LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, May 3, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Functions of the Office of Speaker
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a matter of privilege. As is the case
with our rules, I will be following it with a motion.
The matter of privilege relates to a very important matter
for this House. It relates to the
function of the office of Speaker, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and relates to one of
the most fundamental aspects of your role, which is as the impartial ruler of
this House in terms of our roles, in terms of our orders, and indeed the
centuries of tradition that have established very clearly that the role of
Speaker is one which requires the absolute recognition of the impartiality of
the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on this matter because the comments
that were made were not made strictly by a member of the Legislature in a
general sense, but by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this House who indicated‑‑and
I want to quote the words of the Premier because I think the comments are of
grave concern to anyone that recognizes just how important the role of the
Speaker is in this House. The Premier‑‑and
I have just received a transcript of these comments today so it is the first
opportunity that I have the ability to raise this matter‑‑stated: When the votes are taken we have 29, they
have 28.
Indeed, it was stated in an interview and I will deal with
that, because that is a germane point that needs to be dealt with in terms of
consideration of a matter of privilege.
I know the Premier may not consider those comments to be that important,
but we in this House and the public of Manitoba do.
I think it should be very clear, Mr. Speaker, in looking at
our traditions, the rules of this House in terms of the precedents, whether it
be Erskine May on page 180 of the 21st edition or more germanely, in terms of
Beauchesne which states very clearly:
"The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the
House of Commons are authority and impartiality."
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to cite not only
Citation 168(1), but 168(2): "In
order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all
affiliation with any parliamentary party.
The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any
outside partisan political activity."
Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
indicate clearly that he does not perceive your role as being the independent
arbitrator of this House, under Beauchesne, under Erskine May, under the
traditions of the parliamentary system.
The Premier seems to feel that you are subject to the government Whip as
indicated by those statements.
* (1335)
I raise that in the context of some very interesting
precedents we have in this House. Some
members may recall, Mr. Speaker, on Monday the 13th of December, 1982, when
members of the then‑opposition considered what they felt were undue
influences that might have been placed on the Speaker at that time, they raised
a matter of privilege followed by a motion which was then put to the
House. In fact, it was Sterling Lyon who
raised the issue and indicated at the time that their concern for a matter of
privilege was related to statements that had been made by the then‑Premier
to the then‑Speaker of the House in 1982.
We have also other precedents. One may recall the former member for Portage
having made comments, and I believe you made a ruling in terms of comments that
were made outside of this House involving the office of Speaker, because the
bottom line here is, in terms of a matter of privilege, while under normal
circumstances comments that are made outside of the House might normally not be
considered a matter of privilege, there is precedent where those comments have
involved reflections on your role in this House, the role of the Speaker.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are raising this matter,
because in this session of the Legislature, as you did on Friday when you using
your judgment cast your deciding vote, it was based on precedent, not any
affiliation to any political party, not to any Whip imposed by the
Premier. In fact, the bottom line is if
this Legislature is to function in the way it should, it should be based on
your clear impartiality which we recognize in the opposition, something we wish
to see from this government.
That is why I would like to move, Mr. Speaker, and I move,
seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)
THAT the statements made by the Premier calling into
question the impartiality of the Speaker be referred to the Committee on
Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to table the transcript in which
it states the particular quote: When the
votes are taken we have 29, they have 28.
You will continue to see this happen and I do not see it as being a lot
different from other years.
That is the particular reference that is made.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson
for that document.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, certainly the member for
Thompson has the right to bring before this Chamber any matter that he
considers to be appropriate. On the
other hand, there is no question that in this particular case, the case that he
makes is way out in left field, so to speak.
I acknowledge totally the comments having been made and the
comments were a reflection of the fact that we have had six votes in this
Chamber thus far this session, six votes in which the results were 29 to
28. Nobody in this House, Mr. Speaker‑‑and
I particularly resent the member for Thompson alleging that you, Sir, have
taken a partisan role in this Legislature.
That is not something that anyone ought to allege. Everyone on this side of the House respects
the impartiality and the record that you have established in an even‑handed,
fair and balanced manner over this House at all times by the rules of the House
and by all of the precedents.
* (1340)
Indeed, throughout the process the comments that I have
made and the comments that have been reflected by your actions in this House
are that you, Sir, will ensure that you act in such way as to follow the rules
and the precedents that have been long established in the parliamentary
tradition throughout the world, long established that the Speaker has in the
past and on the precedents that you have quoted, voted to continue the debates
or voted to continue the government in power in the case of a tie vote. That is precedent and that is amply demonstrated
and amply supported throughout the history of parliamentary democracy.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would never, ever bring myself in a
position to question your impartiality or your right to rule in accordance with
the precedents that have been long established in the parliamentary tradition of
this world.
I think it is shocking that the members opposite,
particularly in the New Democratic Party, would be so shallow as to try and
make an issue of this and that they have so little credibility and so little
upon which to found their electoral position in this province that they would
attempt to bring this as a major issue before the House and attempt, through
their inappropriate actions, to try and call some attention to your actions and
to try and infer some sense of impartiality.
Mr. Speaker, I just say that I know you will deal with it
in the appropriate manner, and I have total confidence and trust in your
impartiality and your ruling on this matter.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, no one in the Chamber wants to question and impair impartiality of
your rulings. In listening to what my
colleague the House leader from the New Democratic Party is saying, you know,
we look at it in terms of the media would quite often refer that the government
has 29 members and the opposition has a combination of 28 members.
I think that Leaders of all three political parties have at
times acknowledged that the government is 29, 28. We do not want to question the impartiality
of the Chair, but I think at the very least, you could maybe give some caution
to all members, whether you are the Premier of the province or you are Leader
of an opposition or members of the media, that in fact this is a House that is
borderline majority with a 28, 28, and you, Mr. Speaker, are in fact for all
intents and purposes, an independent.
Your decisions in the past have been based on precedents of this
Chamber, and we look forward to you continuing just doing that.
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker: I would truly like to comment on this matter
at this point in time, because there does appear to be a cloud hanging over the
Chair at this moment.
I thank all honourable members for their remarks on this
matter. A matter of privilege, as we are
all quite aware, is a very, very serious matter, so I am going to take the
opportunity to take this matter under advisement to be able to peruse the
remarks that have just been put on the record, and I will come back to the
House with a ruling. I thank all
honourable members, by the way.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Brandon University Foundation Directors
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Brandon University Foundation, praying for the passing of an act to increase
the number of directors of the foundation to not more than 42 or not less than
eight persons, of whom three shall be members of the Board of Governors of
Brandon University.
Thompson General Hospital Patient Care
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Lucy Manary, Bob Gurniak, Sandra Quigley‑Jensen and others requesting the
Legislative Assembly to request the government of Manitoba to consider
reviewing the impact of reductions in patient care at the Thompson General
Hospital with a view towards restoring current levels of patient care and,
further, to ask the provincial government to implement real health care reform
based on full participation of patients, health care providers and the public,
respect for the principles of medicare and an understanding of the particular
needs of northern Manitoba.
Government Promotion of Gambling
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg
to present the petition of Jeff Hunt, Chris Blaquiere, Carl Ross and others
requesting the Legislative Assembly to urge the Minister responsible for the
Manitoba Lotteries Corporation (Mr. Ernst) to consider initiating a full public
debate on the role of government in owning establishments and promoting
gambling in Manitoba.
READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS
Old Age Pension
Request to Federal Government
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to
withdraw this petition. It was drafted
by seniors in my constituency. I am to
understand it may be out of order, but if it could be taken as notice.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to allow the honourable member
for Thompson to remove his petition under Reading and Receiving Petitions?
[agreed]
I would like to thank the honourable member for Thompson.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me
to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table the Annual Report 1992‑93
of the Public Trustee.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw
the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have
with us today visitors from the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia who are
visiting Canada under the auspices of the Institute of Public Administration of
Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, seated in the public gallery,
we have again today from Ness Junior High School, seventy‑five Grade 9
students under the direction of Mr. Baydak.
This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of
Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh).
Also this afternoon, from the YM‑YWCA Adult Education
Program, we have 13 students under the direction of Mrs. Nancy Kelly. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you all here this afternoon.
* (1350)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Manitoba Telephone System
Layoffs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
During the Speech from the Throne and in the document
tabled a couple of weeks ago, the government stated: "We want secure and satisfying jobs, not
only for ourselves, but for everyone who is able to work and who values the
dignity of employment."
We have learned today that for the first time since 1932,
Manitoba Telephone System has issued 200 layoffs to their employees working
throughout the communities in Manitoba.
This seems to go quite contrary to the government's words, and is even
more concerning to us when you consider the fact that the Telephone System had
a surplus last year, in 1993, of $20 million.
It has a projected surplus this year of $20 million, according to the
Public Utilities Board.
It seems to us, with all the unemployment going on, with
all the extra costs the government is incurring over the last five years of
welfare costs‑‑does it make any sense at all again to have layoffs
in one of our Crown corporations? Will
the government take action to stop these layoffs?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, if we look across the country,
every telco is reducing the workforce.
New technology, automated equipment actually requires less people.
In the province of Manitoba, although it is unfortunate 200
layoffs are announced today at the Manitoba Telephone System, over 900 jobs
have been created in Manitoba in the telecommunications industry in the last
year. That brings it to over 3,000
people employed outside of the Telephone System in telecommunications in the
province of Manitoba.
The Manitoba Telephone System management has tried
desperately to avoid the layoffs. They
wanted the workers to take the voluntary 3.8 percent reduction in salary, in
other words, 10 days in the workweek reduction program. The employees refused that option. That left the management with little or no
choice but to exercise the layoffs.
Mr. Speaker, in comparison, in Ontario, Bell Canada asked
the unions to take a reduction of 10 percent in salaries or 5,200 layoffs. They chose the reduction in salary to save
the jobs.
Manitoba Telephone System
Layoffs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Telephone System made $20
million last year. [interjection] If the former Minister of Finance wants to
answer the questions, I am sure we would listen to him. He is no stranger, of course, to layoffs and
reductions in people working.
When the government introduced their capital tax on Crown
corporations and was asked questions in this Chamber on April 21, 1994, about
the increased revenue being taken from those Crown corporations‑‑we
project between $2.5 million to $4 million at the Telephone System, depending
on the application of the tax‑‑the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson) stated: I would expect the
two Crown corporations will be able to absorb these costs from within their
projected earnings. They both are
projecting to be above budgeted surpluses for the coming year.
I would ask the government‑‑given the fact that
Oz Pedde had said before in October of 1992:
Reductions will take place through attrition; nobody has been hurt by
this program at MTS‑‑why is the government now proceeding to lay
people off? Are there not enough people
on the welfare lines? Are there not
enough people on UI in Manitoba? When
are we going to stop the insanity of layoffs in our province?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is hard to accept the
hypocritical attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in these circumstances.
The Manitoba Telephone System offered to the union that
represents these workers a very simple way for them to avoid the 200
layoffs. That is, to accept the same
solution that is being accepted right across the board in public sector
employment in the provincial government, in Crown corporations, including MPIC,
including the Hydro and throughout the public service, and that was that they
take off the 10 days without pay and avoid 200 layoffs. The union leadership chose the layoffs, and
if that member supports that, then he is the one who ought to be ashamed of
himself.
* (1355)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have 200 people being laid
off. They do not know who they are in
the Telephone System. We have 4,000
people now worried, going home tonight potentially thinking that they may be
the ones that are being laid off.
This will have a tremendous impact, not only on the
families in the Manitoba Telephone System that are working there, it will also
have an impact on consumer confidence in the province of Manitoba. It will ripple through as other layoffs do in
terms of the purchases of goods that people make in our economy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what action will this government take if
there is an impasse at the Telephone System?
What action and what leadership will this government take to bring the
parties together to find a creative way to deal with this issue, so that we are
not laying people off and we are not having further insecurity right throughout
Manitoba in terms of the Manitoba Telephone System?
Mr. Filmon: Bill 22 was a creative way to avoid
layoffs. It was so creative that it has
been picked up by seven of the other provinces in Canada, Mr. Speaker, including
Ontario. I have been complimented on it
by other Premiers saying this was a good way to avoid layoffs; this is the way
to save salary costs and avoid layoffs.
We have provided that creative, flexible way to the Crown corporations,
to the employees of Manitoba Telephone System.
If the member opposite really believes what he stands for,
what he says he stands for, why does he not, as a former union boss himself,
pick up the phone and talk to the head of the union and tell them that they can
take all of the anxiety away, they can take all of the worry away, just
convince their members, no layoffs as long as you take the 10 days off without
pay.
Manitoba Sugar Co.
Negotiations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Speaker, sugar beet producers in Manitoba
are under a tremendous amount of pressure because Manitoba Sugar has locked out
employees from the plant. Because
contracts and seed are controlled by the company, farmers cannot begin planting
the crop. Even though negotiations are
breaking down, workers have said they are willing to go back to ensure that the
crop is planted. They are willing to
work while negotiations are going on.
I want to ask this government what steps they are going to
take to ensure that the sugar beet crop will be planted this spring in
Manitoba.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Swan
River is somewhat outdated in her information.
There has been a great deal of discussion going on this morning. Myself, the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Downey), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), the member for
Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) have
been involved in a great number of discussions.
I am pleased to announce that I have been informed that the
parties will be resuming negotiations this afternoon and that we have floated a
variety of options that we believe may see the conclusion of this agreement, or
at least offer parties, if they are willing to be reasonable, a means of
achieving a process or a settlement that will allow the crop to be seeded this
year.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the government
recognizes the importance of this industry, because we cannot afford to have
275 producers put out of work nor can we have the people at the plant, some 160
jobs eliminated from this industry.
I want to ask the minister what steps they will take beyond
this to ensure that the crop will go in.
Can they negotiate and ensure that the seed will be in the farmers'
hands this week so they can get that crop into the ground?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Swan
River is demonstrating the danger of having prepared questions and not getting
the answer one wants, because there is a fundamental reality. If there is no sugar beet plant there, if the
company closes the plant because they cannot reach an agreement, then there is
no need to grow the beets. There is no
need to seed the beets, which somehow she seems to be implying that if things
break down and we do not have an agreement, the farmers should still go and
seed the beets.
There is one fundamental reality here. An agreement has to be reached that is
liveable by the parties who have to work with it, and all the labour relations
gimmicks, all the different types of tools that avoid finding a solution that
the parties can live with will mean the end of that industry.
This government is working very hard with the parties
involved through our mediator and through other means to achieve that type of
liveable agreement.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question. I was asking him what would he
do if this did not work. He indicated
that the plant might close. We are told
that Manitoba Sugar may be using this as an excuse to close the plant in
Manitoba.
Is this government prepared to lose that industry, this
multimillion dollar industry from this province‑‑
* (1400)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speculate today on what
the motives are on either side. I cannot
speculate whether Manitoba Sugar has another agenda or Mr. Christophe has
another agenda either. I am not going to
get into doing that. We are working to
achieve an agreement that both parties can live with that will allow for a
sugar industry in Manitoba for another season of growing beets.
Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, every time members opposite
come into this debate and try to extend in some way‑‑what other
plan, what other plan‑‑and interfere in that process of negotiation
and give false hope that somehow there is going to be a magic solution that is
not on, they do more harm to the process.
I wish they would appreciate what in fact is happening here.
Video Lottery Terminals
Social Costs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, for
some time I have been asking the Minister responsible for the Manitoba
Lotteries Corporation to release and table the five‑year plan of the
Manitoba Lotteries Corporation which is done each year and updated each
year. I have now received a copy of the
corporate plan for 1991 through '96 and I acknowledge that it is not the most
current plan, which I would invite the minister to table, but I do want to pick
up on some of the comments in that plan.
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the minister indicated that to
his knowledge there was no link between addiction, compulsive gambling and
other social problems that people are facing.
Page 16 of this report, which was taken to cabinet I am led to
understand, specifically indicates that the VLTs will be highly addictive, and
the major social consequences of this is the addictive effect it will have on
certain segments of the population using gambling as a form of behaviour to
deal with certain psychological problems that they have. The consequences could be serious for these
people and their families in a financial sense, and the onus will be laid on
government. That is the plan which was
put before this government before VLTs came into place, specifically indicating
that those with other psychological problems will be more susceptible to these
highly addictive machines.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister now come forward and be
honest about the knowledge that the government had about the impact of VLTs on
those who otherwise psychologically had difficulties and were having problems?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, while I became the minister on
September 10, 1993, the former minister and our government hired Dr. Rachel
Volberg, who is the pre‑eminent psychologist and pre‑eminent guru,
if you like, of these kinds of activities.
She has the most knowledge of anyone in North America with respect to
the potential for problems resulting from gambling.
We hired Dr. Volberg, expended a significant amount of
money in order to have her analyze the situation as it relates to
Manitoba. She determined, to the best of
her knowledge and the information that she was able to glean and analyze, that
about 1.3 percent of the adult population of Manitoba potentially could have a
problem, result in gambling addiction.
That being said, in the state of Texas where there is no
organized gambling, about 1.3 percent of the population there also have the
potential to be pathological gamblers.
So while we do not, for a minute, think that there are not
going to be problems associated with this‑‑otherwise we would not
have put $2.5 million towards the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba in order to
run programs to deal with potential and addictive behaviour‑‑we do
know that it is a small percentage of the people who are involved in this
activity.
Club Regent/McPhillips Street Station
Marketing Campaign
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
firstly, the Volberg report came a couple of months after they had installed
2,000 VLTs. Secondly, we have yet to see
the full Volberg report. It is not being
made public.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister.
The club concept which was used for McPhillips Street
Station and Club Regent, page 49 of this corporate plan, specifically was done‑‑and
I want to ask the minister to explain this‑‑in order to attract the
low to moderate income patrons that electronic bingo at these institutions has
become a fashionable "in" activity for them, it says, and they are
targeted in a marketing sense, and, secondly, that the elderly and those who
are in need of getting together socially, the elderly and the lonely, Mr.
Speaker, would be particular targets for these gambling casinos.
Can the minister explain why they opted for a club concept
with a marketing plan which targeted the poor, the elderly and the depressed?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, I reject totally the member's
referral to the poor, the elderly and the depressed.
The fact of the matter is that those facilities, Club
Regent and the McPhillips Street Station, replaced existing bingo halls that
attracted thousands of Manitobans on a regular basis. They were old, they were poorly developed and
were in desperate need of replacement, with decent air handling quality and
decent atmospheres. That is exactly what
happened. Those facilities were replaced
with new facilities with decent air handling equipment to provide for a clean
environment inside and a reasonable atmosphere for those who wish to play bingo
and who had frequented those previous halls for many, many years.
Mr. Edwards: Those bingo halls were replaced with
clubs. The club concept has its own
chapter in this book.
I want to ask the minister to explain why they went for a
club concept with a marketing plan which specifically targeted the
elderly. In particular it said, it
concluded: The elderly in particular use
the bingo club as a point of contact, often their only point of contact with
other people.
Why has this government, instead of doing something in the
Seniors Directorate, targeted the seniors and lonely people in our society as
their primary marketing target for the clubs on McPhillips Street and Regent
Avenue?
Mr. Ernst: It may come as a surprise to the Leader of
the second opposition party, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is an awful lot of
elderly people have been playing bingo in this province for a very, very long time. They play it in churches. They play it in community clubs. They play it in all kinds of facilities. We have provided in these two facilities now
a reasonable, decent, clean atmosphere for them to conduct those activities
that they make by their choice.
Victims Assistance Programs
Government Commitment
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Justice.
Manitobans are now aware of three instances in the last few
months where the government has refused to support victims' cases. There was the Ann Justice case, where the
government, for failure to pay a witness, caused significant difficulties. Last week, one of Manitoba's most wanted
fugitives was not extradited. As well,
we understand from an article today, that an essential witness in the
Desjarlais case has not been brought to trial.
Mr. Speaker, with the historic backlogs in the courts, with
the reduction in funding for Victims Assistance, there is a concern that
victims will start to give up on our justice system in Manitoba.
My question to the minister is: Would the minister confirm that it is a
priority of this government that it pay $1 million for eight judges to not work
rather than to allocate some resources to simple justice and victims?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the member and I will speak about all of the services that
are provided to Manitobans through our Victims Assistance line when we get into
Estimates. I think he will be very
surprised and I hope very pleased, as Manitobans are, by the number of
Manitobans who are served by those programs.
He raises issues, whereas he admits himself that his
research is done strictly through the newspapers, nothing further than
that. He raises a case in which today he
did his research through the newspaper, but the member should know that the
newspapers do not always report all of the information.
In this case, the individual who was reportedly required to
be here did not have unique knowledge of the case, Mr. Speaker. That individual was seen as an expert
witness. In that case, there was another
expert who was available to the Crown in this province.
* (1410)
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I suggest to the minister that if she
is concerned about Victims Assistance, which is not the case according to the
Estimates, Mr. Speaker, she make sure that the victim's case‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. First of all, I would like to remind the
honourable member, this is not a time for debate.
The honourable member for St. Johns, with your question,
please, sir.
Mr. Mackintosh: My simple question to the minister is: Will she confirm that, because the government
is spending $1 million on eight judges this year, there will be less money
available to bring witnesses to trial and bring the accused to justice?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and the member
will find out. When we get into the
discussion of Victims Assistance, he will find out exactly how many individuals
again have been helped. I will also be
able to talk to him then about the very substantial amount of money which is
spent by Prosecutions to see cases through the courts.
I am also very happy to table a page of the decision which
came down in the highest court of Manitoba, the Court of Appeal, and the
justices in that case said, nor are we satisfied that the case against the
accused, even bolstered by the evidence of Dr. Ross, would be any
stronger. The member is wrong.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister to confirm this.
Will she confirm to the House that two senior support
positions in the Prosecutions branch have been done away with? Is that the kind of support that victims are
getting in this province?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a
personnel office in which staff have been redeployed. When we get to the Estimates of the
Department of Justice, I will be very happy to speak about those.
However, Mr. Speaker, the member has mentioned an early
retirement package offer‑‑and I just want to take him back to the
days when the NDP were in government, the former Attorney General‑‑at
that time prior to October 1987, there was an early retirement package offered
which entitled judges to one week for each week of service to a maximum of 15
weeks.
But the Attorney General of the day, the Attorney General,
a member of the New Democratic Party, who was in government at the time,
changed that. In fact, he made an offer
to the judges which said: I am very
pleased to inform you that cabinet has approved a different method for the
determination of compensation for the provincial judiciary. We have also improved an enhancement of the
retirement benefit which will be available to all provincial judges. The temporary retirement benefit adds an
additional two and a half weeks of salary to a maximum of 52 weeks for every
year of service to the existing entitlement‑‑the exact same offer
which is being made.
Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to table the letter
that was written to Judge Charles Rubin, signed by the Attorney General of the
day, Vic Schroeder.
Deputy Minister of Health
Salary
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, last year according to the
government's Supplementary Estimates, the Deputy Minister of Health earned
$102,400. This year, he is getting a
raise and is going to be paid $106,700, an increase of $4,300 or over 4 percent
of salaries.
How, in these times of bed cuts, nurse layoffs, user fees,
high‑priced consultants, can this minister justify an increase of this
kind to the salary of the deputy minister?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I told the honourable member
yesterday as we discussed this matter as we reviewed‑‑
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): We did not have any media there, though.
Mr. McCrae: No, no media there, Premier.
We discussed this matter in review of the Estimates. The Deputy Minister of Health is treated no
differently than any other civil servant working for the government. If there is an increase from one level to
another level, that is exactly the same treatment as any other civil
servant. Deputy ministers are also
affected by measures like Bill 22, exactly like any other civil servant.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, and exactly like every other
civil servant, in 1992‑93, the deputy minister was paid $94,600 and yet
this year his salary is increased to $106,000 which is over a $10,000 increase,
well over 10 percent.
Is that the way the average civil servant in Manitoba is
treated, particularly in light of 200 layoffs at MTS today and other cutbacks
of this government? How can this
minister justify that?
Mr. McCrae: It is my understanding that Bill 22 has saved
hundreds of people from being laid off in Manitoba. That is why I supported that legislation,
because I do not like seeing people being laid off.
The honourable member and his Leader today are suggesting
that we should be criticized for layoffs when their union colleagues, the ones
they seem to be speaking for when they come to this place, support that
approach. I am hoping that unions in
this province will be mindful of the fact that layoffs are the last option that
we would like to use as government.
I can only repeat what I said yesterday when I had the
deputy minister at my elbow who was able to confirm also that his treatment has
been no different from the treatment accorded anybody under his supervision or
in the government.
Mr. Chomiak: How can the minister not admit that this
sends a very, very bad message out to the thousands of health care workers and
other dedicated people in the system who have seen cuts and layoffs on a
massive scale? How can the minister
state, with any kind of integrity, that this is a normal process when the
deputy minister has seen a massive increase of 10 percent in his salary at this
time and era?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I am not accepting the numbers
that the honourable member is quoting.
The budget documents show certain numbers. The honourable member raised this question
yesterday, and I thought we came to the conclusion of it.
