LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, December 14, 1992
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lillian Mae Jones, Peter Ash
and Dolores Bestvater and others, requesting the government of
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present the petition of A.L. Armstrong, R. Puznak, P. Lowe and
others, requesting the government of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the
petition of the honourable member for
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning descends
upon the
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children with Asthma
has long criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not
healthy for the general public and tends to aggravate the problems of asthma
sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble burning are
necessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some people in life‑threatening
situations; and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission Report on
Public Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems from Agriculture Crop
Residue and Peatland Burning," contained the recommendation that a review
of the crop residue burning situation be conducted in five years' time,
including a re‑examination of the necessity for legislated regulatory
control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
* (1335)
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
AND
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House.
Mr. Speaker, I have risen twice to provide members in
this House and Manitobans with information concerning the Manitoba Centre for
Health Policy and Evaluation.
On April 4, 1991, it was my pleasure to announce the
official opening of the centre, which is a world‑class health research
institute. On February 18, 1992, I
tabled a report entitled Manitoba Health Care Studies and their Policy
Implications.
Today I have received and am tabling An Assessment of How
Efficiently
As its title indicates, the study compared the length of
stay for patients in eight
The data used in the study was obtained from the Manitoba
Health Services Commission database for the fiscal years 1989‑90 and 1990‑91.
We believe this report will help hospitals identify
specific areas where the efficiency with which they discharge patients can be
improved. This is in keeping with our
plans outlined in "Quality Health for Manitobans: the Action Plan," which was introduced
on May 14 of this year.
The centre's report illustrates the amount of money
provided to hospitals in
We recognize that achieving efficiency is not an easy
task, and it will require the co‑operation of physicians, hospital
administrators and staff. We also
recognize that government has a responsibility to Manitobans whose taxes pay
for services and equipment in our hospitals.
They expect an appropriate number of hospital beds will be available and
that the beds will be utilized to meet their needs.
I will leave it to the researchers to explain their use
of data, how they compared factors affecting the length of stay, what diagnoses
they compared and how they drew their conclusion.
They will be in Room 254 at 3:15 this afternoon to go
through the report for members of this House, members of the media and anyone
else who is interested. However, in
reading the report, I noted one area of comfort for patients. The literature includes studies which
indicate that shorter patient stays do not have any adverse effect on the
success of the patient's care. Dr.
Brownell and Dr. Roos found that this can be demonstrated in one of the
Patients with psychoses who were discharged from the
hospital with the shortest length of stay were not readmitted to hospital any
more frequently than patients who were discharged from two hospitals which kept
their patients much longer. The average was
28 days compared to 19 days in the most efficient hospital. This successful use of the hospital should be
implemented across the system.
It is important to note the report provides feedback that
hospital administrators, working with care providers, can use to identify
specific areas in which length‑of‑stay efficiency can be improved.
* (1340)
The report says that depending on the approach used, more
efficient hospital practices could yield approximately 150 to 200 acute care
beds which could either provide treatment for more patients or allow bed
closures.
Reducing how long patients stay in hospital could play an
important role in maintaining the availability of acute health care in
We will review the recommendations of the report and work
with a committee to oversee efforts to improve efficiency at hospitals.
I am pleased to note these initiatives could enable us to
carry out the same number of procedures utilizing fewer acute care beds while
maintaining quality and access to care.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am confident the centre's
latest study will be very useful in assuring that our health care system
continues to meet the needs of Manitobans.
Thank you, Sir.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by first congratulating the Manitoba
Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation for its ongoing work in health care and
research pertaining to this policy field and specifically to acknowledge the
release today of the report on discharge of patients in
We welcome the invitation from the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) to take part in this afternoon's session, and we certainly intend
on being there so that we can learn more about this situation. We all recognize we have much to learn and
look forward to that opportunity.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to
acknowledge in this ministerial statement the reference to early discharge
being very much tied to alternatives in place, whether that be day surgery or
available chronic care, continuing care facilities and beds.
