PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 15--Elimination of the $50 User Fee

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that

WHEREAS the provincial government unilaterally introduced a $50 user fee for patients using the provincially funded Northern Patient Transportation Program; and

WHEREAS more than 4,000 northern Manitobans have responded by saying that they object to the imposition of this user fee; and

WHEREAS the Manitoba Medical Association has indicated in a letter to the Minister of Health that the imposition of such a user fee is detrimental to the health care of northerners; and

WHEREAS many families, particularly single-parent families and seniors, find the imposition of the $50 user fee to be an unacceptable and onerous financial charge against their health care; and

WHEREAS without exception, the 36 public presentations and the 10 written submissions to the Northern Aeromedical Services Task Force supported enhanced northern regional health services and a continuum of northern air transport services, goals which are severely hampered by the imposition of the $50 user fee.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider immediately suspending the $50 user fee on access to Manitoba's health care system.

Motion presented.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I humbly apologize to the House. I made an error. The first part of the private members' hour was to deal on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).

Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Jennissen: On behalf of my constituents and on behalf of northerners generally, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak in favour of the resolution and against the unjust and unilaterally imposed $50 user fee for patients using the Northern Patient Transportation Program which is a provincially funded program.

Nothing raises the ire of northerners more--and what my friends jokingly refer to as the republic of northern Manitoba--nothing raises their ire more than this $50 user fee. Virtually all northerners are united on this issue regardless of ideology or political stripe. Over 4,000 northerners have signed cards and petitions condemning the user fee.

They view this $50 user fee as a symbol of how the south in general, and this government in particular, tend to ignore the needs of northerners. Northerners view the fee as unjust and onerous and a deliberate attempt to deter them from using health services. It is seen as one more example of a government that is not up front with northerners, a government with a hidden agenda, a government that cannot be trusted, because with one hand it gives and with the other hand it removes.

An Honourable Member: A government that never had a baby.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, the honourable member says the government that never had a baby. Time and time again members from this side of the House, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the former member for Flin Flon, have spoken against the injustice of imposing a $50 user fee on patients using the Northern Patient Transportation Program.

The government's assumption was and still is, if people in and around Winnipeg can pay for their own transportation to and from the doctor's office, why can northerners not?

That type of thinking, that type of elitest, centralist, perimeter-vision thing is exactly what drives--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Flin Flon with the honourable members from both sides of the House having a debate between themselves. If you want to carry on that conversation, do so in the loge or out in the halls.

The honourable member for Flin Flon to continue, please.

Mr. Jennissen: Going to the doctor in Winnipeg is not identical to going to the doctor into Tadoule Lake or Grandville Lake or Sherridon or Pukatawagan or Brochet or Lac Brochet. First of all, these places do not have doctors. Some of them are lucky to have nursing stations.

Patients from Pukatawagan needing to see a doctor must fly out or take a train. The train runs only two or three times a week. A person from Tadoule Lake wishing to see a doctor or specialist must fly out, catch a scheduled flight out or charter out, and all of this could take or will likely take two or three days. An elderly person from Flin Flon who needs to see a specialist in Winnipeg is facing a 12-hour bus ride one way but also an overnight stay and another 12-hour bus ride back. Now put yourself in the position of that 80-year-old man or woman, bouncing around in a bus for 24 hours in a two- or three-day period, buying meals, finding taxis, finding hotel accommodations and so on.

The simple visit to the doctor is not so simple for the elderly, the sick, the people who do not speak English, the infirm, the young. How often have our northern patients come all the way to Winnipeg only to find the doctor is not in or the appointment was cancelled or to be told come back next week? Yes, we all know that part of the answer is to have specialists and doctors come to the North and to live in the North. Why bring the mountain to Mohammed, bring Mohammed to the mountain. I know, indeed, this is happening to some limited degree.

But the reality is that thousands of Manitobans living in northern and remote communities still need the Northern Patient Transportation Program and that each time they use it they are charged $50. The member from Thompson (Mr. Ashton) once pointed out--and I found this out from reading Hansard--how one of his constituents used the Northern Patient Transportation Program 11 times in a four-month period. That still translates into an extra cost of $550 for this person.

I have talked to elderly people in Flin Flon who have used the program monthly, have visited a specialist in Winnipeg every month for a year. That is still 12 times $50 or $600, Mr. Deputy Speaker, annually and we are not counting now the meals, the taxis, the accommodations, the phone calls. Seniors are often people on fixed incomes. It is much the same story for people on UIC, for single-parent families and so on. Northerners cannot afford this $50 user fee. It is more than a nuisance and a deterrent. It is a cost they can ill afford. They see it also as a slap in the face. It is adding insult to injury. It is considered to be mean-spirited over there. It is considered unnecessary.

This government should be aware of the extra costs that northerners already face when they use the Northern Patient Transportation Program: lost time, lost wages perhaps, meals, taxis, hotels, telephone calls. Those costs are not covered. As the former member for Flin Flon said when discussing higher mortality rates in the North and the fact that northerners access the medical care system far less than people in Winnipeg do, and I quote: the Northern Patient Transportation Program does not begin, does not even begin to cover the real costs northerners face in getting health care.

Now the government has made much of the fact that in some cases the $50 user fee is not charged, and that is indeed true. Northerners on emergency medivacs, cancer treatment or dialysis do not pay that $50, but people on the verge of dialysis still pay it. So do people who are being treated for diabetes or heart disease, post-cancer and so on. A woman facing a difficult pregnancy needing prenatal tests still pays the fee. So does the person who needs a wound suture or the elderly patient who needs a cataract operation. With the new technology, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the CAT scans and the MRIs, the ultrasound and so on, more doctors are sending more patients south for a diagnosis, or at least I think that is the trend because of the new technology.

Now government has argued that the imposition of the $50 user fee for patients using the Northern Patient Transportation Program in no way contravenes any of the five fundamental principles of the health care system, of medicare, and, strictly speaking, that is perhaps true; that is, we want the system to be publicly administered, comprehensive, universal, portable and accessible. Yet government argues that since transportation is a noninsurable service, the federal government will not retaliate if transportation is subjected to a user fee. The government compares that to ambulance transportation, but I would argue that the $50 user fee hampers accessibility. I would argue that a $50 user fee is a definite deterrent to a northerner trying to access the health system. Is the system still accessible when a northerner who is on a tight budget decides he or she can postpone that trip to the doctor, to the specialist, because there is a lack of $50? A northerner might well think twice before going to the doctor simply because of costs, not just the $50, but all the added extra costs.

* (1610)

In fact, I believe this is borne out by the statistics. In the year prior to the $50 user fee being imposed on northerners, and I believe that was 1990-1991, there were 12,000 travel warrants issued. In the year the $50 user fee was imposed, travel warrants dropped to 9,000. That is a 25 percent decrease. Three thousand fewer Manitobans were using travel warrants. Now, how do we account for such a huge reduction in one year?

The government very conveniently assumed that the 3,000 fewer Manitobans using travel warrants between the period July 1991 and July 1992 was entirely due to (a) the influx of more physicians and specialists in northern Manitoba, specifically Thompson, and that is partially correct; and (b) doctors being encouraged to limit and indeed did limit the number of return visits by northern patients.

But there was a third possibility, and it was ignored, namely that many sick Manitobans who should have travelled to see a doctor or specialist simply did not do so because of costs. The $50 user fee was the key component of that cost.

What are the long-range implications of that, of people no longer accessing the system because of costs? Where does that place preventative medicine, preventative health? All it says to me is that if you leave or ignore a condition that should be treated medically, you are only making it worse for the future. The government might save $50 on a sick person now because that person will not see the doctor because of the cost involved, but the government is going to lose many, many more dollars later on when that sick person's condition deteriorates to the point of absolutely needing help. We might save a nickel now but we will lose a buck later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, probably one of the most fascinating aspects--and I just use the word "fascinating," I could have used other words--of the debate raging around the imposition of the $50 user fee around July 1991 was the manner in which the government avoided using the term "user fee." The government used every phrase under the sun except the phrase "user fee." The joke in northern Manitoba was and still is, when is a user fee not a user fee? When you stick it to someone north of 53.

I understand the reason why, for ideological reasons, the government dared not use the term "user fee," because the Winnipeg Free Press on April 25, 1991, featured the following headlines: Showdown expected at Premier's meeting, Filmon vows to fight user fees.

Therefore, the words "user fee" could not be used after that. The Premier was opposed to it. The fee was implemented nonetheless, but, like Cinderella, it changed, poof, it was not really a user fee. The government minister said it was more--let us list the euphemisms--a contribution or an equity tax or an elective transportation contribution. All of those are euphemisms. The northerners had other names for it but I will not repeat those; I try to keep the language parliamentary.

