ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Regional Health Authorities Act
Withdrawal
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
Last week, we talked about the autocratic policies that were described by management groups in the regional health bill as being undemocratic and abhorrent. Over the weekend we have been made aware that a number of religious organizations and churches have been circulating letters and other material dealing with the government's proposed autocratic superboards and calling on their parishioners and supporters to write the government, write the Premier and write letters to the editor calling on the government to reinstate the values of their community and reinstate the rights of the community in the health care area.
Would the Premier, today, please agree that this bill is undemocratic, autocratic and it should be withdrawn from this Legislative floor on behalf of Manitobans?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Apart altogether from the fact that the Legislature has before it Bill 49, which can be the subject of debate and is the subject of debate, Madam Speaker, we have consistently as a government recognized the role, the tradition and the history of faith-related organizations in the delivery of health care in Manitoba.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and I and others have been working very closely with representatives of the Interfaith Council to ensure that their concerns, as put to us in meetings we have had with them, are appropriately met through amendment to the legislation. This is something I told the Interfaith Council last June that I would be considering this fall, which is what we are doing. We are engaged in discussions with them to find accommodations to meet their legitimate requirements.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this letter circulated through the Mennonite churches over the weekend and other letters that have been circulated speak to the competency of this Minister of Health. We have seen the Minister of Health close emergency wards in community-based hospitals before he consults with the public. We have seen this minister propose to privatize a hundred percent of home care and, of course, we witnessed the public reaction. We witnessed the debacle on the two different pamphlets that were out on Pharmacare changes from this minister, and now we hear that this government is going to consult with the communities after they table the bill in the Legislature.
Will this Premier withdraw this bill and give us a minister who will consult with the public, consult with the patients before legislation is introduced in this Legislature rather than after the fact, as we see from this incompetent Minister of Health?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable Leader of the Opposition is quite incorrect in most of the things that he said in his preamble, Madam Speaker.
For example, he referred to a proposal for 100 percent contracting-out in home care when he knows full well that the original proposal was 25 percent. Even the Manitoba Government Employees Union agrees that 20 percent ought to be the subject of contracting-out, so the honourable Leader of the Opposition ought to get his facts straight before he comes in here making judgments about the government.
Madam Speaker, the points that he has raised respecting faith-related organizations are appropriate to be raised, and they are being settled as we speak in discussions with the Interfaith Council and their representatives.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we have people that are experts on medicare concerned about the two-tier elements of this health care bill and what it will mean for user fees in the future. We have workers that are concerned that they no longer will have the right to determine their bargaining agent; it will be determined by a government, a Premier-appointed czar of the workplace, which is probably contrary to the ILO. Not that this autocratic Premier cares about that.
* (1340)
We have management saying that this bill is undemocratic and abhorrent. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in light of the fact that the Minister of Health has had to do a full reversal on his ill-thought-out plans on the religious-based, community-based boards, will he be withdrawing all the other disfavourable, autocratic and authoritarian elements that are contained within this bill and go back and give us a bill in health care that all the community can work with rather than just the dictatorship that we see across the way from this Premier?
Mr. McCrae: If you check the record, Madam Speaker, you will see that at every step towards the reconstruction of a quality health care system, we have been opposed by honourable New Democrats opposite. In no area, other than perhaps in certain areas of mental health reform, and even then you have to poll each and every individual New Democrat separately because their policies do not mesh with that of their Leader or that of their Health critic--they have relegated themselves simply to a party of protest. They offer no constructive counterproposals or alternative proposals or even constructive criticism. They have relegated themselves to being a party of protest. In fact, NDP probably now stands for Neanderthal dogmatic protesters.
Regional Health Boards
Aboriginal Representation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My questions are for the Minister of Health, as well.
Madam Speaker, a week ago I attended the Aboriginal Nurses Association of Canada Annual General Assembly in The Pas, at which health care issues in the North were the major issues.
As the minister is aware, Madam Speaker, the majority of the population north of the 53rd parallel is aboriginal. I was also present at a meeting between departmental health officials and the community people of The Pas, in 1994 I believe it was, the fall of 1994, where I listened to people like Jerry Henderson from the Cree Nation Tribal Health Centre advising the ministerial staff who were there that when they formed the regional health boards they had to ensure that at least 50 percent of the representation on a board be aboriginal people to properly reflect the population.
