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