But let us be clear, the same verbal mechanism, the same euphemism that transforms a garbage collector to a sanitary engineer was used in this instance. Calling a user fee any other name, for example, an equity tax, does not solve the problem. The fee or tax is still there. Calling the user fee a contribution suggests that it is being paid voluntarily as if the sick person had a real choice.

The then-Minister of Health, on June 24, 1991, said, quote: There is no user fee in Northern Patient Transportation Program.

That is on the record. Also on the record is the fact that the minister's own briefing book referred to these fees as user fees. In fact, on May 13, 1993, the member for Kildonan (Mr.Chomiak) pointed out this discrepancy, and the minister responded by saying, well, that was just an old and rejected copy of my briefing book--the before-and-after version of the Cinderella story, from harsh and onerous and mean-spirited user fee to gentle equity tax, an elective transportation contribution.

However, northerners do not fool easily. We see that election after election. They need and they deserve equal access to medical services, equal to other Manitobans. The $50 user fee is a deterrent to using those services. Virtually every town and city council in the North has told the government that. The Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities has told the government that. The president of MMA, Dr. Jim Ross, had told the government that.

In the Winnipeg Sun July 4--and I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is a very symbolic date indeed for anyone wishing to Americanize the health system--Dr. Ross said, quote, in the Winnipeg Sun: Plans to deregulate some health care procedures and institute a $50 transportation user fee for northern residents will cut the poor off from possible life-saving procedures.

Now contrast what Dr. Ross says, cutting the poor off from possibly life-saving procedures with the government's version of the events.

On July 8, 1994, the current Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) wrote to the Thompson Citizen. His letter is headlined as, Northern Patient Transport Program very generous. In the letter, the minister states, quote: For some reason, critics have made this program out to be a special hardship for northern residents and say the Manitoba government is picking on residents of northern Manitoba.

I could not have said it better myself. Now, I know the minister believes the opposite, but the vast majority of northerners do not agree with him, nor are the northerners unaware of the fiscal restraints, the tight budgets that are the order of the day. They are well aware of how the federal government is offloading on the provinces and how this can affect health and educational programs. But equally true is the fact that northerners know that governments can make choices. They can opt for or against the poor, for or against northerners. They can opt for or against a direction that will lead to a two-tiered system in health and education. There is enough despair and poverty and illness in northern Manitoba without adding to it by levying user fees against those who can least afford it.

Government has choices, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For example, instead of paying an American consultant, Connie Curran, $4 million, 80,000 Manitobans could have been exempted from the $50 user fee. Governments have choices, and I hope that this government will choose freely and honourably to suspend, remove, abolish--I do not care what--the hated $50 user fee associated with the Northern Patient Transportation Program. Thank you.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon and congratulate the honourable member for Flin Flon on bringing forward for discussion a matter which is of importance to northern Manitobans and should be of importance to all Manitobans, that being transportation for people to and from health services that we provide in our province.

We as Canadians are very, very fortunate people in the sense that, and I say this comparatively, because there are always problems, are there not, but I say we are very fortunate people in our country because the whole culture of our country has proved to be one of caring for the needs of our fellow citizens. I think that culture began many years ago, but I guess I could go back to the early part of this century when the government of Sir Rodmond Roblin began some major reforms and other governments have followed since to improve the lot of Manitobans.

One of the things that came along in the process of the development of our social and our health structure was a transportation program. Now, honourable members will know that when medicare first came to Canada, which has grown to become what we now call our health care system, there were a few ground rules laid down in the Canada Health Act. Those ground rules are the kind of things the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the federal Minister of Health and Welfare like to talk about, the fundamental principles of medicare.

* (1620)

We are talking about a very narrow thing here when we talk about medicare because, wisely I suggest, in our country the medicare program which had government participation has grown to become so much more than that. It is unfortunate today that the federal Minister of Health and Welfare goes after that very narrow area of health care services, which come under the insured services of the medicare system and decides to make a really big issue about that when health care and our health system is so much more than that today than ever was 30 years ago.

I have a theory as to why the federal minister is doing that and that theory has to do with the fact that when you are pulling out hundreds of millions of dollars from provincial health budgets, why not poke a stick in the eye of some Health minister somewhere and start a fight that will divert attention away from what is happening.

I say that to be critical of the approach, not of the bottom line, which I understand, I believe, federal governments have to get their houses in order just like the rest of us do. My comments are not meant to be a total condemnation of the federal government but to say their diversionary tactics are not only not appreciated, but they are not even good for health. However, if it works, I guess, and from a political standpoint, that is what is going to happen.

Back to what I was saying, though, about our health system, transportation to and from medical services or health services is not part of medicare, neither are dental services and a number of other services that are either covered or not covered to varying degrees. There is no law that says in medicare that this is what has to be covered. When it comes to transportation, there are people in this room, in this Chamber, who think that transportation is a right, transportation under the Canada Health Act. It is not. So we approach this issue from that point of view, and we will go from there.

We developed, for Manitobans living north of 53 to the west of Lake Winnipeg, and north of 51 to the east of Lake Winnipeg, a Northern Patient Transportation Program which, for emergent or urgent cases, provides a subsidy which is not available to other Manitobans but, nonetheless, is available to Manitobans residing north of those two points. So, in 1991, the Province of Manitoba brought in this $50 transportation charge, user fee, or whatever you want to call it. This is for the elective component of that program.

The honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) talked about euphemisms and how we use other words to describe user fees or whatever these things really are, which reminded me of Eugene Kostyra. I do not know how many honourable members opposite remember Eugene Kostyra. Well, he followed who we used to call Dr. Debt. Dr. Debt was Vic Schroeder--[interjection] No, no. Then along came--[interjection] Who? Eugene?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) wants to get into debate, he can take 15 minutes when the minister is finished his.

The honourable minister, to continue.

Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for Inkster reminded me of something which, I must confess, for the purposes of the debate this afternoon, had slipped my mind, and I was not going to mention it. He reminds me that the New Democrats are the first people in this province to close down hospital beds, and today we hear--the other day, for example, from the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) raising issues about The Pas Health Complex and forgetting altogether that it is his own colleagues that are the pioneers in hacking and slashing. But, speaking of euphemisms, it was Eugene Kostyra who came out in 1987 with the greatest tax grab in Manitoba history. I remember, I was sitting over there on the other side of the House in--

Point of Order

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with a very serious issue facing northern Manitobans, and that is the northern patient user fee that has been imposed by this government. I do not know what relevance whatsoever the minister's reference to past budgets in the 1970s and political fights that he had in the past has at all with this particular debate. I would just ask you to remind the minister to stay on point so we can have some useful discussion regarding this very important issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member does have a point of order. There is some relevancy required during the debate of resolutions. The resolution that we are debating is dealing with the $50 northern user fee.

* * *

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling, and in using the expression "user fee" as you have in your ruling, you bring me back to the whole business about the euphemisms, which was raised initially by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), which I assume was relevant because he was not called to order.

The euphemism that I was going to recall was the one that described that tax grab, which grabbed taxes in every kind of area you could imagine, and they were referred to not as taxes or the greatest tax grab in Manitoba history, but revenue-raising initiatives. Just for your book of euphemisms, I thought I would raise that for all honourable members.

We have to govern for all Manitobans, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we as a government feel that some of the things that the member for Flin Flon raises, those things are true. You know, northern Manitoba, every place in northern Manitoba is a long way from the Health Sciences Centre or from the various specialist services that are required by Manitobans. That is why there is a subsidy for northern Manitobans.

I realize the honourable member and his colleagues are really unhappy and there might even be some northern Manitobans who share in that unhappiness about the implementation of a $50 fee. But when you consider the totality of the subsidy and you consider that people in other places below the latitudes that I referred to have to pay 100 percent, you have to ask yourself, well, there is an issue here of an equitable sort of arrangement for all Manitobans.

For example, what about the citizen of Red Deer Lake, which is to the south of that particular line that was--you know, all lines are sort of artificial, are they not? Well, I say to you that Red Deer Lake is a long way from Winnipeg, and I do not know that they have a cardiac unit at Red Deer Lake. In fact, I do not think they do. So people from there have to come to the city of Winnipeg for emergent and urgent matters. You know what, Mr. Deputy Speaker? For those people there is no charge if you happen to live north of 53 and north of 51, but for somebody at Red Deer Lake they have got to pay it all.

This is the inherent part of this argument that the honourable member for Flin Flon and his colleagues, altruistic I know they are about people living in northern Manitoba, and I am too, but they forget to remember to mention that.

