LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
May 6, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Harold
Bennett, Franklin Magnusson, Leslie Mowatt and others requesting the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to consider restoring the funding of the
Northern Fishermen's Freight Assistance Program to the level it was at in 1990‑91.
* * *
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Marion Ramsay, Gerald Sinclair, Juliet Burke and others requesting the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the
Student Social Allowances Program.
* * *
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Wallace Mowat, Tom Mowat, Ernest Mowat and others requesting the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to consider restoring funding of the Northern
Fishermen's Freight Assistance Program to the level it was at in 1990‑91.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Sylvia Kostiw, Michelle Kostiw, Charlene Baraniuk and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Dave Gregotski, Sharon Kumps, Paul Kumps and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Melvyn Taylor, Ross Carwahaw, Tracy Strahl and others requesting the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Ted Smitke, Grace Smitke, Telmo Reis
and others requesting the government of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). 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 fisheries are a vital resource
industry in rural and northern
WHEREAS there are over 800 commercial
fishermen netting some 12 million pounds of fish each year on
WHEREAS the high costs of supplies and
shipping fish to market are putting ever more pressures on the commercial
fishing industry in this province; and
WHEREAS the provincial government reduced
the Northern Fishermen's Freight Subsidy Assistance Program for commercial
fishing by over $90,000 in 1991; and
WHEREAS this subsidy is vital to the
survival of the commercial fishing industry; and
WHEREAS restoring the Freight Subsidy to
the level of previous years would make fishing in northern
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mrs. Carstairs). 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: The petition of the undersigned residents of
the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
* (1335)
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 30‑The
Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that
Bill 30, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les personnes vulnerables ayant
une deficience mentale et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of the bill, recommends it to the House.
I would like to table the message.
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 Warren Collegiate, sixty Grade 11 students under the
direction of Mr. Jake Wiebe and Mr. John Smith.
This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
NoFault
Auto Insurance
Appeal
Process
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Today's announcement by the government
dealing with no‑fault, coming five years after the Kopstein report and
over three years after the Tillinghast report on the savings potential for
motorists, we believe is somewhat overdue.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the costs
that have been outlined in the material provided by the government are fairly
consistent with industry cost projections to the year 2000.
Our concerns now are going to be dealing
with the fairness of the system that the government will be implementing on
behalf of all motorists in
Can the Premier today outline, given that
the fairness and integrity of the system is crucial and the appeal process is a
very important component part, if not the keystone part of this program, what
kind of independent appeal process is contemplated in government policy for
this new plan?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. It is an integral part to the credibility of
any plan such as this, and we will be very conscious of that in putting
together recommendations that will be introduced and legislation that will
outline that matter.
First of all, you will need to make sure
that the people are appointed for a credible length of time so that they can
have some assurance of the responsibility and the knowledge that they will be
able to build up, that they will be people of quality and people who will be
able to hear any of the complaints that come forward and deal with them in a
completely independent and dispassionate manner, to make sure that it is fair
to those who would appeal.
I would only remind the member that the
appeal upon which we are‑‑I presume he is asking, and the one to
which I am responding‑‑is the final appeal, that there will be a
series of steps prior to anyone desiring to go to this final appeal, where they
will have an opportunity to appeal within the system as to concerns they might
have about how the plan is treating them.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the material that is being sent
to all the motorists‑‑I assume in Manitoba‑‑explaining
the program, the government and the corporation, claims that they are going to
be an independent appeal process. They
do not say who will establish the appeal process.
In
I would like to ask the government: Who will be this independent body? Who will appoint them and how will they be
independent and be perceived to be independent, because that is very crucial to
this program?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assume that the member
is supportive of the program in general, and he has some specific questions
about how an appeal mechanism would operate [interjection] Well, are you saying
that he is not supportive of the introduction‑‑did you caucus it?