If there is one thing we have expressed concern about
continually over the last several weeks, and even before that, it is that in
fact this minister, this government is doing the opposite. Beds are being closed, beds are being
shuffled without those alternatives in place.
Here the minister has acted with great haste, put the system in
considerable chaos and confusion without relying on the benefit of such
valuable studies and such important research before making decisions.
It is important to note that while the minister is
willing to come forth in the House today and release this report, he is sitting
on a stack of studies, numbering well over 15 or 20, that were produced by his
advisory network on health care and his Urban Hospital Council.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been raising these
numerous studies and are anxious to receive the reports so that we can be more
constructive in our opposition. However,
the minister continues to sit on those studies and, in some cases, actually
acts directly in opposite to the recommendations of those studies. I refer specifically to a study done by the
advisory network dealing with obstetrics, wherein it is clearly indicated that
the recommendations that they are advising this minister of do not include eliminating
one of our acute care facilities and moving beds to community hospitals at this
point. They make a number of important
recommendations that need to be addressed before the whole system of obstetrics
is thrown up in the air and people are left in confusion and bewilderment
wondering if care will be there when it is needed.
Mr. Speaker, we would urge the minister to get on with
providing us with those reports so that we can then help ensure that we are
informed and so that the public of
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that while we appreciate
the odd time that the minister comes forward with some information, we know
from experience that what is clearly lacking is this information getting to the
public and opportunities being provided to the public for dialogue, for
questioning, for expressing their concerns.
Mr. Speaker, our offices have been bombarded with phone
calls and letters over the last several months because of the big changes the
minister is announcing and the fear and uncertainty that is growing in the
public. It was because of that that we
organized a number of forums so that we could hear
Mr. Speaker, at two meetings last week, over three
hundred people attended, and they all had one thing in common. They want to know what is happening. Is this really reform, or are these cutbacks
and not reform? Are we getting the whole
story, and how can we get more information?
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister today, take these
studies, take all the other studies, take his thoughts, take his plans, take
them to the people, get their feedback, get their advice and then act on those
findings.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to receive this report because, as the
history of this centre is, when the centre's first announcement was made in
this House, we supported a centre because we thought the centre has one of the
best people in this country and, more importantly,
Mr. Speaker, the question here is on the first page, that
it is very important for the people of
Mr. Speaker, I have not examined it fully, but we will
read this report, and if this report has to be used here, then the basic
fundamental question is, if we are going to use this report to provide more
services and then we can delay and we can cut the waiting period, then that
will help us in the long run. I would
certainly ask the minister to look at that aspect, which is a very positive
one.
The other issue I want to ask the minister, this centre,
as it has the reputation for the last number of years, we want him to expand
the role of the centre, to monitor what is happening to the health action
plan. Mr. Speaker, it is very
positive. We want the minister to be
very up front. I think, by releasing
this kind of statement, the government is showing a commitment, and we want him
to continue to move on that path.
Mr. Speaker, more importantly, we have to ensure in this
House and to the people of
So certainly we will ask the minister to follow with the
recommendations. Certainly we will be at
Room 254, and we will be asking some questions to the presenters. More importantly, people in
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we want our health action plan to
succeed. We want our health care to
survive, but we want the minister to continue to follow the direction they have
chosen for the last five years. Thank
you.
* * *
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report l991‑92 for
Government Services.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual Financial Statements of
Boards, Commissions and Government Agencies ended March 31, 1991. This has been distributed previously.
Secondly, under Chapter P230 of the Continuing
Consolidation of the Statutes of Manitoba, a statement as to fidelity bonds.
* (1350)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 13‑The Manitoba Employee
Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism): Mr. Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 13, The
Motion agreed to.
Bill 209‑The Public Health
Amendment Act
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton),
that Bill 209, The Public Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
sante publique, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a
first time.