They forget to mention that somebody in Pierson, Manitoba, for example, down in the southwest corner, has quite a distance to go as well to get to Winnipeg or to Brandon. The point is, if they go to Brandon and they go by ambulance, they pay. It does not matter how far. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is asking how far. The reason there is a subsidy is because there is a difference in distance. The honourable member forgets to remember to tell us that this is a subsidy and not a right. It is a subsidy. What we are doing is asking the patient in those cases that are not urgent or emergent to make a $50 contribution to this cost. Now, everybody else in Manitoba pays it all.

* (1630)

So, difficult as this issue is, I am sure, for the honourable member, and difficult as it is for those of us on this side of the House too because there has been that subsidy, there is an element of equity that has to be discussed as we discuss this issue. I can take honourable members further down the road, and there are still great distances to the city of Winnipeg or to Dauphin or to Brandon or wherever people happen to be referred.

We have people living in the Powell area, the Mafeking area and the Birch River area and the Bowsman and the Swan River area and those places. I can go on down that particular highway and talk about Minitonas and Pine River and Ethelbert, and then we could turn to the right and go east from there and find people living in Gilbert Plains and Roblin and Grandview and head south on 83 to Russell, St. Lazare, Binscarth. There are a lot of places in this province where people live and all those people pay 100 percent of their cost, or they seek supplementary coverage through other arrangements like Blue Cross or some such thing like that.

I do not pretend to tell northern Manitobans that the imposition of a fee for them is something we like to see, but what the honourable member forgets to remember to tell us is that the largest part of the cost is subsidized by government. It is as if the honourable member would have people believe--I bet you when he goes to Flin Flon he does not tell the people about the people everywhere else in Manitoba who have to pay for it all. That is an important point that the honourable member is forgetting in his resolution.

I would like it if every single aspect of everybody's care was something that could be picked up by the taxpayer, but you know the taxpayer says, do a reasonable job. Do not do any more of the Eugene Kostyra and Victor Schroeder style of government and stick your hands deep down into our pockets and keep pulling money out.

I remember Roland Penner did not like that particular analogy when I said, get your hands out of my pockets. He went into a long tirade against me for saying that, bringing in all kinds of Marxist sorts of principles. Maybe they worked in those days for a while, but they do not work in Manitoba or anywhere I know of in Canada.

If you look at electoral results across the country, even Romano's conservatives recognized that you cannot operate that way anymore, and they and the people and the politicians in British Columbia, whatever they are these days, are talking about balanced budgets. Those are the things that people are demanding.

There are a number of other things that I wanted to say--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. McCrae: --but it looks like somebody else is going to have to say them, but thank you very much.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): And indeed I will say them, because I must admit I was wondering whether I was going to debate today, but after hearing the 15-minute tour of the road map of Manitoba here, I am absolutely compelled to speak. I wonder if the minister might want to take that map out again and check and see some of the communities that he, his government, has imposed--not him personally, but the government he was a part of--a $50 user fee on.

If he would like to check, for example, because I have been accused--I remember the Premier in this House saying, well, the people of Gimli have to pay. Would the minister like to check where Gimli is on the map? How far it is, in terms of the road map, to drive from Gimli to Winnipeg? By the way, I have been in Gimli quite a few times. You have a choice of several highways. Would he like to compare that with Thompson, Manitoba, which is an eight-hour drive, or Flin Flon, Manitoba, which is an eight-and-a-half-hour drive?

I would also like to compare Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake because if he checks, there is a map that lists a road there, but if he talks to his Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay), he may find out just what condition that road is in because that is another three and a half hours. It is a grand total of about 12 hours. If you live in Lynn Lake, you cannot drive into Winnipeg the same day and drive back. That is the reality of life. You have to get on a bus. It takes you 14 hours from Lynn Lake to get in. You have to go over one of the worst roads in Manitoba. The second and third worst roads are also in northern Manitoba, coincidentally, and when you get to Winnipeg--and by the way, what this government does, it hits you for the first $50. You do not get coverage of the costs you have to be faced with. Now, I will tell you. I can show him constituents of mine who have got on that bus and constituents of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) have got on that bus, got down to Winnipeg and the appointment is cancelled. And then you go back.

Maybe the minister--and I know the minister is from Brandon which is a grand total of two and a half hours depending on how fast you drive, I guess, from Winnipeg and has a heck of a lot more resources in its hospitals than we do in Thompson. In fact, the Brandon Hospital is considered an urban hospital and I realize the minister may be trying to restrict those resources, but the bottom line is, get that road map out and check where northern Manitoba is and you will see why we are frustrated by what this government is doing.

Now if the minister will pass that geography test, and I remember when he wrote a letter to the paper, my local paper, saying how lucky we were in northern Manitoba to have the Northern Patient Transportation Program. Well I guess we are lucky, too, when it comes to paying the mining taxes and the income taxes and when the money comes from the hydro in northern Manitoba or the forestry. I guess we are lucky, too, in that.

But let him not say that anybody in northern Manitoba is getting a great benefit from the Northern Patient Transportation Program. The fact is, if you live in Winnipeg it costs you $1.35 to get on the bus and go see a doctor. If you live in northern Manitoba it costs a heck of a lot more than that. And it is not only the cost of the transportation. It is because you cannot get in and out the same day so you have to be faced with food and you have to be faced with accommodation costs which are not covered.

So I want to deal with that. If the minister wants to wave the road map around, let him look at the reality of the people he has imposed the $50 fee on and the reality of trying to access medical services which are often not available in northern Manitoba, certainly not available in your home communities. Even in Thompson they are often not available, as well.

That is why this was brought in by the Schreyer government to create equity, real equity, not this kind of reductionist equity the government minister talks about because you know he can quote the communities that are not eligible for this, as well. But the fact is that his government took out the eligibility for full coverage of at least the transportation costs that he has made reference to. Let it also be clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who it applies to, because the government, when it brought in this particular charge and it is a user fee, let there be no doubt about it, used the same kind of euphemisms, you know. The minister likes this word here.

Well the ultimate euphemism is elective procedures. You know what is elective? I will tell you from personal experience of the people I have represented, that I have raised these concerns with the minister, and I am glad he has the road map out again. Thompson, by the way, is at the top of Highway 6. It is about eight hours from Winnipeg. I know the minister has flown in to our community on a few occasions, but he may not have had the opportunity to drive, and I could take him through some of the other communities that are affected, too, in case he is concerned. The same thing for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), too. I know he has been in Thompson recently, but if he wants to drive it, it is a little bit more of a lengthy trip.

But anyway, elective surgery, what is elective surgery and who has to pay this $50 fee? I will give you one example. It is a woman who contacted me, in fact I went and visited her, and you know what? She has a child, there are only 300 kids in the world have this condition. You know what? She was told that, you know, there were other things that frustrated her, the fact that she was told if she lived in Winnipeg they would have child-care services available for her. She was told she should quit her job in Thompson because that is the only way she could realistically look after her child. But her child had to go to Winnipeg for treatment nine times, and do you know how many times this child, this baby with this rare condition, you know how many times that young family had to pay the $50 fee? Nine times. Each and every single time. That is elective.

* (1640)

I will tell you about another constituent of mine who had cancer. She has gone for treatment. Now, if you go for treatment you are covered. For five years she has been going for follow-up treatment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for cancer. You know what? When you go for follow-up treatment for an appointment, that is not covered. That is elective.

I can run through numerous examples like that. You want me to tell you about how lucky people are of this great benefit? How about the people that, you know, even under the current system are told they have to go by bus. Then they have to pay the first $50. That means they get a grand benefit of $70. I can tell you the person that--one of the most bizarre cases that I have seen--where he had to go by bus. He had to pay the $50 user fee. The rest was covered by this generous government, this other $70. This is a person who has had cancer, who has a colostomy bag. I cannot believe that this person had to go to Winnipeg for treatment on the bus.

I can go through numerous other examples of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The person that was borderline dialysis. You know, if he went for dialysis he was covered. I will tell you, this kind of sums it up for me, because I ran into him on the plane one day. He was going down for medical treatment. He said to me, it is frustrating; he said, I am on UIC. I had to give up my job because of my medical situation, and he said, you know, I have got to pay this $50 fee. He said, in a while it will not bother me because, he said, eventually after my UI runs out I will probably end up on welfare. You know what? When I am on welfare I will not have to worry about it anymore, it will be covered. You know, I raised this in this House. I did not raise it with a name involved, but it was interesting, because a very short period of time after that in that case the exception was made. He did have the fee waived, but that is the reality of it.

I will tell you about some of the other people who are getting hit by this elective coverage. I have known people who live in communities where there is no employment. They hit 65 and they go on a pension. Guess what happens, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You have to pay it. You are not on welfare anymore, you are on a pension. You pay that fee.