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member
in the introduction of the legislation, we will make it very clear on what
grounds a panel will be established. I
want to tell you that the principles and the policy which I want to see
incorporated in that process will be as I outlined, that we guarantee the
independence of the appointees and that they are able to operate on a given
period of time without fear of any reprisals, so they will be fully
independent.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question. He has the Kopstein report
that made three or four recommendations on an appeal process. He recommended an independent arbitration
board; he argued for the appeal of that process to the courts.
The minister has those recommendations,
but it is very important that the minister tell us today: Who will appoint the appeal body? Will it be placed in law as an independent
body like the Electoral Boundaries Commission; will it be a body appointed by
Order‑in‑Council; will it be a body appointed by this Legislature
like the Ombudsman; or will it be somebody internal to the corporation?
I think those are fundamental questions
that I would have thought would have been addressed in the government's
announcement today, or in the House today in the questions we are raising.
Mr. Cummings: The member is trying to have me introduce the
legislation piece by piece today. The
fact‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, he knows full well, if he has
made comparisons with the
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Opposition, with
a new question.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I did not think we would have to
pursue this for a new question.
Mr. Speaker, it is very vague in the
document that is presented to us today.
We are already getting phone calls, as legislators, on the newscast,
about who will deal with these matters, who will decide. Obviously, not on the detail of the Kopstein
report, but people want to know and we would like to know, what is the
government policy? Will this body be
established‑‑
An Honourable Member: Independent.
Mr. Doer: The word "independent." Some bodies are independent, Mr. Speaker, and
some are more independent than others, so perhaps we can ask the question
specifically.
Will the independence of the appeal body‑‑[interjection]
If the Premier (Mr. Filmon) wants to answer one of the questions, he could
stand up and answer the questions. If he
does not have a policy on this, he will remain silent like he has.
Will the independent appeal body on this
very important change, a change in concept which we support‑‑[interjection]
We will adjudicate the fairness when we see the implementation of the
fairness. Will this independent appeal
body‑‑
An Honourable Member: How can you support the bill if you have not
seen it,
Mr. Doer: I said the concept, my friend. I know that is foreign to Liberals, to have
any concepts, because they change them every hour on the hour.
Is it the policy of the government that
the independent appeal process, which is articulated on page 7 of the document
that they are releasing to motorists today‑‑will that independent
appeal process be appointed by legislation similar to the Electoral Boundaries
Commission of
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, as with many other aspects of
this plan, we have said that this will be a made‑in‑Manitoba plan
for the best interests of Manitobans.
There are a number of models, including the ones that the member is
suggesting, that we are considering.
In the introduction of the legislation, I
guarantee you that if he is willing to take an objective look at what we have
in the legislation, then he will be satisfied with the independence that we
will present.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, you will excuse us if we say the
answers of the minister are starting to contradict one another. Two answers ago, the minister mentioned that
they looked at the
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): Did the minister have the
government approve a major shift in policy on bodily injuries without
determining the independent system of appeal that would be utilized by the
citizens of this province? Can the Premier please tell us what type of
independent appeal process will be in place?
Will it be appointed by the corporation?
Will it be appointed by the Legislature?
Will it be appointed by Order‑in‑Council, or will it be
institutionally appointed in legislation like the Electoral Boundaries
Commission?
It is a very, very crucial part to the
fairness of any bodily injury change in plan in
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I enunciated the parameters for
independence that I think should satisfy the concerns of that member. Unless he wants to wait in the bushes and be
dissatisfied with whatever we bring forward in legislation‑‑I think
that is what he is trying to do.
He supports the plan but he has to find
something to worry about so he is going to lay in the bushes, and no matter
what this government brings forward, he is going to be critical. It will be an independent commission that
will respond to these concerns. I invite
him to wait until the introduction of the bill.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Kopstein report five years
ago articulated the cost projections and articulated an independent appeal
process that would be appealable to court.
Is the government accepting the Kopstein recommendation? Is it rejecting the Kopstein
recommendation? What is the policy the
government must have?
