LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, March 11, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this Chamber on a matter
of privilege, and I am raising this matter at the first opportunity and
occasion in which I have to raise this matter
after some information was drawn to my attention this morning.
Mr. Speaker, this
is a very serious matter and after I complete my comments, I will be following
my comments with a substantive motion in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, we
in this House, in order to discharge our duties, often ask questions to provide
information not only to ourselves but to the public. The information we receive from the
government and ministers is crucial to our roles as parliamentarians.
There is much confusion in the community
regarding health care. The strategy of
the government is to blame those who are asking the questions. One of the areas of greatest concerns in
health care is the area of services provided to children. Part of the problem is the government has not
outlined to the public what is happening in children's services.
In the fall, the
government announced the consolidation of children's services to Children's
Hospital. At the same time it seemed
that a portion of children's services would remain at St. Boniface Hospital and
some surgery would remain at community hospitals. That was changed with no public announcement,
and it was decided that all services requiring hospitalization would be moved
to Children's Hospital.
Next, without
formal announcement, the government also decided that children's surgery would
be moved from community hospitals to Children's Hospital. It was not made clear whether day patient
surgery would also be consolidated.
We received calls
in our office, and I personally received calls from parents and doctors. We received calls because these same parents
had phoned the minister's office and had been told one thing, and they phoned
the deputy minister's office and the head of health care reform and were told
another thing.
On March 3, I
very specifically asked the minister, and I will quote, Mr. Speaker from
Hansard whether: " . . . outpatient
surgery for children will also be consolidated at the Health Sciences
Centre? What is it? Will outpatient surgery also be consolidated
or not?"
That very same
day the minister replied to me, after much verbiage, and I quote, the minister
said: ". . . but outpatient services
will continue in most, if not all, of the locations currently, including St.
Boniface, Victoria‑‑"
The answer was
clear. I did not have to ask it again,
because the minister had given me a precise answer. I sent copies of these answers, Mr. Speaker,
to people in the community. Our job was
done, or so I thought.
On March 4, the
next day, less than 24 hours after the minister had made those statements in
the House, a senior departmental official in the minister's office sent a
letter to the community hospitals dated March 4, for Tim Duprey, Executive
Director, Hospitals and Winnipeg Community Health Services saying, and I
quote: The transfer of all surgical
patients, in‑ and outpatients zero to 14 years of age, who are presently
admitted to St. Boniface Hospital and the Winnipeg community hospitals, will be
admitted to Children's Hospital.
That is what the
minister's official said the very next day. The official said that.
Mr. Speaker, the
minister said one thing and it is clear he had already made a different
decision. This is an indication of what
is wrong with health care reform. It is
not the only example, but I am sure that for me since I have been Health critic
it is clearly the most blatant example.
The minister thinks he is pulling one over the public and over members
of this House by his cute answers in the House, but he does not do anyone a
service when he misleads us in this House.
More importantly, what are the parents and the patients to say? What are they to know when the minister does
that?
Now, Mr. Speaker,
this morning in my office I received a letter from a doctor, and I want to
quote from this letter. This is when the
matter was brought to my attention, and I will quote. It is from Dr. Stranc from the
* (1335)
Mr. Speaker, I
must establish a prima‑facie case.
The minister very specifically answered a very specific question when he
knew his department had adopted a different course of action, unless in the
subsequent 18 hours somehow the minister and his department had reached a different
conclusion. By reading the letter, it is
clear they had not.
Prima facie‑‑the
minister said one thing in this House and his official sent out a letter saying
100 percent opposite, different. He said
outpatient surgery would remain at the community hositals when his own
department had already decided, and himself, that it would be shifted to Health
Sciences Centre.
Mr. Speaker, it
was not fair. It is not fair to the
public. It is indicative of the problems happening in health reform. He ought to do more than apologize. He ought to clarify and set the record
straight.
I move, seconded
by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), that the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) be requested to apologize to the House for providing false
information to the House on March 3, 1993.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
Beauchesne's tells us that, of course, a matter of privilege is the sum of the
peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the
high court of Parliament and by members of each House individually.
Mr. Speaker, we
are also told that a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in our
Legislature, should be dealt with with a motion. I acknowledge that the member has provided a
motion. We are also forewarned that a
genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken
seriously by the House.
Mr. Speaker,
those issues met, I would say that the prima‑facie case has not been
established by the member opposite.
Indeed, we are told within our Rules that has to be established. Furthermore, under Section 31.(1), we are
told, "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts,
does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."