So when the minister goes around and waves the map around I would like him to sit down with the people that have expressed their concern to me, the young family that has had to go nine times, the woman that has had to go for cancer follow-up treatment every several months. You want to run through that and wonder why northerners get frustrated when we are faced with this in particular.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must admit, I could put it in political terms. I mean, I do recall the then-Minister of Northern Affairs, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), talking about us not knowing how to vote right. Quite frankly, I hate to say this, there are a lot of people who wonder that when it came down to this item if that was not a factor as well. You know, regardless of the politics of it, and the minister can trot out his road map, the fact is, there are a lot of northern Manitobans who face far greater difficulty in accessing medical care than anyone else in this province.

Where there are rural Manitobans that are facing similar difficulties, I would suggest in terms of equity what you should do. You should deal with those concerns as well. That is the logical conclusion of the argument put forward by the minister. It is not to make it more difficult for people who have a difficulty to begin with anyway. I mean, what you are doing is, you are imposing this fee on the people--I tell you, there are people in my community who have no road access. They are hit by this fee.

There are people in my communities who are going time and time again. There is no restriction that you pay it once in the year. There is no deductible here. You pay it nine times if you have to go nine times. You pay it 10 times if you have to go 10 times. You know, it is a real hardship on people.

The fact is, to the minister, this great benefit that he talks about only covers certain of the costs that are covered in terms of the additional cost you face.

Now, I am not suggesting this minister turn around, this government turn around, and cover all the costs. I understand that. I would suggest they review the program. It was a good program when the Schreyer government brought it in. It is still a good program despite the fact that this government is eroding it, but it could be reviewed because I know of many people that should be covered, just in any sense of fairness, and they are not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the route we should go. That is the spirit, I believe, of this resolution. Let us review the process, and let us not forget that the reason this was brought in in the first place was straightforward and simple.

We have two realities in terms of health care in this province. The one is, we can talk about the issues, the two-tiered system that we talk about, but I would suggest to you, if you want to see a model of a two-tiered system, you look at what we have to be faced with in many rural and northern communities because, in essence, where do you have a two-tiered system? It is based on geography.

Our hospitals have been hard hit by cuts. We face doctor shortages. We face that whole equation on the one hand, but, when it finally comes down to the analysis where I am sick or someone in my family is or someone else in my community is and they have to access medical care and it is in Winnipeg, I would suggest to you the ultimate insult is to say, oh, well, we do not cover elective processes; we cover emergencies.

You know, elective processes is going for treatment that is not available for a young baby with a special condition. It is going for checkups related to cancer. It is going for checkups related to specialists. That is what is called elective.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us put the road maps and the sort of rather entertaining speech of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) aside for one moment. Let us put aside everything I have said about the background of this. I ask you one question in terms of fairness. Do you think it is fair? Does anybody in this House think it is fair that those people that I have outlined should be paying this? Should that family have to pay nine times?

An Honourable Member: Choice.

Mr. Ashton: Choice? No one chose to have cancer. No one chose the fact that there are no cancer specialists in our community. No one chose to have a child with a special condition as the member opposite talks about, the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). I would have thought the member would have had some sympathy. I realize many of his communities are a lot closer to Winnipeg than our northern communities, but I said rural communities as well because many rural communities face that.

We understand that bottom line, but I ask you, I appeal to members of this House in terms of fairness. Can anyone in this House say that it is fair for those people that I have outlined to be paying the $50 fee? I think there is only one conclusion, that it is not fair and that this government, regardless of the background of this particular user fee, should go back to the drawing board and make sure that those people who have to go nine times, who have to go for cancer treatment, do not have to pay it.

I ask that as a bare minimum, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is why I say the spirit of this resolution should be supported. That is not only to oppose the $50 fee, but to review the Northern Patient Transportation Program to make sure that it is fair to everyone in this province, and I have suggested especially rural members across the way.

I do not mean this as a slight against urban members. They know what it is like--not entirely--but they know what it is like. I believe that if they had any real sense of freedom in this Chamber to be able to vote in private members' hour with their conscience, they would vote for it because their communities, maybe not to the same extent, are often there. They know what it is like not to have medical service available in your community. I would suggest even many urban members, too, would have a real sense of that.

That is why I appeal to people to vote on this in private members' hour as private members and fully support this resolution brought on by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen).

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to put a few words on the record with respect to this particular resolution.

I am very sympathetic in terms of what it is the opposition is saying on an issue no doubt they feel very compassionate about. I make reference to the speech that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) had given just recently. That is, that we have Bill 201 inside this Chamber which talks about those five fundamental principles. We are trying to say here what is a definition, what are the types of health care services that we want to protect with the scarce resources that are out there?

Then I listened to, in particular, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). He posed the question in terms of fairness, and we have to sympathize with individuals who are put into a situation that is somewhat sad, that makes us feel bad. You know, when I think about that, I think would it not be absolutely wonderful and delightful if in fact of having to cut back in some areas, that we were allowed to be able to expand. I think, for example, of the eight-year-old child that maybe has asthma, that has to pay for its inhaler; I think of the nine-year-old child that has to wear glasses but maybe because of the family situation they do not necessarily have the funds to buy the second pair of glasses, or in some cases, the first pair of glasses.

There are virtually endless services that could be provided through medicare. I think we have to acknowledge that. We could make a lot of sad stories, there is absolutely no doubt about that, but I think at the core of any health care policy, once you have an agreement in principle, and we talk about health care and the ambulance services and we all agree that is an important aspect, we also have to ensure that there is a sense of fairness that is out there.

The Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) points out--and my purpose is not to defend the Minister of Health. Quite frankly, it would have been nice to have had a discussion so that we would know in terms of what the actual costs are for both urban and rural residents. There are always benefits, many benefits. I would welcome the opportunity at sometime in the future to be able to live in rural Manitoba. There are many benefits of living in rural Manitoba. There are many benefits of living in larger urban centres. It is a question of choice, and there are, unfortunately, some costs that are out there, some negative aspects to it.

When we encounter some of those negative aspects such as, for example, what this resolution deals with, we have to be able to as a governing body collectively determine whether or not this is in fact a fee that is going to prevent individuals from receiving essential services.

I was pleased when the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) made reference to the one constituent that he met on the aircraft flying back and forth. Through this particular discussion, and the member brought it up inside the Chamber, they were able to get this particular fee waived. I think that is important that that dialogue occurs. If in fact there is an argument to be made about transportation to medical facilities, that is what we should be talking about and how we can make sure that there is equity across the province, whether you live in the city of Winnipeg in the Tyndall Park area that I represent, Thompson, or if you live out in Morden, there has to be some consistency in policy. There has to be that, first and foremost. We have to take into consideration all circumstances.

* (1650)

I am not going to say that we would oppose this resolution. I am very much though sympathetic to what it is that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) are saying. I think that the issue is much broader than that, and I would have liked to have participated in a debate that deals with ambulance services in general and have a good two-hour discussion or a question-answer dialogue which no doubt we have had in the past in the health care Estimates. There is always going to be a certain element of politics to it.

With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we would obviously not oppose this particular resolution coming to a vote.

Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it must have been reasonably nice 20 years ago to have been a government that could have played, I guess, the role if you will, of Santa Claus to borrow money endlessly and be the nice person, where we could fund all of the things that we hear the cries from across the way. We hear these cries all the time. It would be nice to fund everything and be that nice guy and nice person.

I like to be perceived or be known as a person who would never hurt anybody intentionally. I like to be known as a person who goes out of my way to pick up a hitchhiker on the road who looks like they are not the most wealthy people. I like to be known as the kind of person who comes across an accident and seeing smoke starting to come out of a vehicle that is turned upside down, I like to be known as the kind of person--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with the elimination of a $50 user fee. I am sure the honourable member is about to speak to it, and I am looking forward to it.

Mr. Sveinson: Just talking about this $50 user fee and the fact that our governments today, the federal government and all the provinces right across Canada, are having to become very efficient or try to make reductions wherever they can without hurting people. I was getting to the point where I like to be known as that kind of a person, too, where in fact I do it with the least possible hurt wherever I can. I also like to be known that I am part of this government that has done just that.

This government has tried to make all programs user friendly and efficient. The demand came from the people of Manitoba, from the people of Canada. They also demanded that a fairness be built into the system. We now come down to the finer point of places--and it has been mentioned earlier, and we can take a number of those, Roblin-Russell, Swan River, Sprague, Waskada, Falcon, I could go on and on and on--the many areas where people have to travel hours, many hours, to get to Winnipeg or get to a facility where they can, in fact, get treatment. They, in fact, have to pay all of the costs of transportation--all of it. They have to pay for lodging and so on while they are in the city or the place where they are receiving that treatment.

