LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, April 19, 1994
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Old Age Pension
Request to Federal Government
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Marie Seaton, George
Hickey, Marion Wheaton and others requesting the Legislative Assembly urge the
federal government not to make any changes to the age of eligibility for old
age pensions and a copy of this petition be sent to the federal Minister of
Finance.
Curran Contract Cancellation and
Pharmacare and Home Care
Reinstatement
Ms.
Becky Barrett (Wellington):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Bill Ormonde, Fred Tycoles,
Kim Budge and others requesting the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to personally step in and order the cancellation of the
Connie Curran contract and consider cancelling the recent cuts to the
Pharmacare and Home Care programs.
Handi‑Transit Service
Long‑Term Plan
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Barry Hammond, Scott Kroeker, Harold Shuster and others requesting the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh) to consider working with the City of Winnipeg and the disabled to
develop a long‑term plan to maintain Handi‑Transit service and
ensure that disabled Manitobans will continue to have access to Handi‑Transit
service.
Curran Contract Cancellation and
Pharmacare and Home Care
Reinstatement
Mr.
Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
D. Abarientos, C. Bewsky, Gildred Aloro and others requesting the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to personally step in and
order the cancellation of the Connie Curran contract and consider cancelling
the recent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.
APM Incorporated Remuneration and
Pharmacare and Home Care
Reinstatement
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Maloway). 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?
Some
Honourable Members:
Dispense.
Mr.
Speaker: Dispense.
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
the Manitoba government has repeatedly broken promises to support the
Pharmacare program and has in fact cut benefits and increased deductibles far
above the inflation rate; and
WHEREAS
the Pharmacare program was brought in by the NDP as a preventative program
which keeps people out of costly hospital beds and institutions; and
WHEREAS
rather than cutting benefits and increasing deductibles the provincial
government should be demanding the federal government cancel recent cuts to
generic drugs that occurred under the Drug Patent Act; and
WHEREAS
at the same time
WHEREAS
the
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Premier to
personally step in and order the repayment of the $4 million paid to Connie
Curran and her firm APM Incorporated and consider cancelling the recent cuts to
the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.
*
(1335)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual
Report 1992‑93 of the Department of Urban Affairs.
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I would like to table two reports: the Annual Report 1992‑93 of The
Manitoba Water Services Board and the Annual Report 1993 of The Municipal
Board.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral
Questions, may I direct the attention of all honourable members to the gallery
where we have this afternoon 17 teachers from
Also
this afternoon, from the
Also,
from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Advertising Guidelines
Tabling Request
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Last
fall I wrote to the Provincial Auditor dealing with ads that the government had
paid for with taxpayers' money labelled, the Filmon government has done this
and done that.
The
Auditor wrote back and said: I have
written the Minister of Finance recommending that the government consider
developing more explicit guidelines in this area, specifically defining to what
extent to which the political element is acceptable in ads paid with taxpayers'
dollars.
I
would like to ask the Premier today whether he could table the guidelines for
advertising to delineate between ads for the public interest and ads that
should be properly paid for by political parties.
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, firstly, this government is doing no more, in fact probably
less in the way of advertising than the New Democratic government of which this
member was a part ever did. They took
out full‑page ads with the picture of Howard Pawley. You may recall I tabled one in the
Legislature because they did not even have his name spelled right.
They
took out all sorts of ads for all sorts of purposes that were more than a
little questionable. The member has very
little credibility making this kind of assertion in the House.
I
will tell him that we, as we always do, take seriously recommendations from the
Auditor and what the Auditor requests is being done. As soon as we have more to report, we
certainly will.
Manitoba Lotteries Corporation
Advertising Campaign
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government to
table the guidelines which were recommended in November. This is the first time ever, that we can
recall, that the Provincial Auditor has raised this issue and asked that the
guidelines be developed by a government‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
She said we were right and you were wrong.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mr.
Doer: Mr. Speaker,
if the Premier is unable to produce the guidelines five months later, that is
very unfortunate for the people of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier how much money is being spent for the
provincial Lotteries Corporation ads.
Who was involved in designing those ads?
