LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Wednesday, May 25, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
ACCESS Program Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr.Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Darlene
Daniels, Arlene Mentuck, George Munroe and others requesting the Legislative
Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider
restoring funding to the ACCESS program.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Martin Ross, Kim Summers, Ken Boyd and others requesting the Legislative
Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider
restoring funding to ACCESS program.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Jim Edkins, Crystal Gibbs, Jodi Horsburgh and others requesting the Legislative
Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider
restoring funding to ACCESS program.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Della Beattie, Beth Rogers, Archie Carmichael and others requesting the
Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to
consider restoring funding to the ACCESS program.
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Mickey Spence, M. Vieira, A. Zibroski and others requesting the Legislative
Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider
restoring funding to the ACCESS program.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Committee of Supply
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the
same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye
(Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First
Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources presents the following as its First Report.
Your Committee met on Tuesday, May 24, 1994, at 10 a.m. in
Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1993.
At that meeting, your Committee agreed by unanimous consent
to also consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation
for the year ended October 31, 1992.
Your Committee had previously met on Thursday, June 17, 1993, at 10 a.m.
in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the aforementioned 1992
Annual Report.
Mr. Don McCarthy, Chairperson, and Mr. Walter Bardua,
President and General Manager, provided such information as was requested with
respect to the Annual Report and business of the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation.
Your Committee has considered the Annual Report of the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1992, and
has adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be
received.
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 Elton Collegiate fifty Grade 9 students under the direction
of Mrs. Sharon Jantz. This school is
located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer).
Also, from the West Park School and the Portage Collegiate,
we have eighteen Grade 12 students under the direction of Mr. Ray Johnson. These schools are located in the constituency
of the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).
From the Parc La Salle School, we have sixty‑two
Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Aimé Cyr. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Environmental Legislation
Enforcement
* (1335)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
Annually the Premier produces very glitzy reports dealing
with sustainable development strategies for the province of Manitoba. These reports of course have a number of
statements of intent in the documents. The latest one talked about, in terms of
environment policy: It is necessary to
have strong standards and regulations and enforcement in terms of the
environment.
What the government does not release of course is the
report cards dealing with the enforcement of the standards. A report commissioned by the government
produced by Arthur Andersen and Company on dealing with the laboratories in the
province of Manitoba for the EITC, which of course is chaired by the Premier
states: Manitoba has typically not been
aggressive in the enforcement of various environment legislation as a result‑‑
Point of Order
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would not
want the member opposite to continue to put false information on the record. I do not chair the EITC. It is chaired by Russ Hood, a professional
engineer from the private sector.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister did not have a
point of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition,
to carry on with his question.
Mr. Doer: He chairs one of the round tables and the
other one reports to him, as Premier, but I do apologize for the inaccurate
assumption that the Premier chaired it.
Manitoba has typically not been aggressive in the
enforcement of various environmental legislation. As a result, environmental testing volumes
are lower than other provinces. Some
provinces such as Saskatchewan require that various labs and industries utilize
provincial testing laboratories and pay for that service. This has caused these operations to have
relatively high volumes in profitability.
I would like to know why this government has not had
rigorous environmental enforcement dealing with our labs, consistent with the
Premier's own words in the document he produces for the public annually.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report in
front of me, but if I can believe the Leader of the Opposition's comments, it
does not refer to active enforcement. It
says that Manitoba does not require a great deal of testing.
The act under which we operate, The Environment Act, was
passed by the New Democratic government.
If they do not require a great deal of testing, then that is a problem
that we will have to contend with in terms of the deficiencies of the act.
Provincial Laboratories
User Fees
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier has had this
document for over a year now, and it says, and I quote: Manitoba has not been aggressive in the enforcement
of various environmental legislation.
It does not say the legislation is weak. It says that his stewardship of that
legislation through environmental enforcement is weak, very clearly in the
document.
Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the government had put
together an operating agency to deal with Cadham Lab and the Ward Lab in the
province of Manitoba. They are now, in
this report, calling for a change from the nonprofit areas of public health for
testing such as water, for those services now to be made on a profit basis and
moved onto the costs of the municipalities and private citizens.
I would like to ask the government: Will they be implementing the user‑pay
system for municipalities and private citizens, and what will be the impact on
public health?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member
opposite that when the New Democrats were in office they were evaluated, on the
basis of a national environmental organization who evaluated all of the
provinces of Canada, as being 10th out of 10 provinces in terms of their
environmental record.
