LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, May 3, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

Functions of the Office of Speaker

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. As is the case with our rules, I will be following it with a motion.

The matter of privilege relates to a very important matter for this House. It relates to the function of the office of Speaker, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and relates to one of the most fundamental aspects of your role, which is as the impartial ruler of this House in terms of our roles, in terms of our orders, and indeed the centuries of tradition that have established very clearly that the role of Speaker is one which requires the absolute recognition of the impartiality of the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this matter because the comments that were made were not made strictly by a member of the Legislature in a general sense, but by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this House who indicated‑‑and I want to quote the words of the Premier because I think the comments are of grave concern to anyone that recognizes just how important the role of the Speaker is in this House. The Premier‑‑and I have just received a transcript of these comments today so it is the first opportunity that I have the ability to raise this matter‑‑stated: When the votes are taken we have 29, they have 28.

Indeed, it was stated in an interview and I will deal with that, because that is a germane point that needs to be dealt with in terms of consideration of a matter of privilege. I know the Premier may not consider those comments to be that important, but we in this House and the public of Manitoba do.

I think it should be very clear, Mr. Speaker, in looking at our traditions, the rules of this House in terms of the precedents, whether it be Erskine May on page 180 of the 21st edition or more germanely, in terms of Beauchesne which states very clearly: "The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality."

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to cite not only Citation 168(1), but 168(2): "In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity."

Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicate clearly that he does not perceive your role as being the independent arbitrator of this House, under Beauchesne, under Erskine May, under the traditions of the parliamentary system. The Premier seems to feel that you are subject to the government Whip as indicated by those statements.

* (1335)

I raise that in the context of some very interesting precedents we have in this House. Some members may recall, Mr. Speaker, on Monday the 13th of December, 1982, when members of the then‑opposition considered what they felt were undue influences that might have been placed on the Speaker at that time, they raised a matter of privilege followed by a motion which was then put to the House. In fact, it was Sterling Lyon who raised the issue and indicated at the time that their concern for a matter of privilege was related to statements that had been made by the then‑Premier to the then‑Speaker of the House in 1982.

We have also other precedents. One may recall the former member for Portage having made comments, and I believe you made a ruling in terms of comments that were made outside of this House involving the office of Speaker, because the bottom line here is, in terms of a matter of privilege, while under normal circumstances comments that are made outside of the House might normally not be considered a matter of privilege, there is precedent where those comments have involved reflections on your role in this House, the role of the Speaker.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are raising this matter, because in this session of the Legislature, as you did on Friday when you using your judgment cast your deciding vote, it was based on precedent, not any affiliation to any political party, not to any Whip imposed by the Premier. In fact, the bottom line is if this Legislature is to function in the way it should, it should be based on your clear impartiality which we recognize in the opposition, something we wish to see from this government.

That is why I would like to move, Mr. Speaker, and I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)

THAT the statements made by the Premier calling into question the impartiality of the Speaker be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to table the transcript in which it states the particular quote: When the votes are taken we have 29, they have 28. You will continue to see this happen and I do not see it as being a lot different from other years.

That is the particular reference that is made.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson for that document.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, certainly the member for Thompson has the right to bring before this Chamber any matter that he considers to be appropriate. On the other hand, there is no question that in this particular case, the case that he makes is way out in left field, so to speak.

I acknowledge totally the comments having been made and the comments were a reflection of the fact that we have had six votes in this Chamber thus far this session, six votes in which the results were 29 to 28. Nobody in this House, Mr. Speaker‑‑and I particularly resent the member for Thompson alleging that you, Sir, have taken a partisan role in this Legislature. That is not something that anyone ought to allege. Everyone on this side of the House respects the impartiality and the record that you have established in an even‑handed, fair and balanced manner over this House at all times by the rules of the House and by all of the precedents.

* (1340)

Indeed, throughout the process the comments that I have made and the comments that have been reflected by your actions in this House are that you, Sir, will ensure that you act in such way as to follow the rules and the precedents that have been long established in the parliamentary tradition throughout the world, long established that the Speaker has in the past and on the precedents that you have quoted, voted to continue the debates or voted to continue the government in power in the case of a tie vote. That is precedent and that is amply demonstrated and amply supported throughout the history of parliamentary democracy.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would never, ever bring myself in a position to question your impartiality or your right to rule in accordance with the precedents that have been long established in the parliamentary tradition of this world.