I would like to ask the minister, Madam Speaker, to advise the House as to how many First Nations people are sitting on the Norman board, for example, on the Burntwood board, and on the Churchill board. I would like to ask the minister to advise the House as to what those numbers are.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, in my discussions with MKO and other organizations representing First Nations and/or aboriginal people in Manitoba, the subject of representation on regional health authorities has indeed come up. We advertised quite widely for nominations for the regional health authority boards, and frankly we were disappointed that there were not more aboriginal people nominated for positions on those boards.
I have communicated that disappointment, and I have also said to the leadership that when vacancies arise that will be an opportunity for us to address the shortfalls that we acknowledge exist. But, Madam Speaker, as I have to repeat, we were quite disappointed that there were not more aboriginal nominations made at the time that the nominations were called for, but we are finding that there is an interest. We are delighted with that and we have undertaken to attempt to address the shortfall that does exist.
Health Care System
Northern Manitoba
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he is aware that under the new regime of these regional health boards that he has created a lot of difficulties for the aboriginal people in northern Manitoba, as difficult as things are now.
For example, in the Norman region people from Pukatawagan who normally travel to The Pas for services, their tribal council and Cree Nation Tribal Health Centre is headquartered in The Pas but under the new regime they now will have to be required to travel to Thompson instead of to The Pas like they have always had.
Could I ask the minister to explain if that is fair?
* (1345)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I did not quite understand what the honourable member was getting at. He said people now have to travel to Thompson when at one time they would only travel as far as The Pas. If there are some reasons that are unbeknownst to myself about why someone should have to take that sort of circuitous route, I would be very happy to look into any individual problems that have arisen. This is something that I, my office and my department do on a regular basis. The honourable member and some of his colleagues regularly inquire about individual-type things that arise, and we certainly try to deal with them on that basis. If it is something more of a structural or systemic matter, I would be happy to discuss that further with the honourable member, too, if he could provide me with more details.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, with a final supplementary question.
Regional Health Boards
Aboriginal Representation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I will table a document here that I received from the Cree Nation health board in The Pas. It illustrates some of the representations that were made to the ministerial staff who were in The Pas that I witnessed and also it expresses a lot of the concerns that I was just raising here this afternoon.
Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he could provide this House documentation of any sort about these nominations that he has talked about recently. Could he table, if not now, later on at a later date, any documentation that he has as far as inviting aboriginal people to be nominated and any documentation that he may have received from those organizations in terms of their nominations of people and any documents, such as the one that I have tabled this afternoon, expressing those concerns?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I will make available, I will give the honourable member a recitation of the various efforts that were made to try to encourage nomination. I will also give the honourable member the numbers of nominations from known aboriginal organizations so that he will know a little bit about the problem that we face as we attempt to structure our regional health authority boards.
Pharmacare
Costs
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, when the government destroyed the Pharmacare program in the spring, they said they were saving money and that they were improving the program. Of course, as usual, we find out that the government was wrong on both counts. We found out in the annual report that the government has spent an additional $19 million on the Pharmacare program because of their hasty change, because of their poor planning and because of the fact they did not consult with anyone prior to changing this program.
Can the minister today confirm that at least $10 million of that $19 million is as a result of citizens going out and buying drugs in advance to quite rightly try to save money as a result of this government destroying the Pharmacare program?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I do not have the exact number of dollars that were the cost that were the result of people stockpiling medicines as a result of changes. I think steps are being taken to try to ensure that does not happen again, and at the same time that people use the Pharmacare program in a way that is safe and in a way that is appropriate to the program.
I have to take issue with what the honourable member said first. We have a program in Manitoba, even after the changes that were made earlier this year, which provides a better and fairer type of coverage that you see pretty well anywhere else in Canada. I do not know what the honourable member--how he can be against providing more protection for poor people and people who need more medicine and less protection for people who are not poor and do not need as much medicine. What is it about that principle of Pharmacare that the honourable member opposes? I would like to know.