Motion presented.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, this
legislation is being reintroduced again this session, because the matter of
adverse reactions to vaccines remains an ongoing and serious concern for many
Manitobans. I want to say in this short
statement of principle that all of us in the New Democratic Party accept that
immunization has been a major factor leading to the reduction of many diseases
and benefits the population as a whole.
However, there is significant evidence that immunization causes
disability and death in some healthy individuals. This legislation is based on the principle
that the risk of adverse reactions to vaccines must be reduced or
eliminated. It does so by requiring
mandatory reporting of adverse reactions so that we may have a body of
information to work from. It does so by
requiring information to all parents prior to vaccination so that the risks of
vaccine are truly known and people can be fully informed about possible adverse
reactions.
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
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Employment Creation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier.
In 1989, in March, the government promised in the
divestiture announcement they made with Repap, quote, a billion dollars of new
investment and some 500 new jobs that would be created in the
We have been watching the government's veracity on the
initial announcement change, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the security we had in
terms of the promises that were made. We
have watched the government change from:
This is the greatest deal that we have ever seen in
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr.
* (1355)
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware‑‑and, of course,
the question comes as a little surprise because the NDP were always opposed to
the divestiture of Manfor‑‑let me say that the commitment the
government entered into, the commitment was made by Repap who, given the
conditions of the industry at the time, were prepared to make that significant
investment of a million dollars, causing the creation of several hundreds of
jobs.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I am told and by what I read, I
believe, that because there have been losses in the industry of hundreds of
millions of dollars, a billion and a half over the last two years, because
financiers today will not lend to any forest products industry because of the
nature of the industry, there have been deferrals with respect to almost every
significant scaled operation, new operation within the industry.
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the veracity of the
statement. It was a commitment made by
Repap, not a commitment that the government could guarantee, because indeed we
did not guarantee a billion dollars.
Some provinces may have, maybe the former government may have guaranteed
a significant financing, but this government would not enter into that type of
agreement.
Mr. Doer: The minister will note that
financial institutions are dealing with companies that were dealing with the
new technology and not dealing with the old technology that was signed off by
this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and by this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
dealing with chlorine bleach, Mr. Speaker, something that we debated with the
minister some time ago in 1989 and 1990.
The minister will also know, Mr. Speaker, that his
statements in the Chamber, in the legislative committee, talking about the
ironclad guarantees that they had guaranteed in this contract, are somewhat
contradicted by the admissions of the minister here today.
Mr. Speaker, my further question to the minister is‑‑and
he says he is reading the media, et cetera, on this issue. I guess he also stated a couple of weeks ago
that he is going from being passive on his negotiations to aggressive in his
negotiations. The shares unfortunately for the Repap corporation have gone
below $2, something that I think will concern all of us. They had one of the largest declines of any stocks
on the Toronto Stock Exchange last week, I think the second greatest decline of
any stocks over a weekly basis.
What contingency plan does the government have on the
jobs and opportunities in
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am
dismayed also with the fall of the value of the shares. I have been engaged in discussions as recently
as Thursday last with the principals of Repap trying to determine as to what
contingencies they have in place. I am
led to believe that there is some portion of short selling with respect to
their shares. I am led to believe, of
course, that there are some market analysts who are betting as to the demise of
the company, but let me say, this is all within the marketplace. This is between buyers and sellers of shares,
and ultimately the market will determine the value that is placed on the
shares.
The member talks about contingencies. I am not going to divulge all of those
contingencies to him, because indeed we have, in our view, a bona fide
agreement. The contract still is between
Repap and ourselves, and to begin to share with him what might be our
contingencies would be unfair to that contract, it would be unfair to the
people of the
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, given the fact
that this minister and this Premier (Mr. Filmon) told us he had ironclad
guarantees in the first contract, given the fact that even the Auditor has to
write up the fact of the $78 million allegedly that this government placed in
the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, you will understand why we have pointed
questions for a minister and a Premier who made all these "ironclad
guarantees." We can see no fruition
of those promises after the election that the government made before the
election.