So we have no lessons to learn from New Democrats in
Manitoba on protection of the environment.
They were the worst in Canada.
That same organization has improved their rating of
Manitoba under this administration to middle of the range of the provinces of
Canada, a substantial improvement, I might say.
With respect to his question about the recommendations that
are being put forward regarding the operations of the various laboratories in
Manitoba, we will take those recommendations into consideration, and we will be
reviewing them in due course.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the government had a document
for over a year. The government has
placed in their last budget, in their Estimates, a special operating agency to
deal with the issue of the Cadham Lab and the Ward Lab. It calls clearly in this report for user fees
to municipalities and private citizens.
We believe, in terms of water quality and water testing, which
is now considered a public health issue, a nonprofit public health issue, going
over to a user‑pay system, that this has implications for public health.
I would like to ask the Premier: What are the basic policies of the government
when they are moving from the existing system to a special operating
agency? Are they going to put the user‑pay
system into effect, and what is the impact on public health and public health
policies in the province of Manitoba?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as is regularly the case, the
member has it wrong again.
We are not moving to a special operating agency in the
provincial government. It is not in the
Estimates. In the Estimates are the fees
that are paid by the departments to the labs for the testing that they
require. The Environment department pays
fees to the labs. The Health department
pays fees to the labs for their requirements, and so on.
We are not moving to a special operating agency. He can go back to the drawing board and start
all over again.
Universities
Student Service Fees
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when this government is finally
gone it will be remembered for its amazing powers of self‑deception.
When the member for Morris (Mr. Manness) was Minister of
Finance, he was able to say with a straight face that taxes had not increased
in Manitoba, when every Manitoban knew the impact of the property tax, the
expansion of the sales tax and the increase in government fees.
Now that he is Minister of Education, the minister is up to
the same powers of self‑deception.
He claims that he has put a 5‑percent cap on university fees, and
yet universities are being allowed, by a letter received at the universities
this morning, to raise their fees by creating student service fees. It is the same kind of self‑deception
again, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the Premier, today, to confirm that his
supposed cap on student fees, in fact at the University of Manitoba, is going
to mean an increase not of 5 percent, but of something closer to 7.5 percent.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy that drips from
the mouth of the member for Wolseley when she speaks is unbelievable, when the
government of the New Democrats that preceded our government in six years
raised the income from income taxes in this province by 140 percent, raised the
income from corporations by over 50 percent during that same period of time,
imposed an increase in sales tax from 5 percent to 7 percent, brought in a 2
percent tax on net income, brought in a payroll tax and increased it 50 percent
a few years later to bring in over $300 million, all of those massive, massive
increases that had never been seen before or since, and she wants to talk about
tax increases.
She ought to be embarrassed when she talks about tax
increases, given the record of the New Democrats when they were in office. That would have to be the greatest
condemnation of New Democratic policy anybody has ever seen.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, could the minister now answer
the question? Is the fee increase at the
University of Manitoba going to be the 5 percent that he promised, or is it
going to be the 7.5 percent that, in fact, is going to happen as a result of
the changes which he is permitting?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we as a government are
attempting to do everything possible to keep the costs of operation down for
the universities so that, in fact, we can keep, as well, the costs of tuition
down to the students.
In the course of that, we obviously need the co‑operation
and the assistance of those who run the institutions on a decentralized
authority basis, and that includes, obviously, those who operate the schools of
Manitoba through public school boards, those who operate the universities of
Manitoba through their management system.
We can only go so far, because she would be the first one
to stand up and accuse us of interfering‑‑the honourable member for
Wolseley, to whom I have referred‑‑as she would be the first to
accuse us of interfering with the universities and intervening in their right
to manage their own affairs.
We have done everything we can to show the way, that we
would like them to keep their costs of operation down, and we would like them
to keep their tuition fee increases down.
We can only go so far as long as we want to retain that authority within
the hands of the universities themselves to govern themselves.
* (1345)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I still did not hear any
answer. Is it the 5 percent they
promised? Is it the 7.5 percent that it
is going to be?
I want to ask the Premier, again, and I have emphasized
this over and over in this House. Will
he use some common sense and take that money from Midland Walwyn, the blue chip
investors, from Pepsi Cola, from Chicken Delight, from Murray Chev Olds
Cadillac sales, take those education dollars and put them into the universities
and the colleges where they can benefit everyone?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, Workforce 2000 has been able to train
over 80,000 people in this province.
