Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).
We have been asking for the last number of days for studies that the government might have about the credibility or continuity of service with home care privatization, the quality of service, the cost, any study that they might have. Yesterday, when we cited Dr. Shapiro, the Premier did not respond to the question but rather attacked the personal credibility of Dr. Shapiro.
I would like the Premier now to apologize to Dr. Shapiro and indeed put some studies, some research and some independent studies before this Legislature that all Manitobans can look at in terms of the policy of this government to privatize a publicly run, publicly operated and nonprofit home care service in Manitoba.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if anybody should apologize, it should be the honourable Leader of the Opposition for accusing the Premier of attacking the credibility of Dr. Shapiro, when I was the one who discussed those matters yesterday, not the Premier (Mr. Filmon). At no point did I say anything about Dr. Shapiro’s credibility. There are credible people on all sides, I suggest, of many issues, and time arrives when there is a disagreement. That does not mean that in any way I would have done a thing like that. Indeed, the services of Dr. Shapiro in Manitoba have been much valued over the years.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the Premier does not have the integrity to apologize to Dr. Shapiro for his comments in the hallway yesterday that were false.
An Honourable Member: . . . the ruling was just about the use of that word.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Doer: On a point of order, are you going to call the Premier to order, Madam Speaker, for heckling during the question?
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, on a ruling which you just tabled the day--
Madam Speaker: On a point of order?
Mr. Filmon: Yes, on a point of order. On a ruling that you just tabled the day before yesterday, you called into question the use of the term “questioning the integrity of the member.” The member opposite has just repeated that phrase, and I wonder if you would examine whether or not that is in accordance with the rules of this House.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order, the honourable minister indeed does have a point of order. Those words that were utilized previously were deemed in a ruling to be unparliamentary. I would caution all members to exercise courtesy and careful choice and discretion of all words.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, to pose his second question.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am totally disappointed when the Premier makes false allegations against an individual, that he would not have the courage to apologize as any Manitoban should and provide a leadership position.
I would like to ask the best contingency plan on home care--
An Honourable Member: You have been making a career on false allegations.
* (1030)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Once again, I would ask for the co-operation of all members to treat each other with respect. When a member is on his or her feet to pose a question, they deserve and demand as much respect as those on their feet to respond to a question. It takes co-operation from both sides of the House and I have asked repeatedly--and I have also been made aware on several occasions that the public does not appreciate the interruptions and the inflammatory comments that are passed from one side of the Chamber to the other.
The honourable Leader of the official opposition, to pose his second question.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The best contingency plan, we believe, for the government is to remove their ideological blinkers and not privatize home care and end this potential strike situation. However, the government has proceeded with a privatization initiative and they are releasing information on a contingency plan.
I would like to ask the Premier, what is the contingency plan in terms of its impact on elective surgery in the province of Manitoba and on the issue of panelling patients for personal care homes?
Mr. McCrae: A couple of points, Madam Speaker. If apologies are in order, honourable members opposite, including the honourable Leader of the Opposition, ought to very humbly apologize to the people of Manitoba for not standing up for the clients of the Home Care program.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to the minister’s response to the question which bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the specific question posed by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the contingency plan and the lack thereof by this government, and I would ask you to refer to Beauchesne where ministers may refuse to answer questions, but if the minister is going to go off on tangents, he ought to be called to order.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, the honourable member for Kildonan indeed does have a point of order. I will quote Beauchesne Citation 408(2), page 417: Answers to questions should not be lengthy, contain argument or debate and/or provoke debate.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: In his preamble, Madam Speaker, the honourable Leader of the Opposition spoke about apologies. I am responding to that and saying that an apology is indeed due on the part of honourable members opposite to the home care clients of this province for failing to stand up on their behalf against those who might withdraw services from them.
Madam Speaker, the honourable member made a point about an ideological or philosophical sort of position. It is my understanding that at the bargaining table the union representatives themselves have made the point that for them this is a philosophical issue.
Madam Speaker, for me and my colleagues on this side of the House it is an issue of delivering quality services to the clients of the Home Care program.