The honourable member knows that there are people who work
for the civil service who move from one step in a classification to another
based on merit. That is not new. I think the numbers in the budget reflect
that for the Deputy Minister of Health.
In addition to that, any impact of Bill 22 that other civil
servants might experience is exactly the same impact that the Deputy Minister
of Health will experience.
Municipal Board
Review of Gimli Project
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, a number of days ago I asked the
Minister of Rural Development to reverse his decision on a hearing for the
creation of 10 jobs and construction to begin in Gimli.
There have been some unfortunate consequences to this,
including a headline in the Interlake Spectator, which says, Gimli MLA is not
doing his job. This is an unfortunate
headline because the person who is not doing his job is the Minister of Rural
Development.
My question to the Minister of Rural Development is: Will he now, after hearing from many, many
constituents in Gimli, people involved in the business community as well as the
proprietors of Chudd's Chrysler, overturn his decision and not require a
hearing based on two Conservative supporters who have interfered in this
process?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker,
you know it is unfortunate that the member for Flin Flon is not satisfied with
following a process. Instead, he would
rather have someone interfere politically and then he would come back to this
House and say, well, why did you make that decision on your own if there is a
process to follow?
We do have a process to follow, and that is, if there are
interveners in a situation where there is a subdivision case, then it is only
natural that we would allow an independent body to rule on that issue, an
independent body that has been selected for that purpose.
Both parties have lawyers in this case, and they are
presenting their case to the Municipal Board on the 26th, I believe, of this
month. At that time, this matter will be
dealt with by the Municipal Board.
* (1420)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Rural
Development prepared to sacrifice the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) simply to
satisfy his own ego?
My question is: Will
he, given the fact that he has the discretion, either to call or to dismiss any
appeal, and given the fact that this appeal is not supported by anyone else in
the community, will he finally do the right thing, let the MLA for Gimli off
the hook, and let the people who want to create jobs there get on with the
business?
An Honourable Member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have lots of time left. The honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) will have an opportunity yet.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden the member for
Flin Flon has become the so‑called defender of my colleague the member
for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). The reality is,
I do not believe the member for Gimli wants the member for Flin Flon to be
defending him in this case.
Mr. Speaker, we will follow the correct process, a process
that has been a long‑standing one and has been established in this
province for many, many cases. Both
parties know what the process is.
Indeed, it is my responsibility, when there is an intervener, as
minister to refer that matter to the Municipal Board, which I have done, and
that hearing will be held, I believe, on the 26th of this month.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we so often hear about the
government's desire to create jobs in Manitoba.
Can the minister tell us how long this process will take,
and whether the individuals, the proponents of this project, are going to be
able to begin the process by this spring so they will have the jobs available
for the people in Gimli before this government's mandate runs out and the
government has some integrity and does the right thing?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I find this a little bit
incredible, you know. The member wants
the government to follow all processes.
As a matter of fact, the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) raised an issue
with regard to some article in a newspaper and said it is political
interference by the Minister of Rural Development.
Well, in this particular case, we are following the letter
of the law, and both parties understand the process. We have been in touch with both members in
this particular dispute, and the hearing has been set, I believe, for the 26th
of this month.
That will still give ample time, if the subdivision is
approved, for the party to go ahead with the construction and the creation of
the employment that is going to happen as a result of this development.
Manitoba Telephone System
Layoffs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System or
the Premier (Mr. Filmon), whomever would choose to answer.
In some kind of cruel irony, four days ago, the chairman of
Manitoba Telephone System, Mr. Tom Stefanson, wrote me in response to a letter
I had sent to him, and gloated about the profit picture for MTS, saying, let me
quote: MTS's net income for 1993 has
increased to $20 million from $6 million in 1992. The improved net income in 1993 results, to a
large extent, from productivity improvements and reductions in operation
expenses totalling $10 million.
Mr. Speaker, in addition in this letter, Mr. Stefanson
indicates that the expected impact of the new capital tax will be somewhat less
than $3 million.
My question for the minister responsible: Why, with glowing economic scenarios from the
chairman being sent out around the‑‑they went from $6 million to
$20 million in one year. Why are they
laying off 200 Manitobans, which will only be a drain on our government
revenues as they go onto unemployment insurance and welfare, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very encouraging that
MTS increased their net revenue from $6 million to $20 million, but over the
last five years that we have been in government, the average per year has been
$23 million, so there have been better years and there have been tougher years.
Mr. Speaker, MTS is doing a very good job of fiscally
managing that corporation so they can stay in the vicinity of $20 million to
$23 million per year.
The member mentions the corporate capital tax. I want to remind him that Quebec, Ontario,
Saskatchewan and British Columbia‑‑you notice that British
Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario all have the corporate capital tax, and it
puts MTS on a level playing field with the private sector with whom they are
competing.
As I mentioned earlier, MTS management negotiated with the
unions and said, we need to save this on our bottom line in terms of expense;
we are prepared to offer you the opportunity of saving your jobs by taking the
voluntary days off.
They chose to say no.
We did everything possible, MTS and the government, to be sure the jobs
were not lost. We expected them to take
the same decision as they did in Ontario, take the voluntary time off to save
the jobs. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,
MTS is still open to those unions coming back and saying, we are prepared to
accept the voluntary days off to save the jobs.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, we have the chairman now saying
it is approximately $3 million, a cost that is relative to that capital tax.
What is the corporation going to save from the 200 layoffs,
do they consider, and how does that relate to the $3 million? Can the minister indicate what the saving is
going to be this year as a result of those 200 layoffs?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the corporation was looking at
saving on their bottom line around $3.5 million this year.
The member always wants to argue and say, make the
ratepayer pay more. That is what he
argues. He does not argue in favour of
saving costs, which every company and every government across this country is
doing.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, they just loaded exactly that
same amount of money onto this utility.
Manitoba Hydro
Capital Tax
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My final question is
for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
Just yesterday I got a letter from the chairman of Manitoba
Hydro, Mr. McCallum, and he indicated there was $12 million as a result of that
capital tax.
What can we expect?
What can the people of Manitoba Hydro expect in the future for them,
given that MTS, with the new $3‑million taxes, tried to save the $3
million by laying off employees? What is
Manitoba Hydro going to do? Will the
government be forthright about their plans today?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think
with the two numbers that the Leader of the second opposition party has just
outlined, the $3 million from MTS and the $12 million from Manitoba Hydro, he
has confirmed the amount that we did, in fact, include in the budget.
When asked that question here in the House, we indicated to
him that we do not expect any impact on Manitoba Hydro. They have their rates set for the next two
years. As he well knows, they have their
rates set for the next two years at 1.2 percent overall increase, so certainly
in the short term, no impact.
I am not sure how much detail the letter goes into that he
has received, but, certainly, the feedback I have heard is in a multimillion‑dollar
corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, that they do not
expect the corporation capital tax to have any impact on rates, Mr. Speaker.
Sugar Beet Industry
Status
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear today
about the potential for a return to mediation at the Manitoba Sugar plant and
also to hear that, as yet, no layoff notices have been received. The dispute in this important Manitoba
industry has a familiar ring to it. The
same type of eleventh hour negotiation and brinkmanship has occurred on a
regular basis to the detriment of all sectors of this industry.
In 1991, the then‑Minister of Agriculture claimed to
be discussing long‑term issues of a national sugar policy. In 1993, the present Minister of Finance
claimed he was working with all elements of the industry to see if there is a
solution.
I want to ask the present Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism what evidence there is of any progress made by his government in the
last four years over the long‑term issues facing this important Manitoba
industry.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
Mr. Speaker, unlike the beef‑packing industry that was lost under
the former NDP government, we are pleased that there are still negotiations
being carried on. Unfortunately, they
are last‑minute discussions and negotiations, but the industry has
operated over the past four years, and it is our objective to get the groups
back in a positive way to operating on a long‑term basis.
We are hopeful that the negotiations today will resolve the
impasse and that we can get on to that longer‑term objective.
Trade Issues
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the company officials have
expressed great concerns about the unfair conditions of trade with the United
States.
I want to ask the same minister, again, what steps he has
taken to deal with those outstanding issues.
Has he, for example, spoken to the new federal government about trade
issues in the sugar industry of Manitoba?
Will he table for us an account of those discussions?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
Mr. Speaker, this government, under the leadership of this Premier (Mr.
Filmon), has been extremely strong on trade activities as it relates to the
products and the manufacturing goods and the produce of Manitoba.
Specifically dealing with sugar, no, there have not been
specific meetings held on that, but there have been in a general way
discussions as to how we can improve the trade with Manitoba products and with
the other jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker, as well, I can tell the House that next week
we have a Ministers of Trade meeting right here in this Legislative Building as
it relates to internal trade of which I am sure we will have the opportunity to
discuss the sugar trade, as well.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1430)
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
203rd Anniversary of Polish Constitution
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, would I have leave for
a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Niakwa have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, May 3 is the 203rd anniversary
of the passing of the constitution of Poland.
In common with Poles around the world, our Polish community will be
celebrating the enactment of its constitution.
Along with the American constitution of 1787 and the constitution of the
revolution of France of 1791, the Polish constitution of 1791 is regarded as
one of the most outstanding achievements of the 18th Century.
The importance of the constitution of the 3rd of May was
more than its provisions of judicial and legislative principles. Its enactment provided a fundamental moral
sense for the Polish people. The
principles enunciated in the beacon of democracy have been praised and emulated
around the world for just over two centuries and have served to instill faith
and hope in the Polish people throughout the almost insurmountable barriers and
tragedies that they have endured so long.
Also, Mr. Speaker, this year is particularly significant
because of the 203rd anniversary of Kosciusko's insurrection.
I know that all members of this House will join with me in
extending best wishes to our friends in the Polish community as they recognize
and celebrate this historic event. Thank
you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I, too, join, on behalf of the
members on this side of the House, in celebrating the anniversary of the May 3
constitution.
I certainly join in the comments of the member for Niakwa
when he indicated the great strength and the history of this particular
document. It is a historical document
that has been emulated in many, many countries and many times throughout
history and has served as a beacon of hope for the Polish people throughout
some very difficult and trying times in their history.
Always this constitution served as a hallmark and a shining
beacon of democracy and of rights and attitudes, of respecting individuals and
others. It certainly has served as a
basis for many other documents, and indeed there is certainly an example in
terms of the functioning and the historical nature of this constitution that we
in this country can learn from, Mr. Speaker.
I join with all members of this House in commemorating the
Polish people for this outstanding achievement.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): I will join my colleagues in their
recognition of this event. The Polish
community should be very pleased with this event. The contribution of the Polish people of this
world has helped all of humanity, and I think we should recognize this
event. Thank you.
* (1440)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
firstly, on a couple of matters of House business. Today, we will be dealing again in
Estimates. The Executive Council Estimates
having been completed last evening, we will today have Health revert to the
Chamber and Rural Development will be in Room 255.
Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will be dealing with second
readings of at least the four bills shown on the Order Paper. If there is time permitting following that,
we will also revert to the Estimates of the Department of Health and the Department
of Rural Development.
So, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and
the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
Okay, now we are bringing Health back into the Chamber, and
at several previous sessions during Estimates consideration, the House has
permitted opposition critics to be seated in the front row in the Chamber while
the departmental Estimates for which they are the critics are being
considered. In addition, the House in
the past has not required members in the Chamber to stand to speak during
Estimates consideration.
So that is why I am going to ask at this point in time, is
there unanimous consent for these practices to be continued during this
session? [agreed]
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Rural Development; and the honourable member for Seine River
(Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Health.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Rose (Acting
Deputy Chairperson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Rural
Development. Does the honourable
Minister of Rural Development have an opening statement?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Yes, I
do, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, and
good afternoon, members of the opposition critics. The end of 1993‑94 marked the first
year the department has operated under its new structure, the Local Government
Services division and the Economic Development Services division. Through this structure, the department
maintained services to local government and developed partnerships with
businesses and entrepreneurs to promote rural economic development.
These program and service delivery divisions are supported
by a restructured policy section, the Corporate Planning and Business
Development branch. The result has been
improved communications and a more co‑ordinated service approach. In the area of local government services, we
began a comprehensive review of The Municipal Act and related statutes. The review which was requested by the UMM and
MAUM and local officials is led by a review panel and supported by department
staff. Discussion documents were
prepared and 2,500 copies were distributed to rural stakeholders.
The review panel completed 17 regional consultation
meetings with over 600 delegates attending and providing approximately 300
written submissions and presentations.
The process was received positively, and the review panel is now in the
process of writing the report with a draft report slated for sometime at the
end of this year.
The municipal assessment branch has completed property
reassessment for the 1994 tax year across the province. The reassessment included extended public
service hours in regional assessment offices during October and November to
assist ratepayers, meetings with all 202 municipal governments to explain the
impacts of reassessment, and a new simplified assessment notice with an
information insert for ratepayers. Only
2 percent of all properties in the province were appealed, and all appeals in
rural Manitoba have been heard and decisions have been rendered.
During the past seven years, the branch fully automated and
simplified the assessment process and now plans to emphasize field inspections
to prevent inequities and ensure all properties are accurately valued. The division is now reviewing the mobility
disadvantaged program guidelines which will allow existing programs to continue
operations and encourage new communities to join this program that has received
increased funding of $45,000 to a total of $455,000.
Last year we introduced The Regional Waste Management
Authorities Act as well as a number of changes to the existing Municipal
Act. Changes such as allowing investment
in Treasury bills, mutual funds and allowing municipalities to appoint their
own auditors will help increase the effectiveness. This year it is proposed the act be changed
for easier collection of tax arrears on oil and gas wells.
Staff from the Local Government Support branch are working
closely with councils in several northern communities to help them deal with
the mine closures. For example, this
department worked with Manitoba Family Services to develop an innovative answer
to some troubling questions in Lynn Lake.
For residents relying on social assistance, we helped develop a one‑time
program allowing them to clean up their community by removing and maintaining
abandoned homes and businesses, therefore helping this town's transition. This department is also working with Leaf
Rapids, Snow Lake and Flin Flon to help them explore and develop economic
activities and opportunities.
To build on its client relationship, the department is
working closely with municipal offices in redesigning the forms and reports
they need to support their budgeting and taxation process. The revised tax statement is an example of a
co‑operative working relationship we have developed with the
municipalities.
For the Economic Development Services Division, this year
has been one of promoting new economic programs and services and facilitating
rural business development and job creation.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, 1993‑94 saw the introduction of two
new REDI components, the Rural Entrepreneur Assistance program, or REA, and the
Junior Achievement program. Each program
introduced sought‑after skills training components for new and future
real entrepreneurs. To date the
department has facilitated total REDI project commitments of $12.7 million, a
commitment that has resulted in total capital investment of $145 million and
the creation of more than 500 jobs in rural Manitoba. Within this total, the newly created REA
program has approved 26 projects to date and levered $2 million in capital
investment and created more than 70 jobs.
In addition, youth focus programming, including Partners
with Youth and the Green Team, generated 1,300 part‑time jobs for rural
youth. This year the
"Hometown" component was added to the $1.8‑million Green Team
to allow municipalities to hire local students, aged sixteen to twenty‑four,
to work on local projects. Together with
the "Hometown" component, the Green Team will employ more than 700
young adults. This department recently
expanded youth assistance with the creation of the REDI‑funded Rural
Youth Business Initiative. Furthermore,
this department contributed $24,500 to the Youth Business Institute to allow
this program to expand to rural schools.
REDI also supported strategic initiatives for rural
Manitoba, such as the Rural Call Centre Strategy and the Local Economic
Delivery System Study. Rural libraries
will receive $1 million in REDI support, with municipalities receiving an
increase of $1.5 million in REDI funds.
In co‑operation with the federal Community Futures
program, the department is reviewing the local economic delivery system in
rural Manitoba. The consultant's study
expected in July will focus on the agencies receiving assistance from various
levels of government and recommend an improved approach to the system.
The department's Grow Bonds program is experiencing
increasing interest. To date, 11 Grow
Bond issues have been approved, totalling $4.5 million and generating over $15
million in total investment and over 250 jobs in rural Manitoba. All rural Grow Bonds sales are successful and
of note is the recent Winkler Meats $240,000 issue which sold out in about
three hours. Today, I might add, we were
able to launch a new Grow Bond, and before we left the meeting, the Grow Bond
had sold $42,000 of Grow Bonds. So the
support of local bond issues is proof that rural Manitoba believes in local
initiative. Our plan is to build upon
this belief.
The department's Community Choices Program expanded in
rural Manitoba again in 1993‑94.
Today, 58 community round tables operate in our rural areas involving
101 municipalities. This represents an
additional 19 round tables since last year.
About 20 round tables have completed their vision statements and are now
proceeding with further action plans.
In 1993‑94 the PAMWI agreement was expanded to 13 new
communities to assist in sewer and water development projects. PAMWI's commitments to date total
approximately $81 million. A review of
the Manitoba Water Services Board and sewer grant formula is helping develop a
simplified formula that is now being investigated and recommendations are
forthcoming. The Water and Sewer Program
extended assistance of $1.7 million and the Water Development and Drought
Proofing Program is proposing to extend assistance of more than $1.2 million in
new agreements.
* (1450)
As part of this department's focus on improving the rural
infrastructure, we recently announced the opportunity for 23 communities to
take part in the expansion of natural gas to their areas. This $22‑million initiative, with the
province contributing $7.2 million, could easily provide natural gas service to
more than 1,000 businesses, 140 public buildings and 6,000 private homes
representing a rural population of at least 19,000 people.
The benefits of this initiative are clear. It can provide long‑term economic
growth in rural Manitoba by offering savings in energy costs and an additional
fuel option for business development.
Town council meetings on the program are now taking place, and a 60
percent sign‑up ratio must be reached in these communities before
individual projects can be proceeded with.
Once this is completed, construction could begin as early as June.
In 1993‑94, the department tabled the Rural Economic
Development Strategy for public consultation. This strategy contains a vision of rural
Manitoba, guiding principles and 10 key components. The process towards finalizing this strategy
was set in motion in Manitoba's first rural development forum in Neepawa last
year. The forum brought together 350 rural
stakeholders to refine the draft strategy into share ideas, identify
opportunities for economic growth and to forge new partnerships.
Many of those same rural entrepreneurs, business people and
community leaders returned to the 1994 edition of Rural Development Forum. About 800 participants took part in the forum
including about 250 youth from rural Manitoba who contributed their views and
involvement in our economic future. This
year's forum, co‑sponsored by the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, Junior
Achievement of Manitoba and EITC, focused on the implementation of the rural
economic development strategy.
To spearhead the implementation phase, I have appointed a
rural advisory committee of 14 rural businesses and community leaders to help
guide the strategy's implementation.
This committee will report directly to me ensuring that the rural voice
of Manitoba is heard.
In closing, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Department
of Rural Development is undertaking major strategic and legislative review
initiatives changing the face of local government in rural Manitoba. We, too, are adapting and improving the way
we serve our clients. We are getting
positive results, opening the lines of communication and fostering a positive
attitude about rural Manitoba. We are
working together with others. We are
fulfilling our responsibilities, and we are making rural Manitoba stronger.
Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. I would like to indicate to you at this time
that I will circulate a copy of these speaking notes to my critics in both
opposition parties. I simply apologize
for not having them to you in advance. I
will get them to you very quickly.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): We thank the
Minister of Rural Development for those comments. Does the official opposition critic the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) have an opening statement?
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Yes, I do.
Thank you, and I will be brief so that‑‑
An Honourable Member: And kind.
Mr. Clif Evans: ‑‑and kind, so that we may
continue into the general Estimates and then go through it line by line.
The minister has made some good comments with what the
department has been attempting to do in the past couple of years. I am pleased, and I think the minister knows
this. We have discussed it and I feel
that the Rural Development portfolio and department is an extremely important
one not only to this province but to other provinces. I would like to see, certainly, the Rural
Development department take a lead role in establishing a fine economic base
for rural Manitobans throughout Manitoba, expanding perhaps through
decentralization, perhaps through other ways and means.
As far as natural gas goes, we will discuss that
later. I am rather disappointed that
some areas were not able to be a part of the first go‑around with the
natural gas, and I am sure the minister will discuss this later.
I am pleased to say that I had the opportunity, with the
minister, to be at the forum in Brandon just a few weeks back, and I was very
enthused about what I heard and saw there especially from the young people that
were there, the comments that were made.
It opens your eyes, I believe, to understand and realize that the young
people in rural Manitoba are the ones that are the future of rural Manitoba and
their wishes, their needs, and I guess their demands are very important. The Rural Development department, basically,
should be the one that should be listening to the young people of our rural
areas.
I must also comment that I was very pleased and impressed
with the minister's staff in organizing and how they handled the Brandon
forum. I must also put on record, as I
did in my budget speech, that my wife and I were treated so very well by his
department and the minister. I just want
to say in closing that it will be a pleasure, people in Manitoba permitting, to
serve as their minister of Rural Development, if it so be, and that it will be
a pleasure to work alongside of them.
Those are my comments.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I thank the critic
for the official opposition for those remarks.
Does the critic for the second opposition party the honourable member
for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) have any opening remarks?
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Oui, Monsieur le président. Est‑ce‑que je peux parler en
français?
Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, it gives me great pleasure
again this year to be part of the Rural Development Estimates.
First, I would like to thank the minister for his open‑door
policy when we have concerns, that he has always left the door open so that we
can discuss with him and with his staff.
I would like to say that whenever I have had concerns or questions‑‑[interjection]
We know that.
I will be very brief. The fact that we want to go through the
Estimates, and there will certainly be questions to be asked. I know there are Grow Bonds and we have
supported that from Day One and will continue to do so, but I think we will
have questions of the fact that we have been talking about jobs and jobs that
have been created in regard to that. I
think we would want to know the number of jobs that it has created in rural
Manitoba. I think the interest for rural
Manitoba is not just one party.
I think 57 representative elected officials are concerned,
whether we are in Winnipeg or in rural Manitoba. We are there to work with all Manitobans, not
just with one sector or one constituency, and I think, if we co‑operate
with the opposition or the government, that is where we get most
satisfaction. I think it has been
shown. I know I have tried to co‑operate. I have had satisfaction from government
members, and I thank them for that and will continue to do that and take the
high road whenever we are discussing things.
When we criticize, it should be positive criticism, and like I say, I
will continue to do that. If I slip
somehow, sometimes, I mean, we all do, and we will continue to do that. I thank you for the brief comments, Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): We thank the member
for St. Boniface for those opening remarks.
Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is
traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of
this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line. I would like to advise members of the
committee that the correct procedure for considering items in the Committee of
Supply is in a line‑by‑line manner.
In order to skip ahead or to revert back to lines already passed,
unanimous consent of the committee is required.
At this time, before we begin, I would like to invite the
minister's staff to join us at the table and would ask the minister to
introduce his or her staff present.
* (1500)
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I, first of
all, would like to introduce to the table Mr. Winston Hodgins, who is the
deputy minister of the Department of Rural Development. With Winston, I would like to also introduce
Mr. Brian Johnston, who is the manager of the Finance and Administration
Division. In addition, I would like to
introduce Ron Riopka, who is the Director of Corporate Planning and Business
Development Branch in the department and also Aline Zollner, who is the special
assistant to the deputy minister.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Thank you very much.
1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $397,700‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $77,000‑‑pass.
l.(c) Brandon Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$100,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $53,400‑‑pass.
1.(d) Human Resource Management (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $113,500‑‑
Mr. Gaudry: The item, Salaries and Employee Benefits, is
quite a reduction. Could we have a short
explanation as to why the reduction of 50‑some‑odd thousand dollars?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this is a
result of some consolidation that resulted in the Human Resource branch, and we
were able, in this way, to reduce one staff person. The function is now being conducted or is
being carried out through amalgamation with other departments.
Mr. Gaudry: To what other departments has it been
transferred?
Mr. Derkach: There are several departments that have come
together to sort of consolidate this kind of service, and it is the Department
of Agriculture, the Department of Environment and our own Department of Rural
Development.
Mr. Gaudry: Thank you.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Shall the item
pass? The item is accordingly
passed. (2) Other Expenditures $20,700‑‑pass.
1.(e) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits $237,300. Shall
the item pass?
Mr. Gaudry: Again, this decrease in Other Expenditures in
item 2.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $198,800.
Mr. Derkach: In that particular line under Supplies and
Services, the cause of the reduction, if you like, is related to the more
efficient use of space and our staff being able to have space reassigned in a
more effective way.
Mr. Clif Evans: Can the minister just reiterate the $33,500
on Grants under that department head, Financial and Administrative
Services? The grants, where do they go
from this department area?
Mr. Derkach: Do you want a listing of the grants?
Mr. Clif Evans: Not a listing, just a general.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there is a
grant to the Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association, and there is a
grant to the Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research. There is also the support that is given to
the UMM banquet and the support of the MAUM banquet, I think, as well in this
same component. Now, did you need the
amounts?
Mr. Clif Evans: No.
Mr. Derkach: Okay.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Shall the item
pass? The item is accordingly passed.
2. Boards (a) Municipal Board (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $333,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $127,900‑‑pass.