They have done so in ways, I might say‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty in hearing the
comments of the honourable First Minister, and unfortunately, I think it is my
earpiece, so the honourable First Minister.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I know the members opposite do
not want to listen to answers. They only
want to indulge themselves in their own questions, but the fact is, Workforce
2000 has trained over 80,000 people in this province, and they have done so in
ways that have been followed by other provinces.
The Province of Ontario, through its Jobs Ontario Fund, has
given money for training in the workplace by Toyota, by Chrysler, by major
corporations throughout‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear
myself respond. They obviously do not
want to hear the answer.
Independent Schools
Funding Formula‑‑Special Needs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Premier.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) recently confirmed
in the Estimates of the Department of Education that, in fact, for the first
time, independent schools will be given the special needs Level I grants that
are not based on any proof of actual students needing those special needs
designations but, rather, are the same as all public schools, based on a
straight 5 percent assumption, that 5 percent of the students would need it.
Mr. Speaker, this is curious, because a lot of independent schools,
specifically through their process of selecting students, do not accept special
needs children.
Why is the government going to give the same special needs
grants based on that same formula to independent schools that by their very
enlistment and enrollment process weed those students out?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the
Leader of the Liberal Party is now enunciating a policy directly contrary to
that which was espoused by his party in this Legislature, that they are opposed
to fairer funding‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Manitoba
not only has not approved of Level I funding on a percentage basis to
independent schools, but we have not done‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we certainly now have on record
their opposition to this funding going to independent schools, and we will
communicate that to the independent schools of Manitoba. I will take the remainder of that question as
notice on behalf of the Minister of Education.
Independent Schools
Funding Formula‑‑Special Needs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, never,
never has this party or indeed I think any reasonable, thinking person
supported giving money for special needs without any proof of the special
needs. That is the bottom line.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier: Given that they are giving this carte blanche
to these funds when there is no proven need, are they now going to require and
mandate that all independent schools receiving this money accept any and all
children whether or not they have those special needs?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister
of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,
firstly, there is no significant change with respect to special needs
funding. As in the public school system,
unless there are specific individuals in Levels II and III, there are no funds
that flow.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Level I, there has been a long‑standing
disagreement between negotiators for the independent school system and the
government as to the every‑dollar principle that was entered into by way
of agreement several years ago. By agreement,
that now has changed, recognizing that there are a growing number of Level I
incidence students within the independent school system.
* (1350)
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Education,
Level I funding is going without any proof of actual need for that special
needs Level I funding.
My question for the Minister of Education: Why is that money going to every independent
school when there is no proof of actual need and, secondly, there are
independent schools that specifically bar children with special needs? Why is that money going carte blanche with
absolutely no proof of need and the fact that these independent schools do not
even accept them?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, that is not
the case. There is a growing number of
students with Level I needs who are being accepted within the independent
school system, and just like there is a divisor put into place across the
public school system, 180 divided into the total number of students within the
school division times a factor of $43,500 per student, that is the Level I
support that is in place in the public school system.
The same level of support is now put into place with the
independent school system.
Independent Schools
Funding Formula
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting that the
Liberals are now flip‑flopping on their 80 percent promise that the
member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) made in 1990 during the
election. Do they not understand that
this is just this government's way of delivering on their 80 percent promise
that they led in this province?
I want to ask the Minister of Education, in light of the
fact that he admitted last night that many schools in Manitoba in the public
school systems are now operating at less that 1991 levels of funding from the
Province of Manitoba, how he can justify 20 percent increases in funding to the
private schools, including funding for special needs, which is not documented,
when these schools are now operating at 1990 levels, and the minister admitted
it last night.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, this is all part of the public record, and indeed the members opposite
have posed that same question to me shortly after the release of the Estimates.
Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out on several occasions,
the increase of support to the Federation of Independent Schools is maintained
at a factor level of 63 percent of operating support on a per capita basis as
compared to the public school system.
The total global increase in that level of funding, dollar over dollar,
is roughly an amount of $22 million to $24 million, whereas the total
provincial commitment to the public school system is in the realm of $760
million.
The members, I know, are trying to make an awful lot with
respect to trying to compare $24 million with $760 million. The fact is, there has been an
agreement. It supports the principle
that this government has entered into, a principle that has been also mirrored
by the Liberal Party, constitutionally created as a result of an agreement
entered into by this government and the Federation of Independent Schools.
Mr. Speaker, there is an eight‑year formula in place
that will drive funding towards 80 percent of the operating costs of a per
capita student within the public school system.