I think it is shocking that the members opposite, particularly in the New Democratic Party, would be so shallow as to try and make an issue of this and that they have so little credibility and so little upon which to found their electoral position in this province that they would attempt to bring this as a major issue before the House and attempt, through their inappropriate actions, to try and call some attention to your actions and to try and infer some sense of impartiality.

Mr. Speaker, I just say that I know you will deal with it in the appropriate manner, and I have total confidence and trust in your impartiality and your ruling on this matter.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, no one in the Chamber wants to question and impair impartiality of your rulings. In listening to what my colleague the House leader from the New Democratic Party is saying, you know, we look at it in terms of the media would quite often refer that the government has 29 members and the opposition has a combination of 28 members.

I think that Leaders of all three political parties have at times acknowledged that the government is 29, 28. We do not want to question the impartiality of the Chair, but I think at the very least, you could maybe give some caution to all members, whether you are the Premier of the province or you are Leader of an opposition or members of the media, that in fact this is a House that is borderline majority with a 28, 28, and you, Mr. Speaker, are in fact for all intents and purposes, an independent. Your decisions in the past have been based on precedents of this Chamber, and we look forward to you continuing just doing that.

* (1345)

Mr. Speaker: I would truly like to comment on this matter at this point in time, because there does appear to be a cloud hanging over the Chair at this moment.

I thank all honourable members for their remarks on this matter. A matter of privilege, as we are all quite aware, is a very, very serious matter, so I am going to take the opportunity to take this matter under advisement to be able to peruse the remarks that have just been put on the record, and I will come back to the House with a ruling. I thank all honourable members, by the way.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Brandon University Foundation Directors

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Brandon University Foundation, praying for the passing of an act to increase the number of directors of the foundation to not more than 42 or not less than eight persons, of whom three shall be members of the Board of Governors of Brandon University.

Thompson General Hospital Patient Care

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lucy Manary, Bob Gurniak, Sandra Quigley‑Jensen and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the government of Manitoba to consider reviewing the impact of reductions in patient care at the Thompson General Hospital with a view towards restoring current levels of patient care and, further, to ask the provincial government to implement real health care reform based on full participation of patients, health care providers and the public, respect for the principles of medicare and an understanding of the particular needs of northern Manitoba.

Government Promotion of Gambling

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jeff Hunt, Chris Blaquiere, Carl Ross and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to urge the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation (Mr. Ernst) to consider initiating a full public debate on the role of government in owning establishments and promoting gambling in Manitoba.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Old Age Pension

Request to Federal Government

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to withdraw this petition. It was drafted by seniors in my constituency. I am to understand it may be out of order, but if it could be taken as notice.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to allow the honourable member for Thompson to remove his petition under Reading and Receiving Petitions? [agreed]

I would like to thank the honourable member for Thompson.

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, 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 Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table the Annual Report 1992‑93 of the Public Trustee.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today visitors from the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia who are visiting Canada under the auspices of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency.

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

Also with us this afternoon, seated in the public gallery, we have again today from Ness Junior High School, seventy‑five Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Baydak. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh).

Also this afternoon, from the YM‑YWCA Adult Education Program, we have 13 students under the direction of Mrs. Nancy Kelly. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you all here this afternoon.

* (1350)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Manitoba Telephone System

Layoffs

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

During the Speech from the Throne and in the document tabled a couple of weeks ago, the government stated: "We want secure and satisfying jobs, not only for ourselves, but for everyone who is able to work and who values the dignity of employment."

We have learned today that for the first time since 1932, Manitoba Telephone System has issued 200 layoffs to their employees working throughout the communities in Manitoba. This seems to go quite contrary to the government's words, and is even more concerning to us when you consider the fact that the Telephone System had a surplus last year, in 1993, of $20 million. It has a projected surplus this year of $20 million, according to the Public Utilities Board.