Was the Premier's Office involved in designing those ads? Would that money not be better spent on
programs such as the Village Clinic that has been cut back, rather than
advertising that it is being paid for under that jurisdiction?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I would say, just to correct the member opposite, that the
Provincial Auditor did not raise this issue.
The Leader of the Opposition raised the issue as a political issue.
She
did not recommend any guidelines to us.
She did not say we were wrong.
She said that it might be wise to have those guidelines. [interjection]
Well, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the members opposite on this issue.
When
they were in government, they spent a million dollars advertising Limestone,
Mr. Speaker. Did anybody need to know
about Limestone, a Manitoba Hydro investment that was being made as a
government policy? They had to spend a
million dollars advertising it, including over $200,000 to a firm from
It
is shocking, the hypocrisy of this member opposite‑‑shocking.
Rural Economic Development
Advertising Campaign
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have asked the government for the
guidelines; they cannot produce them. I have
asked the government how much money the Lotteries ad cost; he cannot produce
that. I have asked whether that money
would be better spent on clinics that this particular government has cut back;
he cannot produce that answer.
I
will ask another question, Mr. Speaker.
Is
the government contemplating running pre‑election ads on rural economic
development? Has the Premier's staff
been involved in developing those ads, and how much will it cost the taxpayers
if you are producing those ads?
*
(1340)
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is in such
desperate straits these days that he has to try and manufacture an issue like
this.
This
government is spending far less in advertising than the government of which he
was a part ever did. This government
will go along with the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor. We will come forward with the guidelines, and
we will provide all the information he has requested in due course.
Universities
Funding Formula
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, we are not generally expecting any honesty from the
government this session in this pre‑election period.
Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.
A
few days ago, in answer to questions about the grant that is being contemplated
for the
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the Minister of Education and Training is: Given that the university's response to the
secret allocation that apparently the minister has authorized be given to the
university suggests, and I quote, that spending authorization approved by the
board on March 24 was based on a 6 percent overall reduction, can the minister
now clear up for this House what is the reduction that the universities
face? Is it 6 percent? Is it 4 percent? Is it 3 percent?
Mr.
Speaker, people's lives, the lives of the students who are going to these
institutions, are affected by these decisions.
Will he now tell the people of
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): That information will be abundantly clear
come tomorrow.
An
Honourable Member:
What is the secret?
Mr.
Manness: The member
says, what is the secret. I am following
a long‑standing practice also put into place by the former government
when most of the spending decisions of government, expenditure decisions, have
been released within the booklet of Estimates.
Mr.
Speaker, I am keeping with that practice.
That will be available tomorrow when the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson) tables his budget.
Mr.
Speaker, let me say what I did do, though.
I did tell the presidents of the universities when they came to see me
in late February that I would try and share with them before the end of March
some of the details, some of the broad funding level, in confidence.
I
have done that. I have kept my word to
that end, and so the universities in a broad funding sense know the level of
support they will be receiving.
Mr.
Storie: Mr. Speaker,
in this
My
question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) and the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism.
Given
that the Faculty of Agriculture, the Faculty of Engineering, the Faculty of
Architecture, faculties and staff who are committed to economic development,
the improvement of our economic activity in the province, faculties that are
going to create the future entrepreneurs that this province needs‑‑those
faculties are going to be cut, staffing is going to be cut.
How
does this jive with the recommendations in the Roblin commission that say we
have to tie the educational system and the economic activity in the province
together when we are cutting back like this?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker,
the question coming from the NDP benches rings hollow when members opposite
talk about economic development.
Mr.
Speaker, I am well aware of what the Roblin report has recommended. We will be making a full response with
respect to the recommendations that flow within that report.
Mr.
Speaker, let me point out, the issue here with respect to university funding
and the decisions internal to the level of provincial funding are no different
within the university setting than they are within the public school system.
Mr.
Speaker, those who are receiving the lion's share, in this case 80 percent of
the funding, they are the ones that ultimately in society today, whether it is
in Manitoba, whether it is in any other province in Canada, or anywhere else in
the western world, are going to have to decide how they want to call upon those
finite resources.