Mr. Doer: The minister did not answer the question. He has not tabled any studies; he has not got any reports.
I want to table a letter that has been delivered by his department and the government of Manitoba to rural hospitals and personal care homes wherein they talk about restricting elective surgery and suspending the admissions to personal care homes and the panelling of such patients.
I would like to ask the government, are we not going to be spending an inordinate amount of money in this ideological battle by the government to privatize without any study, without any indication at all, Madam Speaker, and would it not be better for the government and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to listen to David Martin, to listen to the seniors, to listen to the clients of the home care providers and put their plans to privatize on hold as the best contingency plan that the province could have in terms of home care services in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, we have repeatedly said that it would be our wish that the contingency plan upon which we have been working would not be something that would need to be resorted to. But failing the support of the honourable members opposite for the clients of home care in this province, failing their participation with their friends in the union movement to tell them to stop all this foolishness, which they did not do--they refused to stand up for the clients of home care--we have to have a contingency plan and we have one which will be made known at the appropriate time.
Life Saving Drug Program
Status Report
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, Pharmacare changes that have been brought in by the government with literally no consultation have virtually destroyed the Pharmacare program that was built in this province for the past 20 to 25 years.
Madam Speaker, because there was no consultation, the implementation of this program has been suffering from severe problems.
Can the minister specifically outline today--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to refer you to Beauchesne 409(1) that says the question must not be an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation nor debate; (2) says the question must be brief, their preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence and, thirdly, a supplementary question needs no preamble.
Perhaps you could, Madam Speaker, look to those rules as well.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe if you will peruse Hansard, you will see that this was a preamble that is in order. The problem is that the minister is sensitive to the nature of the question. That is the only problem here. Our member was entirely within order.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the government House leader’s point of order, indeed I will take this under advisement, and I will peruse Hansard to address the two issues he has raised relative to the question being posed.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, to pose his question, please.
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister of Health advise the House whether or not the Life Saving Drug Program, a special program designed to deal with very severe situations concerning drug costs and patients, whether that program is being continued or in fact that program is being melded into the new so-called government Pharmacare program?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, those Manitobans who are enrolled in the Life Saving Drug Program are--I guess the word is--grandparented. The new people coming forward for Life Saving Drug assistance will qualify under the new Pharmacare program which provides maximum assistance to those on low income and provides similar services or, in some cases, enhanced assistance to people in those circumstances.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the Minister of Health outline the reasons why the government has decided to cancel the Life Saving Drug Program, a specific program dealing with AIDS patients, chronic patients, severe patients, who suffer from the most severe and debilitating illnesses, why they have chosen to cancel that particular program?
Mr. McCrae: A number of features in the new Pharmacare program are an improvement over what we had before, Madam Speaker. Those who require assistance the most are getting more assistance in the future. There is no co-payment once you have reached your deductible, and if you are at a low income level your deductible is not beyond 2 percent of your income.
So there are a lot of improvements, but the main feature of the new Pharmacare in Manitoba is that those who need the most assistance get the most assistance. Those people are usually people who are on low incomes or people who require large amounts of prescription drugs.
* (1040)
Deductible
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Health explain why, we understand, there is a hundred dollar deductible that is being applied on the program and in fact the former Life Saving Drug Program, which was given to the very sickest and the very worst in our society, was completely free and had no deductible?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, it is an extremely egalitarian approach that has been taken with respect to the new Pharmacare in that we are saying that anybody whose income is under $15,000 should not have to pay more than 2 percent of their income for prescription drugs. If you happen to have an income over $15,000, then you should not have to pay more than 3 percent, which is an extremely fair and appropriate way. It falls into line with everything the socialists opposite have been asking for all of these years. We have basically said, yes, some of those principles are the proper ones to apply in a publicly funded drug assistance program, and so I do not really understand where the honourable member is coming from. He wants us to treat some people unfairly, I guess, and I do not agree with that.
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Because of the direction this government is taking in the province of Manitoba with respect to home care services and the way in which they are going to be delivered, a great deal of the workforce, home care service workers, have been greatly offended in terms of the treatment that this government has delivered. As a result of that treatment, we are looking at a strike that is going to occur. As a result of that strike, our hospital institutions are going to be expected to pick up the slack, opening in excess of 300 beds. There is going to be a cost to that.