Mr. Speaker, I
submit that is exactly‑‑as I listened to the argument put forward
by the member, it seems to be exactly what has happened in this case.
Mr. Speaker,
because the member in my view has failed to establish a prima‑facie case,
I would submit that the motion that he has put is out of order and should not
be considered by the House at this time.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I share with the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in terms of the
concerns one has as an opposition member when we put forward a question and we
anticipate that the answer will be forthright and deal with the question that
has been asked of the minister. In fact,
when a minister makes a statement we assume that what he is telling us is
correct.
As the member for
Kildonan has pointed out, this has not been the case. The concern I have is that if we see this as
a matter of privilege, then it is a question of how many matters of privilege
could we have when there are numbers of different pieces of information that
come across our desks that imply that the facts the minister might have given
today or yesterday might not necessarily be in keeping with some information
that I get tomorrow.
That is where I
have a bit of a problem with the matter of privilege even though I agree with
what the member for Kildonan is saying in terms of the frustration. As an MLA, you want to have the
correspondence, you want to know what the minister is telling you, but
Beauchesne's is fairly clear when it says answers to the questions should be as
brief as possible and deal with the matter raised and should not provoke
debate.
Well, debate over
facts, Mr. Speaker, I believe is what the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and
the government House leader‑‑and I am sure if the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) were to stand up, he would give another side of the
story. I sympathize with the member for
Kildonan, because I too have had that frustration and I think a good number of
opposition members have had that very same frustration.
I would suggest
to you that in fact this quite possibly might have been a question for Question
Period. I am not too sure, given the
serious nature of a matter of privilege, that it would qualify for a matter of
privilege, but would suggest to you that you take it under advisement and come
back to the House, because it is an important ruling as it will have an effect
on other potential matters of privilege.
* (1340)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, indeed,
the government House leader is correct.
There are some facts which are not in dispute. The member has obviously raised this matter
at the first available opportunity. He
received correspondence from a doctor this morning, pointing to the clear
evidence that the minister did not only mislead the House, but also misled
members of the public and particularly health care professionals who are trying
to deal with the types of decisions that this minister and this government is
making under the guise of health care reform on a daily basis. That aspect of the matter of privilege has
clearly been satisfied.
Your job, Mr.
Speaker, is to determine whether there is a prima‑facie case. I would refer you to the clear indication in
Beauchesne's that a question of privilege is partly a matter of fact, and I
think the facts are clear. The minister
did mislead the House and partly of law in this case, in particular the law of
contempt of Parliament. I would argue
that what we are dealing with here is not a dispute over the facts. That indeed is clearly referenced in
Beauchesne's as not constituting a matter of privilege and indeed we have many
Speakers' rulings. I will not quote them
extensively, but I have researched today a number of Speakers' rulings that
have clearly established that fact, including a number of rulings of your own
over the last number of years.
Mr. Speaker, this
goes beyond that. We have a case here
where the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) does not have to answer
questions. In fact, I know the Minister
of Health exercises his right not to answer questions in Question Period on a
regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, we
are not dealing here with a confusion in terms of the policy. Very clearly the government has developed a
policy in this regard. What we are
dealing with is a situation where the minister, for whatever purpose, in this
House is making statements in response to a very specific question, very
specific statements that are very clearly intended to deliberately mislead
members of this House and members of the public.
That is why this
is not a dispute over the facts. The
facts are clear. The minister misled the
House. The key decision, Mr. Speaker, I
think you have to make is the degree to which this does indeed represent
contempt of parliament. In doing so, one
obviously has to look at the context and the fact that this is not the first
time that members of this side of the House have expressed concern about the
inability of this minister to provide those kind of direct answers, not just to
us but to health care professionals, about exactly what is happening with this
so‑called process of health care reform.
Mr. Speaker, when
you have such clear evidence between the minister on the one hand and the
minister's own department and doctors, patients and members of the public on
the other hand, I would suggest there is only one conclusion that you can
reach. Indeed the minister is showing contempt to this House, to health care
professionals and to members of the public.
I would suggest that means, indeed, there is a prima‑facie case of
privilege and this minister should be asked to apologize to this House and
members of the public for showing that contempt.
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their input into this matter.
Indeed, a matter of privilege is a very serious matter.
The honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has presented a motion to the House. I will, as I have done in the past, take this
matter under advisement. I will peruse
all the remarks that have been put on the record here today, and I will come
back to the House with a ruling.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Ann Ozunko, Alex Ozunko, Linda Stannard and others, requesting the government
of
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Heather McIvor, Tamara Walsh, Lynn Bengert and others, requesting that the
government of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the
provincial government has not implemented the major recommendation of the
Kopstein report which was to bring in no‑fault auto insurance; and
WHEREAS over four
years ago, the Kopstein report found that if Manitoba adopted no‑fault
auto insurance it could have saved $40 million; and
WHEREAS over two
years ago, a second government report found that over $63 million could be
saved if Manitoba adopted the Quebec plan of no‑fault auto insurance; and
WHEREAS the
provincial cabinet this year after being extensively lobbied, rejected a
business plan capping insurance commissions that would have saved
WHEREAS the rates
for auto insurance are now being raised on average by 9.5 percent to 14.5
percent when the inflation is less than 1.3 percent making this the highest
actual increase in the history of this province; and
WHEREAS one in
five car drivers in this province will now face increases of 13.5 percent; and
WHEREAS the
provincial government has not implemented other aspects of the implementation
of the Kopstein report.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be
pleased to request the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings) to consider
implementing no‑fault auto insurance, capping insurance commissions, and
bring in other recommendations of the Kopstein report that the government has
delayed acting on.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Annual Report 1991‑92 of Manitoba Industry, Trade and Tourism and the
Fitness and Sport Directorates.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the Third Quarter Report of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation for
the period ending December, 1992.
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
On behalf of all
honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1350)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Consolidation of Health Services
Minister's Clarification
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I spoke with some parents of
children, who get surgery at some of the community hospitals, this morning and
they are still not sure what is happening with respect to outpatient services.
Can the minister
tell me how he can reconcile his statements of March 3 in this Chamber when he
told this House that ". . . outpatient services will continue in most, if
not all, of the locations currently, including St. Boniface, Victoria‑‑",
with that of his official Tim Duprey, executive director, the very next day
when this official said: The transfer of
all surgical patients who are presently admitted at St. Boniface Hospital and
the Winnipeg community hospitals will be admitted to the Children's Hospital.
How does he
reconcile those two statements, Mr. Speaker, that in Hansard and that of his
official?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with very little difficulty in
fact, Sir, because, as I have indicated in answers to my honourable friend in
the House, that the consolidation of inpatient pediatric services will be
consolidated from the respective community hospitals and St. Boniface to the
Children's Hospital for the provision of inpatient services.
Sir, that will be
accomplished by several initiatives which have recently been completed. I will share these with my honourable friend
because I know that he wishes to have full information provided to all
Manitobans.
One of the
initiatives that we have undertaken in order to accommodate this shift is, for
instance, Sir, to upgrade a fifth operating theatre at the Children's Hospital
at the Health Sciences Centre complex.
That will allow us, with the additional operating time dedicated to the
existing four surgical suites, to accommodate all inpatient surgical needs in
the city of
I know that this
is a confounding process for my honourable friend because he was not part of
government when Children's Hospital was envisioned, but this has been the
entire planning thrust since 1975, to consolidate pediatric services for
children to a centre of excellence, namely the Children's Hospital.
Sir, that process
will happen. In the attempt to make that
process happen, Dr. Aggie Bishop who is the head of pediatric services at the
Children's Hospital is in consultation with surgeons giving pediatric services
to assure that they have admitting privileges.
In the instance of the surgeon referred to, that individual has, as I
understand it, admitting privileges in both Victoria and the Health Sciences
Centre.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question. I will ask it again.
For the parents,
the patients and the surgeons, is outpatient surgery to be consolidated from
the community hospitals to Children's Hospital as per the letter of his
official, or is it not, as per the minister's own comments in this House, March
3? [interjection]
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friends over there say, it is
simple, and Mr. Speaker, I will deal with that later.
Mr. Speaker, let
me give my honourable friends some sense of the kind of service provision we
are talking about in terms of surgery cases 1991‑92, which is the last
full year that we have statistics available.
Children's
Hospital provided surgical procedures, both inpatient and day surgery‑‑6,571
cases out of a total of 8,731. Right now, without the consolidation from
To provide, Sir,
those consolidations, we are opening six of the 11 beds which have never been
opened since Children's Hospital was commissioned, in order to accommodate the
additional inpatient services.
Now, that is the
first transition of service from inpatient surgery in those community hospitals
to Children's. Currently, we do 75
percent of day surgery at Children's Hospital.
Over time, I believe that there will be a natural flow of the balance,
but the issue, Sir, is the inpatient services which are being consolidated with
full accommodation of children, families and the professionals delivering those
services.