* (1350)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my supplementary, perhaps to the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Can the Premier try to explain to the public of Manitoba how their improved Pharmacare program that was supposed to save millions of dollars is costing $90 million more, has caused chaos in the system, has cut off two-thirds of the people who get Pharmacare from the benefits, how this Premier can keep this minister responsible for a program like that and have any confidence that the health care of Manitobans is being protected?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, it is not enough for the people of Manitoba for the honourable member simply to say, well, now, here are all the programs and here are all the ones we are opposed to, without giving a reason. You cannot do that anymore. The people of Manitoba want to know why the honourable member is against providing more coverage for people who are poor and less coverage for people who are rich. The honourable member should answer that question so we can understand where his credibility comes from.
Consultations
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, can the minister who finally today, six months after they gutted the Pharmacare program, introduced some changes to the Pharmacare program to take care of this difficulty, explain how it was that they went about doing this without consulting with Manitobans, without consulting with people involved in the pharmaceutical industry, and why these changes were brought in, except that the government was attempting to make savings on the backs of sick Manitobans?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Clever phrases like the kind the honourable member resorts to--and his Leader from time to time--no longer work with the people of Manitoba. They are a little smarter than the honourable member for Kildonan or the Leader of the Opposition combined.
The people of Manitoba know that we need to provide health services for people, including Pharmacare services for people who need that, who cannot afford the expensive drugs that are out there and that structuring the program in the way that we have has been done with regret, yes, but with support, yes, too. The honourable member is out of touch with the people of Manitoba. He is one of those Neanderthal dogmatic protesters I talked about a few minutes ago.
Workplace Safety
Inspector Reduction
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, yesterday, another very serious workplace accident occurred when an excavation site collapsed, trapping the worker inside. Our thoughts today are with Mr. Nickoshie and his family, considering the seriousness of the accident in which Mr. Nickoshie was involved. Also yesterday, it was my understanding that another scaffold collapsed at a worksite, endangering lives in the city of Winnipeg here.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour to explain why one of the first acts of his government upon assuming power was to cut the number of Workplace Safety and Health inspectors, the construction inspectors who would normally go out and inspect sites such as these. Why did this government cut these inspectors?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): The member for Transcona is wrong. The number of inspectors has remained constant.
Mr. Reid: It is the minister's own document, and he says here clearly that it is a reduction in the construction inspection and training activities.
I want to ask this minister a supplementary question. Can this Minister of Labour explain why his government has reduced the total number of Workplace Safety and Health field inspectors from over 58 in 1989 to just 42 officers today, 16 less officers, when there are over 40,000 companies in operation in this province? How can we expect to inspect all of those companies with 16 less officers?
* (1355)
Mr. Toews: The member, I note, did not table the document he referred to, and I assume that he in fact will table that document.
In respect of the activities that the inspectors are required to perform and the nature of their duties--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Labour, to complete his response.
Mr. Toews: --the number of hours dedicated to field activity has in fact remained constant.
Mr. Reid: That does not jibe with his own budget document of this year.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona, with a final supplementary.
Fines
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I want to ask the Minister of Labour to explain what message his government is sending to the employers of this province who violate The Workplace Safety and Health Act when companies continue to risk the lives of their workers by working in unshored excavation sites when documents from the courts show that employers and companies with employees working in unshored excavation sites are charged and fined only $150? What message is that sending to the workers and to the companies of this province?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): If my learned friend would care to review the statistics, it is clear that accidents and serious time-loss accidents and deaths in this province in workplace-related matters have steadily decreased as a result of this government emphasizing an internal responsibility system.
For example, at a time when we now experience, regrettably, yes, one or two deaths in the mining sector, in the 1970s when that party was in power, there were 17 deaths a year.
We have reduced and we will continue to reduce deaths and injuries in the workplace because that is in the best interests of Manitobans.
Health Care System
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, the withdrawal of Bill 49 in fact would be a very positive thing for all Manitobans. My question is for the Minister of Health.
The creation of the regional health boards is in fact to allow this government to avoid taking responsibility. In fact, in Alberta where they have the same model, they starved the system of over $100 million.