My question to the Minister of Health is, are the hospital institutions in the province of Manitoba going to be financially compensated because of the direct costs that are going to be put onto them as a direct result of this poor decision made by this minister?
Mr. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Well, I guess I should not reserve my criticism simply for New Democrats because, frankly, I have not heard too many expressions of concern from the honourable member for Inkster for the welfare of the clients of the Home Care program in the face of a threatened walkout by home care attendant staff, people who provide services, very, very important services to home care clients, who are considering turning their backs on those people. I have not heard the honourable member for Inkster implore Peter Olfert or anybody in the MGEU not to carry out that course of action.
The honourable member talks--or some people talk about his potential leadership. This is a time for leadership, and where is the honourable member for Inkster when it comes to working with people in unions who are talking about removing services from some of the most vulnerable people in Manitoba?
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Health, will he show some leadership in the Department of Health and make the commitment or guarantee to financially compensate the hospitals for having to take in potential clients--after all, the clients are our first concern--and not have to rely on our hospitals or our institutions to have to come up with the funds internally under their current operating funds?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, if the honourable member means what he says when he says that the clients are our first concern, where does the honourable member for Inkster stand on the MGEU and their members suggesting removing their services from these vulnerable people? Where does this honourable member stand when it comes to standing up and providing leadership for elderly and frail people in our society?
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is a question of leadership. My question then goes to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province.
The Premier, in the report that was just tabled today, indicates that Manitoba lotteries and gambling are up in terms of revenue in the last third quarter. Will the Premier allocate lottery dollars, if necessary, to financially compensate our hospitals because there is going to be a direct increase of costs? It is not fair for Manitobans, for the patients of Manitoba, to have to be penalized because of a bad decision from this government. Will that commitment for additional resources go to our hospitals?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I have told the honourable member that we will accept our responsibility to have a plan should the union carry out its threat.
But I still ask the honourable member--who has never said where he stands, and surely Manitobans, this man wants to be the Leader of the Liberal Party, are entitled to know where this honourable member stands when it comes to the clients of the home care system--does he support a walkout or does he not?
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, just so that the minister can sleep better tonight, I stand behind the clients.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster does not have point of order.
Collège Jeanne Sauvé
Parent Forum
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My questions are to the Minister of Education.
We understand that tomorrow there is going to be a parent forum in Portage la Prairie at Yellowquill School, and we commend and welcome meaningful consultation with parents in the community. Our concerns are echoed by many parents and people involved in education reform.
I wish to table a letter from the parent council committee from Collège Jeanne Sauvé parent council in which--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose her question.
Ms. Mihychuk: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker, thank you--in which the concern is raised.
My question to the Minister of Education is, what is she going to do considering that the president of the parent council has indicated that for meaningful, for true parental involvement, more lead time is required than 12 days to consult with the public and parent--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): This forum has been in the planning for certainly more than 12 days. I will read the correspondence here to see what the member is referring to, but it has been well known for some time that a parent forum was in the offing, and certainly 12 days ago is not when we started planning this conference.
I will read the concerns here and try to determine what this particular situation is and why this anomaly appears to be here. I will get back to the member after I have done that examination.
Ms. Mihychuk: I would like to hear, and so would the parents of Collège Jeanne Sauvé, the minister’s response. I quote from the letter that--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for St. James that on supplementary questions there is to be no postamble. Would the honourable member for St. James please pose her question now.
Ms. Mihychuk: My question is, how does the minister respond to the statement that the registration form for the parent forum is offensive and that the questions asking respondents to identify if they have family members involved in the education system appear to be a way to screen participants? As parents, are our views not valued? In a truly democratic state, is not the possibility of open discussion an important goal?
* (1050)
Mrs. McIntosh: I hope that I will be given an opportunity to answer each of the points raised in that fairly lengthy series of questions just put forward.