* (1355)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that parents
and children are concerned, given that answer?
Mr. Speaker, I
ask for a third time, given that his own official said that this will take
place April 1, 1993, will the minister tell us, will outpatient surgery
presently performed at the community hospital be transferred to Children's
Hospital as per his own official's letter and contrary to what he said in this
Chamber on March 3.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the letter
says, acute care services will be provided at the Children's Hospital.
Let us not
forget, while my honourable friend the new critic for the New Democrats was
standing up and posing as wisdom, he made this statement, and I will give you
the date that it was made, CKND TV, February 16, 1993. Here is a direct quote from the member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak): The government
has not been up‑front in terms of its bed closures and has not been clear‑‑[interjection]
Well, I hope he is still clapping when I finish, Sir‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Orchard: Oh, now they are going to drown me out.
The member for
Kildonan went on to say: ‑‑has
not been clear as to the fact that St. Boniface Hospital will completely close
to children‑‑Mr. Speaker, including emergency services, which would
have endangered children with that kind of false statement out there as fact.
And, Sir, that is
what we have been correcting in the last three to four weeks. If anybody owes an apology to the people of
Manitoba‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Canadian Economy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance often
complains that the opposition picks out one economic statistic without looking
at the whole economic picture. I have
analyzed
Mr. Speaker, my
question to the Minister of Finance is very straightforward. Why has
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): The simple answer,
Mr. Speaker, is, thank God we came to power in '88 and salvaged this province
from the taxation policies of the members opposite. I do not have to remind the member that his
government, indeed his colleagues the ministers of Finance through the '80s
ripped away, from disposable income, $800 million from the people of this
province.
Of course, what
the Conference Board is saying now in terms of '93 is, it expects Manitoba
disposable income to increase by $204 for every man, woman and child in the
province after adjusting for inflation‑‑fifth best among the
provinces and the best outside of Atlantic Canada, would result in $224 million
in take‑home pay. The
Mr. Speaker, our
policies are working. We are saying the
taxpayer can do better with disposable income left in their pocket as compared
to the government ripping it away like the NDP did throughout most of the '80s
and destroying the economy in doing so.
* (1400)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share this
information with the Minister of Finance, therefore, I would table this
report: The Economic Decline Under The
Filmon Conservative Government 1988‑1992.
I also have copies for members of the House, for any other member who
may wish to study the figures and look at the facts for himself.
This is my
question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister
would look at the very last page, for example, and see information on Total
Construction Work Performed, you will note that
My question is
straightforward to the minister then.
Why have we slipped, for instance, in total construction work
performed? Why do we have a smaller
percentage of total construction activity in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is, thank goodness
the members of this House are subjected to the professorial views of the member
for Brandon East once a year, and thank goodness he is not in the classroom
every day because of the inane information that he presents, couched, of
course, in a very selective way as he likes to look at certain areas in
factoring out so many of the years. I
have looked at his analysis before, and I am sure the basic foundation and
methodologies have not changed over the period of time.
Mr. Speaker, all
I can say at this particular point in time is that we will continue to stay the
course. The reality is there are budgets
coming down, I understand, over the next week or two in other provinces, some
of them governed by Liberals, some governed by NDP. I will be looking very carefully to the
results that they put into place on the expenditure side, on the taxation side,
and also the supporting economic information that the member is trying to share
with us today.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to debate this,
but these are official Stats Canada figures.
There are 14 basic economic indicators which are used by most economists
in measuring the performance of the economy.
So they are straightforward facts.
My question
is: Is this minister‑‑surely
he is prepared to accept some of the responsibility for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the
responsibility. I can say one
thing. I feel badly that the forecast
that we brought down in last year's budget did not come to be, to the extent
that I accepted forecasts that came from outside of the jurisdiction. I feel badly about that.
I also say that
on the good side, I take some consolation for the two‑year period, and
this again is the Conference Board of Canada, '93 and '94,
Mr. Speaker, our
approach is working as compared to the approach of the members opposite which
is one, tax more and second, continue to spend and take the deficit to a larger
number which of course is increased taxes for the years coming. Our approach is better, because I look around
Personal Care Homes
Quality of Health Care
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Twenty‑five
RNs at the Central Park Lodge on
Can the Minister
of Health tell this House whether he has been advised of this situation and
what he has done to rectify this very serious problem in our health care area?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the
circumstance my honourable friend brings to my attention. I will attempt to get as much information around
the circumstance and provide him with full information.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the question is that the
personal care homes are being run by some of the private owners, but the
Department of Health has the responsibility to set certain standards and a
certain code of ethics.