I suggest to the government, you cannot
make a quantum change in the whole way in which the tort system is utilized for
bodily injuries without having a truly articulated and known system of appeal.
Would the government please tell us, in
all those hundreds of briefings that have taken place in the five years they
have worked on this plan, what will be truly independent for the appeal
process? The Legislature and the people
of
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the people of
Mr. Speaker, we announced today that we
are moving to a plan that will restrict tort.
We presented examples of the type of coverage that would be available so
that people can debate the benefits pro and con. We will introduce all the details, including
the concerns that the member is raising when we bring the legislation to the
floor of this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I believe he will be
satisfied at that time.
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Benefits
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I must confess that I am not so quick to
support this plan. I am a little disappointed,
frankly, by the NDP who seem to be so ready to give up on something they built
that did provide benefits for all
Now, I would like the minister to cast
back two short years when he was questioned about the no‑fault proposals
that were contained in Kopstein, and he said‑‑"he" being
the member of the NDP who was raising the question about no‑fault‑‑that
he does not, however, talk about the fact that a great portion of that money‑‑that
is, the savings that accrued to the insurance company under no‑fault‑‑would
come from the pockets of those who have a right to be reimbursed.
That is the issue here, Mr. Speaker. The fact is insurance companies in
jurisdictions that have a form of no‑fault accrue large profits, and the
source of those profits would seem to come from the benefits that are available
to people who are injured. [interjection]
Now, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) from his
seat makes the comment about lawyers.
Lawyers are less than a third of the costs, and if he wants to control
lawyers' costs, there are ways to do‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne, with your
question, please.
Mr. Alcock: My question to the minister is: What has changed in his understanding of the
way the system works, and how is he going to ensure that people are not
protected?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): I hope I misunderstood the question. I believe he said, how would I assure that
people were not protected. The fact is I
intend to assure that people are protected.
Mr. Speaker, the benefits that are
outlined this morning, if adopted by this Legislature‑‑and I invite
the debate and the discussion that we are now entering into. The benefit levels we proposed in the
discussion this morning are very generous, and, in fact, those who are injured
with loss of income, they will be reimbursed.
The income replacement as we outlined would cover 90 percent of the
population of this province. All other
benefits are virtually uncapped.
I think the member may well have a little
fun at my expense about the fact that I have always cast about for other ways
of containing costs of automobile insurance in this province, and I have said
on many occasions, which I fully acknowledge, that I believed for a
considerable length of time that there were other ways by which this government
or any other government could cap costs, but we believe that is not the case.
* (1350)
Private
Sector Involvement
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, another feature of this, and the
minister mentions it in the pamphlet they have prepared for this release, is
the increased involvement or the reintroduction of private‑sector
insurance companies to provide insurance for those people who feel they require
some top‑up.
I would like to ask the minister: What are his projections about the extent of
private‑sector insurance involvement in this province as a result of this
change?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, the
containment of cost is one of the very primary concerns we have in terms of
maintaining future quality insurance in this province and making sure that
people have adequate coverage.
Mr. Speaker, the plan we put forward this
morning, the outline, indicates that 90 percent of the people in this province
will be covered by a $55,000 maximum.
That will cover 90 percent of the wage earners in this province, and it
is correct to say that those who wish to have insurance beyond that would
likely have to go to the private sector to obtain additional extension.
I would remind the member that all of the
benefits that flow within the plan are without cap, lifetime without cap. If he is asking me how large an extent of an
involvement do I see, I would look to the
Mr. Alcock: Well, Mr. Speaker, that view is not shared by
the Canadian Automobile Association in their opposition to this plan.
Revenue
Transfers
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Let us speak about
Will this minister commit that this
government will not undertake such a transfer?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would be only too pleased to
put that argument to bed completely, because there is a clause in the MPIC Act
which I intend to make sure applies to all aspects of the corporation and that
clearly indicates that governments, present or future, cannot strip profits for
other use.