Mr. Clif Evans: Under Municipal Board, I wonder if the
minister would answer some questions with regard to the Gimli issue under this
heading. As it has been brought to the
minister's attention and I have been part, of course, of the questions directed
to the minister and heard his answers, I just want to make comment here. Because in the past week, 10 days, and
previous, the minister and I discussed this some weeks ago and I was rather
surprised to see, after hearing the people from Gimli, the proponents of this
project, even though the minister indicated that it was the proper procedure
that he should be following, that the minister‑‑and I guess the
complaint was the fact that the proponent went through all the hoops and
saddles and whatever else that they had to do.
They came to the government for no support. There was no government support whatsoever to
this family. They followed all the
procedures. They received all the
stamping and approval of the local Planning District Board, the local jurisdictions
as far as reeves, mayors and councillors.
I was rather surprised, I guess, that the minister would take this route
on a project that he is taking, on a project that is so important to the
community, not only to the Gimli community and to expedite it, but it is also
important to the surrounding communities, spin‑offs, construction work,
and of course potential long‑term full‑time jobs within a
dealership.
The question, of course, and it has been asked in House
during Question Period‑‑and I have seen the paperwork‑‑and
I really do not see a reason, a substantial reason, that the minister should
have this go to the Municipal Board. I
would think that with all the support that the project has received from
everybody except for two people that the minister has the discretion to just
allow the project to proceed.
Between the appeal, between‑‑and as I said
earlier, all the loops that they have gone through‑‑now they have
to wait for this project even longer.
All the necessary meeting and whatnot has to go again. It is going to be going at the end of
May. Well, I guess how I can put it is
the proponents are very, very down on the bureaucratic system. They are very down on the minister. They are very upset with the fact that here
they have worked hard spending lots of money and will be spending lots of money
bringing tremendous economic growth for the area that the minister should not
have just rubber‑stamped this and sent it along its way. Let them get moving on the project.
* (1510)
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thank the
member for that question because it has been the subject of two questions in
the House over the last week or so.
Perhaps I could better clarify or explain it in this setting.
First of all, it is true that this particular move of a
business to that part of the community is going to create additional jobs in
the community because it is certainly going to be an expansion, if you like,
and, you know, a new business in a community is always a welcome sight to many,
many people. What is unfortunate
sometimes is that there are people who object for one reason or another. In some cases, the objection is valid; in
some cases, it is frivolous. So when the
objection comes to the department, we have to weigh whether or not it is simply
a frivolous kind of objection or whether there is some validity to it and
should be considered by an independent body that has been established for those
things.
In this vein, I guess, I could use an analogy in my own
back yard, if you like. Everybody in this
Chamber has heard about the Asessippi ski hill project. Now, you know, we launched‑‑I
should not say we. The proponent
launched that project over a year ago and would have loved to get on with the
job of building the facility and creating something like 130 jobs in the
area. However, there is a process that
has to be followed when objectors come forward, and in that case, objectors did
come forward. A process has to be followed,
and it takes time. It does not mean that
the project is dead or will not take place, but it does mean that some
questions have to be answered.
In this particular situation, we have a piece of land that
was zoned agricultural and was changed from agricultural land to commercial, I
believe it was. So, therefore, you would
have‑‑naturally somebody would want to object when you do
changes. I mean, it happens often. The Chudd family approached this in a similar
manner that others approach it. In other
words, they went through the same processes that other individuals would have
to in applying for a rezoning in a subdivision.
In this particular case, an objector did come forward, an
intervener. I guess the local politics
is somewhat heated in this issue, and both parties, I understand, have obtained
the services of legal counsel who, I understand, are also very well versed in
municipal law.
Now, I think it is wrong for me as an individual to pass
judgment on a case like this simply on my own and then either allow the project
to proceed or, in other words, end it. I
would much prefer to send this to a quasi‑judicial body, if you like, who
have the authority to deal with matters of this nature, and it would be
consistent then with the way that things are handled in the department. We looked at the past to see whether there were
any precedents that would lead us to a different conclusion, and I have to say
that whether it is this government or former administrations, we have always
respected the role of the Municipal Board.
For that reason, we have allowed them to make the final decision in this
matter‑‑or they will make the decision and then report back to me
as to what they have decided in this case.
We have tried to move the hearing up as soon as possible or
as close as we can to the spring season so that if in fact the results are
positive to the Chudd family, then they can proceed with the construction of
the new facility in this spring season and be in business as quickly as
possible.
So to that end, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think we
have followed the right approach. We
have not attempted to in any way favour one party or the other and have simply
tried to follow a process that has been established in the long term.
Mr. Clif Evans: I appreciate what the minister is saying, and
I have the objection in front of me. Was
there a specific part of the objection, basis of objection‑‑it
lists seven objections‑‑did the minister decide on any one
particular objection within the objection to use or to feel that he could not
deal with it on his own or that it was‑‑I mean and also he had
support of all governmental people, as I said earlier. There is no government money, no tax money in
this project, as with the proposed plan in the minister's area. There is going to be some public money.
Mr. Derkach: Maybe they should go out and get Grow Bonds.
Mr. Clif Evans: Maybe they should, but is there a specific
objection that the minister feels or are all these objections worthy enough
from two people to go and bring in another board, other members of the
Municipal Board in to hear what has been heard over and over again? It has been heard two or three times
already. I mean, unless the minister can
tell me there is something specific that he is worried about that the Municipal
Board should be dealing with on this, then I would like to hear it.
Mr. Derkach: And there is.
You cannot simply treat this as a frivolous matter, because any time you
change the use of land, and there was a change in the use of the land, anytime
you change that, you cannot say that it is an insignificant matter. It was not until the use of the land or the
intended use of that land was changed that we had an intervener.
So when you change the intended use of land, and my
understanding is, it was agriculture, now rezoned to commercial, you have a
significant issue, and if there is an intervener, then I think it is only
appropriate for us to follow a process that has been set traditionally in the
department, and that is to refer a case like that to the Municipal Board.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Even though I would like to see something like that
resolved perhaps at the local level, we do have to have an appeal process where
the parties involved can have somebody outside of the area listen to the
arguments and then base their decision, if you like, on an objective basis.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, of course the
minister is aware that one of the objectors sits on the Municipal Board, is a
member of the Municipal Board. What
regulations or legislation, if any, or whatever the minister can tell me‑‑I
mean, does this person have to resign from the board? Will his objection‑‑I mean, that
is another question. How is he who knows
the ropes, who was an appointment, how is his role as a member of the board
going to continue, or will it continue, as an objector? [interjection] I am
sorry. If I may, is he going to have to
remove himself from that Municipal Board hearing in May?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, I would
like to explain the process of the Municipal Board. It is true that in this case the intervener
is a member of the Municipal Board. The
Municipal Board has a number of people appointed to it. I cannot tell you the exact number‑‑[interjection]
Yes, there are 24 members who sit on the Municipal Board. You will not have the entire Municipal Board
sitting to hear a particular case. What
will happen is perhaps three members will be selected out of the 24 to sit on
this case. The intervener will not be
selected in any way, shape or form, and he cannot have any say in terms of this
matter. So not only does he remove
himself, but indeed the chairman of the board will not appoint him as a member
of the panel to the board or as a member to that particular hearing.
Mr. Clif Evans: I understand that three board members have
already been chosen. If the minister has
the names available now, I would appreciate it, if not for the record, provide
it to me at a later date.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have the
names. I did not know that they had been
selected yet, but it is the chair, Mr. Jim Donald, who selects the members who
will sit on the particular case. I will
get the names, if they have already been selected, for the member and report
back at our next sitting.
Mr. Clif Evans: Well, thank you. Sort of going off this topic and on, I guess
I speak not necessarily specifically and only for my own feelings on this. From the conversations I have had with the
people in the area and the anger out there that this process is not only going
to be taking place, but it has already taken so long to come to that
conclusion, I think that there would have to be in the future something, the
same situation, looked at very, very closely, perhaps a different procedure.
* (1520)
In looking at the objections, I cannot for myself see any
real threat, that these objections they have put through are going to be a
threat to the community or to the land base or whatever. They have support throughout the whole
community. They have support from the
other dealers in their own community down the road. They have support from everybody but two
people, and I can appreciate that, yes, there has to be, if someone has a very,
very strong objection to something, yes, they should be heard.
Perhaps, you know, these objections could have been heard
and sat down with the minister, both the proponent and the objector, and
discussed and come to some conclusion instead of bringing people all over the
place from all over the place to hear everything over again and hear all the
support again and for the Municipal Board to put a rubber stamp on it. I just would think that perhaps this could be
looked at at a future time, future date, to speeding up these types of things
for proponents who want to establish economic well‑being for their
communities, private people, private funding.
Mr. Derkach: I certainly accept that suggestion from the
member. I say there are other areas in
government where perhaps long‑standing tradition or perhaps regulations
or legislation that have been passed in years gone by, we are now seeing that
perhaps different approaches should be taken to speed up and to make sure that
our province is an attractive place for investors.
Whether it is this particular situation which is a very
small one in an overall context of the province, or let us extend that to a
larger project, and I refer specifically to a project like Louisiana‑Pacific
who are also interested in investment in the province. There is a process they have to go through
and although many of us may be frustrated and may like to get on with things to
build our province, there are processes that have to be followed.
I guess I will commit to the member that during The
Municipal Act review, this is an issue that I will undertake to address and see
whether or not there is a more effective and efficient process that can be
developed.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
(2) Other Expenditures $15,400. Shall the item pass? [interjection] I am
sorry.
(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $25,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $15,400‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.2:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$502,400 for Rural Development, Boards, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day
of March, 1995‑‑pass.
We now move on to Corporate Planning and Business
Development $661,700 (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $599,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $62,400‑‑pass.
Mr. Gaudry: Slow down.
In Other Expenditures, you have a substantial decrease there from
$89,700 to $62,400.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Boniface, if
you could repeat that, please.
Mr. Gaudry: In Other Expenditures, the substantial
decrease of $89,700 to $62,400.
Mr. Derkach: This, again, reflects the decrease or the
reduction in office space requirements as was the case in the previous one that
we dealt with in terms of the supplies and services area. We have been able to reduce the space
requirement by the department and that has resulted in some cost savings.
Mr. Gaudry: Why are you reducing this space if you are
not reducing staff? It is about
time. It took you six years.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, over the last six
years we have tried to implement some efficiency in government and in each
department. We have been working very
hard at ensuring that the functions we perform are done in an effective and
efficient manner.
Last year, as the member will recall, we reduced a
significant number of staff in the planning area of the department. That resulted in some vacant space in the
building. We have reduced our space from
three floors that we used to occupy down to two floors presently. That has resulted in some cost savings, and
those are reflected in the Estimates here.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.(b) Other Expenditures $62,400‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.3:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$661,700 for Rural Development, Corporate Planning and Business Development for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
We will now move on to Local Government Services 4.(a)
Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits for $101,700.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before we get into
this section I would like to introduce to the members opposite the Assistant
Deputy Minister of Local Government Services, Ms. Marie Elliott, and the
Executive Director, Mr. Roger Dennis.
Item 4.(a)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $101,700.
Mr. Gaudry: I have not noticed any staff reduction, but
you have a decrease in salaries on most of the categories. Are these savings because of the Filmon
Fridays, so‑called?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is not a
reduction in this specific line, but if you look at the department as a whole,
there will be some areas where there are reductions, and some of them are
because somebody has resigned that has been at the top of the‑‑or
someone has retired that is at the top of the pay scale and you hire a new
employee at a different level. There
have been reclassifications. Last year
we did reduce, as I indicated, a significant number of staff in the planning
area, so that, in effect, impacts on the line.
It really has nothing to do with the bill that was passed.
* (1530)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable members that want
to carry on a conversation to do so at the back of the room so that we can
carry on with our meeting?
4.(a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $101,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $32,600‑‑pass.
4.(b) Assessment (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$5,577,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,110,300‑‑pass.
4.(c) Local Government Support Services (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $735,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $366,900‑‑pass;
(3) Transit Grants $1,325,000.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, these Transit Grants,
these are the grants for handicapped vehicles, for buses for Thompson, for
Brandon and Flin Flon, and, of course, just local requests for the handi‑transit
vans throughout the province then. Is
that under this?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the transit operating
grants are offered to three communities in Manitoba: the City of Brandon, the City of Flin Flon
and the City of Thompson. The City of
Brandon receives a total grant of‑‑I am sorry. I had better get the right figures here. Okay.
The 1994‑95 Estimates for the City of Brandon are $692,800; for
the City of Flin Flon $50,000; and for the City of Thompson $128,000.
This, in essence, assists the cities to offset some of
their operating costs that they have in operating a transit system within those
communities.
Mr. Clif Evans: If the minister is not aware, I would like to
make him aware of the fact that the communities of Moosehorn and Ashern area,
Gypsumville and the LGD of Grahamdale and the R.M of Siglunes have made an
application to the department for financial support for a handi‑transit
van for their area. It is very
important.
They have contacted me for my support. I would just like to make the comment to the
minister that hopefully his department will have support for that specific
project and, of course, others in my constituency, but also others throughout
the province. Specifically, I have been
contacted over the past couple of months about the application that is before
you, and I would appreciate your support on that.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is a different
grant program. This one is for the
mobility disadvantaged. There are more and
more people living in rural Manitoba who require the services of the handivan
transit because people are much more mobile these days. There has also been some decentralization of
people from institutions to their own communities which has prompted a demand
for this type of transportation.
We had applications from several communities throughout the
province last year and this year. Last
year, in 1993, we had the communities of Rivers, Ste. Rose du Lac and Altona
accepted. In 1994, we have Oak Lake, Rossburn
and Arborg. We have on file applications
from Ashern, Sandy Lake, Shoal Lake.
They are constantly coming in as we get more and more people who require
this kind of transit in these communities.
We have 48 communities in total now who participate under
the handi‑transit program.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4.(c)(3) Transit Grants $1,325,000‑‑pass;
(4) Centennial Grants $14,800‑‑pass; (5) Police Services Grants
zero.
Mr. Clif Evans: Could the minister just quickly explain that
difference of $200,000?
Mr. Derkach: Last year when the UMM and MAUM agreed to the
policing agreement, if you like, one of the conditions was that the $200,000
would be afforded them last year but that would be sort of the final payment of
that $200,000 which government was subsidizing the Police Grants by.
This year that $200,000 does disappear in accordance with
the agreement that was signed and is no more.
So this sort of terminates that part of the old, if you like, formula
that was afforded them under the structure.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
Item 4.(c)(6) Municipal Support Grants $1,047,900.
Mr. Clif Evans: Could the minister just go over or generalize
on Support Grants, $1,047,000, for this department? Besides your Transit Grants, it is the next
highest level of expenditure. Could you
give me an overview of the Support Grants?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this section of
grants is extended to municipalities to recognize payroll costs. It is calculated at a percentage of payroll,
and there are different levels. For example,
there is a payroll cost from $600,000 to $1.2 million. That is calculated at 4.7 percent.
Then there are the ones that are over and above that, and
that is calculated at 2.35 percent. This
program was introduced at the same time that a similar program in Health and
Education was announced, and it was to offset the impacts of the payroll tax to
municipalities.
There is a threshold at which the payment does trigger in,
and that threshold has been increasing as our commitment to reduce the payroll
tax has been in place. We have increased
that threshold now to $600,000 to limit the payment of the grant to only those
municipalities who are actually subject to that tax. Effective in 1994‑95, the grant formula
will reflect the change to the minimum payroll tax from $600,000 to
$750,000. The grants will be provided to
18 municipalities, and by doing this, it certainly does allow those
municipalities to keep more money, if you like, within their jurisdictions to
spend within their jurisdictions for the benefit of the people in those
municipalities.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass?
Mr. Gaudry: So the municipalities that are involved are
only the municipalities that are unincorporated. Is that it?
Because it says here, eligible municipalities and unincorporated village
districts will receive grant.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the municipalities
are sort of the legal entity in an area where you have an unincorporated village,
so they would be receiving that particular benefit, not the village itself.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
4.(d) Grants to Municipalities in Lieu of Taxes (1) Grants
$35,859,300.
Mr. Clif Evans: I would just like the minister to go over‑‑of
course, I have read some of the Activity Identification, $35 million, almost
$36 million, again, an overview of it, but if he could also explain the line
(2) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations and then with the bottom Subtotal (d). Could you explain that?
* (1540)
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the objectives of
this particular program are to assist municipalities or to reimburse them for
services extended to provincial lands contained within the local government
boundaries. What happens is, we give
them grants in lieu of real property taxes because that land is exempt from
taxation, and then we, if you wish, recoup our costs from various departments. There are Crown lands across government
departments, so therefore that means that we would be collecting back from
other departments. What we do not
collect back is what we have in the Department of Rural Development. The departments that are involved are
Government Services, Education and Training, Natural Resources, Highways and
Transportation and, of course, our own department.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4. (d) Grants to Municipalities in Lieu of
Taxes (1) Grants $35,859,300‑‑pass.
(e) Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$684,200.
Mr. Gaudry: In this one, we see an increase in
salaries. Is it a change of status or
merit increases or increase in staff?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the staffing in this
branch has not changed. The reason for
the increase relates to just regular salary increments for the staff that are
there presently. There are no other
changes.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
(2) Other Expenditures $1,678,200‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.4:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$12,960,900 for Rural Development, Local Government Services, for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1995‑‑pass.
We will now move on to 5. Rural Economic Development (a)
Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $100,000.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if you would give us
a moment here, I will introduce some staff.
First of all, I would like to introduce the assistant deputy minister
responsible for the Economic Development division, Mr. Larry Martin, who is
here at the table with us. Seated behind
him we have Mr. Peter Mah who is the manager of the REDI program, the Rural
Economic Development Initiative program.
We also have Mr. Dick Menon who is the manager of the Manitoba Water
Services Board.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $100,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $30,700‑‑pass.
(b) Infrastructure Services (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $1,335,100. Shall the item
pass?
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the explanation of
this department's responsibilities and support that they do provide, provides
for the delivery and support to develop and upgrade sewer and water
infrastructure. Is that part of the
PAMWI at all? Is that strictly under a
different area of money?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if I could just take
a moment to explain the functions of the Water Services Board and these
programs. First of all, the Manitoba
Water Services Board does have two programs that have been traditionally
delivered through the Water Services Board, but in addition to that we have the
PAMWI agreement which was first known as the Southern Development Initiative, I
believe, and then was changed to the PAMWI agreement which the acronym stands
for Prairie‑‑can you tell me what it is? I need a little assistance here. It is the Partnership Agreement on Municipal
Water Infrastructure. Right? That is what the name is.
What the agreement was all about was a third and a third
and a third share kind of agreement between the federal government, the
provincial government and municipalities.
Initially, certain communities were chosen who demonstrated
the greatest need for this kind of infrastructure because of industrial
development occurring in the community or potential industrial
development. As the program developed,
some communities did back out because they found they could not raise the money
or decided on different priorities, which left some other communities eligible
for programming.
We just finished announcing a series of new communities
under the PAMWI agreement, and it has been a very positive program. I believe it has been managed well. It has been done in consultation with both
the federal government and municipalities and ourselves.
So I would have to say that if we were looking at
delivering a program that involves three levels of government, this one has
certainly been a good model to follow, because it involves a structure where
there is some monitoring to what happens at the community level. There is some, if you like, due diligence
that is performed by both the Water Services Board and the PFRA on these
initiatives, so by and large to date this has been a very successful program.
The Water Services Board also does the Drought Proofing
program, which is under our department, and the Water Development program,
which is under our department as well.
They have just been given another task, and that is that of
being involved in the new infrastructure program that is now being administered
by various departments, but indeed when you talk about the sewer upgrading, the
water service upgrading throughout communities, the Water Services Board is
going to have a very key role in that.
Certainly, staff there are very busy working with communities and with
the federal people from PFRA in administering this program.
Mr. Clif Evans: Under this division, I believe two years ago,
and I brought this up to the minister's attention last year in Estimates too,
the community of Riverton approached, I believe, three or four of the ministers
on upgrading their sewer and water, downtown main street. They have not really heard anything as of
late and, of course, the questions are coming as to, has anything been done
with this? I believe the community made
a proposal to the Minister of Rural Development, and Highways, and Natural
Resources.
I was under the impression that Rural Development would be
taking a lead role in this. Can you tell
me where it is at?
* (1550)
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have been in
contact with the community of Riverton and they certainly have brought this
project to my attention.
Under the existing Water Services Board, they do not
qualify for support because of the way the formula is structured and the
criteria that have to be met for someone to qualify for that program. We do not have a program in the department
that would fit what they want to do.
However, we are still working with them.
They have been talking to some other departments in government as well
and we will continue to work with them to find a possible solution to some of
their needs.
We are not taking it lightly, but I have to tell the member
right now, there is not a program that their project fits into nicely. I am sure that down the road some solution
can be found to their needs.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
5.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $313,700‑‑pass.
5.(c) Community Economic Development Services (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits $2,565,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$794,700‑‑pass.
5.(c)(3) Grants $536,600.
Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, just on the Grants, if again the
minister could give me a quick breakdown of some of the grants under item
13.5.(c)(3).
Mr. Derkach: I guess the grants that are identified here
are the ones that go specifically to the various Regional Development
Corporations. We have seven throughout
the province. We had a new development
corporation established last year. The
acronym for it is WEDA, the Westman Economic Development Association, which
like the Parkland one is broken into two divisions, the north and the
south. In Parkland it is east and
west. Basically we have seven
corporations that receive granting under the department's program.
Mr. Clif Evans: I would like to just comment on that. Looking from last year to this year, I am
pleased, and I think the RDCs are pleased to see that the funding has remained
the same, as there was great concern out there that the department would be
cutting the funding to the RDCs. I am
pleased to say that I can see that it stayed the same this year, the old thing
about being a member of an RDC at one time, on the executive, that they are a
very important part of rural Manitoba, the local development corporations, and
they are doing some excellent work. I
would certainly appreciate as much support whether it be from the department or
perhaps financially down the road to be able to have the RDCs even do a better
job than they are doing. Eight ways into
$536,000 I think may not just be enough for some of them to be able to do what
they basically want to do. That is just
something that the minister could keep in mind.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a good topic raised
by the member, one that certainly has been on my mind for more than a year now.
I guess when I look at what Regional Development
Corporations are doing across the province, I find some very positive
initiatives and very positive results.
However, I do find that in some instances we could have
improvements. That is always the case I
guess. In some instances we have
communities perhaps that house the office, get all the activity, whereas some
of the surrounding communities are kind of crying or mildly complaining. There is nobody who is really complaining too
loudly that they are not getting the kind of service they would like even
though they are a participating community.
I think that it is good for any program to have a review
done from time to time so we can ascertain whether or not we are meeting the
mark or whether we have to perhaps change in the way we administer our
programs. There has been a request that
we look at how RDCs function, but more importantly not just on RDCs, I think it
is important for us to look at how we deliver services at all levels of
government.
If you look at what we have out there, we have the Regional
Development Corporations, we have the Community Futures committees, we have
Business Development Centres, we have local industrial development groups. Local economic development officers have been
hired by communities. We have our own
community development offices throughout rural Manitoba. If you are an entrepreneur who is looking for
some assistance, you sometimes become confused as to who you should go to first
because there are so many people who are out there delivering similar kinds of
programs.
To that extent, we thought it might be timely for us to
embark on a study of how these programs are delivered and these services are
delivered. To that end, we have entered
into a contract to have someone look at the programs to give us some ideas
about how we can address the whole issue of service delivery to rural
Manitobans in a better way.
We are consulting with the communities and with the RDCs
and with the various delivery mechanisms to ensure that people have an
opportunity for input. In the end
certainly our desire is to come up with a system that is going to be effective
for the communities and is going to result in some positive initiatives in our
communities across Manitoba.
Mr. Clif Evans: If I recollect correctly, I think the
minister gave the same little speech last year on this. [interjection] A
repeat, yes.
I would just like to put on record that I am not
necessarily in favour of doing away with the rural development corporations,
and I hope that this plan and this consultant that the minister has is not
working or deciding down the road that perhaps rural development corporations
cease to exist. I hope that is not in
the plans. [interjection]
I certainly hope not, because they are too important to the
rural areas, and the local jurisdictions have a tremendous amount of input with
the rural development corporations that they are a part of. How more can you have ideas come together for
the well‑being of a whole number of communities instead of just centering
around one or two?
If you talk about the Interlake or you talk about any of
the other constituencies, especially in rural areas that are spread out, the
communities are spread out, RDCs are a tremendous asset for those who are
members and for the areas. They work
well with the local community futures federal programs that are in and around
the areas, just so the minister is aware that I am certainly not going to be a
happy camper if he decides that rural development corporations are not the best
way to go for certain areas and/or for certain projects.
I would certainly hope that he would be consulting with the
local RDCs and their members and their executive as to how better RDCs can
serve the community, along with the department.