We are simply
asking the minister to make sure that procedures are put in place so that these
health care professionals are protected and also, the quality of care should
not suffer at the expense of certain personal care home procedures.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I accept my honourable friend's
motivation in posing the question. My
honourable friend shares a concern that we share on this side of the House that
we maintain quality health care.
I am prepared to
share with my honourable friend whatever circumstance exists around the
decision that he alleges has been made at Central Park Lodge and give him the
investigation, if any, that we have done to date.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we have received many calls on
some of the communications, and we have been very careful not to alarm the
health care professionals.
Government Funding
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): My question is: What procedures are put in place to make sure
that the government funds, which are being appropriated to the personal care
home, are being used for the health of Manitobans?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in terms of personal care home
provision, we have consultants and ministry staff who visit personal care
homes, for instance, to ensure that standards that have been set by government
are being met.
Certainly, we
have had a role in some instances over the last number of years where we have
had to investigate complaints about circumstances involving inappropriate care,
or inappropriate treatment of patients by not only staff, but other residents,
and attempt to work with the facilities to assure that, in all circumstances,
the quality of care and the safety of patient care is maintained.
I cannot offer to
my friend any more detail without further specifics other than what my
honourable friend shared with me.
Overseas
University Differential Fees
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, overseas students in
My question is
for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. I want to ask him: What advice did he offer to the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) when she proposed to introduce differential fees and
put at risk what are essentially export dollars?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I believe that
Therefore, in
terms of the issue of the fairness across Canada, the same standards across
Canada and the contribution to our education system, it made a great deal of
sense to do the same in Manitoba as is happening across Canada, recognizing
that we still expect to get at least the same number of students here to
Manitoba because of the high quality of education that we offer here in this
province.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will find
that the
I want to ask the
same minister to confirm that where differential fees have been introduced in
other jurisdictions and where studies on such have been concluded, in
particular Ontario, what they have found is that you lose at least a third and
up to a half of the overseas students immediately.
If we assume in
I want to ask the
minister: Why is he prepared to forgo
such revenue under the present economic circumstances?
Mr. Stefanson: The simple answer, Mr. Speaker, is because we
will not be forgoing the revenue referred to by the honourable member. The information we have is that does not
occur in terms of the comparisons to other provinces.
We expect that
there will be the same level of foreign students participating in our
universities. Because of the standards
that we offer in this province, because of the ethnic communities that do exist
here that have contacts back to those countries, because of the graduates that
we have from our universities and our alumni associations throughout other
parts of the world, we will maintain the same number of students.
Therefore, in
terms of a net benefit to the economy of
As we all know,
the cost of our universities‑‑the taxpayers of our province pay
some 80 percent towards the cost of the education at the universities. Foreign students will now be making a
contribution to obtaining an education here in
* (1410)
Ms. Friesen: Then I invite the minister to table the
studies that he has, and I want to ask him to, in fact, recommend to his
government that they delay this decision until they have reconsidered the long‑term
implications of the loss of these students.
Mr. Stefanson: We will not be delaying the decision. It has been part of the announcements made by
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
I have already outlined why the decision was made.
From all of the
information we have in terms of what is happening within Canada, in terms of
fairness within Manitoba, in terms of fairness within Canada and in terms of
our ability to attract foreign students, in terms of the confidence that we
have in our own ethnic communities to promote our province, to attract students
to Manitoba, in terms of the confidence we have in former University of
Manitoba graduates who are in other parts of the world to promote our
universities, we will maintain the same level that we currently have, Mr.
Speaker.
Transportation Industry Employment
Government Action Plan
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona):
The Department of
Education estimates that in rail jobs alone we will lose another 1,700 jobs.
My question is
for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger). What action plan does the Minister of
Transportation and his department have to stop the hemorrhaging of well‑paid,
high‑skilled jobs out of the
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to
the member that
We know that
there is downsizing taking place within the rail industry. We know the problems that the air industry is
facing, and in our meetings that we basically have been holding with officials
from these companies we have asked for fair consideration so we do not get
treated differently from other provinces.
However, the
member asked, what have we done? Our
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his five budgets that he has brought down
has tried to help create an environment that is conducive to investment here,
and we are trying to use that kind of an approach to have people come back and
invest here.
We promote this
kind of an idea with the companies that are involved. We say, this is a good place to do
business. Our tax structure is
good. This is a good place to try and
create employment.