Now, that is not to say that we then say that everybody should pay; without a heart, we just say, no, everybody has to pay. We did not do that. In fact, if we look closely, we can say in 1994-95, the Northern Patient Transportation Program provided 100 percent subsidy to 1,530 individuals who were transported for either urgent or emergent medical care--1,530; 6,862 individuals were transported under the elective component of the program. Of these, 2,368 were transported by air. This means that these individuals received--or at least in the majority of cases--return air transportation subsidy at an average cost of approximately $500 per flight, of which they were only required to pay $50. I think that we are being fair.

There are cases, too, that have been mentioned earlier that in fact could not pay, and I do know of those cases that did not pay. I have many friends in the North, many friends, and over the past number of years I have visited a number of them and in fact spoken to many who have come out and visited us.

Most of these people, most of them, have never used the Northern Patient Transportation Program--have never used it. Many of them organize a trip out of the North into, be it Winnipeg, some even into the Thompson area, but in to Winnipeg and maybe Brandon, areas like that. They organize where they are going to go and see the doctor, maybe get fitted or checked for new glasses. They might go to a football game or a hockey game. They make, indeed, a trip out of the trip out of the North and never ask for or receive any part of the Northern Transportation Program.

I am not saying that everybody should have to work this way, but I think that what I am saying is that the northerners are trying to be part of that whole plan where in fact we are all doing our part, and if we can afford to do that, we do it. So I commend those northerners very much. I also think that we have to try to continue to be fair, and I say to the people from the northern area, if there are cases, bring them to the minister, talk to the minister. It is not a fast-and-sure thing that the minister is going to say yes to everything, but I am sure that he is willing to sit down and discuss and talk about the situation, and perhaps at that time or down the road there would be possibilities of some change in that program.

* (1700)

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

Madam Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) will have six minutes remaining. The hour being 5 p.m., as previously agreed, we will now move to the second resolution.

Res. 16--Reduced Speed Limits in School Zones

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I move, seconded by the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), that

WHEREAS on July 29, 1992, City Council adopted Clause 2 of the Report of the Committee on Works and Operations which recommended that the Province of Manitoba, Department of Highways and Transportation, consider an amendment to The Highway Traffic Act to limit speeds to 30 kilometres per hour in the proximity of a school; and

WHEREAS in March 1995 at the annual Manitoba Association of School Trustees convention a resolution was adopted that the Minister of Highways be requested to make amendments to The Highway Traffic Act to establish speed zones in the proximity of schools with a maximum speed of 30 kilometres per hour during school hours; and

WHEREAS to date the matter remains unresolved.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minster of Highways and Transportation to consider an amendment to The Highway Traffic Act to limit speeds to 30 kilometres per hour in school zones.

Motion presented.

Ms. Barrett: It is my pleasure to speak this evening on the resolution before us requesting the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) to amend The Highway Traffic Act to allow for a 30 kilometre per hour speed zone limit around public schools.

I wish that we did not have to deal with this resolution today. If the government had shown any initiative in this regard, it would have acted on both the request in 1992 from the City of Winnipeg and the resolution in 1995 by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. I hope that, after the discussion this evening, the government will reconsider its inaction and move to support this legislation.

The action that the city, or the inaction that the city, has taken to date has been far from responsive and, as a matter of fact, according to us, it has been unacceptable, to say the least. One of the first things that the city has been told by the province is that they should make a representation for a school speed zone of 30 kilometres an hour on a case-by-case basis. Madam Speaker, this would mean that any school would have to go to the province individually on a case-by-case basis to make an application for that school speed zone reduction. Why should the safety of any of our children be more important than that of all of our children? I would like to say that there is a friend of mine in the public gallery, Melissa Bailey, who is eight years old, and has that very question to ask of the government tonight. Why should her safety be any less important than the safety of any other school child in the city of Winnipeg or, for that matter, the province of Manitoba.

If some schools are deemed acceptable to have reduced speed zones, why are not all schools in need of this? We believe that all schools should have these zones instituted, not just some on an ad hoc basis. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the behaviour of this government has been to deal with situations with concerns on an ad hoc basis rather than as a matter of policy. The Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), the Minster of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) all talk in the House in response to questions brought forward by the opposition about situations: Bring them to my attention, and I will deal with it on an individual basis.

Well, that is not good enough for us, and it should not be good enough for the government. In all of these issues, and the issue we are dealing with here today, school speed zone limits, we must deal with this as a policy issue, not on a school-by-school basis. The city traffic engineer has been quoted in the press that, once one area or one school has a school speed zone in place, and I quote him--I am quoting here, Madam Speaker, so I hope I will not be ruled out of order, quoting: Then all hell breaks loose because everybody wants the same thing. End quote.

Well, Madam Speaker, our response to that is, what is the problem? Everyone should have the same thing. This is a good and sufficient and reasonable request that the City of Winnipeg and the school trustees are bringing before this government. Another comment that has been made by the government is that there would be a significant cost attached to implementing this request. Well, heck, we know how the government feels about putting in place any programs that might have any additional cost to them.

Madam Speaker, we feel, on this side of the House, that perhaps the government, in refusing this very logical request, is putting costs before the safety of the children of the province of Manitoba, and we think that is unconscionable and should not be allowed to take place.

The Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) has also stated that parents, if they are concerned about their children's safety, should drop off and pick up their children from school. Well, Madam Speaker, this just shows once again the complete and utter sense of unreality that pervades the government benches. The government knows, they have to know, they are dealing with the implications of this every day, that the majority of school children in the city of Winnipeg come from families that either are single-parent families or are families where both parents work or are families where the caregiver is working at odd hours. There is a minority, and less and less of a minority, of parents of families in the city of Winnipeg today that have what this government still thinks is the norm, and should be the norm, of two parents, one of whom stays at home all day and can drop their child off at 8:30 in the morning and pick their child up at 3:30 in the afternoon or even later, should that child stay after four, one of the increasingly reduced after-hours programs that sometimes happen at school.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Highways sent a letter on July 31 to the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 which had requested that school speed zones be allowed to be implemented in all schools in the city. That letter states, and I am quoting here: Reduced speed zones are not necessarily the most effective means of ensuring public safety.

They commented on a study that they referenced to the City of Saskatoon. The traffic engineer for the City of Saskatoon--we did our homework, and the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) obviously had not done his--we contacted the City of Saskatoon and spoke with a staff sergeant who is in charge of this area of traffic safety. He had not only never been contacted by the Minister of Highways, but he had no idea what this study was that was being quoted. He had never heard of the study.

So clearly the Minister of Highways does not care about this issue of school safety, because if he had, he would have made sure that the study he quoted was accurate. And speaking to the issue of safety, when the minister says that they are not necessarily the most effective means of ensuring public safety, well, no one is suggesting that only one form of safety should be in place to ensure that children are safe.

What we are suggesting in this resolution and what the school divisions are requesting and the City of Winnipeg has requested is that this one piece be implemented as a part of an entire program.

I would like to ask how a reduced speed zone could not be at least partially effective in increasing the safety of children? If we carry that thinking to its logical conclusion we would have no speed limits at all. Why are there some roads in the province that have 100 kilometres as a speed limit? Why are there others that have 90? Why is the urban speed limit set at 50? Why are backlane speed limits set at 20 kilometres an hour?

If they cannot ensure the safety of people, then why have them there at all? Well, the reason, as we all know, is that they do act as a partial safety device. It is a recognition that some roads or situations require a lower speed limit to ensure pedestrian driver and passenger safety. That is all we are asking for here is an additional safeguard.

* (1710)

The school division and the City of Winnipeg have not just come cap in hand to the province saying, you do this; we are not going to be responsible. Over the spring and summer of this year representatives from a number of Winnipeg school divisions met to discuss this issue. They sought the advice and input from the Department of Highways and Transportation, the City of Winnipeg Streets and Transportation Department and the City of Winnipeg Police.

At a meeting held just this September 6 this year, Winnipeg School Division No. 1, Assiniboine South School Division, Fort Garry School Division, St. Vital School Division, the Norwood School Division, the Seven Oaks School Division and the Transcona-Springfield School Division, met and unanimously passed the following resolutions dealing with school and students safety issues.

Now I am not going to read them all in their entirety, Madam Speaker, but they deal with an understanding that the city, the province, the school divisions and the police department all have to work together on a number of fronts in order to ensure that children like Melissa Bailey here and the tens of thousands of other children throughout the city and hopefully the province have that extra added safety support that will enable them and their families to feel more comfortable as they go to and come home from school.