I would like to further then ask‑‑and I do
not want the minister to divulge all the details of the contingency plan.
Obviously, I would not want to prejudice his bargaining position, especially
now that he has gone from passive to aggressive in his negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask: Do they have a contingency plan to deal with
the jobs and economic opportunities across northern
* (1400)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address most of the preamble, but I am sure you will not give me
enough time. I would like to indicate to
the member, and to all those who are taking some interest in this discussion
that the government in its wisdom, and I would say wisely so, decided to
include the southern wood cutting area.
Thank goodness for that because today there are in place 50 or 60 jobs
as a result of that.
The member seems to forget that 90,000 jobs have been
lost in this industry. Of course, he
would try and pretend that is not happening‑‑90,000 jobs in the
forest products industry over the past two years. Mr. Speaker, you have an industry not an
awful lot different from the mining industry in
Mr. Speaker, the member asks what contingency plans are
in place. Again, I am not preaching the
demise of Repap Enterprises today. I
fully expect that company is going to survive its present difficulty. I can tell you right today that Repap
Mr. Speaker, there still are 800 people‑‑600
to 700 to 800 people being employed today as a result of the activity of Repap
and workers working together. So let the
member not say for one moment that we do not have a good operation in place,
that we do not have a good corporate citizen, that we do not have in place
activity that today is not costing the taxpayers in the
Shoal
Mining Exploration
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, the failure of this government's economic policy is most
evident in the environmental areas.
My question is for the Minister of Environment. I assume the minister is aware that Kenora
miners and prospectors will begin a mining exploration within the
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, we received information that a meeting was being held on
November 30, and staff attended that meeting.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, we do have
considerable concern that has been going on for quite some time with the
I had occasion to speak personally to Mr. Wildman, the
minister of mines for
I note as well, Mr. Speaker, that the concerns probably
are raised today because there was a press conference by the Winnipeg Water
Protection Group held in this building.
I hope they made it very clear that it was an initiative of my office
that they were notified that this action was in fact taking place.
Management Plan
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, given the commitment made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) last
spring‑‑[interjection] The Premier of Manitoba is the Premier I am
referring to.
Mr. Speaker, given that the Premier of Manitoba has
committed to basin‑wide management last spring, when will the minister
bring in basin‑wide management prohibiting development on this side, on
the Manitoba side of Shoal Lake, across to the Ontario border?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, as a matter of fact, and one which
I think the people of
Mr. Speaker, in that deferral, I made it very clear that
if we were unable to see some results in terms of basin‑wide management
that would provide the protection that we needed, we would be quite prepared to
take unilateral action and put those regulations in place.
Mining Exploration
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, will the minister table correspondence he has had with the
government of
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, this particular mining proposal was brought forward in what
I have to refer to as unseemly haste. I
would assume that the
It has always been our view and we will continue to press
the position that, first of all, we do not want this type of development within
the region that would potentially impact on the drinking water. Secondly, if any proposals are brought
forward, they should in fact include information and hearings in this province.
Shoal
Mining Exploration
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.
Mr. Speaker, whether it has been Rafferty‑Alameda
or Conawapa or
Mr. Speaker, what has happened or has not happened since
November 17, 1990‑‑[interjection] Well, I hear my friend saying
about research‑‑November 17, 1990, Premier Rae was the newly
elected Premier of Ontario.
Can the minister tell us what has or has not happened
since that time when Premier Filmon said after a meeting with him, quote,
Winnipeggers might never have to worry about commercial developments
endangering the quality of water from
Has this minister gone beyond Mr. Wildman and asked Mr.
Rae? What has happened to his word, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people of the city of
Mr. Speaker, the Consolidated Professor proposal was the
issue on which most of this debate was originally predicated. It was the reason that the basin‑wide
management was contemplated, because we knew that this whole area lies within a
greenbelt, and there is a great deal of potential for development, development
such as is now being proposed in terms of this exploratory shaft. It is certainly our intention to make sure
that the
Mr. Edwards: I think the
minister has the wrong phone number. Again he has called the wrong party,
because we have represented that seat since 1986, Mr. Speaker, in Kenora, the
Liberal Party has.