Mr. Derkach: I certainly do not want it to be noted on the
record that we are doing away with RDCs, because that is certainly not the
intention at all. What we are looking at
is how we can make the delivery systems out there more effective to benefit
more communities. In the end, the report
may recommend that the programs that we have out there are very effective in
that we should continue.
* (1600)
On the other hand, I do not think we should bury our heads
in the sand and say, let things continue as they are, because I do believe that
we can improve. That is our goal. Certainly our mission is to try and provide
rural Manitobans with the best possible services at affordable costs, where we
are not creating a burden on taxpayers by having a multitude of organizations
out there trying to deliver the same service.
We spend significant dollars on these initiatives. I think it is important that they be
responsive to the needs of the communities.
That is really what this exercise is all about and to get from the
communities a sense of how effective these delivery mechanisms are.
We are happy that the community futures program saw fit
that this was a worthwhile endeavour and that they are participating in the
process as well. I think that is a
positive step.
Mr. Clif Evans: I agree with the minister on some of the
things he has indicated and said, but how better than local communities dealing
with the issues of rural development?
You have your grassroots people, your grassroots mayors and/or
councillors who are part of rural development corporations. I would think, if there is a study or
whatever being done to improve the service and enhancability of rural
development RDCs, it would be sort of like a little mini‑‑I cannot
think of the word, Larry; help me out here‑‑base for the area in
dealing with the Department of Rural Development. You certainly cannot forget them.
If you do not have such organizations, then where is the
department going to go? It is going to
start going again to individual jurisdictions and meeting with people, and this
jurisdiction is going to have this idea, that jurisdiction is going to have
this idea, that idea. Under the RDCs, I
think that you have all these ideas together, and they should be a major player
in whatever can be done to enhance rural development.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
Resolution 13.5:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$5,626,100 for Rural Development, Rural Economic Development for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
We will now move on to Capital Appropriations. 6. Expenditures Related to Capital (a)
Transit Bus Purchases $144,000. Shall
the item pass?
Mr. Clif Evans: Just on that Transit Bus Purchases, bus
purchases for where? Is that one for
Brandon?
Mr. Derkach: That is correct, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 6.(a) Transit Bus Purchases $144,000‑‑pass.
(b) Water Development $644,400.
Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, the increase there, could the minister
explain the increase of funds, where it is going to be going?
Mr. Derkach: Excuse me, can I ask the member to ask his
question again?
Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, Water Development, an increase of
$244,000. Can you explain the difference
there?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if you look at the
1993‑94 lines under Water Development and Drought Proofing, you will see
that in the Water Development side there is an increase from last year to this
year; in the Drought Proofing, you will see a decrease from last year to this
year. What has happened is that we have
simply moved some money over from the Drought Proofing to the Water Development
side but the amount of money on those two lines is basically the same as it was
in 1993‑94.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.
6.(c) Sewer and Water $2,000,000.
Mr. Clif Evans: Under Sewer and Water, can the minister
indicate how many communities would have access and how they would have access
to this funding for their own communities for either expansion, development,
improvement to their sewer and water systems?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this particular
program certainly does not address all of the needs that we have in rural
Manitoba. As you can well appreciate, we
have communities, and I visited one of them, that have needs that are 10 times
what the total budget for this particular initiative is.
Basically what we try to do is address the most urgent and
the most needy communities first. There
is a screening process that the Water Services Board does go through. It is also dependent on the ability of the
community to afford its share of the cost as well. When you add all of those things up, it
certainly does exclude some communities because either they are not able to
fund their portion of their project because they do not have the capability
within their financing structure, and also, in some communities we are sort of
mandated by an environmental, if you like, condition to go ahead and do some
emergency work as well.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my colleague who is
taking the lead in this review of the Department of Rural Development has had
to leave for a couple of minutes. I am
wondering if we could, with the consent of the minister, revert one section to
the Community Economic Development Services.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to bring
his mike up. Hansard is having a little
bit of a problem picking you up there.
Mr. Storie: I am wondering if we could revisit the
Community Economic Development Services section for a moment, particularly with
reference to some of the‑‑[interjection] Yes, with respect to some
of the projects that were referenced in the minister's opening remarks,
particularly Snow Lake.
* (1610)
I know that some ministers from the government met with
representatives from the Snow Lake New Futures Group with respect to a proposal
focusing on tourism but looking at many different aspects of tourism for the
community. Obviously the minister will
know that Snow Lake, effective a few weeks ago, has lost all of its employment
related to HBM&S activities.
I am wondering if the minister could tell us what has
happened to that proposal, whether the group will be receiving any support and
what time frame we might be looking at in receiving that support.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable member which item
we are dealing with, you were referring to.
Mr. Storie: 5.(c).
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to allow the
honourable member? I have to get leave
of the committee to revert back. Is
there leave of the committee to revert back to item (c)? The honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr.
Gaudry)‑‑there is leave? [agreed]
Mr. Derkach: I thank the member for that question. I have had the opportunity to travel in
northern Manitoba on several occasions, and one of the communities that I have
not visited yet specifically has been Snow Lake. I am certainly anxious to get up there at
least this summer, because I understand it is a great community.
But let me say that we have found something very
interesting about northern Manitoba as we have talked and dealt with
communities in the North. One of those
things is that many of them are single‑industry towns, and they have
relied on this industry for a long time because it has been very beneficial to
the community. Then all of a sudden,
when the ore deposit runs out, the community is left without any kind of
activity that they can turn to other than what they have been accustomed to in
that single industry.
I guess the first one that hit us was Lynn Lake, and they
were in desperate straits when they came to us.
They simply wanted more money from the Mining Reserve to help the town
council perform its duties. They had not
really sat down and looked at other opportunities that might exist for them or
how their community might survive after a mine closure. We asked them to sit down together with staff
from our department to do a sort of strategic planning exercise, if you like,
and they did that and came up with some very good ideas on their own. These were not driven by government or by my
department; they came up from their own community.
I think what was important to note was that the community
took on almost a new life because they understood that they had to really get
down to work and do things for themselves.
We approached Snow Lake with that same message, and we asked Snow Lake
for a five‑year strategic plan which I am hoping they are going to come
up with very soon. Snow Lake is a very
active community. They have lots of
people who are actively looking at ways in which they can make their community
survive, and tourism certainly looks like a very important component in that
community.
They did present to a group of deputy ministers their
plan. However, I think the plan still
needs some work on it, and again, the community has never been used to doing
one of these. It was a first
attempt. I think it was a good attempt,
but they still need to refine it and to do some more work on it, and with
people from our department and other departments we will continue to work with
them to see whether or not their project can indeed become a reality in their
community.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am all too familiar
with the government's response to the community of Lynn Lake. The minister and I have gone over some of
this ground in the past, and of course, the government finally, after a couple
of years of delay‑‑and I guess I was going to say mismanagement of
the issue, but I will not‑‑decided to support some of the municipal
needs of that community.
I think it is a little simplistic for the minister to say
that the community of Lynn Lake has, in essence, lifted itself up by the boot
strap. Certainly, there were many people
looking for help and wanting some assistance, but we both know had not gold
prices improved‑‑and we had been fortunate enough to find a mine‑‑that
the future of Lynn Lake would not look much different today than it did four
years ago. That is fortunate. I think the danger is that we are leaving
Lynn Lake and now Snow Lake in the same position that they were prior to these
unfortunate instances. The community
wants to begin a new process.
This minister also knows that more than two years ago the
community put forward a Community Adjustment proposal for retraining, new
initiatives to allow the community to expand its horizons, to look at
alternatives. There has been some
support through the Community Adjustment Committee, but the community had
proposed a much more aggressive review of all of the issues, tourism,
manufacturing, quarrying, a number of others, and there was no support
forthcoming.
Now, two years later, well, when the community has lost its
main employer for who knows how long, and we could argue about why that
happened, the minister is now saying, well, it is a nice proposal and we are
looking at it. The question is, when are
they going to receive some sort of support?
The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) and formerly
the minister of‑‑the member for Lac du Bonnet, anyway, as a cabinet
minister, attended a meeting in Snow Lake and made a number of promises about
what services were going to be available.
The minister referenced now the staff in the department. I had suggested that there be an economic
SWAT team created back in 1991 to help the community of Snow Lake, that in
fact, you get people from I, T and T, Tourism, Rural Development, Northern
Affairs, Energy and Mines, that you put together a support services group to
specifically work with the community.
Not only has that not happened, the bottom line is that
there has been very little tangible support from the government for the
initiatives. The community of Snow Lake
was looking at this initiative believing it was one worthy of support or that
parts of it were worthy of support, and all we have is the minister saying,
well, it is very nice, but. The question
is, when is the minister going to get serious and put some staff and resources
to work in the community of Snow Lake to come up with a proposal that is
acceptable to the government and that can be funded?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have
purposely avoided trying to point fingers in my responses to questions, and I
try to stick to the facts. However, the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) forgets sometimes where these communities have
come from and indeed what the real issues in these communities really are. He does it for political purposes, and I
think that he should perhaps take a more realistic view of what is really
occurring out there. In his comments he
is suggesting that we simply throw funding at these communities without a plan,
without any kind of research being done on what these communities might become
and how they can grow.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is this government that
has put forward a strategy to encourage mining exploration and prospecting. The reason that we do not have mines
operating in northern Manitoba today is a result of past government policies,
and I am talking about policies which did not provide any kind of incentive for
exploration in our north.
Recently we have seen the re‑establishment of a gold
mine, not one, but two. We have seen the
prospect‑‑
Mr. Storie: Where is the gold mine? There is no gold mine in Snow Lake.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, if the member
were to go back to, for example, I think it is‑‑I forget how many
bars now have been poured at Lynn Lake recently. Has that been a rejuvenation of a mine?
Mr. Storie: It is an open‑pit mine.
Mr. Derkach: It is an open‑pit mine but, again,
there was a decline in the activity there, and now we see an increase and
certainly a potential for more activity in the future. But I do not want to take the credit for
that. There are people who are working
hard in these communities who deserve the credit because they have worked
hard. We have tried to facilitate as a
government some of the requests that have come from those communities, and we
have done that through such programs as the incentive program for exploration,
the tax holiday and those kinds of initiatives which certainly do assist in new
mines being established, in exploration taking place.
* (1620)
When the community of Lynn Lake came to us in an emergency
situation, where abandoned homes were being vandalized, where the community was
falling apart, we responded very, very quickly.
We put together a program in consultation with that community to address
some of those needs. Again, we did not
do it for partisan's sake. We did it
because it had to be done. This was a
community that was in desperate need, and we are taking the same approach with
all of the communities in northern Manitoba, and Snow Lake is among them, and
we have asked Snow Lake for a long‑term plan.
Why? Because we want
to ensure that that community will be healthy down the road. Now, it may not be the same size it is. Certainly we have seen how that community has
diminished in size, but for the people who want to live in the north, who want
to make Snow Lake their home, we want to ensure that that community is a safe
place to live, is a good place to live and one that can attract people to it
and is not in essence a dying community.
As I indicated, when you have a one‑industry town,
sometimes when the resource does run out that does impact significantly on a
community. The member talks about
retraining. Yes, we would love to get
into retraining wherever we can, and we support retraining. I mean, Workforce 2000 has retrained, what is
it, over 80,000 workers. The member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) smiles, but he has to come to grips with reality.
The funding that is going to Workforce 2000 is not going to
the companies. It is going to retrain
those workers; that is what the purpose is.
For the first time in Manitoba, under Workforce 2000, we have companies
now putting money into training which was never the case before because this is
a cost‑shared program. As a matter
of fact, it was nationally recognized as an excellent training program and one
which has now been picked up by other jurisdictions.
Now, yes, there will always be problems when you have
programs, I guess. There will always be
those who perhaps do not use them correctly, and that is what we are there for
to try and ensure that in fact the right thing is done.
With training in the North for specific jobs, I am sure
that we would only be too happy to be in the game and helping those workers get
retrained for meaningful jobs. I think
that the North has a bright future, and we are going through some trying times. My department, along with the departments of
Natural Resources, Northern Affairs, and Industry, Trade and Tourism, will
continue to work with these communities so that they can survive and be good
communities and safe communities to live in.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate
the involvement in the last year with Manitoba Family Services and this
department dealing with cleanup, some of the cleanup in the community. It was much needed, but I remind the minister
that the mine closed in 1989. The
question is: Where was the
department? Where was the government
when all of this vandalism and destruction was occurring? I mean it is all very nice to say, well, we
have dealt with it now. We have cleaned
up the mess. I mean it was created for a
reason. No one is denying‑‑I
will leave that. That is old history
perhaps now.
The minister keeps referring, for example, to gold
mine. The Minister of Energy and Mines
(Mr. Orchard) made a wonderful announcement about the TVX project, the new gold
mine, and the government's commitment under the Mineral Exploration Incentive
Program for TVX. Well, the minister has
also announced a potash mine which is pie‑in‑the‑sky
dreamland.
An Honourable Member: He did not announce it.
Mr. Storie: He said it was likely it was coming. He has announced diamonds in eastern
Manitoba, and TVX is in about the same position. After the minister made the announcement, I
phoned the vice‑president for North American operations of TVX and asked
him the direct question: Has a
production decision been made? The
answer is no.
About two days after that I was in Snow Lake for office
hours and tried to find anybody who knew anybody who represented TVX in the
community. There is no one. I am going back for office hours in Snow Lake
on Thursday of next week, and I do not expect to find anybody from TVX. So let us just cut through the facade. The government can issue as many press
releases as it wants about what is happening in mining in northern Manitoba. Until there are jobs on the ground, it does
not mean much.
The second point is that mining is the bread and
butter. We know that the ore is not
leaving. What the communities have
wanted to do, starting with Lynn Lake in 1989, well, actually Sherridon before
that and now dealing with Snow Lake, was to begin to broaden their economic
base, and they need to do that sooner, not later. That was what they were asking for. I appreciate that the government is not going
to turn over all of the funds available in the Mining Reserve Fund for the
communities of Lynn Lake or Snow Lake or any other community. Unfortunately, they have not been willing to
turn over anything, virtually. Not only
that, when they were requested, when the communities requested assistance from
the departments, they received precious little, precious little in terms of
ongoing sustained support for those activities.
My question specifically was, what has happened to this
proposal, the New Futures proposal from Snow Lake? If there are problems with it, what is the
government's commitment in terms of a time frame for actually getting something
together with the people of Snow Lake, who the minister quite rightly said are
working very hard to secure their future?
That is the question.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member for
Flin Flon seems to revel in twisting facts.
He is cynical not only about what government does but indeed about
communities, and that is unfortunate, because if you were to talk to
communities like Snow Lake and like Lynn Lake, they are communities who have
hope. Maybe it would benefit the member
if he actually lived in the North because‑‑and I understand he is
moving to the North which is going to help him understand what the North is
really all about.
Perhaps I digress, but let me say that in northern
Manitoba, we have communities who are optimistic about their future, and it
does not help them when their own MLA goes into their communities and scoffs at
the prospect of new ventures occurring.
He says, well, I phoned the vice‑president for North American
operations, and he told me, no, there is nothing going on. Well, I recommend to the member for Flin Flon
that perhaps he should sit down with the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Orchard) and go through what the Minister of Energy and Mines is working at for
those communities. I invite him to sit
down with me to go over what is happening from my department in the North. Rather than in a forum like this, we can sit
down on a one‑to‑one basis and we will go through what we are doing
in Lynn Lake, what we are doing in Snow Lake, in his communities, so that they
are better communities in which to live.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, a number of projects come
before us constantly from these communities.
Some fit some criteria, some do not.
Some have to have some work done on them before they can actually move
ahead. The project that the member talks
about for Snow Lake has certainly come before a committee that is made up not
of one ministry but of several. Now,
there is still some work to be done on that project, and that work is
continuing at the department level. When
it is ready to come before me, as minister, I am sure that staff will forward
it to me at that time. I am familiar
with the project. I know that there is
still some work to be done on it. I am
not negative about it, but it is certainly too early to say that, yes, we are
just going to sign a cheque over and let it go ahead. I think that there is still some work that
needs to be done on it.
* (1630)
The member also talks about us going‑‑or my
colleagues or myself making announcements throughout the province, and I just
ask him to go back to the industry, to the mining industry, and ask them about
how Manitoba stands in relation to other jurisdictions in Canada in terms of
the way we have approached in a proactive way the attraction of investors into
a mining industry. And, yes, we do not
have a potash mine in Russell or in Harrowby or in McAuley or wherever it might
be, but certainly there is renewed interest in the potash area, and I am hopeful
that reserve can be tapped and can be mined for the benefit of Manitobans.
To me, it matters little whether it is in my own community
or thirty miles south of my community.
It is good for the province, it is good for the economy of the province,
and if we can attract the private investment to begin the process of developing
that resource, then I think we should do everything we can to assist. It does not mean that we buy it. It means that we work in co‑operation
and in partnership with people to do it.
I am not the Minister of Energy and Mines, but I can tell you that I
will support him in all of those endeavours.
In terms of supporting Lynn Lake, the member also made some
statements about Lynn Lake, and the fact that in 1989 when the mine closed they
were in trouble and we did not come to their assistance. Well, that is not quite true because in 1989
there was something like $243,000 that went to Lynn Lake from the Mining
Reserve, and then in 1990 and '91 there were monies also extended to them,
$160,000 and‑‑
Mr. Storie: That was to pay for municipal taxes.
Mr. Derkach: That was to pay for local services, municipal
services, and that is recognized.
However, the community themselves recognized the fact that they had to
come up with a plan on how they would survive after the mine closed for good,
so that community could rely on other resources because there was nothing else
in that community at the time, and that is how we worked with the community to
develop a plan.
We also tried to assist the community in developing for
itself an image which was presentable to people who might come to that
community and want to either invest or use that community as a tourist
community or as a place to visit. So I
think we have worked in partnership. I
guess we can always criticize and say, well, you could have done more. But I think that given the resources at our
disposal, we have done what we can in those communities and will continue to do
as much as we can to help them on the road to prosperity for the betterment of
our province and for that community.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not need
any lectures from the Minister responsible for Rural Development (Mr. Derkach)
about the North. Whether the minister
wants to acknowledge it or not, I do live in the North, and I visit my
communities regularly, and I am not belittling the efforts of the mining
industry. I have been quite positive
about some of the initiatives in the Department of Energy and Mines with
respect to exploration incentives. There
were some flaws in the program initially, and some of those have been
corrected. Certainly the tax holidays
may be attractive to mining companies, but I have said on other occasions‑‑and
I remind the minister that the North is not just mining companies‑‑yes,
they are critical, but in the intervening months while HBM&S continues to
explore and other mining companies continue to explore, there are communities
that are looking for some options.
The specific question was, and the minister talked about
the support that was given to Lynn Lake.
It was given grudgingly. It was
given after numerous calls and meetings and pressure. The point is that it was in response‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know a dispute
over the facts is not a point of order, but when one puts on record something
that he knows is absolutely erroneous, I think that is a point of order, and I
think the member should correct his statement on the record.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. The minister is correct. It is a dispute over the facts. There is no point of order.
* * *
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I certainly
have no intention of correcting what I put on the record. I recall the facts, and this government did
not come up and offer of its own accord the kind of support the community
requested. The support that they offered,
and I am not blaming the minister, I do not think he was Minister responsible
for Rural Development, the fact of the matter is, what they offered was some
financial support out of the Mining Reserve Fund so that the community could
continue to provide municipal services.
The reason that they required that assistance was that they had in
effect lost their tax base, but that is the support.
My question for the minister is: Since 1989 could you give me a list, can the
department provide me with a list of all the funds that have gone to Sherridon,
Lynn Lake, Snow Lake, Flin Flon with respect to economic development, the
activity that the community itself has said is its most important priority, to
find an alternative to the mining as its sole base for the economy?
Unfortunately, it is a pittance. From 1988 to 1993 the government of Manitoba
collected more than $400 million in mining taxes from northern Manitoba. The least we could have expected was a small
percentage of that to come back to help those communities build their economic
base.
Now, I want the minister to be specific. I want the minister to answer the
question: How much money has gone to
economic development activity, community economic development support, in the
last five years? I want the minister to
answer the question: When was the last
time that members from the department attended on a sustained basis to meet
with community members to build that alternative? [interjection]
The minister is saying, well, the department is reviewing
it. This is an emergency for the
community of Snow Lake. It was an
emergency in '89 for the community of Lynn Lake, and what is the minister doing
in a sustained way to offer support‑‑not huge sums of money‑‑technical
support, expert advice, departmental support?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is obvious
that the member for Flin Flon knows little about economic development. Every time he puts things on the record he
demonstrates his lack of knowledge on the topic. I would like to say that his view of economic
development is simply throwing money at a community, and he said that on
several occasions today in his questions.
He said that about the funding that we should be giving to communities,
again without a plan, without any kind of a request for economic development.
It is typical of what his administration did when they were
in government. They simply threw good
money after bad, and that is why this province is saddled with the kind of debt
that this province has today. It is
regrettable, but nevertheless, we are not taking that approach. We will work in partnership with communities,
and when there are requests for economic activity, for economic development, we
will be there as partners.
The staff from my department have been very active in
northern Manitoba, and every community in northern Manitoba knows that if they
wish to have a special person from staff visit them and share with them what it
is that we can do as a department for that community, we will be there simply
at the behest of that community.
We also have an economic development officer who does
travel in northern Manitoba from Thompson, and every community in northern
Manitoba is familiar with him and certainly have worked with him in some
capacity.
The member asks, how many dollars have you thrown at
northern communities? We do not throw
dollars at northern communities. We will
invest in worthwhile projects that will benefit the communities, projects that
will create wealth in the communities as well.
Our Grow Bonds Program is open to northern Manitoba. Our REDI program is open to Manitoba, and I
dare say that if he compares the Department of Rural Development today with what
his own administration had to offer, those communities in northern Manitoba in
his tenure, he would have to admit that today we have some very meaningful
approaches to economic development in rural Manitoba which are working.
Now the projects themselves have to come from the
communities or from proponents. They
cannot come from the department itself.
We are not there to identify a project and then to start throwing money
at it. We still believe that the best
investment made in an enterprise is one that is done by local people, and that
is why we have the Grow Bonds Program, and it has worked very, very well.
* (1640)
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
As a matter of fact, as I said today, we announced a Grow
Bond this morning, a $180,000 Grow Bond, and before we left the meeting $42,000
had been invested in the Grow Bond. Now
that just shows you that local people do believe in local initiative and they
are willing to support it.
We have worked with our northern communities to identify
potential projects that might come forward under REDI or Grow Bonds, and we
will continue to do that. Whether it is
Lynn Lake or Flin Flon or Snow Lake, we will work as hard as we can with any
one of those communities.
I must say, though, that the member is very wrong when he
says that the community came to us out of desperation and it was after they had
beaten the door down in my office that they received some support‑‑wrong. Indeed, I worked with the mayor of Lynn Lake,
and indeed, if he takes a look at where the initiative originated, that
initiative originated from the Department of Rural Development as a proposal
and as a suggestion of how they could get their community back to a point where
it was respectable and one which had cleaned up a lot of the vandalism that had
occurred in that community over the number of years.
So I am not lecturing the member for Flin Flon. I am simply telling him how it is and telling
him that this department does not need to take a back seat to anyone in terms
of working with people in our province.
Also, I must say that we have put a special emphasis on northern
Manitoba.
Mr. Storie: I am glad the minister is interested in
telling it like it is. The fact of the
matter is since 1989 the community of Lynn Lake has dropped from approximately
1,800 to approximately 800. The
community of Snow Lake has dropped from a community of 2,200 people to perhaps
700 people. The community of Flin Flon
has lost probably 400 jobs, so the minister may want to talk about the
facts. The facts are that the
government, for all of its rhetoric, has been going backwards as far as mining
and northern communities are concerned.
The question that I asked, however, has been sidestepped
now, I think, on three occasions. The
specific question was: What monies has
the government made available to support economic development activity that
came from within the community? What
monies has gone to support the community involvement and development committee
in Flin Flon? What monies has gone to
support economic development activity in Snow Lake, to the Community Adjustment
Committee or the New Futures Group? That
was the specific question.
Mr. Derkach: Let me say to the member for Flin Flon that
he should think back a little bit because he was Minister of Energy and Mines,
I believe, at one time. He knows very
well that you do not do exploration today and have a mine tomorrow, that it
takes some investment and some time in mining exploration in order to be able
to secure the future of mining in our province.
While he was Minister of Energy and Mines, he did not have
a program of any kind to stimulate exploration of mining activity in the
North. It is for that reason that today
we have communities dropping in population, because those old mines are running
out of resources and the mining is diminishing.
Until new reserves are found and until there is a renewed interest in
mining, we are going to have a problem in the North; but it is starting to turn
around. It was his government that put
disincentives in front of the mining community that caused the mining community
to absolutely abandon this province.
So, therefore, today we are attracting them back. All of them.
Not one, all of them. [interjection]
He is saying name one. All of
them, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. All of the
companies that worked in Manitoba decided to give up on Manitoba when his
government was in power. Today they are
coming back to Manitoba; they are reinvesting in Manitoba; they are opening up
abandoned mines in Manitoba; and, indeed, there is opportunity and there is a
bright future for our communities in Manitoba and northern Manitoba included.