* (1355)
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, clearly, I would think the
Liberal position is still 80 percent, even though they would like it to leave
the impression that it is not.
I want to ask the minister whether he will now admit that
if he were to roll back the elite, exclusionary private schools like St. John's‑Ravenscourt
and Balmoral Hall to 1990 levels, the same level that the public schools are
having to function at at this time, that he would save $8 million to give to
such divisions as Transcona, Selkirk, Agassiz and Evergreen, who are suffering
under this government's policies.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that, because
indeed if the Catholic school system were to win their way in court the
government would have to provide 100 percent funding, and today we would have
to provide an extra $12 million that ultimately may have to come out of the
public school system. There is a saving
today with respect to the agreement that has been struck.
Let the member be so honest as to suggest when the NDP were
in government they too were providing increasing levels of support to the
independent school system.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, we were providing a third of the
dollars‑‑less than one‑third of the dollars that are being
spent now.
I want to ask the Minister of Education whether he will now
consider, supposedly with the blessing of the Liberals as well in this House,
to roll back to 50 percent of the funding for public schools on a per student
basis and take that money and provide it with fair funding for those school
divisions who have been cut unfairly by this minister, divisions like Selkirk
and‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member for Dauphin just
rumbles on and on.
What I find difficult to accept, particularly in the line
of questioning coming from the member for Dauphin, is that he sat as part of a
Treasury bench when indeed levels of support to the very same schools that we
are talking about increased significantly over a period of time. The member can try and wash his hands of that
fact, but the reality is, that is fact.
The government was well aware that there was a greater
negative impact with respect to a number of results, not the least of which of
course is the reassessment impact on some certain school divisions throughout
the province of Manitoba.
That is why we went some distance to try and relieve the
pressure with respect to the school divisions mentioned by the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), because we did see where they had gone the extra mile,
particularly the year previous, in dealing with the reduced workweek, Mr.
Speaker, and they had obviously a minimal amount of surplus. We have tried to accommodate the shortfall in
those two cases.
Social Safety Net Program Reform
Communication Strategy
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has begun
a process of reviewing social programs which their own opinion polls show that
Canadians overwhelmingly support. This
exercise is supposedly about modernizing and restructuring Canada's social
programs, but now we have a 14‑page communication strategy, the intent of
which is to sell these cutbacks to Canadians, including spending $575,000 for
newspaper ads, $200,000 for TV ads and $75,000 for a loose, hip interactive
Much Music program.
Can the Minister of Family Services tell the House what the
impact on Manitoba will be of a $1.5‑billion cutback in social programs
spending next year, cuts that this federal government plans to spend to engage
the Canadian Bankers' Association to sell to Canadians?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because it does raise
some questions in my mind about the number of dollars that are going to be
spent on a communication strategy, but we have not to date seen an action plan
from the federal government.
I would like to just give you a little bit of background on
the process that has been followed to date.
Back in mid‑February, the federal Minister of Human Resources,
Lloyd Axworthy, called together all of the provinces to discuss the announcement
that he had made about major national social safety net reform. At that meeting, I think I can recall him
clearly stating that there had been a fair amount of consultation, but there
was indeed no federal vision when they took over as the federal government.
What he was going to do through a process was pull together
around him an advisory body that would set out a national vision for social
safety net reform and put in place an action plan. He did reiterate at that time that it had to
be a federal vision and a federal action plan, and once that action plan was
developed, he would call the provinces together again to share that action plan
with him and get feedback.
That was to happen at the end of March and to date it has
not happened.
* (1400)
Impact on Manitoba
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I would like to ask the minister if she can
tell the House what the impact will be on the province of Manitoba when the
federal government cuts $2.4 billion next year, which we have already been
given advance warning of, from social programs under the guise of social
program review, since this could put thousands of people on provincial social
assistance in Manitoba.
What is the financial implication for this province?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think that we have any more information than the New
Democratic Party has in the communique that they seem to have obtained by some
means. We do not know what the federal
government is planning, because to date, although we were promised that there
would be an action plan by the end of March, we have not seen any action plan
on what social safety net reform would be.
Some of the concerns that were raised with the federal government
back in February were the issues around, is this going to be true reform, Mr.
Speaker, because we all realize and recognize that things have to change. We have to look at changes in the way we
deliver our social programs right throughout the country, but we do not know
exactly what impact that will have.
Indeed, is it just going to be an offload or is it going to
be true reform?