Rail Line Abandonment
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): My question is for the same minister. Will the Minister of Transportation indicate
to the House the policy of his government on the recommendation of the NTA
Review Commission that will allow railways to abandon rail service without
demonstrating a financial loss or the absence of public need? What will be the impact upon
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): The day before yesterday the commission
tabled its report, which is two major documents. I gave the indication to members in the House
yesterday that we had made our submission in August, a very substantive
document that addressed all the transportation problems and issues that we
thought were involved in the National Transportation Act.
Mr. Speaker, the
member is starting to pick certain things out of that report, which is a very
substantive document. There are some
positive things in there. There are some
negative things in there. We are doing a
very precise assessment.
It is my
understanding that the federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Corbeil is referring
this study to the transportation committee to take submissions and to review
and make a recommendation back some time in June. We intend to do a full assessment of that
report and make our submission to the standing committee on transportation.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty simple. There are only 55 recommendations there. I am sure the minister should have had the
opportunity to read them by now.
CN Rail Privatization
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Given that
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday I
made a public statement to the effect that I, at first blush, was opposed to
the suggestion of privatization because we do not know what that impact would
be. There are many things to be
considered in terms of, when we talk of privatization, the Canadian content in
there which is now at 73 percent according to law, whether that can drop down
to 51 percent. There are so many aspects
of that whole report.
The member, I do
not know whether he has read the whole report because it is two substantial
documents. We are going through that
because some of the recommendations that we brought forward to the commission
have been addressed in terms of the safety issues and railways and
airlines. Some of the ones that we
brought forward have been accepted, others have not. We are reviewing that, and we will be putting
forward a document which I will then table in the House before we present it to
the standing committee on transportation.
Headingley Jail
Safety Compliance
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister
responsible for workplace health and safety.
Back on March 22,
1988, an improvement order was issued to Headingley Jail requiring that range
bars be put in place, reinstalled for the protection of guards. The province did not comply with that at that
time and only complied in November of 1988, after I had raised it in the House
with the minister and two extensions had been granted.
Mr. Speaker,
after that arduous process to get compliance back in 1988, I was significantly
surprised to learn that yet again Headingley Jail administration wants to
remove these safety bars and in fact issued a direct memo, dated March 27,
1992, which has subsequently been acted upon, indicating the range bars should
be removed.
My question for
the minister is: Why has Headingley Jail
administration now again ordered the removal of these range bars in direct
contravention of the original Workplace Safety and Health order?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, if the department is in
violation of any part of Workplace Safety and Health that will be dealt with,
but I am not aware of a decision to remove the range bars, nor have I had a
report or complaint coming up through the normal system of complaints with
Workplace Safety and Health.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that answer surprises me and
disturbs me, more so from the perspective of the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) than the minister of Workplace Safety and Health.
Did the Minister
of Justice not consult with the minister of Workplace Safety and Health or seek
the direction of his department before he contemplated removing range bars in
direct contravention of an order of the Workplace Safety and Health Division?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, as the member for St. James may
or may not be aware, specific orders of the department deal with a particular
situation. If there was some change in
the use or operation of that facility which would then change the basis on
which the order was issued, that would not necessarily be a violation of either
a previous order or regulations under The Workplace Safety and Health Act.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, will the minister of Workplace
Safety and Health at least commit today to immediately taking this up with his
colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)?‑‑given the Minister
of Justice's comments back in 1988 that, quote, this government has decided not
to quibble or quarrel with Workplace Safety and Health or with the union
involved at Headingley. We will move
quickly, and we have done that. I can
tell the member that range bars will be installed by November 1, 1988.
Will the minister
of Workplace Safety and Health immediately take this up with his colleague the
Minister of Justice who does not seem to understand‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I just say this to the member
for St. James. In the operation of any
government facility, there are decisions that are made by the administrators
who are in charge of those areas. They
change programming. They change the way
in which the particular area operates.
They have responsibility as administrators to ensure that they are
complying with the appropriate legislation and regulations. I am sure that the Minister of Justice and
staff in the Ministry of Justice will ensure that they are in fact in
compliance with the appropriate regulation.
* (1420)
Street Youth Service Funding
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the other day I raised a serious
issue of homeless youth and violence and health risks that are associated. The Minister of Family Services said that
they would work actively with groups that they do fund to try and assist in any
way that they could provide the service through existing organizations.
I would like to
ask the Minister for Family Services:
How many children and youth are homeless and on the run and living off
the streets in
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, yes, the member started to ask some questions about this program the other day, and I indicated that there are a number of organizations that do receive funding from other levels of government and when