Mr. Speaker, again for the same minister‑‑[interjection]
1986, we have represented it; Frank Miclash is the MPP.
Joint Public Hearings
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, again for the same minister: On February 22, 1991, the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) told Manitobans that Premier Rae was, and I quote, very amenable to the
prospect of having a
What can the minister tell us about this order, this
permit that was issued last week, and in his discussions which he says started
November 30, was there ever any discussion about joint hearings, about
Manitobans being involved, about any hearings, Mr. Speaker?
* (1410)
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the difficulties that we have experienced in
dealing with this issue. The
Mr. Speaker, my concern is that we were attempting to
work with the native population in the area when they said that they wanted to
be part of a larger co‑management basin‑management plan for the
area. I think we would be well served,
as the province of Ontario originally contemplated, that there would be a
larger agreement between the two provinces but would also include the
aboriginal interest in that area, because basin‑wide management includes
more than just the province of Manitoba and the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, those plans are slow in coming, and in the
interim, we will be dealing and dealing strongly with these types of proposals,
because the first line of defence is to make sure that these projects do not
proceed to a point where they can have any impact on the water.
Mr. Edwards: I will say they are
slow in coming, Mr. Speaker. This minister has been on this issue for over
three years. I will say they are slow in
coming.
Management Plan
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
My final question for the same minister:
Will he now acknowledge that his lying‑down‑and‑taking‑it‑on‑the‑chin
approach with
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would not be proposing that we bring
in the United Nations to negotiate between Ontario and Manitoba, but the
concern that we need in putting in place water‑quality management and
basin‑wide management where if we can put in place a plan where we have
the two provinces agreeing to participate in management on alternate sides of
the boundary, between the two provinces, that would in fact be precedent
setting within this country.
Mr. Speaker, we are also making every effort to be sure
that the federal authorities, the federal Department of Environment, the federal
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs are involved in these discussions. Because if the Province of Ontario is
unwilling to take the appropriate action to protect our drinking water, then it
seems to me that the federal government will have to become the regulatory
authority that will give the protection that we need and to support the
position that this province has taken from the start, that we cannot and have
not been shown that this is a potential area for development without having
some impact on the province of Manitoba's drinking water.
Health Care System
Obstetric Services Consolidation
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
I would like to ask the minister today if he can tell
this House and the people of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
No, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I will
table a document presented by his own department at recent stakeholder meetings
on health care reform indicating Phase III of the minister's plans.
My question to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
is: Will he now confirm that his
government's long‑term plan is to consolidate all labour, delivery and
post partum services, all obstetrics, all neonatal care services into one centre,
and could he provide us with the rationale for such a plan?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend asks me to confirm something that is happening in the exact
opposite.
Now I know that logic confounds my honourable friend, but
my honourable friend the New Democratic Party critic must surely by now be
aware of the LDRP program‑‑labour, delivery, recovery, post partum
at Victoria General Hospital, wherein the 22 beds that were closed by the NDP
unilaterally, without consultation back in 1987, in the good old days when my
honourable friend planned health care and made decisions behind closed doors
without consultation, unilaterally and secretively, were reopened as a labour,
delivery, post partum unit at Victoria General Hospital.
They reopened that with a quarter of a million dollars
less budget and have increased the number of safe deliveries and happy babies
and mothers and fathers and parents by 20 percent, Sir.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, it is
the lack of logic in the minister's thinking and in this plan that is exactly
why we are asking the question.
Let me ask the Minister of Health, whether this
consolidation into one centre is finalized or in the planning stages, it still
begs the question, why is the minister moving 300 deliveries from tertiary
hospitals to community facilities now at questionable savings, and despite the
advice of his own advisory network, when the longer term plan‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I
guess maybe I have to take my honourable friend into my office and sit down and
have a nice, long fireside chat with her so she understands what is happening,
that health care is changing, that the old‑think that my honourable
friend is locked into is not appropriate.