I should indicate, first of all, that reading this letter, I have seen this letter before, and the member put very misleading information on the record just a few moments ago when she said that this council had received only 12 days notice. They got their invitation on March 1. So to say that, as she did state categorically on the record that this parent group had received only 12 days notice when in their own letter to me they indicate that their invitation arrived on March 1 for a forum taking place April 13, was a very, very misleading, one would say almost fraudulent statement that she just put on the record.
Madam Speaker, that correction having been made, I will also then indicate--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like the Speaker to remind the honourable minister that Beauchesne 417 says that “answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate” and, as well, that the word “fraudulent” has been ruled unparliamentary, and she is calling this parents group fraudulent, which is clearly unparliamentary. I ask her to withdraw.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order, I would remind the honourable member for--oh, on the same point of order, the honourable government House leader.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.
Firstly, with respect to the acting opposition House leader’s statement, Madam Speaker, I think, if you check the time, you will find that the minister’s response was shorter than the member’s question.
Madam Speaker, secondly, with respect to the use of the word “fraudulent,” the opposition House leader clearly used that word just the other day and you ruled it parliamentary. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order by the honourable member for Burrows, the honourable member for Burrows indeed does not have a point of order. The stopwatch was running. The minister had not consumed the time allocations that were agreed to by House leaders in numerous meetings, and the word “fraudulent” indeed was used by the opposition House leader and it was ruled not to be unparliamentary unless it referred specifically to an honourable member.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, to quickly complete her response.
Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. With regard to the main concern of the question--there were several questions, I will only get to answer two of the many she asked. With regard to the second one, we did not screen out any participants. Every person who applied to come has been accepted. So there has been no screening out of participants, as the member alleges.
Madam Speaker, the only reason we are trying to categorize what background people may have in terms of education is to make sure that when we put our groups together for group discussions, we have a good balance of people and backgrounds for more meaningful discussion. There is no evil intent as she tries to imply.
Ms. Mihychuk: Just for the record, it says they received--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I again draw your attention to Beauchesne Citation 409(2): A supplementary question needs no preamble.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, indeed the government House leader has a point of order. I cautioned the honourable member for St. James previously on her second supplementary question, and I am now pleading for a third and final time for co-operation in complying with our rules.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, to pose her question now.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Education: Will the minister promise this House to release the summary from these forums and make it an open public discussion, or will we have to go and use Freedom of Information to get the forum results?
Madam Speaker: Order, please. One question.
Mrs. McIntosh: I should indicate, Madam Speaker, I will try to give two answers, one to one of the many questions she asked in her first, and one to the one she has just asked now.
The member may not realize that while the invitation went out March 1 for an April 13 public forum and we had asked people to get back to us if they could by the nineteenth, we did extend the deadline and all of those applications were still being received, Madam Speaker, up until last week. We did extend the deadline just in response to the very kinds of concerns that these parents raised. So they called, they wrote, they indicated they had a concern. We extended the deadline to accommodate them. The member should do her research a little more carefully before she embarrasses herself by asking the question.
Madam Speaker, there is no need for them to go repeatedly to Freedom of Information on a number of these issues. Of course, this is a public forum; there will be a public summation ready at the end of it.
Post-Secondary Education
Tuition Fees
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I also have questions for the Minister of Education. In Estimates last year the minister indicated that a tuition fee policy would be announced in September 1995 and would take effect this September in ’96. Last week the minister said she would be announcing a tuition fee policy within a few days. Can the minister tell us, in light of tuition fee increases announced at the University of Manitoba of, in some cases, as high as 15 percent, when Manitoba university students can expect the government’s tuition fee policy?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, we have been dialoguing with the presidents of the universities--the student council presidents, that is--and in all likelihood next week sometime the member should be hearing some indication of that review, and the students will certainly be participating and we will have the details of that. We are just waiting for certain people to all be together at the same time.
I should indicate as well, of course, that the student fee increases will be offset by a 10 percent refund, a 10 percent tax credit, that students will be able to access. Any student who pays a tuition will be able to get a refund of 10 percent on that tuition at income tax time, and it is tied to what they pay, not to what their income might be.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister see a correlation between increased tuition fees, decreased student financial assistance and declining enrollment, which has meant a loss of revenue to the University of Manitoba alone of $1 million this year, and will this be reflected in the tuition fee policy?