Indeed,
if the faculty, staff and those providing services at universities are not
going to take less, then obviously there is going to be some impact on the
total number that are employed.
The
formula is very, very simple. I know the
member for Flin Flon can understand it.
Mr.
Storie: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, one of the questions raised on this side was the question of this
government's sense of responsibility.
They make the cuts and then they consult.
Mr.
Speaker, my question: Has the Minister
of Education and Training sat down with the faculties that are going to be
affected by this cutback, as much as 6 percent we understand from the
university's response, and determined what the impact is going to be on those
faculties particularly that support economic development and economic activity
in this province?
Has
the minister done that prior to making this announcement?
*
(1345)
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker,
no, we are following the same format that has been in place in this province
basically for 25 years, and that is, a global amount is allocated to the
Universities Grants Commission, and the Universities Grants Commission
allocates that between universities.
That formula has not changed.
I
dare say that the Roblin report, of course, when you look at the
recommendations, is challenging the management and indeed the boards at various
universities to begin to lay into place priorities. That will be the broader challenge that
society is going to ask the universities to take and decide, ultimately, within
the scarce resources, which of the faculties are going to receive the larger
share.
I
accept what the member is saying. Indeed,
that will be the challenge that will be put to all universities, not only in
Economic Growth Rate
Government Prediction
Mr.
Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Finance.
Tomorrow
is budget day yet again in
Over
the last five years, the government has every year overestimated growth. That is the key prediction for the government
to make, because flowing from that the revenue predictions are made.
The
total misprediction is 7.6 percent over those five years. In 1989 they predicted 3.5; we got 1.1. In 1990 they predicted 2; we got 1.6, and so
on and so forth. Every year they have
not just been wrong, they have overestimated growth. The government has never been right in the
last five years.
What
assurances can this minister give the public that they will even be close this
year to the real growth that is going to happen in this province? Does the minister have a new computer?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Leader of the
second opposition party makes an incorrect assumption in directly tying revenue
to economic growth. There is a
correlation, but there is not a direct relationship between economic growth in
your province and what your revenues will be, because of the types of revenues
that the province does in fact receive.
If
he took the time to look back at the last two fiscal years in particular, 1993‑94
that we just completed, '92‑93, he will note that basically our
projections, the areas within our jurisdiction, within our control, our own
revenue sources, our own expenditures are right on target.
If
you look at the reduction in 1993‑94, it was primarily driven by one
item, and that was a significant reduction mid‑year in our transfer
payments from
If
you look at the results today in terms of how provinces have fared, New Brunswick
is off by $100 million, Prince Edward Island has come in with their budget
being double what it was projected to be, a province like Saskatchewan was off
the mark‑‑although I know the Leader of the Opposition suggests
that they were on the mark‑‑but because of a change in accounting
they were able to book back in excess of $150 million.
I
will say to the Leader of the second opposition party, our projections are the
best that they can be at the point in time when you deliver a budget. I have a great deal of confidence in the
numbers that have both been provided in the past and, certainly, the numbers
that we will be providing to this House tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker,
this is the great government of pass the buck.
The fact is not only have they been wrong every year, every year they
have overestimated all of those unknown factors. How come every year they overestimate growth?
Provincial Deficit
Government Prediction
Mr.
Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): My second question for the minister, Mr.
Speaker.
In
addition to always overestimating growth, they chronically underestimate
deficit. They underestimated it in four
of the last five years by a total amount of $473 million, almost $100 million a
year.
The
difference this year is that the government has the opportunity to call an
election before they are proven wrong.
This will be the year where they will not have to account for the
numbers they get wrong.
My
question for the Minister of Finance:
Has he got a new method, because he has never been right, he has always
overestimated growth and he has always underestimated the deficit. What assurances can he give the voters of
this province this year that he might be close?
*
(1350)
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I can tell by the supplementary
question that the Leader of the Second Opposition Party did not listen to a
word I said. It is abundantly clear by
his supplementary question.
I
just indicated to him, in 1993‑94, our own revenue sources are right on
target, our own expenditures are right on target, and the issue that has driven
the adjustment in the deficit is the reduction in equalization payments as has
occurred right across Canada.