The member asks about specific programs that have been
afforded or awarded to northern Manitoba.
Let me say that first of all there have been several. Let me go to Thompson.
Point of Order
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have been trying
now on three occasions to get specific answers to the question about what has
happened, what support the department has given to the communities of Lynn
Lake, Snow Lake and Flin Flon with respect to their efforts to establish a new
economic base. That was the question. Now I do not want the minister to read a list
of grants for other municipalities or R.M.s or entities‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly, clearly a
dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in northern Manitoba,
first of all in Thompson under the REA program there have been two projects
that have been approved.
Mr. Storie: Can I write that down?
Mr. Derkach: The member asks if he can write it down. If he is capable of writing it down, yes he
may, or he can read Hansard.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in Thompson we have a client called
The Best for Less Store who received support under the REA program. We also have Bullee's Mac Tools which
received support under the REA program in Thompson.
Under the REDI program, we have in Churchill Tundra Tours
who received support under the REDI program.
We have Caribou Ventures Limited who received support under the REDI
program.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Storie: I give up.
On a point of order or perhaps a point of procedure, I do not need the
minister to read a list of projects that have been approved. I can certainly read them. If the minister could identify for the
committee what specific projects have been approved that have been applied for‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order, and there is no such thing as a point of procedure.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister was answering his
question. We will allow the minister the
opportunity to answer the question at this time.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will continue to
give the good news to the member, and although it hurts a little he must bear
with me.
Caribou Ventures in Churchill received support under the
REDI program and so did Leaf Rapids Chamber of Commerce receive support under
the REDI program. In the LGD of
Churchill, we have the LGD of Churchill Prefab Housing initiative received support
under REDI programming as well.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in addition to that, all
communities in northern Manitoba received the 10 percent which was given to all
communities in Manitoba. Besides the 10
percent, we also gave them $5,000 on top of that for each municipality to
recognize that some of our smaller municipalities did not access the REDI
programming very readily.
So we are working with northern Manitoba. As a matter of fact, there is a project from
Leaf Rapids right now that is being worked on, but I am not going to go out
there and try to drum up the projects to come forward. They have to come forward on their own. Indeed, when they come forward, we will work
with them and we will target staff to help develop these projects and put
business plans in place and work as hard as we can to approve these projects.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister proves
my point. He has read the list. The list did not include any support to
community adjustment committees, Snow Lake new ventures, CIDC from Flin
Flon. It shows that there was absolutely
no support, which was the case I was making.
I want to thank the minister for making my case. The bottom line is that the government has
chosen to ignore the plight of those communities, and we will leave that for
the record.
* (1650)
I want to make two other points with respect to the
minister's comments about mining. The
minister talked about that our government‑‑and I was Minister of
Energy and Mines. I was Minister of
Energy and Mines for a short period of time and during that time, through MMR,
helped to establish a mine in Flin Flon.
Unlike this government, which has seen mine after‑‑
An Honourable Member: You established a mine?
Mr. Storie: Yes, the Callinan mine in Flin Flon was
supported by the government of the day, as was the purchase of Ruttan mine by
HBM&S to keep the community of Leaf Rapids going, as was support to what
was then SherrGold to support the community of Lynn Lake.
An Honourable Member: What exploration did you do?
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and exploration of
course was the ongoing exploration of MMR, which was supported by the portion
of Trout Lake mine in particular that it owned.
There were no disincentives, in fact there were no changes
to the mining regulations whatsoever during our term in government. The only disincentive that was applied was in
1988‑89 tax year when the new government, the government that this member
was a part of, introduced a surtax on mining of 1.5 percent. That surtax‑‑never mind all of
the rhetoric about what they are doing for the mining industry‑‑has
remained in place today. In fact, this
budget reduced the mining surtax from 1.5 percent to .5 percent I believe. So this mining surtax has been in place since
this government took office, and they imposed it in 1989. Talk about speaking out of both sides of
one's mouth. The government talks about
the incentives it has provided; well, it introduced a surtax.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are not talking‑‑I
have tried to avoid talking about the mining industry. The mining industry is a big industry and has
invested in exploration in the past and will in the future.
The question was:
What is the government doing to help the communities? There is obviously nothing.
I want to ask the minister a more specific question. He is going to want to respond to some of my
comments, but the more specific question is:
Has the government, has the minister directed staff to meet in Snow Lake
with Snow Lakers to review the new Community Futures proposal to identify where
and in what ways the government can lend a hand, can work co‑operatively
with the community to make things happen?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) certainly tries again to somehow twist what is reality to
make a failed administration like his look better. I do not know how you can do that.
All you have to do is talk to the mining industry and I
think it becomes very apparent how the former administration abandoned northern
Manitoba, how they abandoned the mining community and how they abandoned the
exploration of mining in Manitoba.
I am proud of what our government has done in terms of the
mining tax holiday, in terms of the exploration returning to this province.
Every administration, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think has
tried to do something positive, and indeed I will not say that everything the
member did when he was minister was negative.
I would never say that, but let him not try to inflate the positives of
his administration either.
He talks about Snow Lake, specifically, and I have to tell
him that he should know, and it should be put on the record, that this is not a
project that came to us a year or two ago.
This is a project that was identified as recently as December, when
staff met with the communities to talk about a project in a conceptual sense. After that, they were required to come up
with some information, and staff from my department and other departments met
again in mid‑March with them, when the plan was presented. At this time, the plan was not in any way,
shape or form in a complete form.
Now we must understand the magnitude of the plan that they
are proposing. This is not a $100,000
investment or project; this is a $7‑million investment. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) thinks
that between December and now, which is May, we should approve a $7‑million
project and approve it without having a completed business plan in place.
Now I indicated to him very specifically, I am not negative
on the plan, but certainly we need to have more work done. The work that needs to be done has been
identified to the community by staff, and staff from my department and other
departments have indicated to the community of Snow Lake that they are prepared
to meet with them and work with them. It
may be a very good project in the end, but let us not start to criticize
something when we are just in the process of it.
We are just in the process of the project. The community still has to do a lot of work
on the project, and staff from a variety of departments will work with them to
try and make their workload a little easier on them as well.
So that is basically the stage of this particular project
that the member talks about, and we certainly will continue working with that
community.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was asking simply
what status the New Futures project had.
I make the point that in fact it has been not just a few
months that the elements of this proposal, particularly the tourism component,
were identified by the Community Adjustment Committee more than two years
ago. The community at that time was seeking
some assistance, either a service in kind, the secondment of staff.
The point, well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Community
Adjustment Committee tabled with the government a whole proposal more than two
years ago. And as I said, the member for
Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), a minister in the government, then‑Minister
of Northern Affairs, I think at that time, anyway a minister of the government,
Mr. Praznik, attended and understood what the community was looking for in
terms of support. The same is true of
this proposal.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister continues to say that
he understands these communities. The
community of Snow Lake does not have an economic base that will allow it to pay
$60,000 or $80,000 to hire people to do the things that need to be done. If the government does not provide the
support, then I would ask them to provide the assistance in terms of the
staff. That is why I asked, almost three
years ago now, for the government to put together a team of people to help the
community. That, yes, it is all very
good to require the initiative from local people to identify the opportunities
and to provide direction to a group of people who might be trying to identify
projects, but the community does not have the resources.
The government is sitting on a Mining Reserve Fund that now
exceeds $15 million. It has received
some $400 million in mining taxes. Does
it seem so illogical or unreasonable to request that a little bit of money be
spent, a little bit of money, to help the community along in its plans? The minister sees some sort of satisfaction
that the members of the government have now identified where the plan may need
developing. Well, Mr. Minister, take the
time to assign some staff to work with the community to develop the plans to
the point where you can identify a project that may use Grow Bonds or REDI or
some other project for funding. I am
simply saying apply some staff to this.
The government has‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Health on page 81 of the Estimates manual. We are on item 1.(b) Executive Support.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Item 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, earlier in Question Period
we had an occasion for me for the first time to ask the question about this
year's salary for the deputy minister. I
think the minister was mistaken. I did
not ask about this year's salary yesterday in the Estimates process, I asked it
today in the Question Period. But my
question remains to the minister.
The deputy minister has received a salary increase of over
$4,000. How can the minister justify
that particular increase at this time?
* (1440)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Madam Chairperson, I perhaps misheard the
member today because I thought he was asking basically the same questions he
was asking yesterday. He shakes his head,
and I have misunderstood the difference in the questions that he is asking.
Let me just say that the salary of the deputy minister
reflected in the 1993‑94 Estimates has been reduced by the reduced
workweek as per Bill 22 introduced in 1993‑94. The annual amount is $100,400. I am not sure what number the honourable
member was using earlier, but that is what it came to.
With respect to the columns identified on the salary
details contain the following: general
salary increase requirement from September 18, 1994, until year‑end March
31, 1994‑‑this was transferred from a central government account
after COLA increase was determined per the master agreement‑‑is
$2,000; reinstatement of the reduced workweek for 1993‑94 for $4,200; the
reduced workweek for '94‑95, minus $4,400; an annual merit increment,
$4,000. That must be what the honourable
member is referring to.
People who work in our hospitals, people who work in our
personal care homes, people who work for government, people who work for Crown
corporations receive annual merit increments, and this is the situation with
the Deputy Minister of Health.
Then there is a general salary increment of $500 so that
the 1994‑95 Estimates show a figure of $106,700. Now, I hope that sets out the situation. It is basically in line with what I said
yesterday and what I repeated again today when there were media listening. That was that the Deputy Minister of Health
is treated no differently than anybody else.
Deputy ministers generally have rates of pay that are set
somewhat higher than other people working in the system, either in hospitals,
although I do not know about the salaries of all of the administrators at the
hospital, but I know that deputy ministers usually make more than staff in a
department or line staff in a hospital or facility.
What I tried to underline yesterday and again today is that
I know of nothing that sets the Deputy Minister of Health apart from any other
deputy minister in the government and nothing that sets him apart from other
people who work for the civil service, other than that he is a deputy minister
and perhaps his base is set higher than the base of other people working in the
system. That has not changed.
As far as I know, deputy ministers, when the previous
government was in office, had wage levels, the base set higher than assistant
deputy ministers, for example, or set higher than staff working in the field.
I do not know quite what the honourable member's point
is. Is he suggesting that we ask the
deputy minister, because he is a deputy minister, to make some adjustment that
other deputy ministers are not being asked to make, that the member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) is not being asked to make, or the member's Leader is
not being asked to make?
I am trying to get a clear understanding of what the
difference is between the issues raised yesterday by the honourable member and
the issues today and how it is that the Deputy Minister of Health is somehow
getting treatment that is different from other people in the civil service.
Mr. Chomiak: The question raised yesterday was with
respect to the fact that the Supplementary Estimates last year did not reflect
the actual total of the salary as included in '93‑94 as adjusted this
year. My question yesterday was the
adjustment and where that difference came.
That was yesterday's question.
Today's question, and the minister answered the question if
I understand it correctly. The deputy
minister is receiving an overall increase of $500 and a $4,000 merit
increase. The point from all of that is
the question I asked in Question Period, and I have no hesitation of stating
again the whole question of symbolism and how it looks, particularly when you
juxtapose it against the increases in salaries by the Professional/Technical
staff and the Administrative Support staff.
They do not increase in commensurate amounts to that of the deputy
minister.
While I recognize the base is a different figure, it is
still symbolic in an era of cutbacks and an era when people are asked to make
major sacrifices in the system. It
simply does not look good.
Mr. McCrae: Well, I am glad the honourable member has
cleared that up, that it is simply a question of symbolism. If it is simply a question of symbolism, why
does he not pick on the salary of somebody else other than the Minister of
Health? Why does he not pick on the
salary of somebody in his caucus or why does he not pick on the salary of his
caucus chief of staff or somebody like that?
If all it is is symbolism, what merit is there in the point
being raised by the honourable member?
Why does he single out the Deputy Minister of Health when if all he
wants to do is pick some victim out there and make somebody into a victim? Why pick the Minister of Health? Was it random? Is there a particular reason why he has done
that? Why does he not ask me what the
salary of the president of the MNU is?
Why does he not ask me that? Why
does he not ask me what the salary of the president of the UFCW is, or why does
he not ask me what the salary of the chief of the Peguis Reserve is or
something like that? Why does he not ask
me those things?
Why does he not ask the salaries of other people working in
the department? Maybe he will. He knows what my salary is if he sees fit to
vote in favour of it, but why pick out one person for the sake of symbolism when
we can pick out lots of people where the symbolism is far more important, I
suspect, or far more dramatic in terms of the kinds of points the honourable
member seems to be wanting to make.
I cannot help but observe, if this is his case, Madam
Chairperson, the honourable member ought to rest it.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I think the minister would
have a great deal of difficulty explaining to individuals who have been cut off
of home care, who have to pay for home care equipment, who have to pay for home
care equipment supplies, who have trouble waiting on waiting lists to get into
hospitals, who have to wait sometimes years or 18 months to get operations,
that the chief administrator and executive of his department is getting a
$4,000 merit increase. The minister may
not agree. He may not agree that it is a
major point, but to that person I believe it is. That is the point that I am making.
If the minister wants to comment, fine. If he wants to move on, fine. I am prepared to discuss this as long as he
wants.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member is engaging in the kind
of tactics that really do not bear much by way of response, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the minister indicated he
would table the MMA agreement for us early today. I have not received a copy of it. I am wondering where that particular
agreement is.
* (1450)
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I have to share with my
colleagues today the agreement reached between the Province of Manitoba and the
Manitoba Medical Association. It is
dated the 8th day of March, 1994.
As I began to point out last night, the agreement spells
the beginning of a renewed relationship, I suggest, with government and the
medical profession. It was very
important to government to achieve this agreement and, I suggest, perhaps
important to the MMA as well. As medical
practitioners are very key people in the whole health care delivery system, it
remained important prior to the signing of this agreement to settle outstanding
issues and to create an understanding that could work for a number of years as
we try to make our health care system something that will be sustainable for
many generations to come.
That is the goal, and I am pleased to ask the Page to make
these contracts, copies of them available to my honourable colleagues.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, while we wait for the
distribution of the agreements, I wonder if the minister can outline for me, in
terms of the capital, there is $4,600 allocated for capital for Executive
Support. I just wonder what that money
might be utilized for.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I believe the honourable member for Kildonan
is awaiting a response to his question.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the amount to which the
honourable member refers has to do with upgrading computer capacity in the
ministerial and deputy ministerial office so that we can better serve the
public.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I am not being critical of
anyone‑‑we are still waiting the distribution of the documentation
with respect to the MMA agreement‑‑but can the minister in the
interim tell me whether or not the Manitoba Medical Services Council has met at
this point, how many times they have met and basically what they have dealt
with?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the Medical Services
Council has not met, and it is about to be struck as I speak.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, are the terms of reference
for the Manitoba Medical Services Council set out, and can we have copies of
the terms of reference of the Manitoba Medical Services Council?
Mr. McCrae: The agreement sets out the terms of reference
of the Manitoba Medical Services Council.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate who all the
appointees are to the Manitoba Medical Services Council and/or can he table a
document that illustrates who the specific individuals on the council are?
Mr. McCrae: Yes, but not today. As I say, it is being struck; it has not been
struck. I expect very shortly the
honourable member will be apprised of the names of the individuals who are
prepared to serve in that capacity.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, similarly, can the
minister indicate whether or not the Physician Resource Committee has met or is
intending to meet? Can he also table the
board of directors of that committee when and if it is available? Finally, can he indicate what the terms of
reference are for that committee, unless they are in the agreement, in which
case I will have a chance to quickly review that?
Mr. McCrae: Yes, when and if, and yes. Yes, I will make the names of the individuals
on the Physician Resource Committee available to the honourable member, and the
terms of reference of the committee is also set out in the MMA agreement.
Mr. Chomiak: Again, as I await an opportunity to review
the committee, to review the actual documentation, I wonder if the minister can
indicate for me whether or not the drawback with respect to Bill 22, as it
affects this agreement, has been completed for this fiscal year or does it
continue further on into this fiscal year?
Mr. McCrae: Because the requirements of Bill 22 for the
last fiscal year only began to be addressed very late in the fiscal year, it
was agreed between the parties that they would have until the end of June of
this year, '94, to complete the changes in the fee structure necessary to
comply with Bill 22 for last year, which means that for the remainder of
between now and the end of June some members of the medical profession will be
making some considerable adjustment for the next little while. Then the requirements of Bill 22 for the
present fiscal year will also be complied with by the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Chomiak: Have those fee adjustments already been
indicated? Can the minister outline for
us what those fee adjustments are?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I do not have that
information. That is something that is
done by the MMA internally. There are
various sections of the Manitoba Medical Association, and historically in some
sections members have had certain levels of fees that have been adjusted either
up or down depending on the specialty or group of physicians involved. This was left to the MMA to work out with
their members and that is being done. I
do not have that information.
Mr. Chomiak: One of the criticisms made of the agreement,
and I am certain that was not from ill‑informed people, was the fact that
in certain areas there was a fear that the fee reductions would be a
disincentive‑‑the best way I can term it is a disincentive‑‑to
some individuals.
The best example would have been an area where we have very
few specialists. The effects could be
devastating in an area where it is sometimes difficult to attract particular
individuals and specialists to this jurisdiction. I am wondering if the minister has any
concept of that particular difficulty and how it is being addressed.
* (1500)
Mr. McCrae: I understand the concern the honourable
member raises but taken in light of the fact that some of these specialties
here in Manitoba the practitioners of it were garnering fees that exceeded
national averages, exceeded what one could make in the province of Ontario,
exceeded even the salary of Frank Maynard.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, they will not be getting a
4 percent merit increase this year? To
the minister.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, some will get more than 4
percent, some will get less. It
addresses somewhat of a historical imbalance that has built up over the years.
Mr. Chomiak: Since the minister has stated that, so what
is the government's involvement precisely in this process? Initially when I asked about the fee
reductions in tariff as they applied to Bill 22, the minister said the
physicians were working on it themselves.
The minister has now left the impression that in fact the government is
having an input in terms of how these fees are being allocated and divided
up. Can the minister outline what that
input is?
Mr. McCrae: While it was the work of the Manitoba Medical
Association to address these things, the government did have a role to ensure
that there were not inconsistencies or inappropriate changes that would have the
kind of result that would leave Manitobans unnecessarily without the kinds of
services they need. That was the role
played by government to this point. With
the Manitoba Medical Services Council the government will have some say there
but so will consumers. That is a very
important feature of the MMA package.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, as I understand it, the
government made much of the fact that they are capping globally the fees to be
paid for doctors, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong. Globally, the fees paid to physicians have
been capped in year one and two of the agreement. There is a Bill 22 application that draws
back some of those fundings, and then Years 3, 4 and 5 there could be fee
increases that must come in below a cap.
Is that a correct understanding of the agreement?
Mr. McCrae: Yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Does the minister therefore envision that in
years three, four and five there is a potential for less medical services to be
performed in the province of Manitoba while still paying the same amount or
perhaps more in terms of fee for service?
Mr. McCrae: That question will be answered by the Medical
Services Council. That is the role and
function of it, to ensure that the cap is abided by, that whatever measures are
taken to ensure that the cap is abided by are measures that are consistent with
what the consumers of health services are interested in protecting, consistent
with the government and consistent with the MMA representatives there. That is why the Medical Services Council is
such an extremely important aspect of this.
We get to work together as opposed to the government just calling all
the shots.
They will make recommendations which ultimately government
will have to put into effect or reject or ask for change or whatever, but it is
a relationship between a council composed of the various disciplines that we
have talked about. It is a focus on
overseeing the cap that is laid out in the agreement.
For example, the honourable member raised in the House issues
respecting lab fees and laboratory operations in Manitoba. It is felt by many consumers‑‑it
was brought forward to my attention many times‑‑that that is an
area where there may be unintentional misuse of the health system whereby
without knowledge physician‑to‑physician people will go to one
physician and get certain lab tests ordered and another day go to another one.
We know that is true because of the PURC, the Patient
Utilization Review Committee, which made it very clear that indeed that is happening. In fact, the honourable member might be
interested in knowing that as we are in the development stages of the Drug
Program Information Network we have already, through the piloting of that,
found people double‑doctoring and those types of things.
So we think the Medical Services Council can be very useful
in identifying issues like that. The use
of walk‑in clinics has been raised as well as a potential for us to look
at those operations to see that they are achieving the intended results. I believe that the Medical Services Council
will indeed look at the interplay between walk‑in clinics, doctors'
offices, emergency rooms and community health centres, the operation of all of
those places, to see how is the best way for us to achieve the best results for
the patients in Manitoba through the use of the Medical Services Council.
We have opportunities we have not had before. That is why I am very pleased and hopeful for
the success of this agreement.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I had an opportunity to
review the terms of reference as cited in the document. While the minister interprets the mandate of
this council fairly broadly, it does not necessarily read in that particular
fashion.
I am wondering, the specifics of dealing with lab costs,
the specifics of dealing with walk‑in clinics, the specifics of dealing
with emergency operating rooms. All of
these the minister has referenced towards the Medical Services Council, all of
these have seen extensive studies and working committees that are presently
still working and still operating and still rendering reports.
I am not quite clear how the minister sees a way to an end
through this Medical Services Council to all of those fundamental issues if the
minister is throwing all of these issues into the lap of the Medical Services
Council. I am not entirely certain or
clear how the minister envisions this particular group making all of those
decisions, or does the minister see this group making all of those decisions?
Mr. McCrae: If you look at the Estimates book there is a
line in there for Medical Services. It
has been reduced by some $12 million, and it is because of that line that we
have the agreement that we have talked about and why we have the Medical
Services Council. The Medical Services
Council is there to review all matters related to that line in the Estimates.
There are a large number of committees, working groups and
so on, composed of various kinds of health providers and consumers who have
been and will continue to make recommendations, many of which will be put
before the Medical Services Council for its review, not to reinvent the wheel,
but to look at the recommendations put forward in those reports and to make
recommendations to government as to how we ought to proceed in the
administration of that particular line in the Estimates.
* (1510)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, in dealing with the lab
issue, one of the issues cited in the minister's Health Action Plan is the
issue of conflict of interest and the difficulty and the lack of conflict of
interest guidelines vis‑à‑vis between private labs, public labs,
public institutions, et cetera. It has
been identified as a difficulty, and it has been identified as an issue.
Does the minister envision the Medical Services Council as
being the body or the agency that is going to resolve this issue?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, any decisions that are
made by the government that have a bearing on the practices and the fees of
medical practitioners, there is a role there for the Medical Services Council. I would just like to introduce Mr. Bobby
Cram, whose title is the manager of professional remuneration. He comes to us from the Civil Service
Commission and has joined the Department of Health to help us administer the MMA
contract. I realize we are not exactly
on the right lines, and I am glad Mr. Cram noticed that was what we were
talking about and decided to join us for a little while.
The honourable member asked about the issue that he has
been raising in the House respecting conflict of interest with respect to
private laboratories. We have discussed
that in Question Period. Even though
Question Period sometimes has its limitations, I think I understand the
honourable member and I believe he also understands me, that the issue of
conflict, should there be a conflict, is one that should be addressed. I am glad that we have an opportunity to
address that through the Laboratory Committee that is operating, which has
membership from people who work in publicly funded laboratory operations,
people who have an interest in private laboratory operations, and it is in this
area the member claims some kind of double sort of conflict.
I have been quite open and up front in saying that I would
think that what we want here is advice.
These committees will not be in a position to have the power to make
decisions. They can make recommendations
or offer implementation plans or whatever.
I have already said that it may well be that there will be people in the
strictest sense have a conflict, not unlike a union leader if there were a
union leader on such a committee, who speaks for employees in the public
system. That is a conflict too, and the
honourable member may not think that, but you cannot holler conflict when your
task is to represent in this House, or you see your task as representing the
interests of the union bosses. You have
to acknowledge there is a conflict there, too.
Madam Chairperson, while I am on my feet, it has just been
brought to my attention‑‑something came through the Canadian
Press. I will just read it into the
record. It is from Toronto. I quote:
Ontario's chief cost‑cutting negotiator spent more than $100,000
of taxpayers' money on moving and personal expenses during a 22‑month
period, show documents obtained by the opposition Liberals.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson, we
have allowed the minister extreme leeway with respect to‑‑this
matter of something in Ontario has absolutely no relevance to either this line
item or any matter we are discussing here today. I would appreciate if the minister would get
back to answering the questions and not trying to move in some kind of political
downplay like he did yesterday in the committee. We would function far better if the minister
would only deal with the points in question and deal with the line items and
deal with the questions rather than go off on some kind of political tangent as
to what happened in some other jurisdiction of some other province.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Kildonan does not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Health, to finish
his response to the question.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the article continues, and
I quote: Michael Decter's expenses
include a $65,810 bill to relocate to Toronto from Montreal after he was hired
by the NDP in August 1991, say the documents obtained under Freedom of
Information laws and released in the Legislature Tuesday. Decter's relocation bill included $28,000 to
cover a housing differential which would make up any shortfall on the sale of a
house. The remaining $37,000 was
attributed to moving expenses.