NoFault
Auto Insurance
Implementation
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I would like to address a question to the
Minister responsible for MPIC.
We have asked this minister for almost
five years when he was going to implement the Kopstein report's main
recommendation of a no‑fault plan.
On April 28, 1992, in the legislative committee, and it is reported on
page 42, the minister stated, and I am quoting:
"You will not be seeing initiatives on my part to move to a no‑fault
insurance."
My question therefore to the minister is‑‑[interjection]
In fact, there is another one, too; there are two‑‑why did the
minister not act sooner to implement the no‑fault system and avoid the
dramatic premium increases such as the 9.5 percent to 13.5 percent increase
that was experienced this year?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): I readily acknowledge, as I said before today,
that I was not the first to advocate this is the way one should deal with
rising costs to the corporation and that I believe that other methods of
control would do the job. But, Mr.
Speaker, we have now seen how dramatically the increase of bodily injury is
impacting on the cost of insurance in this province, and the majority of those
costs are going for noneconomic loss.
That is very important for all of us to
examine. A majority of those dollars are
going for noneconomic loss, and that is where we believe there is a good reason
to be able to make sure that those who are dramatically injured or seriously
injured are fully, completely taken care of, but some of these other losses
have been less than responsible.
* (1355)
Mr. Leonard Evans: I am glad the minister has finally seen the
light, Mr. Speaker.
Benefits
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Is the minister truly satisfied that the
announced benefit schedule that was released today is fair? How does it compare with other jurisdictions
that have a no‑fault system?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, the information has been
gathered from about 17 different jurisdictions across the
I would indicate that the figures that are
included in the proposals that are brought forward have been examined in the
light of
We know, without any doubt, that if we do
not take these types of dramatic actions, we will see a doubling of the rates
by the year 2000.
Fairness
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): My final question: How will the minister ensure that certain
groups in
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, all of those groups that the
member has pointed to‑‑first of all, we need to remember that in
the plan the economic losses are replaced.
There are portions of the plan that are meant to be very flexible in
terms of making sure that special situations are addressed.
For example, I believe the benefits that
are outlined in the case of a homemaker, for example, are more generous than
any plan that we know of and more generous than what would be acquired under a
private plan, if there was a competitive plan.
Those are the types of approaches that we
have taken in making this recommendation to assure that specific groups are in
fact treated better.
Subsidized
Housing‑Students
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Housing. When the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) eliminated the bursary program for the students this week, she
left almost 5,000 students ineligible for grants.
According to the Manitoba Housing
Authority, students who do not receive bursaries are not eligible for the
special student rental fees. They
further indicated that they had no idea what the impact of the minister's elimination
of the bursary program would mean to students' rental rates.
Can the Minister of Housing tell this
House what impact the bursary cuts will have on students living in Manitoba
Housing Authority units?
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr.
Speaker, I will take that question as notice and report back to the House.
Subsidized
Housing‑Students
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Education
explain to this House why she did not consult with her colleague the Minister
of Housing, so that he could ensure that staff at the Manitoba Housing
Authority were aware of the impact of her regressive changes to the bursary
program?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Let me
just make it clear again to the honourable member that students, yes, will not
be receiving bursaries, but they will still in fact be eligible for a
guaranteed loan. The money, Mr. Speaker,
is still available to students wishing to study at the post‑secondary
level. In addition, we have retained for
the most needy students, a bursary, the third level.
* (1400)
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, can she confirm that some of the
poor students may no longer be eligible for subsidized housing under the new
program? Would she tell this House how
many students will be affected by the change?
If she does not know the answer, could she ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon)? He should know. He is their‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend
again how the system works. The system
is based on need; it is based on number of weeks of study and the amount of
money required, what the tuition is.
Students receiving student financial aid, first, starting at the Canada
Student Loan level, is based on need.
When that does not quite fill the need, then they move into assistance
through the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance. Where there is continued need for the most
needy students, we have built in a bursary system.