Mr. Martindale: The minister raises very serious and
legitimate questions, and I would like to ask her if she has communicated to
the federal minister responsible, Mr. Axworthy, and asked when her government
can expect the copy of the white paper so that her government can take a
position on these cutbacks, which could have a very negative impact on the
province of Manitoba.
This minister wants to budget, this minister wants to add
matching money to new federal initiatives.
At the same time, she needs to know what is coming down the pipe from
Ottawa, because it will have an effect on Manitoba.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, when we met in
the middle of February with provinces and the federal government, there was to
be a follow‑up meeting at the end of March. In the interim, a co‑ordinating
committee, a federal‑provincial committee of deputies, was to be doing
some work.
That meeting was cancelled at the end of March. There was a further meeting set up of
deputies, scheduled for next week, at the end of May, and the federal
government has cancelled that meeting, too.
I guess we are not quite sure at this point where the plan
is at, when we are going to see anything, and when we will have anything to
respond to.
Health Care Facilities
Reduced Workweek
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the implementation of Bill 22
and the major cuts to facilities have been very poorly administered by this
government. In the most recent letter
from the department to the facilities, the department states, quote: We will give special consideration to those
facilities in which patient care is jeopardized.
Just what does the government mean by using the words
"patient care," will be in jeopardy, and did the government not
consider this before they put these cuts in place?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says something
about cuts being put in place, while he reads from a letter that talks about
how we might seek some kind of participation from the facilities. You cannot have both at the same time. In fact, if he reads that letter, I am sure
he will see a reference to our bottom line being patient care on two, perhaps
three occasions throughout the body of that letter.
The honourable member cannot have it both ways. I think what he really wants to see us do is
to impose massive cuts like New Democratic government here in the past in
Manitoba has done and like New Democratic governments in other provinces are
doing now.
That is not our approach in Manitoba. Patient care comes first. We will not follow the advice of the
honourable member for Kildonan and cut deeply into the fabric of our health
system.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong. He asked the facilities to submit their plan
by May 16, and they will give special consideration to see then if these
patients are put in jeopardy. Those are the
minister's own words.
My supplementary:
Can the minister advise this House whether or not the possibility that
Deer Lodge hospital will have to cut rehab services and cut outpatient services
constitutes putting potential patient care in jeopardy or not?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, Deer Lodge is one of many
facilities in Manitoba that have responded to our letter, and they have, if I
am correct, I believe Deer Lodge has said they can use Bill 22 to some extent
but not to the full extent to achieve the savings and that perhaps there are
other ways they can do that without jeopardizing patient care. Those are the kinds of constructive sorts of
responses we were hoping to receive.
In fact, we have received many responses, not all of them
yet, but many, many responses which indicate a willingness either to use this
vehicle or this vehicle combined with other mechanisms or some other mechanisms
altogether, which is what we asked from the facilities. We asked for their proposals, because we
respect their autonomy, we respect the work of their boards, and we want them
to be able to operate in the way that they feel is best for their communities'
own needs.
We have had an encouraging response from many, many
facilities in Manitoba.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister confirms the cuts
will be put in place, and then special consideration may be given by the
department to these cuts, because that is what the letter says.
My final supplementary to the minister is: Will these same criteria of special consideration,
if patient care is placed in jeopardy, be placed in effect for the $100 million
in cuts that the government has asked the urban hospitals in Winnipeg to
institute over the next three years?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member and his colleagues are
getting pretty desperate when they deliberately misunderstand answers given in
this House.
I in no way confirm that cuts will take place. I have asked facilities for their
proposals. Facilities are making their
proposals available to us. We are reviewing
those proposals, and at the end of that review, we will let the facilities know
whether their proposals will be accepted or not accepted.
Government Departments
Reduced Workweek
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we have seen the potential for
some flexibility in the application of Bill 22 with personal care homes and
hospitals.
I would ask a question to the Premier. Is he willing to allow that same flexibility
with the application of Bill 22 as it affects government services so that in
fact essential government services will remain open and provide service to the
public?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we will
certainly be encouraging the managers who are responsible for delivery of services
in the various government departments to apply the requirements of Bill 22 in
the interests of ensuring that services that are in particular demand and
requirement are able to be provided.
Having said that, I do not think we are suggesting that there are no requirements. Certainly the effect of Bill 22 needs to be achieved in terms of the savings that are required, but there is some flexibility in the hands of managers to allow for provision of services where there is an obvious requirement fo