Decter rode the gravy train for two years, a ride that
taxpayers can be glad is finally over, said Sean Conway, the Liberals' deputy
leader. As Michael Decter was telling
the rest of us to tighten our belts, he was opening new notches on his own belt
to provide for an expanding of his own girth.
Decter is leaving his $140,000‑a‑year post as
deputy minister later this week. [interjection]
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I have not recognized the honourable member
for Kildonan.
Mr. McCrae: Well, now, I am just going to carry on. There is a line here I am having trouble
making out. It must be the fax's fault. It does not really say here where‑‑oh,
there are more stories here, so I will deal with them, too.
I will just pick up a line or two down. I will leave out the next paragraph because I
cannot read it anyway. Under government
relocation rules, Decter would have had to pay back a portion of his moving
expenses if he remained on the public payroll for less than two years. He announced he was leaving the Civil Service
in September, two years and one month after his appointment, Conway said. In addition to his moving costs, Decter also
spent $36,599 in meals, hotels, flights, taxis and a leased car between
September 1991 and June 1993. His
expenses cost taxpayers about $1,600 a month.
One dinner with Ross McClellan, Premier Bob Rae's special adviser, cost
$152.70.
There are several pages here, and it may be that if the
honourable member wants to discuss the arrangements of the Deputy Minister of
Health further, we could deal with these.
The articles‑‑I have not read all of this, and it has not
said so far where Mr. Decter is going next, but I think it is‑‑[interjection]
The honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) wants to know, so I will tell
him that Michael Decter, after closing thousands of hospital beds in Ontario
and laying off thousands of Ontarians, has now joined the Canadian branch of
APM, the so‑called Connie Curran firm.
I do not know where he is going to work next exactly, but that is where
he has gone.
* (1520)
This, Madam Chairperson, was the clerk of the Executive
Council here with the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and his
colleagues when they were in government.
It was at that time as I recall, Manfor, just as one
example, one of the perks of office for the president of Manfor was membership
in an exclusive golf club and other perks like that.
So when the honourable member for Kildonan wants to raise
the $104,000 salary of the Deputy Minister of Health as a symbol, and that is
as far as he can take it‑‑the Deputy Minister of Health is treated
exactly the way other civil servants are treated in terms of his merit
increments and his compliance with Bill 22 like everybody else.
I really have trouble understanding the symbolism when we
hear news like this of how Mr. Michael Decter has fared at the hands of his NDP
friends and how, just for example, that president of Manfor, when it was losing
millions and millions of dollars every year, the government of the day, the NDP
government of the day here in Manitoba had the money to pay for memberships in
exclusive golf clubs.
So when we are talking about symbolism, let us try to be
fair about it, I suggest, Madam Chairperson.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Let reason and
fairness prevail.
Mr. McCrae: Well, my honourable colleague the Minister of
Agriculture is a wise person. He has
been in this place long enough to know that fairness and reason should prevail
in these discussions.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I fail to see how the
minister could possibly be proud of his department and what they are doing when
in dealing with a question, asked a specific question with regard to a line
item, the minister has to go off on a political tangent dealing with a matter
totally unrelated to the question, totally unrelated to the issue.
It shows how weak the position of this government is with
respect to its health care, a government that hired, untendered, a $4‑million
contract, $800,000 tax free, allowed them to fly in and stay at the Westin
Hotel until we got wind of it, untendered, snuck in the contract, the highest
consultant contract probably in Canadian history, a travesty, caused the
members to lose five by‑elections, not one by‑election, but five by‑elections,
reduced them in this House, after escapades of those kinds, after cutting and
laying off thousands of workers, after an exercise where the minister tried,
came out of one day a discussion about Connie Curran when he had an opportunity
to cancel the contract, and the minister had an opportunity on many occasions,
said that he could not justify the contract, went to cabinet, got beat up by
his fellow cabinet ministers, came out and said, well, I guess maybe I was
misquoted the day before, continued the contract, continued to waste the
taxpayers' money knowing they had lost five by‑elections, knowing the
public of Manitoba were not in favour of this contract, this waste of $4
million, the greatest waste of a consulting contract in probably Canadian
history, and this minister has the gall to try to cover up this issue by trying
to bring completely irrelevant matters to the attention of this committee and
this House.
It only shows how weak the position of this government is
with respect to its so‑called health care reform and its so‑called
review of the health care system and its continuing cuts, cuts that are going
to see, as in the minister's and the government's own documentation, the
potential for 1,500 more layoffs at the Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface
alone, that is seeing the government reject the recommendations of its own
provincial Labour Adjustment Committee that made seven recommendations, that
was set up by this government and rejected those very recommendations. This government that could pay willy‑nilly
$4 million to the U.S.‑based consultant is unable to accept the
recommendations of its own appointed provincial labour justice committee, and
the minister defends all of that and seeks to hide behind some kind of
reference to individuals outside of this province, individuals that cannot
defend themselves.
Well, Madam Chairperson, I think that does not speak well
for the process or for the defence of this government of its handling of the
health care system. Perhaps the minister
would now be prepared to return to answer the questions as posed dealing with
this year's Estimates.
My next question for the minister is with respect to the
agreement that was entered into by the government, the one that the minister is
so fond of indicating is such a positive agreement. Frankly, I give him credit for settling
something with one group at least. I
mean this government has been unable to settle with almost any group in the
entire jurisdiction of health care, never mind the province. But I am wondering how cost increases will be
recouped under the global cap in Years 3, 4 and 5 of the MMA agreement.
Mr. McCrae: By his tone the member seems to indicate he
does not support the deal with the Manitoba Medical Association‑‑I
really regret that‑‑and then he downplays its importance by saying
I cannot make deals with anybody else.
Frankly, the medical profession is a key group with which
to make deals. I have been making deals,
if that is the right expression, with nursing professionals. My first meeting this morning, bright and
early, was with the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses. We discussed some matters of mutual interest
and concern and talked about possibilities for working together in the
future. So I really do not know which
deal I have failed at.
But the honourable member's question is a little bit
repetitive, because as I have said before, issues like the kind that he is
talking about, how we are going to come under this global cap and so on, are
issues to be resolved with the help of the Medical Services Council, which will
be composed of members of the profession, people representing the governments,
people representing science and research, people representing the regulatory
side of medicine and people representing consumers. So I think that is a good kind of body to
have in place to give us advice on how to sail over those rough waters that we
expect to continue to see in the whole health care area in Canada for some
time.
We have made good progress.
We have some distance to go.
There is no question about that.
We have shown clearly that the shift that we talk about is happening and
it is happening in an effective way, not without its growing pains, as the
honourable member pointed out yesterday and which I acknowledged. But I think that in terms of jobs lost and
jobs gained, we seem to be ahead of the game at this point in terms of the job
creation in the health sector. It is
important to remember as we address job displacement that we also address job
creation, because that is happening, and by virtue of the fact that that is
happening, that means that services are being provided in communities and that
is important.
But very simply, the answer to the honourable member's
question is that many items will be decided after due deliberation by the
Medical Services Council.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, my question was in Years
3, 4 and 5 of the agreement specific recommendations with respect to matters to
keep the total fees within the global cap, those recommendations presumably
will be made by the Medical Services Council and will be referred to government
for final decision. Would that be the
process? The minister is nodding the
affirmative.
Mr. McCrae: Yes, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Chomiak: The Advisory Sub‑Committee of the
Physician Resource Committee will be making a preliminary physician resource
plan to be referred by June 30 to the overall council. Can the minister indicate whether or not that
plan will be made public?
* (1530)
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I frankly have not thought
about it, and I do not suppose you will find it in the agreement anywhere that
it will be public or not public, so I will have to take the matter under
advisement. The whole idea is to try
through the Physician Resource Committee to ensure that underserviced areas of
Manitoba get appropriate service, that people who have not been able to access
satisfactorily certain specialty services or even general services that those
services become available. That is my
wish as to how the committee operates, but frankly I had not thought about
whether its recommendations would be a public matter or not. I will give it some thought, but I do not
know how to answer that question today.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I want to take a specific
example of an issue and carry it through to determine how the process is going
to work, and I will go back to the conflict‑of‑interest issue. We have the lab committee studying the
issue. It is on their terms of
reference. They are due to report I
think in nine months or something along those lines. We have the issue of the Manitoba Medical
Services Council. Does the minister see
the process that the lab committee will make a review with respect to conflict
of interest, the proposal will come to the Manitoba Medical Services Council
and then it will come to the government for a decision?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, at the end of it all I
think the agreement acknowledges that government is the body that has to make
the ultimate decisions. However, I dare
say, the Medical Services Council will be interested in recommendations made by
specialist groups and committees.
Conflict is really one issue here amongst a number of them. The committee that the honourable member
referred to the other day was not even asked for its opinion on conflict,
apparently, and yet it gave that opinion, and so we have that. The Medical Services Council will be mindful
of that, I am sure, as it does its work and so will the government to the extent
that conflict exists. There ought to be
some fair way of addressing that issue while at the same time securing for the
people of Manitoba the best possible services, the most efficient services and
the best quality services that they want and they deserve as well.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, you see, that is what I do
not understand. What I see happening is
the Medical Services Council is becoming a, for lack of a better word, sort of
an ultimate governing body almost, and that is not the way the agreement
reads. That is not how I understood
it. So that is why I picked conflict of
interest specifically as an issue, because it seems to me that conflict of
interest would be outside of the purview of the Medical Services Council.
Conflict of interest is a separate issue that relates to
the issue of perception, et cetera. The
question of fee for service as it relates to labs, et cetera, could very well
be within the jurisdiction of the Medical Services Council, but the specific
issue of conflict of interest, I do not see how it fits in. So maybe I am missing it, but that is what I
do not understand. I am trying to get
some grasp as to what the minister is‑‑I mean, are all issues going
to be vetted through the Medical Services Council or not? I mean, it does not read like that in the
agreement, but the minister's responses have tended to imply that is the case.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, just as a preface to some
comments I might make with respect to conflict, I will read from page 26 of the
agreement, at the very top of the page.
"Article 9(01).
The Manitoba Medical Services Council is hereby established for the
purpose of the Minister and the Association co‑operating in the
management of the publicly funded insured medical services program, and to
ensure that medical services, as may be insured from time to time, are provided
by medical practitioners in the most cost effective manner within the available
amount determined by the Minister in accordance with this Agreement."
So the Council is there to ensure that medical services are
provided in the most cost effective manner and within the available
amount. That leaves, I think, the
council with a number of ways by which to arrive at its decisions. I think the member is making the point that
it is very powerful. I think that there
is something to what he says because in terms of being a recommending agency
directly to the minister, an agency comprising membership from the government‑‑we
have our own people on that council, the medical people have their people on it
and the consumers have their people on it.
It seems to me a pretty good way to arrive at decisions.
The council will consist of three members appointed by the
association, three appointed by the minister, one by the College of Physicians
and Surgeons, one by the Faculty of Medicine, one by the Manitoba Centre for
Health Policy and Evaluation, three members appointed by the government who
will represent the public's interest, one co‑chairperson appointed by the
association and one co‑chairperson appointed by the minister.
That is the make‑up of the council, and the council
will decide whether it wants to pass on issues like conflict; meanwhile, we
have the committee the honourable member and I were talking about previously
talking about that too.
While the honourable member was talking about conflict,
though, he raised the issue about the membership of the committee looking at
lab issues and pointed to the fact that one or more members there had an
interest in a private lab. My response
basically was, well, horror of horrors, we have a union boss on there too and
that person is in direct conflict, and so I guess I have to ask the honourable
member what he thinks about that.
The college, which has an appointee to the Medical Services
Council, will not be able to appoint any medical practitioner who has any
pecuniary interest in the work that he or she will be doing. That is another point. While we are talking about conflicts, I think
I have to ask the honourable member why he raises the issue of conflicts when
we are working with a committee that has a function of advising on issues; why
he keeps raising the question when members of that committee on the one side
have conflict and members on the side he represents also have conflict.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, we raise the issue because
the minister clearly does not understand, and I will go through it quite simply
so the minister can understand this issue.
The minister says there is a union person on that committee
that somehow has a conflict of interest.
Yes, yes, there is a union person on that committee. There is also a private lab person appointed
to that committee to represent private lab interests. There are also on that committee at least five
individuals who are supposedly representing public labs. They are designated on the committee as
representing public labs, but at the same time they have financial pecuniary
interests, or their spouses, in a private lab.
I am not criticizing those individuals one iota. The point is, if a committee of that nature
is to arrive at a decision with respect to conflict of interest, it puts those
individuals in a very difficult situation to make a decision about conflict of
interest concerning private‑public labs when in fact they are on that
committee representing a public lab and have an interest in a private lab. It is not a reflection on those
individuals. That was the concern raised
in the House, and the call from this side of the House was for the creation of
some kind of conflict‑of‑interest guidelines to help those
individuals, to ease them out of the situation or to put them in a situation
where they would not be in a conflict.
The minister, when he answered the question in the House,
indicated that we in this Chamber have conflict of interest, and that is
correct, but when we have an area of conflict of interest we are forced to
withdraw from the decision making. Those
individuals do not have that overall benefit.
* (1540)
Now, the minister may indicate they are not making the
decisions, but they are making the recommendations with respect to the very
legislation that will deal with that issue.
There is a perception‑‑it is not raised by me, it has been
raised by members of the public‑‑there is a perception of a
conflict of interest. That is what the
minister I think fails to understand, and I hope he now understands what the
issue is and why we have raised it.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I do understand the
honourable member. I understood him last
time. I understand his point. I disagree with his conclusion that somehow
whatever product comes out of the deliberations is tainted by this unmitigated
conflict. The fact is we know who is on
that committee. We know their
backgrounds and what possible interests they might have, and there is no secret
about that. That is the point.
The honourable member is making the point that they are
having the power to make decisions and stuff like that, and that is not what is
on. These committees can make
recommendations and we look forward to them.
I just think that when I am trying to see to the care of Manitobans,
trying to do so in a way that is quality and in a way that is efficient, we
need the advice of everyone involved.
You cannot on the one hand say, well, take everybody's
advice even if they have conflicts but leave out that person who also has a
conflict. That is not what this is
about. That is not how we build Manitoba
by making decisions behind the backs of people who do indeed have an
interest. Some people have an interest
in improving services to people, and of course, people are there to make a
living and nobody is denying that, and I am not. The honourable member is the one who
misunderstands; I do not. I have
understood him right along.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, so what is the minister
going to do about that issue then?
Because the minister clearly‑‑it is recognized even in the
MMA agreement that in instances where the matter is not resolvable the appointee
of the association shall be‑‑no medical practitioner, the minister
cited it‑‑no medical practitioner who has a pecuniary interest in
the matter contemplated by subarticle 11 shall be eligible to be appointed by
the college.
So there is a recognition of not putting an individual in
that difficult a situation in making a decision in that regard in the
government's own agreement. So it is
recognized in this, and I am wondering what the minister is going to do since
the whole issue of conflict of interest was raised by the government's own
Health Action Plan in 1992.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, if we were to follow the
honourable member's logic, we would just disband the laboratory committee,
because we cannot have a union boss on there, we cannot have anybody who has an
interest in private labs, we cannot have anybody who has an interest in public
labs. So who have you got left to give
you advice on laboratory services? So I
do not accept that. What I am going to
do is look with interest at the work of the committee and remember the nature
of the committee's make‑up when I look at its recommendations. That is what I am going to do. If it was the honourable member who had his
way, there would not be a committee because everybody has a conflict of one
kind or another. So we go back to the
NDP way of not consulting anybody, just close beds, shut down private labs,
kick out anybody who makes a profit and reward your union boss friends and away
you go. That is not the way I do it.
Mr. Chomiak: I would sure like to find all these union
bosses. The way the minister speaks,
there must be thousands and thousands of them storming this Legislature every
day. Every single reference to every
single question and every response by the minister is referenced to these
hoards of union bosses that must be just camped outside this building on a
regular basis, conferring and avoiding the member for Assiniboia (Mrs.
McIntosh) and the minister and not discussing anything with them, clearly
spending most of their time with us.
My question to the minister is with respect to the
agreement and the professional liability fund that the government is
augmenting. I wonder if the minister can
indicate, the professional liability insurance fund that the government is paying
an additional $7 million to this year and an additional $7 million over Years 2
and 3 of the agreement, is that also augmented by physicians or how is that
particular fund funded? To what extent
is it government, what extent is it physician funded?
Mr. McCrae: According to the agreement, the government's
contribution to the Physician Liability Insurance Fund, known as PHLIF, the
first year of the agreement, $2 million; the second year, $3 million; the third
year, $3.5 million; fourth year, $3.5 million; fifth year, $4 million.
I understand that the government, and the physicians put in
a portion as well, since about 1987 or '88, in that range, '87, the government
took its base contribution and made greater contributions because of the
skyrocketing premiums required for liability insurance per medical
practitioners. But, basically, what we
are doing is what is set out in the agreement.
I point out that it is from the government's contribution
from within the available amount, which is that global cap.
Mr. Chomiak: I am just returning to a question that I had
pursued earlier. Will the minister admit
that it is possible in Years 3, 4 and 5 of the agreement for fewer medical
services to be performed while providing for fee increases in Years 3, 4 and 5
of the agreement?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, to the extent that we have
discovered that in one case one Manitoban used the doctor 247 times as a result
of a review by the Patient Utilization Review Committee, and other Manitobans
as well, we have taken some steps to try to address that because of the more
efficient use of pharmacy, because of the drug products information network and
many, many other initiatives already announced or to be announced.
I expect that we will see less misuse of the health system,
and that will save the dollars for those who need the health services. So to that extent, I would say that if
getting rid of abuse and misuse is less, then that is the case. In the meantime, we expect to see some
Manitobans requiring more services, and we have to have the resources available
for those Manitobans who need the services.
It is hard to know if there is going to be less services
delivered or whether it will be more because of an increase in the quality and
the effectiveness of those services.
My hope, as a result of being involved in these contract
negotiations and all the work I have been involved in, is that we will have a
better quality of service directed to people who need them and that,
ultimately, improvements are being made in the health system so that not only
will we continue to have a health system but it will be a better health system.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the minister indicated
that very shortly he will be providing a list or he will be announcing the
members of the Manitoba Medical Services Council. Can the minister indicate whether or not
there will be nurses appointed to that council?
Mr. McCrae: The announcement will be coming very shortly,
and before the honourable member releases me from these Estimates discussions I
will be able to answer that question.
* (1550)
Mr. Chomiak: Does that mean we are here till September?
Mr. McCrae: We are here till at least tomorrow. You are going to keep me here until tomorrow,
are you not?
Mr. Chomiak: Oh, I can guarantee you that. I appreciate the fact the minister was very
candid in terms of indicating when those announcements will take place, and we
look forward to those particular announcements.
The agreement contains a section, article 6 sub 3(i). It is page 17. If I understand that correctly, this
indicates that in Years 3, 4 and 5 of the agreement neither the minister nor
the council have the power or the authority to reduce fees within the tariffs
as decided or reduce payments‑‑and that is a legal
interpretation. I just wonder if the
minister is familiar with that provision and might want to comment on it.
Mr. McCrae: As I understand the honourable member's
question, I think that what he is referring to is fee schedule reform which we
expect, by virtue of this agreement, to be completed by sometime around this
time next year which would be the end of Year 2. So in Years 3, 4 and 5 there ought not to be
any need for government or the council to be involved in anything to do with
the fee schedule because the reform will have been achieved by that time. I do not know if that is precisely what the
member is getting at, but he can let me know.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, it is a little bit
difficult because I have just received the agreement, but I am referring to the
fact that within this agreement in Years 3, 4 and 5, within the global cap, if
there are any reductions required by physicians the reductions would not come
out of the fee but would have to come out of some other source. I presume that is the clause that refers to
that.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member has that correct, yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate how those
particular reductions will be achieved if they are required in Year 3, 4 and 5?
Mr. McCrae: In order to abide by the global cap, and
keeping in mind the fee schedule, keeping in mind the COLA plus one or whatever
it is in those subsequent years, all of that kept in mind, I think the
honourable member is pointing to, like, how do we do it? How do we come within those various
criteria? That is the role and function
of the Medical Services Council, and it will have to look at the services that
are delivered, how they are delivered, work with MMA and the rest of the people
on there to find better ways to deliver service if they are not able to do it
within the available funds.
That is the reason for having the council, to give sound
advice to government as to how to proceed.
Unlike in some instances where without any plan or without any such body
governments have had to make decisions about health care that, you know, you
cannot really say that they were arrived at through some reasonable approach,
therefore they are suspect‑‑those kinds of decisions.
The decisions we arrive at have to keep in mind the
concerns and the bottom line that I have, and that is patient care. As long as I am minister and members on this
side of the House are minister, we are going to have that as a bottom line and
we are not going to want to place our fellow Manitobans in a compromised
situation. So the council will make
decisions and make the decisions about recommendations, make those
recommendations. The government will
have to make a decision about whether to follow them. It will be hard not to, I grant you that,
because those decisions will be made as a result of the kind of process set out
in the agreement, but that is the, I guess, strength of this agreement, the
nature of the make‑up of the Medical Services Council. It gives me some comfort that I am not going
to be faced with recommendations that are way out of line or that put my fellow
Manitobans in any danger.
Mr. Chomiak: But the minister will agree that those
recommendations will not include fee reductions as per the agreement?
Mr. McCrae: I think that is implicit in the contract.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate whether we will be
seeing legislation this session associated with this particular agreement?
Mr. McCrae: Pursuant to the discussions that we have held
with the Manitoba Medical Association, the honourable member can expect to see
that, yes.
Mr. Chomiak: I have more questions in this area and some
other general questions, but I am going to pass the floor to the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). Prior to doing
that, I just have one general question and I want to find out if it is
appropriate to ask it at this particular item in the Estimates or some other
item, because I cannot find through my records from previous Estimates, but I
wanted to ask some questions about the Canadian Blood Agency and the like. I wonder if the minister wishes to deal with
it at this point.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, with respect to blood
issues and perhaps others that may come up, if the honourable member can let us
know we can attempt to have the appropriate people here. I do not think I need to fill up the
galleries with staff who need to be working at other things. So I do not think I am able to deal with
blood issues right at this minute. Given
some notice as to when you want to discuss them, we will arrange to have the
appropriate people here; otherwise we could go on the line by line.
I am trying to be really flexible here and deal with some
of the things that you have on your minds.
I suppose at some point we can whip through a lot of things
quickly. However, unless the honourable
member is saying no, in which case we can start line by line now and go the
rigid way. I do not think that is what
the honourable member wants.
I am trying to make this workable so that the staff people
that I need to help me are here when they are needed. So if you give us a little notice as to when
you might like to raise an issue, and if our people are available, we will have
them here to deal with them.
If that is satisfactory to the honourable member, we can
proceed that way.
* (1600)
Mr. Chomiak: That is quite satisfactory and
reasonable. The minister will know from
my past dealings in Estimates, I do try to deal line by line and try to stay on
the point as diligently as possible. In
fact, the reason I raise the blood issue is I thought the deputy minister was
the one who was directly responsible for it.
Mr. McCrae: The problem with the blood issues is for the
rest of the afternoon, the deputy minister, who is the one who is able to
assist me, is not going to be available to us.
So maybe when you see the deputy minister here that might be the time to
raise it.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): I would like to thank the minister for
providing us with the MMA agreement. I
would imagine that Thursday when we resume Estimates I will have some questions
on that.
I wanted to ask some questions about students in medicine
and the government's policy and direction in that area. Just before we do that, I wanted to get back
to the deputy minister's salary. It is
more of a comment to the minister and to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
I guess my question would be to the minister to ask the MLA
for Kildonan as to what‑‑I am not quite sure what the member for
Kildonan is suggesting in terms of merit increments. I recognize that above a certain level in the
department that staff positions are not covered by any type of collective
agreement, but oftentimes their benefits and salaries are similar to the kinds
of working conditions that are outlined in a collective agreement.
I wonder, if we are not looking at a situation of merit
increments within the civil service, is the minister aware‑‑because
in this forum I can ask the member for Kildonan‑‑of any other kinds
of methods that one would use to reward service in the government?
Mr. McCrae: I am not trying to be dense, Madam
Chairperson, I am trying to understand what the honourable member is
asking. Have I got it wrong? Is the honourable member asking, is there a
way to reward merit at other levels of the civil service?
No, well, I will maybe ask the member to try it again.
Ms. Gray: My question is: If we remove from the civil service merit
increments‑‑merits increments are basically financial rewards‑‑or
we remove them from upper levels, are there other ways that we can reward our
staff?
If the increases, the merit increments, as suggested by the
member for Kildonan, are excessive, if we are going to remove them from those
levels, one would assume you would have to do it throughout the civil service,
which I would not support because I think it is very important that there be
rewards in the system for staff.
My question would be if there was not a financial
incentive, which we now have with merit increments, are there other methods
that could be used?