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Minor
Claims Cap
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the government today made a major announcement with respect to
coverage that will be available to Manitobans under the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation. In their pamphlet
which they are going to distribute, they indicated that almost 80 percent,
indeed 80 percent, of the claims before MPIC were, in their words, minor claims. They said minor claims are the main
problem. They said, of 20,000 injury
claims, 16,000 were of whiplash. Of
those minor claims, almost all of them are settled for less than $15,000, many
for much less than that.
Can the minister responsible tell the
House why it is they chose a no‑fault insurance program that would affect
every claim and did not cap it at a $15,000 level, which would have taken care
of almost all of these minor claims?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation
Act): Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good and
legitimate point. It also is a point
that deserves careful response because very often under these types of programs
which we have looked at in other jurisdictions, what happens is, where there is
a monetary threshold beyond which the person may decide to sue, this very often
drives a situation that encourages the claimant to drive towards that threshold
so that they may then get into the tort system.
Mr. Speaker, when we looked at the
financial projections we have that see us, by the year 2000, being in a
virtually unaffordable situation for insurance in this province, we felt we
wanted a plan that was totally predictable and that we could, according to the
known statistics, be able to show containment of the costs, and at the same
time, protect everyone who was legitimately injured and needed help, either
through health care, rehabilitation or income replacement‑‑that
they are fully and adequately covered.
That is the reason we went this direction.
Public
Utilities Board
Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we are very prepared to support the government in initiatives that
protect Manitobans and protect them equally, but we do not believe that this
particular initiative, as it is so laid out, protects people equally. That has to be the serious question that is
put before legislators in this province.
I have to tell you, on the basis of the
information here, not only would I take out private insurance but I would take
out private insurance for my two daughters, who certainly do not make incomes
of $50,000 a year, to protect them against future earnings which are not
protected in this particular program that has been announced by the government.
Will the minister tell the House today why
he is unwilling to take this whole proposal to the Public Utilities Board to
allow them to make an evaluation and judgment that this party will abide
by? Why are they unwilling to do that in
order to ensure that there is absolute fairness in this initiative?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Public
Utilities Board will review the rate‑setting process, as is required by
the result of this change in the proposal of MPIC.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it seems
to me that the member's question is based on the assumption that she believes
the present system is fair. There is an
inherent unfairness to certain aspects of the existing system. It can occur that it is a bit of a gamble as
to who hits you and what the coverage may be, even if you do go to court. It may very well be that you could be
dramatically injured, you could be of high income, but the person whom you intend
to sue does not have the insurance or the wherewithal to cover your suit.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this plan covers
the needs‑‑the health, the medical needs, the rehabilitation needs,
salary replacement. I think this is very
fair.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister says it is a
gamble. Let us take a look at the
gamble. If I on this scheme drive out of
the Legislature today and I get hit by a drunken driver and we both become
paraplegics, we both end up with the same amount of money, even though one
person was completely at fault. One
person was driving under the influence and in violation of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I want to have someone
provide me with an independent analysis as to whether this program is
fair. The Minister of Highways (Mr.
Driedger) from his seat yells out, that is why we are all here. Well, we are also all here to protect those
who cannot protect themselves. The
importance of establishing a fair policy is to make sure that we are not doing
this for political motivation.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell this
House today that he is prepared to go to the Public Utilities Board, allow an
independent evaluation of this program and to report back to the citizens of
the
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I hope she does not want to turn
policymaking of this Legislature over to Public Utilities.
The member assumes‑‑and this
is a very important point‑‑that there will not be any provisions to
deal with impaired driving. That is an assumption that she made without any
basis, Mr. Speaker. This government,
this Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) has taken great pains to make sure that
impaired operation of a motor vehicle is not condoned in this province. I can tell you that when we introduce the
legislation, there will be nothing in that legislation that will undermine the
work that is going on in terms of protection of the public from impaired
drivers.
