the bridge closing.

            In terms of particular programs that are available to theindividuals and businesses in the Lockport area, we have acurrent agreement with the federal government, a Canada‑ManitobaTourism Agreement that has various programs available in terms ofmarketing, product development and so on.  Certainly thebusinesses of that area have access to that program, as dobusinesses throughout Manitoba.  We will work with them toencourage that they use those programs to promote Lower FortGarry and other tourism attractions in that area, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dewar:  The government has already failed Selkirk very, verymiserably, Mr. Speaker.

           

Bridge Closure

 

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Will this minister then demand, incabinet, that his colleague the Minister of Highways (Mr.Driedger) meet soon with the Minister of Public Works to resolvethis issue?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation):Mr. Speaker, not to belittle the concern that the member has forhis constituents, but if he had really checked this out, two ofmy colleagues, along with representatives from the merchants'association, flew to Ottawa and met with the Minister of PublicWorks, Elmer MacKay, as well as with the Manitoba representative,the minister Jake Epp, and this is ongoing.

            Mr. Speaker, further to that, I thought that the member mighthave gotten up and sort of given accolades to my department fordoing the bridge job in his town of Selkirk, which basically wasappreciated much by the people out there, and we had the openingthere.

            As we did with Selkirk, we will try and do with Lockport as well.

           

Education System

Program Reduction Criteria

 

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  Mr. Speaker, my question is forthe Premier.

            The throne speech said that education and training are thekeys to unlock a world of opportunities and a future of economicgrowth and prosperity.  Yesterday on a TV news program, thePremier was justifying the proposed cuts to the Educationdepartment with the argument that he had not cut anything inEducation for five years.  Mr. Speaker, one can only assume thatthis is the serious discussion that goes around the cabinet tablein determining the priorities for cuts.

            My question is straightforward.  What is the criteria thecabinet is using to determine which programs and services will becut?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, the‑‑[interjection] Iwonder if the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) could hold hisenthusiasm for his leadership campaign and not try and answer thequestions of the member for Crescentwood.

Some Honourable Members:  Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to answer thequestions.  The members opposite do not show a great deal ofrespect for their colleague and her question.  It is a legitimatequestion, and I would like to answer it.

            The fact of the matter is that my response was that thisgovernment has not cut in Education, that despite all of thestatements to the contrary by members opposite we haveconsistently given increases to Education that are well beyondincreases in inflation even, that we have consistently shown thatEducation is a priority in our administration, and that when welook at serious financial issues as we do with lowering transfersfrom Ottawa with expectations that our revenues may not grow atall in this coming year, we have to look at all departments andask them to consider carefully their priorities.

            Nobody has suggested at this point that any figures that havebeen put out in a speculative story are accurate, and trying toanswer a question based on inaccurate speculation is not the wayto try and develop policy.  So the point that I was making andthe point that I will make is that until we come forward with atotal and complete analysis and review of all governmentdepartments, it is very foolish to speculate about cuts which arenot necessarily what the policy of this government will be.

Mr. Speaker:  Time for Oral Questions has expired.

 

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

 

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, may I have leave tomake a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

            December 1 is World AIDS Day.  Mr. Speaker, this year theWorld Health Organization has declared the theme for the WorldDay, A Community Commitment, to stress the need for communityaction in response to HIV infection and AIDS.

            It was only 10 years ago when HIV infected about nine to 11million people worldwide.  Mr. Speaker, by the year 2000 at least30 to 40 million persons will be infected with HIV infection.  Itis a very, very serious threat to the health of all the nations.Canada has done its fair share, and it is one of the fourcountries in the world which has given a lot of encouragement interms of financial aid as well as the community involvement.

            Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all the members to getinvolved and do whatever they can to make sure that this reallybecomes a community involvement and make sure that the people whohave this disease and their families and their friends and theirhealth care providers are given their due respect to make surethat we can achieve the real commitment, and also that willjustify the team for the WHO.  Thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  May I have leave to make anon‑political statement? [agreed]

            Mr. Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge on behalf of ourcaucus that today is World AIDS Day and ask all members to joinin publicly declaring our resolve to increase public awarenessabout HIV and AIDS and to strengthen our commitment to fightagainst this devastating epidemic.

            The red ribbon I am wearing today, Mr. Speaker, is anacknowledgment of today's special occasion, and it demonstrates acommitment to work with caregivers, community organizations andpeople with AIDS.  We know about the worldwide figures.  Here inManitoba, 350 people to date have been identified as HIVpositive, 37 in this year alone, and four of those are women,with some further research suggesting the numbers may actually bemuch higher than that.

 

* (1420)

 

            Mr. Speaker, HIV and AIDS continue on an increasing basis toaffect people of all ages from all walks of life and to haveprofound implications for individuals, their families andfriends, communities and the full range of health and humanservices.

            Mr. Speaker, community commitment, the theme of World AIDSDay, is alive and well here in