I
have had the opportunity to speak with the bond grading agencies, to speak with
the underwriters, and I can tell you and this House, Mr. Speaker, that they
highly regard the Province of Manitoba, and that is why you get comments from
organizations, like the Dominion Bond Rating company, calling Manitoba the most
fiscally responsible government in all of Canada since 1987.
Economic Growth Rate
Government Prediction
Mr.
Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, they have never, ever been
right. They have never been right not
only on growth, not only on deficit, but the great long‑range forecasting
that was promised at the beginning of this government, Sir. They have never been right on that. In the last four years, they have missed that
by $920 million.
My
question for the minister: They have
been wrong on these every year. Why have
they consistently taken the approach that the minister takes today, the Brian
Mulroney, Kim Campbell approach‑‑it is somebody else's fault; we do
not really know?
Why
do they not be honest with the people of this province and tell us what the
real growth rate is, because the real growth rate is way behind the national
average? The 16,000 people who are not
working today, who were five years ago, they know that. Why does not this Minister of Finance?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I guess, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the
second opposition party is falling into that rut that if you repeat an
inaccuracy over and over, sooner or later some people are going to believe it,
and maybe the media will report it.
All
I can do is repeat to him, if he looks at the Estimates in '93‑94, if he
looks at the Estimates in '92‑93, credibility is built around your
ability in terms of your own numbers, the numbers that you provide and your
ability to come in on target on those numbers, and we have done just that.
If
you look at the adjustments that have flowed from the federal government in
terms of equalization, those have been the issues that have adjusted our bottom
line. As has happened, if the member of
the second opposition party wants to call and contact some of his colleagues in
Prince Edward Island, if he wants to talk to somebody in New Brunswick and find
out and take the time to understand transfer payments, I know equalization is a
complicated formula, but I would encourage the Leader of the Second Opposition
to take the time.
He
talks about wanting to do balance in this House, to come and speak with
knowledge on issues and to bring credibility in terms of dealing with issues,
Mr. Speaker. I encourage him to do that,
to take the time to look at those kinds of issues and to do his homework before
he asks any questions.
Health Care System Reform
Consultations
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, as the minister is aware, many useful suggestions have been
made regarding real health reform. I
note from a document that I reviewed this morning that a number of matters
about real reform have not been dealt with, things like poverty, growth, fee
for service, the high price of technology, the high price of drugs, the
expanded role of nursing, an expanded community‑based health care. None of these things have been done by this
government.
When
will this government stop slashing and cutting and deal with the real aspects
of health reform as indicated in that document?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member is correct. Much has been done and much remains to be
done, and we will be improving our health care system and making it sustainable
by working very closely with health care providers and consumers in this
province, as we have been doing for the past several years.
The
honourable member's suggestion leads one to the conclusion that the main plank
in the campaign platform of the New Democratic Party today in this House and
outside is that we should consult. Well,
Mr. Speaker, you cannot have consult on the one hand, pandering on the other,
especially when quality consultation is exactly what has been going on in this
province.
I
will be speaking shortly after Question Period today, I understand, and will
outline some of the moves forward we have made, but the honourable member and
his colleagues are not partners, unfortunately.
I have repeatedly invited the honourable member to become a partner and
he has opted not to do that, and I can only wonder why.
*
(1355)
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr. Speaker,
all of those points that I suggested the government has not moved on health
reform are part of the minister's own document which he probably has not
read. They have been cutting and
slashing and not even dealing with their own document.
My
supplementary to the minister is: Since
the MNU this morning has put out a working paper that suggests many of the same
things in the MNU document that the government originally suggested have been
done, what will the government do to actually involve the community in real
health reform?
Mr.
McCrae: I refuse to
accept the policies that the honourable members opposite embrace, those being
the policies embarked on in our neighbouring provinces of
The
document the honourable member refers to is one that I refer to very frequently
in my now 44 communities that I have visited in this province, and it continues
to enjoy unanimous support.
The
honourable member says he supports it, but everything he does and says works
against the achievement of the goals outlined in that document, Mr. Speaker.