My question to the Minister of Health: Is it this government's intention also to cut back on money going into health care and allow for the super regional boards to take the blame? I will table the document that clearly demonstrates the types of cutbacks that have been implemented through the regional health boards in Alberta.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member makes comparisons that are not justified by any facts that exist here in Manitoba. I understand that the figure in Alberta is that some $500 million have been taken out of their health care system in Alberta, and I suggest to you that no matter what system of governance you might have in a jurisdiction where you take out that kind of money, the effects are certainly going to be felt all down the line.
That is not the case here in Manitoba. In fact, in 1995-96, the last fiscal year for which we have the complete report, we spent $60 million more than we actually spent in the previous fiscal year in the Department of Health. In Manitoba, at 33.8 percent of all spending being on health, Madam Speaker, that is the highest level anywhere in the country.
So the honourable member is certainly not making any valid comparisons at all here today.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question.
Regional Health Boards
Overspending
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Health indicate--with the Alberta experience, the regional health authorities overspent by $100 million--is it this government's intentions to put in a permanent cap that would not allow them to overspend?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Responsible governments do their best to live within their means in the same way as responsible individual citizens do, and that is not going to change in Manitoba. There are times when we are a little over budget in Health and that is always a concern, but it is driven very much by the demand for the health services that we have in our province, so that whatever structure is set up under the regional health authorities, we are not going to be able to avoid trying to live within our means in the health system and in every other system. When I say that, I remind the honourable member, too, that nowhere will you find more of a financial commitment to health care than you will find right here in Manitoba.
* (1400)
Cost of Implementation
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Can the Minister of Health tell us how much is this useless level of bureaucracy that this minister is creating through Bill 49 going to cost the taxpayers of Manitoba? That money is coming out of the same health care budget that should be administering health care to Manitobans.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if there was any lack of clarity before about the honourable member's position about regionalization, that has disappeared with his last question.
You know, he does not mind standing in his place and going against the advice of the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council, which went throughout--in the fundamental recommendations to set up regional health authorities, and after all of that work, involving thousands of Manitobans, public hearings and all the rest of it, the honourable member stands here today and condemns the whole thing. So much for his credibility.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, Beauchesne's--
Madam Speaker: On a point of order?
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, on a point of order, Beauchesne's is fairly clear in the sense that the minister has an obligation to answer the questions as briefly and as directly as possible. The minister imputed motives on my behalf and stayed a mile and a half away from the actual question itself.
The question was, how much money was being spent by this government for these boards, and the minister did not even make any recognition of that whatsoever, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I certainly did not intend to impute any unworthy motive to the honourable member and if I did that I would certainly like to withdraw that, but I do not see any other motive than a motive here to try to see which way the wind is blowing.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Inkster, I believe that the honourable Minister of Health was attempting to apologize to the honourable member for Inkster, but I am not certain that he accomplished that with the last portion of his statement. I would ask the honourable Minister of Health to unequivocally restate the first portion of his apology.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I do that without hesitation.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Health.
Rail Line Abandonment
Impact Study
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My questions are for the Minister of Transportation.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon was recognized to pose a question, and I am experiencing great difficulty hearing him.
Mr. Jennissen: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Transportation.
Recently the member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River has been putting out information claiming that the abandonment by CN of the Winnipegosis and the Cowan subdivisions are windows of opportunity for the region.
Has this government done an impact study on the cost to the provincial taxpayers of the loss of these lines, and if so, has he shared it with the federal Liberal M.P.s from this province?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, the member addresses the issue of abandonment of lines in various locations in Manitoba. Clearly it is of concern to the government because it is a road bed that can carry significant tonnage that would then end up on the roads if the lines were closed.
We have been strong advocates that these lines should be offered for short line opportunities for other people to invest in to operate them as profitable economic return lines for that particular area. In that context, our staff has worked with interested parties who want to look at short line operations, and we have legislation in place to facilitate that process.