Mr. McCrae: I am not so sure that there are other methods
except to say that even if there were, they would have a value, and there would
be a value attached to it, and members could attach a value to it.
Whether it is the person who sweeps the floor or the person
who runs the department as a deputy minister, the member for Kildonan is
clearly saying that there is no room for merit in the civil service, and I
disagree with that at any level. I think
there is room for merit at the higher levels of the civil service, at the lower
levels. I think there is room for merit
in the hospital system and throughout. I
mean, you take away initiative from people, you take away performance. I am a strong believer in that. I know the member for Kildonan is not, but
that is his problem, not mine.
Ms. Gray: I just want it to be on the record that in
terms of within the civil service, I think that given that civil servants and
certainly employees in other institutions are asked to take salary cutbacks
through Bill 22, are asked to accept no salary increases, which I think a lot
of people in this day and age are willing to accept knowing that at least they
have a job, that at least the one thing we can continue to offer within civil
service, because we have direct control over that, is some form of merit
increment. So I would want to support
that type of system.
I think when you look at that kind of system, it is hard to
exempt some staff from it, but include others.
So I would hope we would see that continue, particularly now when we do
not have any salary increases, particularly at the lower levels of the pay
scale, so that oftentimes the merit increment is the only form of financial
reward that a particular employee does have.
Mr. McCrae: I am quite in agreement with the honourable
member, and I know the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission
(Mr. Praznik) might be interested if the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) has
any ideas that might be helpful. We are
always open to those.
I think that in other areas there is maybe more
flexibility, for example, Crown corporations where you can offer people
memberships in the exclusive golf clubs and things like that, which has been
done. I am not recommending that, but
that is something that has been in Manitoba in the past. I do not think this is the time to be doing
that kind of thing.
But as I say, if the member has some ideas or members of
her caucus have ideas along that line, I am interested in them. But I agree, I strongly believe in the merit
principle. As a former civil servant‑‑[interjection]
My honourable colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) comes from a
long tradition of people who have a great deal of merit, and their self‑effacing
style is one of their greatest attributes.
Madam Chairperson, I was going to say that having worked
for the civil service in the past myself, I was always trying to make sure that
my performance would demonstrate that I deserved that merit increment, and I
was fortunate that I did get those merit increments. It came to the point where I reached the top
of the scale, and there were no more merit increments, and it was at that point
where I got into politics.
I do not know what all that means, but that is what
happened.
Ms. Gray: Just before we talk about medical students,
could the minister indicate to us when in this process we will have an
opportunity to have the capital budget tabled?
Mr. McCrae: I am working to try to get that capital
budget available as soon as I can get it available. There are some remaining items for me to
address, and I would like to get it done as soon as I can.
With respect to medical students, I am mindful of the
concerns that have been raised by or on behalf of the medical students. There is a place for the views of medical
students to be heard.
There is an advisory subcommittee. One could be an advisory subcommittee to the
physician resource committee, and one member would be appointed by the
Professional Association of Residents & Internes, another member appointed
by the Manitoba Medical Students Association.
That is not the be all and the end all, because there are a bunch of
other members too, but this is a chance where we bring people together to talk
about the issues.
I think there has been concern expressed and felt by and
for medical students. I have the concern
that medical students may have some worries about their future in medicine in
Manitoba. I want the physician resource
committee to be mindful and sensitive. I
have already asked government people helping me put these things together to be
mindful of this. I have expressed my
concern to the MMA as well.
I do not think the problems are insurmountable, because, as
I said yesterday, when we are talking about physician resources outside
Winnipeg, but in pure numbers of physicians required, it is not very many. I do not know how many medical students may
already have it in their minds they would like to practise somewhere outside
Winnipeg anyway. I do not know that
today, but I do want these councils and committees to be sensitive to the
issues of students, and that is why we have allowed that students be
represented on the advisory committee to the committee.
* (1610)
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, there was an
announcement or some thought that for students who are enrolled in medical
school that it would be prescribed once they had graduated, what part of the
province they could practise in or what part of the province they were eligible
for a billing number?
Has that been decided?
Is that something that is going to go ahead, because that certainly
seemed to be the concern of a number of students who certainly wrote myself en
masse? I am sure they wrote other
members of the Legislative Assembly as well.
Mr. McCrae: Just by way of background, the day that the
story came out that an agreement had been arrived at, I found myself in
Thompson, Manitoba. I was asked by a
reporter there, what about students having to go somewhere other than Winnipeg
and how are they going to feel about that?
My response was, I live in Brandon; I would like the capital of Manitoba
to be in Brandon, please. Immediately it
was understood the point that I was making.
You go where the work is. The
general public has to go where there is work.
We are reaching a point where the Winnipeg market is saturated in many
ways. I do add that in certain
specialties I cannot say that, but certainly in numbers of physicians, that is
not a problem here in Winnipeg.
So I am saying that medical students should take some
comfort in the fact that they are going to be represented at the table and that
all parties here, as far as I know, are very sensitive to their concerns. I could understand an initial concern because
this represents a change. I think that a
lot of medical students of the past felt that automatically you will somehow be
attached to major hospitals in urban areas and that is what the practice of
medicine is going to be about. But our
reform plans do talk about services for people are to the extent possible,
services that bring results, outcomes based and so on.
So we are very mindful of the concerns of students, and we
are so mindful that we have asked them to help take part in making decisions
about physician resources throughout the province. You have to remember also the concerns of
Manitobans who need physician services outside Winnipeg, and you have to draw
that kind of balance. We think we have
drawn an appropriate balance in the way we have put these committees together.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I want to clarify that I
do not disagree with the minister in his comments, and I believe that the issue
of physicians and the management of physician resources in Manitoba is
certainly something that needs to be looked at.
When you look across the provinces of this country, a number of the
provinces have physician resource committees and are looking at this
problem. I also believe that we need to
make some changes so that in fact we do not have an ever growing number of
general practitioners practising in the city of Winnipeg, ever growing over
what our population is. When you look at
the statistics over the last number of years, and I am sure the minister knows
this, you will see that in fact G.P.s are growing at a faster rate than our
population.
I believe it is Montreal where they have looked at a
moratorium on billing numbers for physicians in the city of Montreal for up to
five years. Other provinces are looking
at reduced fees, looking at 80 percent of the fees in different cities. So I think there are certainly some
mechanisms that need to be put in place, and I can appreciate where rural
communities want to attract physicians.
Attracting those physicians has to be done, I think, part and parcel
with having the other support services and technology available to them as
well.
My one concern about the initiative to look at confining
billing numbers to certain areas of the province would be‑‑I think
the university students, I think it is fair that when they enter into a medical
program at the university, they need to know the rules of the game rather than
having those rules necessarily changed mid‑stream. So my caution would be that if this
committee, through this agreement, is looking at some innovative and creative ways
of trying to attract positions to rural Manitoba and/or attaching postal codes
to billing numbers that at least students be aware at the beginning of a
program what the rules of the game are.
That gives them an option about whether they want to enter into the
program here or go elsewhere, or at least they know what the rules of the game
are. I would be interested in the
minister's comments on that.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, from the comments made by
the honourable member, I sense that her thinking and mine are very much the
same in this area. I believe the
honourable member is acknowledging that there is a need out there and she knows
that. Her own background would suggest
she would know that, but she also sets out a concern for students for whom the
rules appear to be changing in the middle of the game. I understand the point she makes. That is why I made my views known about the
concerns of the students as I perceive them and about possible steps that can
be taken to take account of the fact for those who are presently in medical
school and affected by this, or just coming out about at this time that are
affected by these new rules, that the council and the committee look at that
and be mindful of those circumstances for that group.
I mean, anybody now going into medical school ought to
understand that there is a cap in Manitoba on billing numbers for the next five
years. The number of billing numbers is
not going to grow in the next five years, and through the position resource
there will be some way of attaching a location to some, although not many, but
some billing numbers.
It is the most interesting problem because not very much
resource is really required to solve the problem, yet it is a big, big problem
in rural Manitoba because of the absence of the kind of practitioners that are
needed.
I understand what the member is saying, and I am saying
that those people we are appointing to various councils are also aware of our
concern. I have made my concern known
for the medical association, as well, on behalf of those people.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the minister know
what numbers we are looking at in terms of what he would see as physician
shortages in rural and northern Manitoba?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, through the work of the
standing committee on medical manpower and other work that is done, we have a
general idea here. I do not have it in
front of me, but if the member would let me take notice of this, I will be a
little more forthcoming at a later time with this, as to the needs and the
regions in Manitoba where those needs exist.
There is always an interesting discussion, depending on
whom you talk to. Some people think they
need‑‑and that is another thing about health reform we have to look
at, what are real needs as opposed to perceived needs. That is something where we can get advice
from organizations like the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation,
to help keep us research‑based, fact‑based, as opposed to want‑based
or emotion‑based.
* (1620)
Ms. Gray: To change the subject a bit, yesterday we
talked about Bill 22 and the impact on institutions.
I would say someone, a higher being up there, does not want
us to continue this Estimates process.
We talked about Bill 22, the impact on institutions. I was not quite clear, and I am not sure if
we got into this discussion as to if the minister has changed his direction in
regard to Bill 22 being utilized by personal care homes.
I raise this because of a letter which the minister may not
have seen yet, it is fairly recent, from the Seven Regions Health Centre, dated
April 25, where they expressed some concerns about, again, Bill 22 and how that
will impact on personal care homes. I
know he talked about flexibility within the institution, the hospital setting,
in regard to not necessarily having those institutions have to use salary
dollars reductions, that if they could find the 2 percent reductions through
other parts of their budget, they would have the flexibility to do that.
I am wondering, is that going to be the case for personal
care homes?
Mr. McCrae: Yes, and it was all along. Where there was a lack of clarity it had to
do with the facilities, the hospitals.
The purpose of my meeting last week was to make it very clear that the
same flexibility being accorded to personal care homes and community health
centres was also being accorded to hospitals.
So they had it previously. It was
the hospitals where we were not as clear as we could have been, and we have made
it more clear.
Ms. Gray: This letter also refers to new staffing
guidelines which the department said were effective October 1, 1993. Is it possible to get a copy of those new
staffing guidelines? I would imagine
those were guidelines that went to the institution.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, last fall, staffing
guidelines were about to take effect which would have resulted in layoffs in
various places in rural Manitoba. I
asked that that be stopped‑‑put on hold was the expression I used,
which has been much misinterpreted since.
That was so that a review could take place, a meaningful review which
included groups like the MARN, the MALPN, the hospital administrators, the
College of Physicians and Surgeons, again to ensure that whatever staffing
guidelines were being declared or imposed were staffing guidelines that would
take into account patient care and safety issues.
That review is underway, and I am not just certain when it
will be done, but it is underway, and I expect that once that review is done,
then we will have to look at the different facilities.
One of the things in relation to this, though, that is
important is that even with those staffing guidelines, which I think are public‑‑certainly
lots of nursing organizations know about them, all the hospitals know about
them, but what I was going to say was that even some hospitals today are
working within those guidelines. Others
are way out of whack in that respect and have staffing levels that exceed those
guidelines by far.
My point is I do not think that is fair to those
communities and facilities that are able to and have shown an ability to be
able to live within those guidelines and provide safe patient care. My question is, why cannot the others, if
they are not able to? Maybe the answer
is in a difference in the configuration of a building. I can accept that. Maybe the answer is that there is a higher
level of acuity of illness in a particular region, and I can accept that kind
of point.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Chairperson, beyond that, if it becomes strictly
a labour issue, then let us look at it as a labour issue and not as a health
issue. If jobs have to be removed from
the system, let us handle the people as compassionately as we possibly can,
taking into account their service they have provided in the past.
The fact is some hospitals have staff well above levels in
other hospitals and that is not fair.
Again, we cannot have different rules in different areas, I do not think,
yet you have to take account of the uniqueness of the various facilities. There are not two that are identical and I
accept that, which is a third thing that can be taken into account, but in what
ways? What are the appropriate questions
to ask? That is what the review is all
about now, to ensure that patient safety is assured through change to staffing
guidelines and to do so efficiently because we cannot afford to spend dollars
on health care unnecessarily because there are other places where it is
necessary to spend it.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell me who developed and
worked on these new staffing guidelines, and was there input from
institutions? Also, do these guidelines
basically look at greater staff‑to‑patient ratios or less staff‑to‑patient
ratios?
* (1630)
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am sorry for the
delay, but I needed further background.
The honourable member asks who it was set the staffing
guidelines of last fall. The answer is
it was ministry staff after a review of staffing guidelines on a national
basis. The last time this had been done,
I assume in a way very similar, was back in 1989 or '90. These guidelines were set after review of
selected hospital operations and after consultation with selected administrators
and directors of nursing in Manitoba.
They had to do with activity levels, and activity levels, like the noise
levels, had changed. But unlike the
noise levels, the activity levels decreased in our hospitals by as much as 10
percent because of issues like length‑of‑stay reductions, I assume
because of services in the community that took the pressure off hospitals and
so on. Sometimes it was more than 10
percent, maybe sometimes a little less.
The guidelines actually would add staff, in some cases, as well as
subtract staff depending on the circumstances of an individual hospital.
Even though that process had been gone through, having
listened to only a few nursing groups in the early days of my appointment, it
was my feeling that we should make sure that patient care is not affected in
the ways that many of the nurses I had been talking to were suggesting they
would be. A lot of the nurses I have
been talking to also talked about how they did not want their jobs to change,
and I understand that. That is a very
understandable sort of feeling for people to have. But I am also sure that nursing people in
Manitoba are interested in making sure that we can apply the resources to the
places where the resources are needed.
So at the end of the present review, then ultimately the
decisions will have to be made. I expect
that it will mean reduction of staff in some places, and it might even mean
addition of staff in some other places to make it appropriate for patients.
I do not know how much these guidelines will change as a
result of the review. Let us let the
review take its course.
Ms. Gray: In regard then to activity levels and
staffing guidelines, is it a fair assumption to say that in personal care homes
then, you might actually have an increase of activity levels, because of the
higher acuity oftentimes of individuals now in personal care homes?
Mr. McCrae: I preface my answer by saying that this
review is only about acute care. But the
honourable member's point is correct, because everything we are doing is
leaving more acutely needy people in our acute care or in our personal care, so
that there is a review going on with respect to personal care as well, and we
know what the judge said at the inquest with respect to staffing levels‑‑Judge
Rusen‑‑we have that and it might be an expected outcome that we
will have to look at staffing levels at PCHs, because if they have not changed
for some time there may well be a need to look at that.
Ms. Gray: With that current review committee that is looking
at personal care homes, in light of the CBC documentary and the judge's
comments and the report from Manitoba Health Centre, who exactly is sitting on
that review committee?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, through the Seniors
Directorate we have the leadership of that committee coming from there. It is departmental people from both the
Departments of Health and Family Services.
I can get the names if the member needs that, but it is the consulting
work that they will do that is going to be just as important as the membership
of it. If the member needs to know that,
I will get that information for her.
Ms. Gray: Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairperson. Just to clarify that, it is simply
departmental staff from the Seniors Directorate, Health and Family
Services? I do not need to know who the
names are, but I would ask, is the minister able to table their terms of
reference in terms of exactly what they are going to be doing?
Mr. McCrae: I am going to ask my staff to remind me if
there was somebody else on that committee as well, and if there was, I will
tell the honourable member. The terms of
reference of the committee, I think, I will have that in front of me, but I
will take that as notice.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I thank the minister
for that information. Another issue, and
I do not know whether the minister has the answers with the deputy not being
here, but changing tracks, as regards the interdepartmental deputy minister's
committee that was looking at services to medically fragile children in the
school system, the special needs children, I had asked a question of the
Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) in the House a couple of weeks ago. I believe he said there was an implementation
plan, and we might look at seeing that sometime in June.
I am wondering from the Department of Health perspective,
can the minister indicate to us what exactly has that committee looked at, and
what were some of the analyses of that whole issue of medically fragile
children in the school system, and who provides supports, what kinds of
supports are available, who should pay for it, et cetera?
Mr. McCrae: I think we are getting into areas now that I
am going to have to take notice of things or ask the member to wait until we
get to the appropriate line, such as Healthy Public Policy or some such line
like that, because we do not have the necessary staff here to help. So, if the honourable member could hold that
question or I could take notice of it and get some detail on it for the
honourable member, either way we will address it at a subsequent time if that
is all right.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that is fine. We can look at that issue in another line.
There have been some concerns expressed about, when we
talked yesterday, centres of excellence, particularly within the city of
Winnipeg and looking at which hospitals provide what services. There is the Manning Report on Obstetrical
Services in Manitoba. I am wondering if
the minister has decided where that report is at or what is going to happen
with the Manning Report in terms of the recommendations that were contained
therein.
* (1640)
Mr. McCrae: I expect this spring to be making the
government's position clear, formally making that report public, even though
many people have it. I will formally be
making it public and stating our government's objectives. I think that certain events that have
happened also call for a relatively quick response here now too because, for
example, at the Grace Hospital, they are having a problem because of an
obstetrician leaving the jurisdiction, and some people are wondering, well,
ought we to‑‑how hard should we work to try to make sure we have an
obstetrical presence at Grace? I am
saying to people, I will move as quickly as I can to make the government's
views clear, but that they ought not to, at Grace Hospital, let up on their
efforts to find a replacement obstetrician.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that was another question
I had in relation to obstetrical services‑‑the issue of Grace
Hospital and some concerns that had been expressed to us about the fact that
one of the obstetricians has left. But I
would ask the minister: Does his government
have a plan or what does he see in terms of obstetrical services in Winnipeg?
In the Manning Report, I believe it was suggested that some
obstetrical services could possibly be phased out or closed down in some of the
hospitals. I am wondering what the
minister's thoughts are in terms of the following: Where do we provide obstetrical
services? How do the community hospitals
play a role in provision of those services versus the tertiary hospitals? Do we want to be expanding obstetrical
services?
I know a number of years ago obstetrical services were
closed down at Concordia, I believe it was, and Seven Oaks, and I guess the
question would be, how does the minister see obstetrical services being
provided, particularly given that this government spent quite a few dollars on the
new family birthing centre at Victoria Hospital, which I have had the
opportunity to tour. I am wondering how
this all fits into the future directions of health care services in Winnipeg
and perhaps the‑‑well, I will reserve my comments on closing of hospitals
in Winnipeg until we talk more about obstetrical services.
Mr. McCrae: I think that if this were a card game, the
honourable member would be saying, it is your turn to play, and she is probably
correct. We have to look at our
obstetrics services in the city of Winnipeg from the point of view of what it
is the consumer wants. The consumer, I
think, wants to have some options, some choices that we can reasonably provide.
I think administrations in some hospitals are getting into
the delivery of obstetric services through the so‑called LDRP method,
which is seen to be a very satisfying or popular‑‑I am not sure of
the right kind of word to use to describe it‑‑but appropriate to
women and their families.
When I visited Victoria Hospital, for example, I had a
chance to‑‑it is one of the nice things about being Minister of
Health. You get to go to these hospitals
and not have to be a patient to go and visit some of the people in them, and it
is a wonderful experience to visit a room where there is the mom and the child
and the dad, and that is the room that they were in from the time they got
there. That was really special for me as
one who has visited hospitals many times as my wife and I have been fortunate
enough to bring children into the world.
If all of those choices had been available to us, I know which one we
would have chosen, having spoken to Darlene about that.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
But people want safety.
The Manning Report reminds us that, of all the places in the world to
deliver babies, Manitoba, and especially Winnipeg, is the safest place in the
world. People do not know that maybe‑‑well,
because the report is not broadly distributed‑‑but that is
something that needs to be said. I
guess, I am going to be the one to be saying it from time to time because, as I
said, it does not get said often enough.
On the other hand, Winnipeggers and Manitobans want whatever choices the
system can provide to them within the available resources.
There is a level of satisfaction in some of our hospitals
in Winnipeg that is high, and that is a positive thing. It is very positive. The Manning Report does talk about several
models as opposed just to one, and we are looking at several models before we
play that card that I was talking about.
I just want to know from the honourable member, for example, if there
are some concerns that her constituents or people whom she consults with are
bringing forward, issues that maybe are not adequately dealt with either
through the Manning Report, through the Michael Lloyd study, which deals with
the economics of obstetrics, or even through the midwifery study. Those are the three that we are looking at,
more or less, in tandem to try to develop the proper policy for the obstetric
services in the future.
I am just hinting rather broadly here today that we are
interested within the resources that we have, making the kinds of choices
available that we can. I understand
Grace Hospital has learned the new wing is going to have LDRP in it. It is planned, right. LDRP is planned as part of the‑‑I
guess I cannot say it very loud, but the APM project the Health Sciences Centre
talked about LDRP in their facility. So
I think we are doing our best to keep up with the kinds of choices that the
consuming public wants to see. I think
we are going to be able to deliver, and we are going to be able to announce our
choices and our decisions later this spring.
I say that a lot of people are looking at a lot of
things. My staff are reminding me about
some of the things that some people are wanting or planning or talking about,
and I have been fairly open about discussing these things too. It occurs to me, having had some concerns
brought to my attention by members in the west end, the member for Kirkfield
Park (Mr. Stefanson), the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), the member
for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst), all
interested in what is happening at the Grace, because of the problem with the
obstetrician leaving the jurisdiction, so I am just trying to give some comfort
there that we are not going to leave people out there needing service that is
not available. We have to make sure that
it is, so the administration of the Grace Hospital is working very hard with
the profession in Winnipeg to try to make sure that the obstetrics needs of the
patients of Grace will be looked after while we address all the obstetrics
issues for the city of Winnipeg.
Meanwhile, there is work going on in rural Manitoba as
well. Dr. Manning is involved in looking at an obstetrics plan for rural
Manitoba, and Dr. Manning is recognized as an expert in the area of
obstetrics. Just by virtue of the report
that was put out there, there is also room for differences of opinion. That has come through fairly clearly
too. But, in fairness, Dr. Manning's
report sets out a number of options and not just one, so that leaves us room
within which to work in the delivery of obstetric services in the future.
* (1650)
Ms. Gray: The minister asks, what do consumers and the
people out in the various constituencies or parts of the city want? I suppose if you sometimes ask the average
person, they would want as many types of hospital services available to them in
the community. That was certainly the
case when we closed down Concordia and Seven Oaks obstetrical units; there was
an outcry from those communities.
However, I do not know in the long run if the service was actually
lessened, because certainly within the city of Winnipeg, I think, when you look
at where people go to their dentist or doctor, whatever, people see the city of
Winnipeg as one region, one community.
I know Victoria Hospital likes to emphasize their community
aspect in the south part of the city and has done a lot of work in being a
community hospital, and I commend them for that. So, when you ask the question, what do
consumers want, I think sometimes their first response is, well, we want as
many services as we can in our individual hospitals. When you talk to them further and talk about
how many health dollars there are and what kinds of services are reasonable to
provide in one hospital, I think sometimes you get a different answer from them.
Now the minister said that he or his department was
encouraging Grace Hospital to look for another obstetrician. Can I take that answer to say that the
Department of Health is saying to Grace Hospital, yes, we see your obstetrical
ward is very viable and it will continue on, or is that a leap of faith by
putting those two statements together?
Mr. McCrae: Well, I am certainly not here to try to
destroy the faith that the honourable member might have; that is for sure. I agree with what the member is saying, that
people are very reasonable people if you take the time to spend with them and
listen to what they have to say and tell them, from your point of view, what is
happening too. People understand there
are only so many dollars. They want to
have for their particular community hospital in which they take great pride
every possible thing that you can put into it.
I know that because I am from Brandon and we are very proud of the
Brandon General Hospital. We want to
have everything possible there and every kind of surgeon and every kind of
machine that you can think of. We want
all those things, but we also recognize when we consider it all that we have to
provide health services for all Manitobans and wherever they happen to
live. That includes people in Winnipeg
as well, and people in Winnipeg, if given the chance to address all of the
issues, are very reasonable people too.
So I think that they just want to be assured that‑‑I
think the member talked about amount of services or some such thing. When the baby is going to be born, the baby
is going to be born, and we have to have provision for the baby and the mom too
when that time comes. I am happy to say
that today we have services that are more varied and as high or higher quality
than ever before in the city of Winnipeg, and that when we are finished with
our future plans for obstetrics in Winnipeg, we will be able to make even
greater claims.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, with respect to the Bell‑Wade
Report and looking at some amalgamation of service provision between Health
Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, can the minister tell us what his plans are,
his time frame, in terms of whether he will accept their recommendations or is
there another committee that is looking further at‑‑and what will
be the result of the suggestions in that report?
Mr. McCrae: Since having had a look at that report
myself, I have had discussions with the university and the hospital CEOs and
board chairs and also Mr. Bell and Dr. Wade and departmental staff. Bell‑Wade talks about finding better
ways to do the things we are already doing.
In other words, I think the expression is two sites, one program. Now, if you apply that to let us say cardiac
or to neuroscience, you kind of get an understanding of what we are talking
about.