It seems to us, with all the unemployment going on, with all the extra costs the government is incurring over the last five years of welfare costs‑‑does it make any sense at all again to have layoffs in one of our Crown corporations? Will the government take action to stop these layoffs?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, if we look across the country, every telco is reducing the workforce. New technology, automated equipment actually requires less people.

In the province of Manitoba, although it is unfortunate 200 layoffs are announced today at the Manitoba Telephone System, over 900 jobs have been created in Manitoba in the telecommunications industry in the last year. That brings it to over 3,000 people employed outside of the Telephone System in telecommunications in the province of Manitoba.

The Manitoba Telephone System management has tried desperately to avoid the layoffs. They wanted the workers to take the voluntary 3.8 percent reduction in salary, in other words, 10 days in the workweek reduction program. The employees refused that option. That left the management with little or no choice but to exercise the layoffs.

Mr. Speaker, in comparison, in Ontario, Bell Canada asked the unions to take a reduction of 10 percent in salaries or 5,200 layoffs. They chose the reduction in salary to save the jobs.

Manitoba Telephone System

Layoffs

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Telephone System made $20 million last year. [interjection] If the former Minister of Finance wants to answer the questions, I am sure we would listen to him. He is no stranger, of course, to layoffs and reductions in people working.

When the government introduced their capital tax on Crown corporations and was asked questions in this Chamber on April 21, 1994, about the increased revenue being taken from those Crown corporations‑‑we project between $2.5 million to $4 million at the Telephone System, depending on the application of the tax‑‑the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) stated: I would expect the two Crown corporations will be able to absorb these costs from within their projected earnings. They both are projecting to be above budgeted surpluses for the coming year.

I would ask the government‑‑given the fact that Oz Pedde had said before in October of 1992: Reductions will take place through attrition; nobody has been hurt by this program at MTS‑‑why is the government now proceeding to lay people off? Are there not enough people on the welfare lines? Are there not enough people on UI in Manitoba? When are we going to stop the insanity of layoffs in our province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is hard to accept the hypocritical attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in these circumstances.

The Manitoba Telephone System offered to the union that represents these workers a very simple way for them to avoid the 200 layoffs. That is, to accept the same solution that is being accepted right across the board in public sector employment in the provincial government, in Crown corporations, including MPIC, including the Hydro and throughout the public service, and that was that they take off the 10 days without pay and avoid 200 layoffs. The union leadership chose the layoffs, and if that member supports that, then he is the one who ought to be ashamed of himself.

* (1355)

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have 200 people being laid off. They do not know who they are in the Telephone System. We have 4,000 people now worried, going home tonight potentially thinking that they may be the ones that are being laid off.

This will have a tremendous impact, not only on the families in the Manitoba Telephone System that are working there, it will also have an impact on consumer confidence in the province of Manitoba. It will ripple through as other layoffs do in terms of the purchases of goods that people make in our economy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what action will this government take if there is an impasse at the Telephone System? What action and what leadership will this government take to bring the parties together to find a creative way to deal with this issue, so that we are not laying people off and we are not having further insecurity right throughout Manitoba in terms of the Manitoba Telephone System?

Mr. Filmon: Bill 22 was a creative way to avoid layoffs. It was so creative that it has been picked up by seven of the other provinces in Canada, Mr. Speaker, including Ontario. I have been complimented on it by other Premiers saying this was a good way to avoid layoffs; this is the way to save salary costs and avoid layoffs. We have provided that creative, flexible way to the Crown corporations, to the employees of Manitoba Telephone System.

If the member opposite really believes what he stands for, what he says he stands for, why does he not, as a former union boss himself, pick up the phone and talk to the head of the union and tell them that they can take all of the anxiety away, they can take all of the worry away, just convince their members, no layoffs as long as you take the 10 days off without pay.

Manitoba Sugar Co.

Negotiations

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, sugar beet producers in Manitoba are under a tremendous amount of pressure because Manitoba Sugar has locked out employees from the plant. Because contracts and seed are controlled by the company, farmers cannot begin planting the crop. Even though negotiations are breaking down, workers have said they are willing to go back to ensure that the crop is planted. They are willing to work while negotiations are going on.