It is not appropriate in
Mr. Speaker, part of that progressive reform is the
example I have given to my honourable friend, of
Social Assistance
Child-Tax Benefit
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, in October of this year, Winnipeg Harvest provided food to
8,500 families, approximately 30,000 in total, up from 7,500 a year ago.
This morning, the Community Coalition on Unemployment
presented the deputy minister with 3,500 postcards saying, food banks are not
the solution to poverty, jobs are. The
Deputy Premier's response was to blame the problem on the world‑wide
recession, suggesting there is nothing that this government is willing to do.
Well, there is something that this government can
do. Will the Minister of Family Services
at the very least promise, give us a commitment now, before the House adjourns,
not to deduct the new child tax benefit from social assistance recipients?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the member for Burrows has asked
a number of questions within there. I
want to tell you that the commitment from our department is to provide that
safety net for Manitobans who need that sort of assistance.
We have consistently increased the social allowance rates
far more than other provinces have. We
have the third lowest incidence of social allowance recipients across this
country. At the same time, our rates are
compatible, where
There are still other decisions that have to be made, and
the government will be making those decisions in due course.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, once
again the minister did not answer the question.
Will the minister, at the very least, do what
* (1420)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker,
I indicated to the member privately last week and in the
House last week, when this question was raised by the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mrs. Carstairs), that there are certain aspects of changes with our
relationship with the federal government that are under review. Before we make a decision, we want to be sure
that we have sufficient time to analyze these.
Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister
of Family Services then follow the lead of the
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, what
the member is referencing is that all provinces are looking at this new child
tax benefit. Some provinces have made decisions, and others are in the process
of making that decision. I can assure
the member, once decisions have been made, they will be communicated
appropriately.
Social Assistance Food Allowance
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Family Services, as
well.
Mr. Speaker, there is a group in this province which
calls itself the nutrition and food security network of
What these people have reported in this study is very
significant. They have indicated that
the province does not provide enough money in its social assistance budget for
a nutritionally balanced diet for the infants of the
In light of this new information provided by these
experts, some of whom are employed by this government, will the minister change
his policy with regard to the funding of social assistance of the City of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Mr. Speaker, when we brought in Bill 70 last year, we had an opportunity
to debate that legislation here in the Legislature. It was approved by this
Legislature to standardize the ability to access social allowances across this
province and also to give government the ability to standardize those
allowances. The member is well aware
that there were a number of jurisdictions across this province that paid social
allowances below the provincial rate.
About 60‑65 percent of the municipal corporations paid the social
allowances at the provincial rate, and we have implemented that legislation.
We will be going forward with that, come April 1, to have
one level of social allowance across Manitoba, but at the same time, municipal
corporations have the ability to increase that, if that is their wish, at their
cost.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the
City of
Can the minister tell this House why the province will
not recognize the needs of infants in their establishment of social assistance
rates?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, in
bringing forward the legislation that was encompassed in Bill 70, we had a
process in place where representatives of the City of Winnipeg, representatives
of UMM and MAUM came together on a committee called the SARC committee and held
a number of meetings and hearings, dialogued with the municipal councillors
across this province and brought forward to government the SARC report which
recommended that we go to one level of assistance.
The member is asking that we increase the social
allowances that are paid to individuals in
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows full well that 89 percent of the social assistance recipients
live in
Child-Tax Benefit
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Can the minister tell this House today if he is going to at least guarantee
that social assistance recipients can keep all of their money that they will
receive on the new child tax benefit plan from the federal government without
having to pay and provide even less nutritional value for their infants than
they are presently providing?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
That is similar to the question asked by the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), and the answer is the same.
CP Rail Customer Service Operations
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker,
we have received word that CP Rail is moving to downsize their 360‑employee
Canadian customer service operations while centralizing the remaining 212
jobs.