We have two separate administrations in these teaching
hospitals and in some cases we have two separate programs, and both of them are
associated with the University of Manitoba.
Now the idea is that, since we are working with the University of
Manitoba on two campuses, we can kind of make that one program, two campuses in
the various disciplines. That is the
general principle underlying Bell‑Wade, I believe, and adjustments to
administration to make room for that concept, we expect, will improve the concepts
and the delivery of not only educational service but also services to patients
in those places. It is that streamlining
of administrative functions and, I think, the building up of leadership and
making the leadership stronger for those and other programs that will result in
improvements in the future.
The implementation is in the beginning stages in the sense
that there seems to be agreement on all sides that this is the right thing
to. It does not, as reported in the
newspaper, result in, or on the radio‑‑I heard one commentator say
that St. Boniface is the big loser‑‑and far from‑‑I
mean, it is on the same day that people of St. Boniface denied such a
suggestion. This goes to show what kinds
of things can come out from time to time.
We have no intention of making St. Boniface into something less than it
is. We intend to make it better, and the
same with Healthy Sciences, and we are working in partnership with the CEOs,
with the boards of these hospitals, who, after all, are the governing authorities
of those hospitals.
At one point during the whole process there was some
discussion about governance and concern about governance, where if you are
going to have amalgamation of program, what does that mean with respect to the
governance of these two hospitals? You
have to take into account the histories of the hospitals. Certainly the history of the St. Boniface
Hospital has been brought very clearly home to me in all of my discussions, and
there have been many, many of them with the Grey Nuns, with the administration,
with the board and even with the staff of St. Boniface Hospital. There is no move whatsoever to do anything to
detract from the original and current mission of St. Boniface Hospital because
there is nothing in that mission that is inconsistent with anything the
government is trying to do in the area of health reform or bringing about
excellence in the delivery of health care in Manitoba.
A couple of things I said yesterday that I said I would do
for honourable members, and they asked about an updated organizational chart
for the Department of Health, and I will make those available to my
friends. The honourable member, I
believe it was, for Kildonan asked questions about the Terminal Care Committee,
and I have here a document setting out the membership of the committee, a
purpose, and it is the impact on the primary focus. I will make this available to both honourable
members.
There was a question yesterday about home care and what it
is that people are entitled to and so on
An Honourable Member: Personal care homes.
Mr. McCrae: Oh, I am sorry. Yes, indeed.
A question about personal care. I
have some information here that honourable members may have seen, but if not,
then this will be new. Some of it is in
two languages for those who want that. I
have some other thing here, but I have not had a chance to look at it myself,
so maybe I can make it available tomorrow.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the
same, and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye
(Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to the proposed resolutions, I would
like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery,
where we have with us today Terrylinn Johnson, Brita Hall and Michael Ireland. These are three athletes who participated in
the Lillehammer Winter Olympics.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 2‑‑Manitoba Athletes
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Seine River): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
WHEREAS representing Canada in international competition is
the pinnacle of achievement for an athlete; and
WHEREAS Susan Auch, Michael Ireland and Sean Ireland all
earned an opportunity to compete at the 1994 Olympic Winter Games representing
Canada; and
WHEREAS Terrylinn Johnson, Brita Hall and Wayne Bauche
earned the opportunity to compete in the 1994 Winter Paralympic Games
representing Canada; and
WHEREAS all of these athletes distinguished themselves as
world class competitors and all Manitobans share the pride in their
achievements.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Legislature recognizes
and commends Susan Auch, Wayne Bauche, Brita Hall, Michael Ireland, Sean
Ireland and Terrylinn Johnson on their outstanding athletic achievements.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Dacquay: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak
to the accomplishments of our Manitoba athletes who have competed and achieved
at the 1994 Olympic and 1994 Paralympic Games this past winter.
It is the dream and hope of every aspiring amateur athlete
in Canada to compete at the Olympic level and represent their country in the
most prestigious of international sporting competitions.
When you take into account that there are 3 million
registered competitive athletes in Canada alone and more than 15,000 Canadian
athletes engaged in high‑performance sport, the attainment of being able
to participate at the world Olympic level can be considered a remarkable
achievement.
Even more difficult is to medal at the Olympics, and this
remarkable achievement was attained by two of our Manitoba athletes, Susan
Auch, who won a Silver Medal in speed skating, and with us this afternoon, our
Special Olympian Terrylinn Johnson who won a Bronze Medal in cross‑country
skiing.
What Susan Auch, Wayne Bauche, Brita Hall, Michael Ireland,
Sean Ireland and Terrylinn Johnson have achieved through hard work, training
and dedication to their sport provides us with positive role models.
They provide others with the encouragement and confidence
to compete; to achieve their goals; to excel, and they have made their dream a
reality and are positive individuals who are able to instill a dream in others
and a vision in others.
They have demonstrated the qualities of the consummate
athlete and with the pride and dignity that has made all of Manitoba and all of
Canada proud.
As the mother of a former national competitive swimmer, I
know firsthand the level of dedication and endless hours of training that these
athletes endure seven days a week year after year. Their commitment to strive to be their very
best, as well as the personal sacrifices they make, surely set an example for
all of us.
I would also like to commend the families of these superb
athletes for the sacrifices they have made to ensure the success of their sons
and daughters. This support is
absolutely critical to all athletes.
Community leaders, the general public, the media‑‑all have
an important role to play in communicating the values of these individuals,
their contributions to society and the value of one's participation in sport.
Public interest always peaks during major worldwide events
such as the Olympics. We must all take
full advantage of these opportunities to recognize our amateur sport heroes and
their contributions to the social fabric of our nation through sport.
The Manitoba government takes pride in recognizing the
accomplishments of these athletes and what it has taken for them to compete and
achieve at the world‑class level.
We hope this resolution in some small way provides them
with the well‑earned recognition they deserve, and I would encourage all
honourable members on both sides of the House to support this resolution this
afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): It is indeed a pleasure to be able to rise
this afternoon and speak to this resolution and welcome the athletes that are
here this afternoon. I know that during
the Olympics and the Paralympics we were all able to watch on TV all the
accomplishments of all the athletes throughout the Winter Games.
A bit of a personal pleasure too, Mr. Speaker, seeing the
achievements of the athletes and particularly our own Manitobans, but in our
Canadians. Having been in athletics for
most of my years and working very, very diligently and hard in hockey and in
different sports, I can appreciate the fine efforts of these athletes that we
are here honouring this afternoon. It
brings back the hours, as was mentioned by the member, and I am sure the
athletes that are here can appreciate the time and the effort to be able to get
good at something, No. 1; No. 2 to get better at it; No. 3 to get to be the
best that you can possibly be at a particular sport and, finally, an
achievement to just be victorious at a local level just shows the gratitude. You see the gratitude amongst the young
athletes.
I know I felt that many times, not to a tremendously high
level, but to a level that made me feel that the work that I put in, whether it
be hockey or baseball, not swimming or rowing or cross‑country skiing,
but some of the other sports that I participated in, it was an accomplishment
within yourself. I know that is how our
athletes feel.
I had, of course, the opportunity to see Susan Auch win her
silver medal. It was quite a feeling,
too, Mr. Speaker, because the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) made
mention to me when she made the team that she was from Transcona. Of course, myself being a resident of the
community of Transcona for many, many years, but not knowing the family, it was
sort of like it is your own family, I guess, if you want to call it that, that
had the opportunity to win a medal at the Olympic Games.
For Terrylinn, I am sure just being there was a tremendous
feat for her. I wish her very well. I am very pleased to see that a bronze medal
was won by her, Mr. Speaker, and I know that next time perhaps a gold, and the
same for Susan Auch in the next Olympics if she so decides to participate.
To all the other athletes, of course, those who were able
to participate from our province who were not able to accomplish a medal, but
were there, not only in competition but in spirit, enthusiasm and support for
their other athletes who were able to win medals and be distinguished, I know
we are all proud. I know the families
are proud and not even knowing these fine young athletes personally, I know I
am very proud.
* (1710)
I know members on this side are proud of their
accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, and know that with more dedication from
communities, from support groups, from the families, that perhaps we can have
more athletes there representing our province in different competitions. Yes, you and I can of course go at ping‑pong
or something and perhaps we can become a team.
An Honourable Member: Table tennis.
Mr. Clif Evans: Table tennis.
But, Mr. Speaker, I again would just like to say a personal gratitude
and a personal satisfaction for these fine young athletes and I know that we
wish them well. I wish them well. Members on our side wish them well, continued
success and the best of luck in the future for their accomplishments and
continued good health and continued hard work so that perhaps there will be
more golds on the walls of Manitoba after the next Olympic Games and all
because of our wonderful athletes here.
Thank you, Sir.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure also to rise
in support of this resolution. I, too,
would like to welcome Michael Ireland, Terrylinn Johnson and Brita Hall here
today. All these athletes, including
Susan Auch, Sean Ireland and Wayne Bauche, deserve our mention.
It often seems cheating that somehow we take pride in the
accomplishments of others, but all Manitoba takes pride in the accomplishments
of these athletes, even though perhaps we had no contribution to their
successes.
When I think of these athletes and what they have achieved,
I think of all the other athletes who tried hard and maybe made as much effort
but did not have the skills.
They represent all athletes who have made valiant attempts
at whatever sports they have achieved.
They also represent the coaches, the families and friends who supported
them. I am sure during their careers as
athletes there has been much fundraising, many trips where driving and
travelling was done by families, coaches, friends, and it was the sacrifice of
all these people. They can take even
more pride than the rest of Manitobans.
At a time when young people are looking for role models, I
think these are fine examples of role models for all athletes. We talk about our youth needing discipline,
guidelines. Well, athletes are the most
disciplined people in the world, and I think they will be a role model for all
our athletes.
Again I say, I support this resolution, and I add my
congratulations for their accomplishments and best wishes to them in the
future.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
responsible for Sport): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased also to rise today to participate in discussion of this resolution.
As the Minister of Sport I cannot tell you how proud I am
of the efforts of our athletes, particularly those who represented Manitoba in
the Olympics. One‑third of our
athletes won medals in the Olympics, a very great statistic, Mr. Speaker, and
one that I think all of us should be very, very proud of.
While we had only six athletes participate, certainly two
of them brought medals back to our province in recognition of their efforts and
work that has gone on for any number of years.
I can tell you that Brita Hall I have known since she was about this
high‑‑a little girl. She is
probably embarrassed because I said that.
Nonetheless, her efforts and the efforts of the Ireland brothers and
certainly all of the athletes who have participated on behalf of Manitoba in
these Olympic and Paralympic Games are something that all of us can take great
pride in.
Mr. Speaker, this does not happen easily. As others have said before, there are a
number of sacrifices that are made, sacrifices for certainly those high‑performance
athletes who have to attend a high‑performance centre that is not located
in Winnipeg. For instance, speed skating
in Calgary means time away from family, means time away from educational
pursuits because if you are going to be a high‑performance athlete, you
do not have the time to spend in normal university courses and other types of
training that people might wish to pursue.
So, from that perspective, they have a very difficult time
in trying to accomplish all of those other things. They sacrifice a social life that is almost
nonexistent. It is very, very difficult
to conduct any kind of social life while you are a high‑performance
athlete, and that takes a very large chunk out of their very young lives to do
that. So that certainly stands them
well.
Mr. Speaker, they have had coaches who also spend a great
deal of time with them to try and encourage them, to train them, to provide the
skills so that they can compete and they can hone the skills that they have to
a great degree of perfection in order to reach the pinnacle of sport.
They also have parents and supporters who spend a great
deal of time and effort and money in support of those athletes. We do not have the benefits of some other
countries where we have huge amounts of funding available for high‑performance
athletes. While we are pursing that end,
and we are working now in corporate partnerships with a number of high‑performance
athletes‑‑I know Tanya Dubnicoff, Colleen Miller, Susan Auch were
all sponsored by major corporations‑‑I know we have to do more with
that for our high‑performance athletes.
Certainly, our Paralympians, Mr. Speaker, have spent many,
many dedicated hours, and I know that the efforts of their parents and
supporters and the time and effort and money that they have all put in to
ensure that their children or their chosen athlete is one who has the
opportunity, at least, to pursue that effort.
To be able to pursue the goal of winning a medal is something that all
of them deserve a great deal of thanks for.
Unfortunately, again, we are unable to provide huge amounts of funding
to enable them to do this without that support, and we thank the parents for
their efforts in this regard.
* (1720)
But I can tell you what corporations have learned in recent
time, and that is the fact that when they hire these athletes to work in their
organizations as an effort toward contributing to their costs of training and
so on, they have learned that those people provide a great stimulus to the
existing employees, the other employees of the companies, so that they can in
turn perhaps provide better performance, provide an incentive for them to
provide better performance. The work
ethic that they learn during their years of training and years of pursuit is something
to be envied by most employees. I
suspect that, as time goes along, that will become more and more recognized in
Canada in the fact that these young people have exemplary attitudes to bring to
the workplace. I am sure that, as time
goes along, that will become more and more recognized.
So I offer my congratulations to all of them. I thank them for coming here today. We do not have, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber
all that many happy stories. So today we
do have that, and I am pleased again that they came today to hear this
resolution and the efforts of the members of the Assembly here to speak in that
regard.
Thank you.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I rise also to recognize the
fine athletes that have represented our province and our country: Susan Auch and Michael Ireland and Sean
Ireland, who all competed in the 1994 Olympic Winter Games, as well as
Terrilynn Johnson, Brita Hall and Wayne Bauche, who were representing us at the
1994 Winter Paralympic Games.
I want to give special congratulations to Susan Auch, one
of the reasons being that she has represented Transcona, the community that I
also have the honour of representing here in the Legislature, and I remember
watching her perform and watching her speak on behalf of all of us as an
ambassador. I was very impressed and
very proud. She was very articulate, and
I thought that she certainly represented us well both as a spokesperson as well
as performing as an athlete.
I know her sister, Andrea Auch, from the couple of years
that I was at the Winnipeg Rowing Club, so I know that sport is important to
their family.
I think that we cannot underestimate the value that sports
or arts or cultural pursuits play in the lives of young people, and we have to
realize that it is a very, very good investment for us to have both public and
industrial finances go into funding of sport.
The kind of leadership skills that are developed, the kind of
aspirations that it encourages in young people, even if they never make the
Olympic Games, even if they never make the national team, just to have that
goal while you are growing up can add so much to a young person's life and help
them maintain a direction that is going to be positive.
I think about the dedication, the discipline, the kind of
focus on goal setting, the kind of skills that are learned in time management,
the kind of understanding that an athlete develops in learning about their body
and about health and about how to get along with other people, whether they are
coaches for other athletes or officials or dignitaries from other countries and
other provinces.
I think we have to be really conscious of what we are doing
with our sport policy and really valuing the kind of sport that we have through
our schools and in our community clubs and in our community programs. We have to have a balance and realize that we
have to have both developmental and elite programs and that the two must be
joined, and we need to make sure that the developmental programs in the
province are going to feed into our elite and high‑level athletes. We have to make sure that sport is going to
be accessible to all Manitobans, and that young children across the province
are all going to have the chance to participate in some way, because I really believe
that is the way we are going to find those best athletes who will carry on to
represent our province and our country, if we do have the kind of developmental
and grassroots programs that I am sure so many of us in the House have
benefited from.
I talked before about my own enjoyment of athletics and how
important it was for me and also in coaching, and how much I learnt from
coaching athletes through schools and different programs like the Peace Garden
Athletic Camps or the university sports camps or mostly in track and field,
which is the sport that I pursued.
I just want to close again with congratulations for all the
dedication and the hard work of these fine athletes. The amount of sacrifice that they have made
has been referred to, and it is, I am sure, very satisfying for them to follow
through and have the rewards of success.
I would also recognize the contribution of the families of
so many of these athletes that do pursue Olympic dreams, and the coaches, the
volunteers and all the other funders and people that support the athletes
throughout our province and those that go on to represent us and our national
teams.
I commend the members opposite for bringing forward the
resolution. I wholeheartedly support it,
and I hope that we can work together to ensure that Manitoba is going to
continue to have athletes carry on a tradition of representing our country
throughout the world on a variety of sports.
I think that we have in this province a lot of the
facilities and the natural advantages of having athletes from a variety of
sports, both winter and summer, and we can develop that to do us all
proud. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine
(Sturgeon Creek): It gives me great pleasure to rise today in
support of this resolution and to offer my congratulations to the athletes who
are in the Chamber here this afternoon.
I think this is something that we should not take lightly
by any means. I can only offer my
congratulations and admiration for the accomplishments that these athletes,
along with their families, have been able to achieve in representing not only
themselves but the province and this country.
I think that they have reached the level that I am sure we
would all like to be in a position to have achieved in our aspirations as
athletes or reaching our levels of endurance and what we have to offer. But I think they have a further level to
aspire to, and I am sure that nobody knows that better than they do. The level that they have achieved is not
sufficient anymore, and that is one of the admirable qualities of an athlete.
When you consider the amount of training and the amount of
commitment that these people have had to make in order to endure and to be able
to achieve the goals that they set for themselves, it is not only something
that they are doing on their own; they have the support of their families and
the community, which offers the facilities and the opportunities that give
these athletes that opportunity. I think
that we are growing to a level in Manitoba that enables our young people to
reach levels that they have not had opportunities before, and I know that
probably many of the members in the Chamber would look back on their days when
the facilities were less, much less, than what is out there today. I think that there is a real opportunity
there for the young people to move on and to reach the levels that they do
achieve, but it does not come without hard work. We cannot do it without the hard work and
only rely on the facilities. There is
more to it than just having the facilities there.
I would like to also compliment the parents for the
commitments that they make. I, being a
parent of an athlete that reached a competitive level a few years ago‑‑and
it was quite an honour to be able to attend and participate at the level as a
father of a daughter who reached the level in being able to represent the
province. So I know what these parents‑‑how
proud they must be of the athletes that are here in the Chamber today.
* (1730)
When you are representing the province and your country,
there is something that comes within you that really is hard to explain. It is unimaginable and you have to be there
in order to be able to appreciate that feeling, but when you attend a venue in
representing a province or a country and see that these are the best in the
world or the best in Canada or the best in the province, that is really saying
something, and we cannot take that too lightly.
I think that there has been a lot of hard work that has
gone into that. There is a lot of
commitment, as the minister has indicated, which he said so well. I think that we have to stop and think what
the sports facilities and the sports themselves are providing for these
athletes. The number of athletes‑‑you
very, very seldom see an athlete getting into violations or difficulty with the
law. They are people that are fully
occupied, and it enables them to be better citizens. I think they have a greater appreciation not
only for themselves, but they also have an appreciation for the country and the
community that supports them.
I also think that they learn something about themselves,
and I think that it is something that I guess you have to have been there in
order to be able to appreciate what you find out about yourself. I think that is the important aspect of
becoming an athlete, and knowing what your capabilities are and what your
endurance levels are and pushing it to the level that is beyond your wildest
imagination. I think it is something
that people of the calibre of these athletes certainly have experienced, Mr.
Speaker, because they have gotten there.
They have reached a level that can only be complimented, and I think
that every‑‑they serve as role models for all the young people here
in Manitoba. I am really pleased to be
able to stand in the Chamber here today and wish the athletes continued success
and best of luck in the future. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we are here
today discussing this resolution. I had
the opportunity yesterday to contemplate Lillehammer in the strangest sort of
way. I was driving to Thompson with my
family and also a visitor from Europe, and the northern lights were
particularly spectacular yesterday, as indeed they were, I know, in
Lillehammer. In fact it was very much a
part of the whole symbolism of the games, the northern games they were. Of course, there was snow as well by the time
I hit Thompson, and that reminded me of the great wealth of winter that we have
in this great province of ours. One of
our greatest assets.
As I sat here today, I was struck by the fact that the six
individuals we are recognizing today have probably spent a considerable period
of time going to cold rinks or going to ski facilities, minus 30 weather,
driven by parents and friends, coached by dedicated volunteers. You know, it is hard, I think, for anyone to
really put in words just how much effort must have gone into just getting to
the degree of representing this country in the Olympics and the
Paralympics. I must say, Mr. Speaker, it
is inspiring, and I am really pleased that we are able to recognize the
individuals here today.
I know perhaps our visitors here in the gallery may not be
aware of this, but it is not always that we agree on resolutions in this
House. We do disagree on occasion. In fact, I am sure that I am not giving away
any confidences in indicating we very rarely agree on resolutions in this House,
but I would hope that when Hansard is issued on this, it would show that
support is unanimous for this particular resolution and the athletes that we
are recognizing today. In fact, I would
hope there will be some way of having a permanent recognition of this, perhaps
a copy of the resolution, perhaps signed officially and given to the individual
athletes in some way, shape or form of recognizing on a permanent basis their
achievements.
I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that, as we head into the
centennial year of the modern Olympic movement in 1996, following, of course,
the refounding of the Olympics, originated, of course, in ancient Greece, I
think very much we should recognize what we are talking about in terms of this
type of achievement, the incredible effort by the individual athletes involved,
by the coaches, by the people who are involved in terms of the sports
federations, by parents, by friends and by whole communities, and recognize
that one of the key tenets of the Olympic movement is that building of
understanding between nations, and that we can compete on the athletic field as
nations rather than the history that we have had, the many cases of strife.
I think that here in Manitoba, a province of one million
people, we probably typify that Olympic spirit, and I think that the
individuals that we are recognizing today typify the Olympic spirit. All those hours, all those cold mornings,
those long practices, and, indeed, as the Minister responsible for Sport (Mr.
Ernst) pointed out, the fact that many athletes often have to train away from
home for considerable periods of time.
In a small province like Manitoba, it is a tremendous
achievement that we were able to send the athletes we are recognizing
today: Susan Auch, Michael Ireland, Sean
Ireland, Terrylinn Johnson, Brita Hall and Wayne Bauche to the Olympics and the
Paralympics.
I think the fact that the Olympic spirit is so evident here
in Manitoba is indicative of the strength of this particular province. We can all be very, very proud of the six
individuals we are recognizing today and the many who aspire to it. I must admit that when I drive my kids to the
hockey practice or swimming practice‑‑I think in the back of every
parent's mind there is some sort of dream that they might achieve the same
accomplishments of the athletes we are recognizing today. I know my son and daughter must have the same
sort of dream, and that is what we are talking about today, those dreams and
the fact that these six individuals have shown that dreams can come true. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La
Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the seconder of
this resolution to congratulate all six Olympians and to tell you a little bit
of the contact that I have had with one in particular, and that is Terrylinn
Johnson.
I had the honour of attending a function in Steinbach, at
which I spoke on behalf of the honourable minister, the Honourable Albert
Driedger, and the province, congratulating her for her efforts in the
Paralympics in Lillehammer.
Mr. Speaker, at the time I was sitting on the platform
waiting for my turn to come and speak, I was looking at our Olympian of the day
and thinking back when my children were in school and competing in different
competitions.
One in particular was judo, and I can remember my wife
literally down on the floor beside the mat cheering on her boys and almost
screaming. I was thinking to myself,
just at that moment, looking down at her family, and thinking indeed if they
had been there cheering her on, and I am sure they were.
It made me feel good, and I just want to assure our
Olympians here today that we indeed are proud, very proud to have them as role
models for our youth, and we wish them the very best in the future. Thank you.
* (1740)
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and also recognize
the six athletes who are sitting up there.
It is indeed a personal pleasure for me because I know one of them, and
I have known her brother and her family.
In other words, I am referring to Brita Hall who is sitting
up there today, and it is indeed a pleasure to have this opportunity to pay
recognition. Her brother and my son went
to school a few years ago in the same school, played on the same hockey team.
So I want to pay recognition to their contributions to
making Manitoba and Canada a better place for us all to live. I know that they receive a lot of personal
satisfaction from their accomplishments, and that they are the pinnacle of
thousands and thousands of young people who participate in athletics for the
purpose of participation and enjoyment.
As other members have said, it certainly makes these young people better
citizens of our province and our country, but I think it helps break down the
barriers of tension that exist between different countries of the world, and
athletics has been a tremendous way of doing that.
I just want to add my congratulations, as all members of
the House here, to these individuals who symbolize thousands and thousands of
young people who work hard to have fun, make their parents feel proud, make
their country feel proud, and become better citizens in the process.
If those young people who get into trouble, had they had
the opportunity to do some of the things in terms of athletic participation,
maybe they would not have got into the trouble they have in society.
On behalf of the people of Springfield, to the Hall family
and all the athletes, I want to send my congratulations for a job very well
done. I know I watched the Olympics this
past year with a great degree of pride as to what Canada did in terms of its
accomplishments. We have got better and
better over the years. We are a
relatively small country, yet we have an ability to compete on the
international scale and it is important that we continue to do that.
As the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) said, this is a
very unique occasion when all members of this House agree on a particular point
of view, and that I am very proud to be a part of.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, sincere congratulations
to all the athletes and those who will follow.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
resolution? [agreed] As has been clearly indicated by all members of this
Legislative Assembly, we are proud of each and every one of you, so our
congratulations to all of you.
Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns and stands
adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).