The school divisions and the City of Winnipeg are going to work co-operatively to determine criteria to identify intersections where additional safety measures are required.

They have asked as well that The Highway Traffic Act be amended to require motorists to obey and observe school patrols and adult crossing guards. This is another request that is not part of the specific private members' resolution, but it is another request of the province, and that the school trustees will work together to co-ordinate a comprehensive traffic safety program with the city, the province and other interested agencies for implementation in the fall of 1996. So, Madam Speaker, the school community is prepared to work on this.

Then they have asked that Section 98(2) of The Highway Traffic Act, which talks about the fact that the traffic board may make orders for fixing maximum speed limits of less than 50 kilometres an hour, be amended to include school zones. So it is enabling legislation to allow the City of Winnipeg to put in place school zones. Simple, Madam Speaker.

In conclusion, I think that we have shown in this resolution and the school boards and the City of Winnipeg, the Association of School Trustees and the City of Winnipeg itself have all shown that they are prepared to work together co-operatively and to work with the province to ensure the additional safety of school children as they go to and from schools.

What we are asking in this resolution, Madam Speaker, is simply a very minor adjustment to The Highway Traffic Act, a very simple amendment which would have two words attached to it. Now is that so difficult?

What we would like to do is to urge all members of the House today to support this resolution, and we would urge the government in its way of supporting this resolution to bring in such an amendment to The Highway Traffic Act. I can guarantee you that should the government do this expeditiously, we would be prepared to pass this amendment virtually immediately. The government has shown that it can bring in legislation very quickly, and we have shown that we are prepared to do our part, so I would ask, I would urge all members of this House to support this resolution and to put into effect the implementation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Madam Speaker, I found it is interesting that in the resolution not once does the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) state why this should be happening. All you do is say, well, we should do this because the City Council and some school divisions want it.

There are no statistics. I listened to your talk, and I do not remember hearing any statistics that show that there were 10 children, there were 20 children, there were 50 children that were killed because the speed--

An Honourable Member: So there has to be children killed before you move . . . .

Mrs. Render: Well, you did not say they were killed; you did not say that they were injured or in danger. I did not hear any of that. You know, there is a saying called, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." As I say, I did not hear the member say that there were almost accidents, that there was a child almost injured, a child almost killed.

Now, I can remember I think probably there are a number of us here in the Chamber that can remember when there were speed zones around schools. I can remember seeing those signs posted "Slow down," I think it was to 15 miles an hour. In fact, I think when you took your driver's test, if you happened to go through a school zone without slowing down, I think that was an automatic failure.

I am not too sure what year, mid-1970s I understand, this part of The Highway Act was repealed. Obviously, it was repealed for a reason. Again, my understanding is that it was repealed because it was shown that reducing the speed in the school area was not necessarily going to prevent an accident. At the time of the repeal there was something called the drive imprudent that was put in. This is called, the offence of drive imprudent. This was expanded to include a stipulation that a driver reduce the speed of his vehicle where the presence of a child on or near a highway dictates a slower speed in the interest of safety, whether or not the child was in proximity to the grounds of a school or a playground.

Madam Speaker, when we drive down streets, do we go at 30 miles an hour--or in this day and age I guess it is 50 kilometres an hour--and not bother to slow down? Do we not use our common sense, that if we see children that we reduce our speed? Too often it was found in the past that drivers only reduced their speed around the school and thought, well, okay, I am obeying the law here, but whipped by a playground, whipped up and down very busy residential streets, did not reduce their speed. So common sense to me really is what has to be the bottom line right here.

I also find it very interesting that law enforcement agencies are not supportive of the mandatory reduced speeds, not only because they are difficult to enforce, and that should not necessarily be the reason that they are against it, but because they have felt that having different speed zones, different speeds within a particular area, is actually more of a problem, is more likely to cause a problem than having one single speed.

I mentioned to the member that I did not hear any statistics from her. I would just like to let her know that the City of Winnipeg Streets and Transportation Department accident statistics do not support the need for reduced speed zones. For a five-year period ending December 1994, for children ages five to 14, there were a total of 548 accidents. There were only four of these accidents that were anywhere near a school area.

There were 319 accidents occurring midblock, and these accidents had nothing to do with speeding. It had more to do with the child jaywalking, not crossing properly in a properly designated area. Maybe what we have to be doing is again alerting our motorists that they keep a watchful eye out and also that the children must be taught that they have to cross at certain designated areas.

I was at a parents meeting at one of my schools a couple of weeks ago, and they were talking about school safety. Not once during that entire discussion did reduced speed enter the conversation. What it was was the fact of the congestion of the cars. With so many parents picking up and dropping off children there were a lot of cars in the area. Kids were darting in and out from the cars. These were cars that were parked, they were not going.

Again, I just want to reinforce that it is not necessarily the speed, it is other factors that we must take into consideration. These parents were talking about parent patrols and other kinds of ways to implement safety around the school area.

One other thing, I remember the member saying that she took offence that each school could apply on a case-by-case basis. She took the line of argument, are not all of our children important? Well, of course, all of our children are important, but I think the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is a very reasonable person, and I think she will also realize that there are some schools in various parts of the province, not just the city, which are on very uncongested areas.

Now should every school have to fall into line with every other school? Do school boards not want to have the autonomy to make the decision themselves as to what they feel is necessary for their school? I think so, Madam Speaker. So if a school is in a very congested area of the city and if they feel that there is a necessity to have a reduced speed limit, then let that school apply, but why should every single school in the city have to do what every other school is doing if they do not feel it is relevant for their particular school?

* (1720)

Now, having said all of that, I understand that The Highway Traffic Act is undergoing a rewrite, and I understand that the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) is going to revisit this argument, revisit the proposal, to see whether or not, just to get really up-to-date facts, to see whether or not a reduced speed limit is necessary. So he is not an uncaring person, as the member put on the record. He cares very much, but he wants to make sure that whatever is done is going to be effective, and it may very well be, Madam Speaker, that what has to be done is more patrols on the street. These patrols could be parent patrols on the street.

As I said earlier, I see kids running across the highway. I see kids playing on the street in the residential areas of our city. There is no reduced speed limit there. So are we saying that the child at the playground at the school, that is only where they should be? As I say, Madam Speaker, we as residents, we as drivers have a responsibility, whether it is a child on the street or an adult on the street, to be using our common sense. When we see that there is going to be action, then we should be slowing down. We should not need always to have something posted.

Now, I have in front of me a report that was done in Saskatchewan. It covered a 10-year period, and it was done by the transportation section of the city of Saskatoon. It completed a review of the need to establish reduced speed zones, and their conclusion, Madam Speaker, was that reduced speed zones around school areas was just not the answer. There were better and more effective ways to bring about increased safety for children. So let it not be said that people on this side of the House, the members on this side of the House, are not concerned about the safety of our children. We are very concerned, and that is why we want to make sure that, whatever we do, it is going to be the most effective kind of measure that we can do.

One of the things that the member mentioned was that, if we do anything, it is going to be a cost factor. Well, regretfully, in this day and age, we do have to think about cost factors, and that is why I say, yes, certainly cost will enter into our decision. That is why we want to make sure that our dollars are spent properly.

The member may have forgotten that if these reduced speed zones, if The Highway Traffic Act is changed and every single school across this whole province, they will all be affected. Case by case might be the way to do it because, if every single school falls in a lump and is treated the same--and I am sure each school board wants to have the autonomy. They do not want to be treated--

An Honourable Member: Everybody on the school board wants this.

Mrs. Render: No, that is not correct. Every school board does not want it. What the member--

An Honourable Member: We are not just talking about Winnipeg; we are talking about Manitoba.

Mrs. Render: We are talking about the whole province. There will be very significant costs associated with the creation of reduced speed zones around all schools, because it means posting the new speed limit signs, alerting motorists to the change in speed as the school zone is entered and what the normal speed is once you leave that particular school zone.

I just want to reinforce once more that the city of Winnipeg's traffic accidents statistics simply do not indicate the need for the reinstatement of reduced speed zones, that studies have shown that optimum safety conditions exist when all motorists travel at uniform rates of speed, that danger increases when there are differential speeds. Again, I just want to reiterate that what we have to do when we enter an area where we see there are likely going to be children, that if we think we should be reducing our speed, then we do so.

My memory fails me. I cannot remember whether those reduced speed zones were also in effect after school hours. I think they were only 15 minutes before school started--[interjection] Yes, and at recess time and for 15 minutes or a half an hour at the end of the school day. I think that is how it worked.