Mr. Speaker, when she talks about what
would happen if the two people are both seriously and dramatically injured,
first of all, they will receive all of their costs complete with an income
replacement, and their costs will be without cap. Today, if you were at fault, you would only
receive a maximum of $19,000 under our existing program, and you would fall on
the welfare and the social assistance and the public health programs of this
province.
Mr. Speaker, this plan does address the
aspects of that, and I believe that puts the other aspect of fairness into it
which the member may not have contemplated.
Student
Social Allowances Program
Funding
Elimination Justification
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when the government cut 1,200
people from student social allowance, they potentially eliminated 40 classrooms
of students in
I would like to ask the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey): Could she explain to us again the rationale, the
reason, for this policy?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, this program was one that was unique to the
I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) has frequently said that governments have to make tough decisions. This was a decision we made. It was a program that does not exist
elsewhere in
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, last time I asked that question
it was the difficult choices answer.
Today it was the race for the bottom answer.
Student
Social Allowances Program
Student
Employment Prospects
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Could I ask the Minister of Education to tell
us about the fate of these students.
What are their realistic prospects of finding the part‑time jobs
that now are in fact their only hope for any change in their lives?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, again, students‑‑and I believe the member may be referring
to summer job prospects. I am not sure
if she is also referring to prospects through the year, but we do have in place
programs that this government is supporting to assist students to help find
their summer employment. It will be
assistance to help students find summer employment that may be related to
future careers, or also employment within government. If the member has an additional question,
then I will hear from her.
* (1410)
Decentralization
Office
Space Availability‑Arborg
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):
Mr. Speaker, this government announced in 1989
what they called a decentralization program, that they would provide economic
benefits to rural and northern areas.
What we have had are jobs leaving communities, such as Arborg and
Ashern, with government offices sitting in Arborg empty, waiting for these
decentralized jobs.
I want to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): Why is the government building
in Arborg sitting one‑third empty while money is being spent by this
government on leasing and renovating office space in Gimli for these government
jobs?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the
honourable member I appreciate is referring to essentially staff in the
Department of Natural Resources. Gimli
was recently selected as the headquarters for the region, with the Director,
Mr. Worth Hayden, residing in that facility.
Certainly the member, who has on many occasions drawn to the fact that
my department has undergone some downsizing‑‑that is the simple
reason. Some of those offices that were
previously filled are now no longer needed.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to the
Natural Resources; I am referring to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst)
employees that are being‑‑
An Honourable Member: Then ask the Minister of Housing, okay?
Mr. Clif Evans: I asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The Premier should be aware of what is going
on. I will ask the Minister of Housing.
Mr. Speaker, this government and this
Premier‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, on a point of
order.
Point of
Order
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that
if the members opposite want to incur and engage daily in political
gamesmanship, this is not the way to go.
If they have a question of a minister of a department, they know what
department it refers to. Do not refer it
to the Premier. Do not refer to the
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey). Refer it to
the person you want the information from.
This is straight political gamesmanship.
It is an abuse of this House and the members opposite are getting what
they deserve.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am
quite frankly amazed. Our rules are very
clear in this House. Members can ask questions to whomever they wish. It is up to the government to decide. If the Premier does not want to answer
questions, I am sorry, but he is going to have to find that increasingly
Manitobans are asking him to be responsible for the action of his
government. He cannot hide from
that. It is about time he answered some
of those questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable
First Minister, I would like to quote from Beauchesne's 418: "Hon. members may not realize it but
questions are actually put to the Government.
The Government decides who will answer."
Decentralization
Office
Space Availability‑Arborg
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): The question then is directed to the Minister
of Housing, Mr. Speaker.
On what rationale did this Minister of
Housing decide that his department should locate in Gimli, when there is office
space, provincial government space, available in Arborg‑‑a more
central location for his department?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): The fact remains that Gimli is the most
central location for this region for the