Consultations‑‑Nursing
Organizations
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
My final supplementary to the minister:
Will the government which has now included doctors in 14 more of the 46
committees working on health reform, will the minister undertake today to
promise this House that nurses aides, members of the community and other
caregivers will be included in these 46 working committees of which 27 now have
doctors, Mr. Speaker?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Health): Recently, Mr. Speaker, we were not able to
partner as well as we should with members of the medical profession.
For
many, many years in
Our
door is wide open for members of the nursing profession. We already work with many, many members of
the nursing profession on many, many of these committees, and will continue to
do so. We value their input.
The
honourable member's input always has a slant to it that has little to do with
patient care and everything to do with labour issues, Mr. Speaker, and
sometimes that is not so helpful.
Education System
Guidance Counselling
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, child abuse is a serious and growing problem in our society
today, partially as a result of economic policies that have led to greater
poverty and unemployment.
Violence
is another problem in the schools that is growing, as well as substance
abuse. There are more broken families
during these difficult economic times that are taking place at this time, and
yet this government has seen fit to eliminate many guidance counsellors, which
is obviously a growing need in our schools as a result of its funding policies
over the last couple of years.
I
want to ask the minister how he is proposing to deal with this growing need in our
schools and in society in the form of curriculum and other program development
for the schools.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Well, Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the
member is so far‑reaching and is so fundamental to so many of the
discussions that are taking place with respect to all levels of society today,
I think it is unfair that he tries to cast in the terms of the education system
being the solution to all of society's ills.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I recognize full well that we have tried in society through our
education system to reach out to many of the realities of difficulty within
society, and to that end we will continue to try to do our best. I am not one who stands here and believes
that the education system, in itself, can fix all the problems that the member
has brought forward in his question.
*
(1400)
Mr.
Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I
want to ask the minister, in view of the fact that he acknowledges that the
education system plays a very important role in dealing with this issue, why he
has cut, eliminated the position responsible for guidance and child abuse
program development in his Curriculum Branch as a result of his latest moves in
reducing and devastating the Curriculum Branch in this province.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I
was chastised before by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), the bench
seatmate of the member for Dauphin, for not disclosing university funding.
I
can say to the member, there will be information. It will be forthcoming in the budget that
will deal again with the curriculum development branch.
Mr.
Speaker, I would say to the member for Dauphin also, wait until tomorrow when
there will be greater certainty around not only the question that he poses but
indeed the question posed by the member for Flin Flon.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr. Speaker,
that is precisely why we are asking the question now. If that position has been eliminated in times
of growing need, we want a commitment from this minister, and that is what I am
asking for, that he will in fact expand these services rather than eliminate
those services during the time that they are in greatest need by the public and
by the schools of
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker,
if I thought for one moment that filling that position would correct the
societal problems that we have, I would have filled that position on coming
into office.
The
member may like to try and make those viewers believe that because we do not
have this one consultant position filled, we therefore are the cause of the
problems he brings before us. I do not
think many people are going to believe that.
I know they will not. I know they
understand that in education reform, all of us are going to have to come to
grips in a meaningful way with the questions the member brings forward today.
Workforce 2000
Northern Blower
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Would
the minister tell the House whether or not the $80,000 of Workforce 2000 rebate
granted to Northern Blower over the last two years for technological training
has been or will be used to train those who have taken the jobs of workers who
have been on strike since the summer of 1992?
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member
for Wolseley is trying to achieve.
We
as a government do not interfere in the negotiations between companies and
their employees. We do not think it is
appropriate to do that. That dispute is
obviously ongoing. One hopes it will be
settled. Conciliation services have
always been available, but I do not think it is right for the Ministry of
Labour to be involved in choosing one side or another in a particular labour
dispute.
Workforce 2000
Northern Blower
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Education.
Would
he undertake to table the curriculum of the training programs at Northern
Blower to which the taxpayers have contributed $80,000, so that we may confirm
publicly what the Minister of Labour has refused to answer, whether or not this
money was used to train replacement workers?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I see at least the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) is off this track. He does not dare rise again and