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, in the last round of questions, I tried to answer the several questions that were asked when one was supposed to be. Here I will try to answer just the one in recognition of your frustration with the rules wanting to be held to.
I indicate that students--now I have forgotten the question. [interjection] Oh, do I see the correlation? Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, we indicated, as the member knows, that in the last couple of years we have had a tuition fee cap of 5 percent which has held tuitions to that. With the new decisions made by the University of Manitoba and our 10 percent learning credit, the net effect is still for those high-cost faculties such as Medicine, et cetera, that it will still be as if a 5 percent cap was imposed. Indeed, for students in Arts and Science, they will actually be ahead of the game because a 10 percent refund on a 5 percent increase actually leads to a reduction for them. The correlation we see--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, you have admonished this side on numerous occasions about the length of questions. The length of question from the member was very precise and very accurate, and the minister as is her wont is going on and on, and I ask you to call the minister to order.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, I have been advised by my table officers that indeed the honourable Minister of Education had exceeded the time for her response to the question. So the honourable member for Kildonan indeed does have a point of order.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson, to pose a final supplementary question.
St. Boniface College
Funding
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Merci, Madame la présidente.
La troisième question est pour le futur du Collège Saint-Boniface. Je voudrais que la ministre explique pourquoi ce gouvernement coupe du Collège Saint-Boniface 50 pour cent sans consultation avec les gens du Collège, alors que ce gouvernement avait l’information sur les réductions du gouvernement fédéral avant son budget.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The third question concerns the future of St. Boniface College. I would like the minister to explain why this government has cut 50 percent from St. Boniface College without consulting the college, when the government had the information about the federal government’s reductions prior to its budget.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I appreciate for you Fridays must be--that word that we have all learned we are allowed to say in the House recently.
Madam Speaker, the member asks a question on a very serious topic and one about which we are extremely concerned. We have not cut our provincial funding to St. Boniface College. We have not taken one red cent of provincial money out of St. Boniface College. We are funding St. Boniface College to the same extent that we always did.
Unfortunately, the federal government has drastically reduced its OLE transfers to St. Boniface College specifically. When the members opposite said the other day that we are always whining about the transfer cuts, this is one of the very real impacts of OLE cutting. We just simply cannot keep backfilling federal cuts of this magnitude. I, hopefully, will have communication from Sheila Copps this afternoon in response to my plea to her in March, and we will be in consultation with them to try to get the federal money back for St. Boniface College.
Charities Endorsement Act
Regulations
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs. As the minister knows, The Charities Endorsement Act has no regulations and there are very few guidelines governing the operation of charities in Manitoba.
I would like to know if this minister plans to introduce any regulations governing the act and whether he will develop some specific guidelines.
* (1100)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, the answer is no.
Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the same minister, has the department investigated events such as the charity-sponsored luxury boat cruises in which the charity receives very little and the so-called celebrities receive more than four times as many benefits as the charity does?
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, we have received no complaints in the department with respect to the issue that the member raises, but I will investigate and advise.
Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask the same minister when he is investigating such practices, would he establish guidelines to make sure that the product being endorsed is of good value, not sold at an inflated price and that the return of the charity be substantial and not a nominal amount?
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I will take under advisement the comments of the member.
Mining Industry
Inspection Program
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Tragically, yesterday, James Girard died in a fall at the Rea gold mine in Bissett. Since 1993, this brings to six in total the number of miners that have died in mine accidents.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour tell the House what actions his government is taking to increase mine inspections and enforcement since the current system is clearly not working?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for that question. As the House knows, it is the important function of the Department of Labour to consistently monitor safety and health in this province, and we are in fact monitoring and investigating all accidents, including this one. I do not want to speak specifically about this particular accident, but it is being investigated and appropriate action will be taken.
Mr. Reid: Given that the current charges in the trial that is now taking place only occurred after we released copies of the Department of Labour information summary sheet--and I will table, again, copies of this information. It was raised by my Leader, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), and that was the only time that the Minister of Labour and the department acted. Can the minister give a single example of increased inspections and enforcement that has occurred since 1994?