As the former Minister of Highways points out to me, it was very , very difficult to enforce. I just wanted to conclude by saying that we on this side are very concerned with the safety of children. We are concerned with the safety of everyone. So whether it is around schools, whether it is around the park area of the city or just a heavily congested residential area, we must use common sense and safety and slow down, whether or not there is a posted sign saying to slow down. We are concerned with the safety of children. We will be studying this further. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record several of my comments and those that came from the school divisions that first brought forward this petition in the last, I would say, two or three years. This is not a new issue. This is two or three times that school divisions have raised the issue to the province and unfortunately have always been turned down.

When the Conservative side of the House talks about speed not being a safety issue, it just actually gets me very angry. Very angry. What we are talking about are children and children that are going to and from school and using schools and school grounds as playgrounds all day long. We are not talking about only at loading time and unloading time.

The fact is that not only is it a Winnipeg issue, not only is it an urban issue, petitions were received from communities all across Manitoba, from Brandon, from Virden, from the Interlake, from the North, all wanting reduced speed zones near schools. Why? Are all those parents wrong? Are those communities wrong? Is this government going to say that, no, it is irrelevant, that speed has nothing to do with safety?

I heard the minister say that. He was quoted as saying, there is no evidence. [interjection] Madam Speaker, let me show. A member on the other side says, there are no statistics. Let me quote from probably the same report, City of Winnipeg, Table K, of the City of Winnipeg Works and Operations Division, Streets and Transportation Department, interoffice memorandum dated May 23, 1995: 87 children had collisions with vehicles--guess who won--near schools, 87 in the vicinity of schools. Is that enough of a reason to slow down? Do cars slow down?

I can assure you, living across the street from an elementary school, that we can clock the speed limits and many people exceed it. It is important to post signage. It is important to provide drivers with a message that, yes, this is an area frequented by children.

In the community that I come from, the amount of green space that we have is very limited, and I invite you to come in to the core of Winnipeg and see that. The school areas, which are very small in relative size to many other school grounds that you may be familiar with, are used as a community resource. That is our park. We are not talking about a limited time from 8:30 to 9:10 or whatever. Those grounds are used from seven o'clock in the morning until late in the evening.

So I would say to this government that if you want statistics we can bring them out. We can talk about what jurisdictions have reduced speed zones. B.C. does. The Northwest Territory does. Alberta does. Saskatchewan does. Yes, even Alberta has school zones. Ontario does. Quebec does.

I am not sure that there is a provincial jurisdiction that does not have school zones besides Manitoba, whose priority is the delivery of rapid transport of goods and vehicles through a road system not slowing down for kids. We have seen that over and over again. All that the school divisions--and let me quote the recommendation that was endorsed by the following school divisions: Transcona-Springfield, Seven Oaks, Norwood, St. Vital, Fort Garry, Assiniboine South and the Winnipeg School Division unanimously agree and concur with the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, who have endorsed the proposal two times at their annual conventions.

* (1730)

So I say to the government, there is a small glimmer of hope, as the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) said that the minister is willing to review this. A small glimmer. Use reason. When thousands of people, parents are saying, slow down the traffic around schools because our children are in danger, there is nothing wrong with that. This government, who talks about safety, should be responding to community requests. At least provide the provision that the appeal could be made to the Traffic Board. Numerous appeals have been made by school divisions, and this is part of the irony of the minister's comments that individual school boards should go to the Traffic Board. In fact, that is what has happened. What is the result? Cars win, kids lose.

We have never had a ruling which provided slower speed zones in school areas from the Highway Traffic Board since the reduced speed zones were eliminated. Their priority is to move goods and traffic as quickly and efficiently through our system as possible, and that has been made clear year after year after year. You are looking for statistics. Are you looking for deaths? Are you looking for mutilations? This is ridiculous. People are coming to you saying they want slower speed zones around schools.

The brief from the school division which did look at numerous different alternatives also included a review of the proposed volunteer parent program. I happen to have a copy of this program developed in the United States in an area that is clearly a very suburban area, where perhaps there are people at home able to be full-time patrols. However, in the communities we live in that is not a reality. Many people in the Inkster riding, in my riding are working one job, are working two jobs to make ends meet, to make their mortgage payments, and it is very difficult to ask those same parents to now do what? Come out and be a volunteer to patrol the streets because the Province of Manitoba will not take the responsibility and do something about the traffic near schools.

What is the point of speed zones at all if it is not a safety issue? Why do we slow down in residential areas? Why is it that on major routes it is 60 kilometres? Why is it on major routes you can go 70 or 80? Why? What is the point of a speed zone? If it has no relevance to safety, eliminate them all. Well, the argument follows, what we are talking about is that speed has a direct influence with safety and the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) to say that there is no evidence of that just seems to me to be the most impractical, unrealistic response to something which is clearly common sense.

The members opposite are saying that he will review it. Well, I say thank goodness there is a glimmer, very small though, but you are seeing thousands of people who have applied to the government for their appeal. Now you could even go to some jurisdictions, for instance, Saskatchewan, whose legislation allows local municipalities to deal with the issue. What are you doing? You are saying no to everybody. The present status quo is not sufficient. That is what you are talking about it, that is what you are recommending. What they are saying now is what you should do is locally go to the Highway Traffic Board. Do you think we have not been there? Do you think school divisions have not been there? Parents have not been there? Of course, that is why they are appealing to you as government to use some wisdom in this and pass the amendment to actually reduce speed zones near the vicinity of schools.

Let me point out some further statistics from this report from the city of Winnipeg. I would be glad to share this report with the government, in fact I am shocked, I am shocked that they would make a decision without that type of data. Shocking. Let me point out here we have a table, table E, the city of Winnipeg, collisions involving the five- to 14-year-old age group. That means accidents. That means children were hurt. They make it sound quite clinical, or is it just a statistic? It is a collision. It is like you running into a light standard. These are our children we are talking about.

Let us look at the statistics. When is it that we need--

An Honourable Member: The same children whose future you are mortgaging.

Ms. Mihychuk: The Conservatives, the members across the way, are saying we are going to mortgage our children's future if we put up school zones. Let me suggest that a sign in a school zone is a worthwhile investment, and they are thinking of the dollar. What is it, five bucks for a sign? The least you can do is put up a few signs to save our children.

In addition, getting back to my report, and the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) wants statistics. Here we go. From seven to eight o'clock in the morning we had 14 collisions; between eight and nine o'clock in the morning, 45 collisions; between nine and 10 in the morning, eight collisions; between 10 and 11, 9 collisions; between 11 and 12, during the day, there were 23 children struck by vehicles; between 12 and one o'clock, 68 collisions; between one and two, 27; between three and four, 50 collisions. Between three and four--

An Honourable Member: Table the report.

Ms. Mihychuk: I will gladly table the report. As I said earlier, I would gladly make it available to the members opposite because to make a reasonable assessment of this you should change your regulation, you should allow for the provision of municipalities at the minimum to do this. That is a very reasonable approach, is it not? The majority of Manitobans think so too, as opposed to this.

Let me continue, we have collision of children all day long and the fact is--[interjection] I am sorry. What we are seeing is children being hurt all day long. What we are talking about is a safety factor that needs to be addressed, not only 15 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes when the kids are picked up.

We are talking about a provision which allows safety from when the children use the school area, and that is all day, from seven in the morning when parents go to work and drop off their children at many of the before-school programs. Schools are now responding to the social conditions, which are a reality, and that is the fact that parents are working and the children are at school and they are in the playgrounds and they are getting there. It is important that we look at the provision of these school zones, reduced speeds, from seven in the morning until dark, at least until dark.

I think, clearly, and when I share the information with the government side of the House, and we do have a great deal of it, I am sure that the honourable members on that side will yield to reason and provide what the community wants, reduced speed zones near schools.

* (1740)

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): I, too, am pleased to stand before the House and address some of the issues in regards to reduced speed zones surrounding schools.

I would like to point out to the honourable member for St. James, she uses the words "vicinity" and "closeness" and, I am not sure if she is aware, but I was raised in rural Manitoba and I lived five miles from the school and everybody said that was close to the school. I was one of the closest kids to the school, so there is a little bit of concern in my mind as to definition, what "close" is. I take her report as far as the accidents and I take them to be at face value, but I also would like to ask, are these accidents that occur within the school vicinity or to children, period? Is that a block away? A mile away? I am not sure, and the report, if we get a chance to see it, we can certainly make a decision on it.

I would also like to just in speaking suggest that whenever it is convenient for the opposition to quote American statistics they do, but I seem to remember on this side of the House that we are constantly being chastised for using American statistics to serve our purposes, so I would like to point that out to the opposition.