I want to ask this government what steps they are going to take to ensure that the sugar beet crop will be planted this spring in Manitoba.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Swan River is somewhat outdated in her information. There has been a great deal of discussion going on this morning. Myself, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) have been involved in a great number of discussions.

I am pleased to announce that I have been informed that the parties will be resuming negotiations this afternoon and that we have floated a variety of options that we believe may see the conclusion of this agreement, or at least offer parties, if they are willing to be reasonable, a means of achieving a process or a settlement that will allow the crop to be seeded this year.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the government recognizes the importance of this industry, because we cannot afford to have 275 producers put out of work nor can we have the people at the plant, some 160 jobs eliminated from this industry.

I want to ask the minister what steps they will take beyond this to ensure that the crop will go in. Can they negotiate and ensure that the seed will be in the farmers' hands this week so they can get that crop into the ground?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Swan River is demonstrating the danger of having prepared questions and not getting the answer one wants, because there is a fundamental reality. If there is no sugar beet plant there, if the company closes the plant because they cannot reach an agreement, then there is no need to grow the beets. There is no need to seed the beets, which somehow she seems to be implying that if things break down and we do not have an agreement, the farmers should still go and seed the beets.

There is one fundamental reality here. An agreement has to be reached that is liveable by the parties who have to work with it, and all the labour relations gimmicks, all the different types of tools that avoid finding a solution that the parties can live with will mean the end of that industry.

This government is working very hard with the parties involved through our mediator and through other means to achieve that type of liveable agreement.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. I was asking him what would he do if this did not work. He indicated that the plant might close. We are told that Manitoba Sugar may be using this as an excuse to close the plant in Manitoba.

Is this government prepared to lose that industry, this multimillion dollar industry from this province‑‑

* (1400)

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speculate today on what the motives are on either side. I cannot speculate whether Manitoba Sugar has another agenda or Mr. Christophe has another agenda either. I am not going to get into doing that. We are working to achieve an agreement that both parties can live with that will allow for a sugar industry in Manitoba for another season of growing beets.

Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, every time members opposite come into this debate and try to extend in some way‑‑what other plan, what other plan‑‑and interfere in that process of negotiation and give false hope that somehow there is going to be a magic solution that is not on, they do more harm to the process. I wish they would appreciate what in fact is happening here.

Video Lottery Terminals

Social Costs

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been asking the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation to release and table the five‑year plan of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation which is done each year and updated each year. I have now received a copy of the corporate plan for 1991 through '96 and I acknowledge that it is not the most current plan, which I would invite the minister to table, but I do want to pick up on some of the comments in that plan.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the minister indicated that to his knowledge there was no link between addiction, compulsive gambling and other social problems that people are facing. Page 16 of this report, which was taken to cabinet I am led to understand, specifically indicates that the VLTs will be highly addictive, and the major social consequences of this is the addictive effect it will have on certain segments of the population using gambling as a form of behaviour to deal with certain psychological problems that they have. The consequences could be serious for these people and their families in a financial sense, and the onus will be laid on government. That is the plan which was put before this government before VLTs came into place, specifically indicating that those with other psychological problems will be more susceptible to these highly addictive machines.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister now come forward and be honest about the knowledge that the government had about the impact of VLTs on those who otherwise psychologically had difficulties and were having problems?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, while I became the minister on September 10, 1993, the former minister and our government hired Dr. Rachel Volberg, who is the pre‑eminent psychologist and pre‑eminent guru, if you like, of these kinds of activities. She has the most knowledge of anyone in North America with respect to the potential for problems resulting from gambling.

We hired Dr. Volberg, expended a significant amount of money in order to have her analyze the situation as it relates to Manitoba. She determined, to the best of her knowledge and the information that she was able to glean and analyze, that about 1.3 percent of the adult population of Manitoba potentially could have a problem, result in gambling addiction.

That being said, in the state of Texas where there is no organized gambling, about 1.3 percent of the population there also have the potential to be pathological gamblers.