Bayline
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, can the minister tell the House whether CN has agreed to consider the bayline network as a complete unit or is CN still attempting to portion off all lines north of The Pas?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that we have met with very senior officials of CN the last two or three weeks here. I met with some more of those officials last week in Vancouver. Certainly we have been asking that they offer it in that fashion as a complete unit. That is a process that they will ultimately do in the way they want to market the lines, but I am very confident that they will offer the lines in northern Manitoba for short line opportunities for the betterment of the mining industry, in terms of the grain export industry and in terms of the people that live along those particular lines currently there.
I am also of the opinion that several interested parties are viewing those lines and looking at the opportunity of making that investment.
Government Involvement
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Since several people on the Sherridon line told my colleagues and myself over the weekend that CN was in fact attempting to sell the Flin Flon and Sherridon line as a separate package, can the minister tell the House what direct role his government is playing in these negotiations?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): We have offered our services to CN and to the interested parties, and where it is deemed appropriate, we participate. We are not going to be involved directly in terms of the financial side of the package. We are there to facilitate to help the two parties come to some process that leads to an agreement that those lines will be operated by somebody else.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, it is ironic that the Minister of Highways and Transportation, who is concerned here about the impacts of privatization of CN and the potential loss of service, is also the Minister responsible for MTS, which is privatizing.
I would like to ask the minister if he will show the same kind of concern, and indicate to Manitobans why there is virtually no guarantee under the privatization of MTS that in the future northern Manitobans, rural Manitobans will not be faced with exactly the same situation, in the fact that they will not get the investment in the new technology under a private company that they have been getting very successfully under publicly owned MTS.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the member mentions pressure on capital investment. Yes, we have invested some $600 million in private lines, but that modernizes us to today, and that technology that is there that the public wants in the future is going to require several hundred million more of investment. That is fundamentally the issue. The member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), in the past, has made this statement, going back to 1987 when he recognized: We have pressure in terms of a capital plant that I believe needs massive infusion of capital, and that is precisely the issue. [interjection]
Madam Speaker, if the member for Concordia wants to take such pride in what they might have done, let me put the figures on the record. The figures on the record from '81 to '87, when they were in power, Manitoba Telephone System lost $19 million, in the eight years subsequent, made $160 million. In their tenure they took the debt to--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, if the members want the facts, I want to give them the facts.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister responsible for the MTS, to complete his response.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, along the way they took the debt to equity ratio from 83.9 up to 91 percent. That is because they were losing money. They did not have the resources for capital investment. Since we have been in power we have brought it down from 91 to 78, plus we have funded the pension plan, which they never did.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question.
* (1410)
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I note the minister did not quote his own Leader in 1995, who said they would not sell MTS, and I would like to ask the--
Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I know that the member opposite does not want to put falsehoods on the record, and so I want to correct him to tell him that when I was asked the question, I answered it directly and said that we had no plans to sell the Manitoba Telephone System, which was absolutely accurate and not as the member has put it, which is absolutely a falsehood, and I would ask him to withdraw it.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.
Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing that, because the Premier not only made the comments during the election campaign, the first question in this session of the Legislature. The first session after the election I asked him again, and again he said he was not going to sell MTS, and, in fact, I think the Premier should be the one apologizing to the people of Manitoba for misleading them in the provincial election, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable First Minister, the honourable First Minister does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister then, which way are we supposed to believe on MTS? Are we supposed to believe his comments now which suggest that MTS is in good financial shape, or are we supposed to believe the comments the minister makes outside of this House in suggesting we have to privatize because it is not in good shape? Which way is it? Since we are making a profit in MTS, why did we sell it?
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the member clearly leaves out certain basic facts that he just fails to realize. This is no longer a monopoly telephone company. As recently as 10 or 15 years ago, yes, it was a real monopoly. Today, 70 percent of the revenue base is under competition and hundreds of millions of new investment is required. I think it is a lot safer if that investment comes from investors from the private sector as opposed to using government dollars which are badly needed in health care, in education, family services.
We do not need to put taxpayers' money at risk in a Crown corporation when the investment capability--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. A very serious question was asked, and I would appreciate the co-operation of all honourable members in permitting the minister to respond to the question asked.