I can remember when my son came home and had been selected to be a member of the school patrol and what it meant to him, and certainly he was thrilled with the idea of being selected. He was part of a group I think of 14 kids out of about 60, and he thought it was a great idea. He said to me, Dad, we are going to be able to monitor the traffic in the area. He kind of looked upon himself as being a law enforcement officer. When he put his hand out or the sign out and he wore the garb, the bright orange shirts, he controlled the traffic that patrolled back and forth in front of the school. He certainly did this more out of a feeling of pride and accomplishment and in conversation with some of the local members of the RCM Police, they suggested to me that that was probably the most efficient and most rewarding direction to go in this regard. The children got the gratification of being responsible and being a participant in school safety.

The police in our province do not want to spend every day parked in front of schools trying to monitor traffic, and I think that if you bring this kind of enforcement in, then we are basically asking them to be there on a constant basis to enforce this.

One of the changes that was made in the mid-'70s when they changed the speed from 15 to, I do not even know what it is, they introduced the driving prudent subsection, which to me basically implies that no matter where you are in the community, when you see children, when you see people near accesses or close to accesses to roads, you slow down. To me it is a common-sense approach to driving. I think it applies probably everywhere in the province and probably everywhere in every province. If people are not reasonable, I do not know how we can legislate them to be so. I think it certainly makes it a tough task for government and also for the law enforcement agencies.

I would like to quote the study that my honourable friend to my right suggested. In the study that was conducted by the City of Winnipeg Streets and Transportation Department, 548 total traffic accidents, only four accidents occurred nominally adjacent to a school area. The other ones, 319, occurred mid-block, which suggests, again, out of the school zone. So what I would like to suggest to you is, where do you define school zone? Where do we draw the line? Is it one block? Is it 10 blocks? In my mind, being a prudent driver, whenever I see children, I slow down. That, to me, seems to be the common-sense approach to it as well as the, I would suggest to the opposition, fiscally responsible.

I think, also, it was brought up--it has been suggested to me that the local municipals have the ability to impose speed restrictions within their own schools and in their own communities. I think going through the process of The Highway Traffic Act probably creates a lot more paperwork, a lot more burden to the people that are trying to impose it. If you have a choice that you can put it into individual ridings, if your decision or your school board decides that is good for you, then I think you should be lobbying your local councillors to have it--and I hate to use the word "imposed" because that is what it seems like we are doing to people.

I think also, as I understand it, the matter is being considered, it is being looked at. I do not think that--the one thing I have learned since I have been elected to government and also to the Legislature is that things do not move as quickly as I would like and, I am sure, as the opposition would like. I use the example of the two commissions that I sit on. The first one, we spent the first 45 minutes discussing when the next meeting would be, which I do not see as productive government. The second, we spent discussing a motion from a member who was not on the board, and I see that as nonproductive also. I would hope that the opposition would see my position in that sense. If we want to progress and if we want to proceed, we have to discuss it, put it through the proper channels and do it with the same respect that you ask of us.

I also want to talk a little bit about--and again, I guess, being involved with the business world, I always have to look at a cost side of it. I think, if we can do it through parent associations, where they control the traffic--also, I think it is a benefit to the children. They see their parents are involved, not only in their education but in their safety, and I think, as parents, that becomes a responsibility that we must bear.

Once it is legislated, if that is the direction that we do go, it will include all schools in every area of the province. Therefore, I suggest that we make the deals with the municipalities, with the legions in the communities that feel the need is there. I have lived on a street down from the school, and I know the traffic is heavy. I would not say it is reckless or speeding, but I also know that when my kids leave the house the last thing I say to them is watch out for traffic. But in the same breath, I would suggest that the traffic has to watch out for the children. No matter if you post signs or whatever, people have to be responsible. You cannot legislate responsibility, it seems.

Now, as I say, and I will repeat for the member because I am not sure I had her full attention, of the 548 traffic accidents involving children, only four of the accidents occurred adjacent to school areas. To me that in itself is very self-explanatory, within an area. I also think that the government with the prudent drive is the approach to take.

Point of Order

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, may we have the member's documents tabled? He is quoting from a document, and he is obliged to table it.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James does not have a point of order. The member is really not obliged to table anything.

* * *

Mr. Tweed: If I were the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I would certainly start to feel a little bit threatened. You have definitely started to pick up on the regulations of the House and I appreciate your attempt. I, too, would like to see the--there it is, the green book.

According to the accident statistics, I do not feel that there is a need for the reinstatement of the reduced speed zones. I do think that there is a need for common sense. I think there is a need for people to lobby within their own jurisdictions to provide, and what affects the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihycuk) may not be the appropriate answer for people in my riding or people in the Roblin-Russell area or anywhere else in Manitoba.

* (1750)

Thompson may have a different opinion. They may have a different solution to the problem. I have a hard time agreeing with the member that you must legislate it. I think that seems to be the problem that most people are dealing with and it certainly confuses me as to why people sometimes cannot deal with common sense in their own communities and they have to ask the government to do it for them.

I have certainly had several dealings with the government and certainly several disagreements, and I find that one of the first things that crops up is because it is the law and the way the law operates does not apply to everybody in every jurisdiction. Therefore, I think that we should consult, on a very local basis, our school divisions. I will admit to the member opposite, I have had no request from my school division to look at or to reconsider it. It may have come through the MAST organization, but my trustees have not approached me on it. If they do I will certainly suggest to them that if they can bring the results to me that will show that these will reduce the statistics, which to me are minimal, then I probably would take a hard look at it and would work with you as far as looking at some changes. Again, I have a real problem with legislating and putting control.

I think when you put a law like this into place, you are asking the law enforcement people to disregard some of their other duties and some of their other responsibilities to enforce this law. Where, again, I think the board patrols, parent patrols, student patrols on the crosswalks would provide a better way of controlling it, a more efficient way of controlling it and also create some responsibility on the parents and the children and the educators to implement the program. I do not think that legislation is always the way to go. We do not have to be legislated to know what is right for our children, and if we have to be, then I would suggest to the members opposite and to my colleagues that we are in a very sad situation in today's society when we have to constantly come up with legislation that provides for safety of our children when the legislation is there.

The prudent-drive legislation says whenever a child is near or on a street you must slow down. You can be charged if you do not. Now, to me that results in my mind at this point in time that it is being dealt with and being dealt with in a very positive way. As I said, if parents are asking for it, I would like to hear from my riding, and when they come forward I would certainly suggest too that when it is reviewed I am sure that The Highway Traffic Act will review the letter and the resolution from MAST. If that is their recommendation, then I am sure you will find that the members on this side will support it.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I have listened with attention to the comments of the member for Turtle Mountain, and I found his conciliatory tone towards this resolution quite refreshing. I do not think it is an issue here that members on this side are not concerned about the safety of children. We are concerned about the safety of children. The question that I have in my mind is what is the most effective way of ensuring the safety of children? What is the mechanism that we use?

One of the concerns I have, speaking from my former profession as a lawyer, is when we get into the area of criminal prosecutions and we set very careful parameters and guidelines and standards, what happens is when the prosecution brings forward that kind of case a defence lawyer will attempt to negotiate his way around those carefully drafted laws. The more technical we become in our laws, the more difficult it is to try enforce those laws.

In fact, in my short career as a prosecutor, I found it was much easier to prosecute an offence under the Criminal Code for some of the most vicious crimes. It was more difficult to prosecute a technical crime under a regulatory statute or a highway traffic statute. So the approach that the government took in this particular case, I think from an enforcement point of view, is very, very good. Rather than relying on very technical, well-defined types of situations, which only lead to questions of fact and questions of proof and questions of onus, the government and the Legislature took an approach that was much more flexible, that allowed a peace officer, in looking at a situation, seeing a car come down a road, could say in his opinion, as a professional peace officer, that amounts to imprudent driving.

So this person could give this opinion and obtain a conviction in far more easier circumstances than if he had to try to prove that the person was in fact going over a specific speed limit. So the experience that the peace officer and indeed the citizen who might witness this crime occurring is much easier to prove in a situation where the driving, given all the circumstances, is imprudent.

One of the things is that the driving may well be imprudent even if it is under 15 miles an hour. If there is a child in the middle of the street, crawling across the street, 15 is a little too fast. This law that is in existence now in fact takes into kind that situation, and so the flexibility given by this law protects more children, makes it easier to prove, than the technical kind of bureaucratic approach advocated by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk).

So I am disappointed. If they would only come to the courts for a short period of time and see how difficult some of these prosecutions are. So let us not burden prosecution with technical elements in statutory offences. Let us give them flexibility so in fact that the purpose and intent of the law is met.

Now, having said that, I have not closed my mind to the resolution. I think that there are very good points raised by both members opposite, the member for Wellington and the member for St. James. There are many studies and I do not pretend to be an expert.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., when this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) will have 10 minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).