So while we do not, for a minute, think that there are not going to be problems associated with this‑‑otherwise we would not have put $2.5 million towards the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba in order to run programs to deal with potential and addictive behaviour‑‑we do know that it is a small percentage of the people who are involved in this activity.

Club Regent/McPhillips Street Station

Marketing Campaign

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, firstly, the Volberg report came a couple of months after they had installed 2,000 VLTs. Secondly, we have yet to see the full Volberg report. It is not being made public.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister.

The club concept which was used for McPhillips Street Station and Club Regent, page 49 of this corporate plan, specifically was done‑‑and I want to ask the minister to explain this‑‑in order to attract the low to moderate income patrons that electronic bingo at these institutions has become a fashionable "in" activity for them, it says, and they are targeted in a marketing sense, and, secondly, that the elderly and those who are in need of getting together socially, the elderly and the lonely, Mr. Speaker, would be particular targets for these gambling casinos.

Can the minister explain why they opted for a club concept with a marketing plan which targeted the poor, the elderly and the depressed?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, I reject totally the member's referral to the poor, the elderly and the depressed.

The fact of the matter is that those facilities, Club Regent and the McPhillips Street Station, replaced existing bingo halls that attracted thousands of Manitobans on a regular basis. They were old, they were poorly developed and were in desperate need of replacement, with decent air handling quality and decent atmospheres. That is exactly what happened. Those facilities were replaced with new facilities with decent air handling equipment to provide for a clean environment inside and a reasonable atmosphere for those who wish to play bingo and who had frequented those previous halls for many, many years.

Mr. Edwards: Those bingo halls were replaced with clubs. The club concept has its own chapter in this book.

I want to ask the minister to explain why they went for a club concept with a marketing plan which specifically targeted the elderly. In particular it said, it concluded: The elderly in particular use the bingo club as a point of contact, often their only point of contact with other people.

Why has this government, instead of doing something in the Seniors Directorate, targeted the seniors and lonely people in our society as their primary marketing target for the clubs on McPhillips Street and Regent Avenue?

Mr. Ernst: It may come as a surprise to the Leader of the second opposition party, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is an awful lot of elderly people have been playing bingo in this province for a very, very long time. They play it in churches. They play it in community clubs. They play it in all kinds of facilities. We have provided in these two facilities now a reasonable, decent, clean atmosphere for them to conduct those activities that they make by their choice.

Victims Assistance Programs

Government Commitment

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

Manitobans are now aware of three instances in the last few months where the government has refused to support victims' cases. There was the Ann Justice case, where the government, for failure to pay a witness, caused significant difficulties. Last week, one of Manitoba's most wanted fugitives was not extradited. As well, we understand from an article today, that an essential witness in the Desjarlais case has not been brought to trial.

Mr. Speaker, with the historic backlogs in the courts, with the reduction in funding for Victims Assistance, there is a concern that victims will start to give up on our justice system in Manitoba.

My question to the minister is: Would the minister confirm that it is a priority of this government that it pay $1 million for eight judges to not work rather than to allocate some resources to simple justice and victims?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the member and I will speak about all of the services that are provided to Manitobans through our Victims Assistance line when we get into Estimates. I think he will be very surprised and I hope very pleased, as Manitobans are, by the number of Manitobans who are served by those programs.

He raises issues, whereas he admits himself that his research is done strictly through the newspapers, nothing further than that. He raises a case in which today he did his research through the newspaper, but the member should know that the newspapers do not always report all of the information.

In this case, the individual who was reportedly required to be here did not have unique knowledge of the case, Mr. Speaker. That individual was seen as an expert witness. In that case, there was another expert who was available to the Crown in this province.

* (1410)

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I suggest to the minister that if she is concerned about Victims Assistance, which is not the case according to the Estimates, Mr. Speaker, she make sure that the victim's case‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. First of all, I would like to remind the honourable member, this is not a time for debate.

The honourable member for St. Johns, with your question, please, sir.

Mr. Mackintosh: My simple question to the minister is: Will she confirm that, because the government is spending $1 million on eight judges this year, there will be less money available to bring witnesses to trial and bring the accused to justice?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and the member will find out. When we get into the discussion of Victims Assistance, he will find out exactly how many individuals again have been helped. I will also be able to talk to him then about the very substantial amount of money which is spent by Prosecutions to see cases through the courts.