The honourable Minister responsible for MTS, to complete his response.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, when this privatization is complete, eight out of nine telcos in Canada will be in the private sector. Six out of those nine have been in the private sector for umpteen years.
We operate very well under the umbrella of the Stentor group of companies in Canada, and we have really followed the example all over the world where 36 telephone companies that were government owned either have been privatized or are in the process of it, because of the competition that it is under, because of the need for capital, because we want to guarantee to our Manitoba citizens they will have the best telecommunication services in the future without putting the taxpayer at risk along the way.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the minister will explain to Manitobans that in the vast majority of cases where telephone systems have been privatized, it has led to dramatic increases in rates, reduced service, particularly in rural and northern areas. In fact, if he would only look at the province of Alberta where it was privatized under the Conservative government only five years ago, that is exactly what happened in that province, and that is exactly what will happen in Manitoba when MTS is privatized.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the member continues to try to present to the public falsehoods, statements that do not have any basis in fact.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Findlay: Rates are not controlled by the Manitoba government; they are not controlled by the Public Utilities Board of Manitoba. They are controlled by the one regulator that serves eight of those nine telcos, CRTC. No rates can increase without their approval; no change in service can happen and there is a mandated level of service required to serve not only all Manitobans under CRTC but all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, may I answer a question that the member raised yesterday in terms of whether MTS was meeting with people in Manitoba?
As the result of inquiries that came in, letters were sent out to people, and senior staff have had meetings in 48 locations all over Manitoba--generally initiated the meetings because of falsehoods put forward by that member when senior--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that “order, please” has been called at least three times and the clock is running.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would, first of all, ask that the time not be taken off our Question Period since the disturbance was coming from that side.
Second of all, on the point of order, the minister used the term “falsehood” which, under Beauchesne's Citation 489 and Beauchesne's Citation 492, has been listed as being unparliamentary.
Madam Speaker, I would also like the minister to correct on the record the fact that in fact in Alberta rates have gone up because of the privatization. That is a fact, and I am wondering when the minister will start telling the truth to Manitobans about what will happen once MTS is sold off.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I will take the point under advisement. I have been advised that it appears and has appeared on both lists, but I want to review the context within which the word was used.
The honourable member for Dauphin.
* (1420)
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Thank you, Madam Speaker--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister responsible for MTS.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, if “falsehood” is a word that should not be used, I withdraw it. But I was not quite finished my answer, if you please.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
I have indicated to the House that I will take the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson under advisement and report back to the House.
* * *
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I was not finished my answer when the member for Thompson--
Madam Speaker: I had recognized the honourable member for Dauphin. Regrettably, I stopped my watch and I cannot ascertain how much time the honourable minister had consumed in responding to his answer.
Order, please. There is approximately one minute remaining in Question Period.
The honourable member for Dauphin, with a very short question.
Forestry Industry
Cutting Allowances
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, the First Minister should take some kind of responsibility for the statements that he made in this House.
This government got an F from the Sierra Club and a D-minus from the Endangered Spaces campaign because, in their words, it became clear that Manitoba's commitment to forestry and mining exceeded its commitment to biodiversity. This government signed an L-P agreement behind closed doors before public hearings. It failed to consult First Nations on the Repap licence. It failed to hold public hearings on Pine Falls, and it continues to muzzle department officials whose science does not fit with their corporate deals.
I ask the Premier again, why is he allowing any Forestry branch official to increase annual timber cuts by 20 percent without any consultation?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this administration has ensured that very major projects such as Louisiana-Pacific and such as the forestry plans for Repap or Pine Falls are able to go before a full public hearing and evaluation by the Clean Environment Commission.
That administration approved the largest forestry complex in Manitoba without public hearings, without Clean Environment Commission hearings. They went and they approved their forestry plans, their harvesting plans for 20 years at a time--no public hearings. They approved the largest single development project in the history of this province--Limestone--with no public hearings and no Clean Environment Commission process, and they have the audacity to say that we are not doing something in the environment. It took us millions of dollars of clean-up to clean up their mess at Manfor.
They had the worst record in environment in this entire country, and he ought to be ashamed to get up and put anything on the record with respect to the environment.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.