I am also very happy to table a page of the decision which came down in the highest court of Manitoba, the Court of Appeal, and the justices in that case said, nor are we satisfied that the case against the accused, even bolstered by the evidence of Dr. Ross, would be any stronger. The member is wrong.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to confirm this.

Will she confirm to the House that two senior support positions in the Prosecutions branch have been done away with? Is that the kind of support that victims are getting in this province?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a personnel office in which staff have been redeployed. When we get to the Estimates of the Department of Justice, I will be very happy to speak about those.

However, Mr. Speaker, the member has mentioned an early retirement package offer‑‑and I just want to take him back to the days when the NDP were in government, the former Attorney General‑‑at that time prior to October 1987, there was an early retirement package offered which entitled judges to one week for each week of service to a maximum of 15 weeks.

But the Attorney General of the day, the Attorney General, a member of the New Democratic Party, who was in government at the time, changed that. In fact, he made an offer to the judges which said: I am very pleased to inform you that cabinet has approved a different method for the determination of compensation for the provincial judiciary. We have also improved an enhancement of the retirement benefit which will be available to all provincial judges. The temporary retirement benefit adds an additional two and a half weeks of salary to a maximum of 52 weeks for every year of service to the existing entitlement‑‑the exact same offer which is being made.

Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to table the letter that was written to Judge Charles Rubin, signed by the Attorney General of the day, Vic Schroeder.

Deputy Minister of Health

Salary

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, last year according to the government's Supplementary Estimates, the Deputy Minister of Health earned $102,400. This year, he is getting a raise and is going to be paid $106,700, an increase of $4,300 or over 4 percent of salaries.

How, in these times of bed cuts, nurse layoffs, user fees, high‑priced consultants, can this minister justify an increase of this kind to the salary of the deputy minister?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I told the honourable member yesterday as we discussed this matter as we reviewed‑‑

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): We did not have any media there, though.

Mr. McCrae: No, no media there, Premier.

We discussed this matter in review of the Estimates. The Deputy Minister of Health is treated no differently than any other civil servant working for the government. If there is an increase from one level to another level, that is exactly the same treatment as any other civil servant. Deputy ministers are also affected by measures like Bill 22, exactly like any other civil servant.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, and exactly like every other civil servant, in 1992‑93, the deputy minister was paid $94,600 and yet this year his salary is increased to $106,000 which is over a $10,000 increase, well over 10 percent.

Is that the way the average civil servant in Manitoba is treated, particularly in light of 200 layoffs at MTS today and other cutbacks of this government? How can this minister justify that?

Mr. McCrae: It is my understanding that Bill 22 has saved hundreds of people from being laid off in Manitoba. That is why I supported that legislation, because I do not like seeing people being laid off.

The honourable member and his Leader today are suggesting that we should be criticized for layoffs when their union colleagues, the ones they seem to be speaking for when they come to this place, support that approach. I am hoping that unions in this province will be mindful of the fact that layoffs are the last option that we would like to use as government.

I can only repeat what I said yesterday when I had the deputy minister at my elbow who was able to confirm also that his treatment has been no different from the treatment accorded anybody under his supervision or in the government.

Mr. Chomiak: How can the minister not admit that this sends a very, very bad message out to the thousands of health care workers and other dedicated people in the system who have seen cuts and layoffs on a massive scale? How can the minister state, with any kind of integrity, that this is a normal process when the deputy minister has seen a massive increase of 10 percent in his salary at this time and era?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I am not accepting the numbers that the honourable member is quoting. The budget documents show certain numbers. The honourable member raised this question yesterday, and I thought we came to the conclusion of it.

The honourable member knows that there are people who work for the civil service who move from one step in a classification to another based on merit. That is not new. I think the numbers in the budget reflect that for the Deputy Minister of Health.

In addition to that, any impact of Bill 22 that other civil servants might experience is exactly the same impact that the Deputy Minister of Health will experience.

Municipal Board

Review of Gimli Project