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the statistics are very clear, that in respect of time-loss accidents and deaths the rate continues to drop in Manitoba. But that is no excuse; there is never an excuse for any accident that can be prevented.
In the 1970s mining was one of the most dangerous occupations in Manitoba, and it has a lower loss-time accident rate now than many sectors which have not gone up in the meantime. So the mining sector in fact is becoming one of the more safer industries in this province. It is due to the policies implemented by this government, my predecessors, and it is a tradition that I am proud to continue in.
Fine Increase
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Since the number of fatalities in the mining industry continue to increase, can the Minister of Labour indicate to the House what action he is prepared to take to increase the amount of fines that his department would levy against any accidents where parties would be found guilty of breach of the act, since the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) herself now is increasing fines for such matters as speeding tickets? Will the--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): What I would like to indicate to the House is that in some sectors, in some industries, prosecutions are very, very important and are necessary. We find, however, that in many provinces where they have adopted a very aggressive prosecutions policy, the issue of safety becomes bogged down in the courts.
The important thing is to move in a multifaceted way to ensure that safety is assured in the mines. We do not want to see any more accidents. We are continuing on a trend of less accidents in the mining industry. I do not know where the honourable member is getting his figures, but we have been improving our mining inspections and that has resulted, along with the internal responsibility system that we have in the mines, in a lower rate than in prior years when the honourable members were in power.
Women’s Resource Services
Funding
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) was unequivocal in assuring the House that she had and would protect the lives and interests of abused women. Yet, even as she was voicing her commitment, agencies funded by Family Dispute were receiving word that their operating budgets were being cut by 2 percent.
Will the Minister of Family Services confirm that indeed women’s resource centres, second-stage housing, shelters, community-based organizations which offer services to abused women and their families have suffered cuts to their operating budgets?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I indicated very clearly yesterday that the support through our social allowances program will not be changed for women that are in abuse shelters. They will indeed be receiving the same amount of resources.
I think, if you will look through the budget and had listened very carefully to the Minister of Finance’s (Mr. Stefanson) Budget Address, that there were reductions in operating grants throughout government around the 2 percent range, and the detail around any changes in funding in the Department of Family Services can be discussed in full detail through the Estimates process.
Ms. McGifford: Will the minister explain to the House how she expects these agencies to continue their work when many of them now have waiting lists of over one year; staff who are worked to the bone and indeed who may now have to consider cutting service because of the loss in their operating budget?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I do want to indicate that we as a government have taken very seriously the issues around zero tolerance and support for women, children and families that have experienced abuse situations. We have increased considerably over the time we have been in government the funding for shelters and for support for women and children in these circumstances, and we will continue to make it a high priority.
Health Care System
Funding--Rural Manitoba
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): In the 1995 provincial election, the Conservative party promised not to cut funding to health care. Now that you have been re-elected, you have cut $53 million out of hospitals alone. You broke your word.
How much of this $53-million cut will come from rural hospitals?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member may not remember this, but just recently the budget came down, and that part of the budget that will be appropriated for health services is 33.8 percent of the--
Mr. Struthers: Answer my question, Jim. I asked--
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member does not want to hear this because that is a much greater commitment to health care than has ever been demonstrated by the New Democrats in this province, 33.8 percent of spending. They were in the neighbourhood of 31.5 percent of spending on health care. Am I not going to conclude that the New Democrats had no commitment to health care? No, I am not going to say that, but it certainly was not as great as ours.
Mr. Struthers: The Minister of Health did not answer my question. He does not have the courage to tell--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin, to pose a supplementary question.
Mr. Struthers: Since the minister has no plan for these cuts, how can he assure rural Manitobans that our hospitals can afford the kind of hit he has in mind for our hospitals?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. We have very few minutes left.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member’s constituency is not very far from New Democratic Saskatchewan. He may want to slip over to Regina for a little while and chat with his New Democratic colleagues over there who have closed 52 rural hospitals, Madam Speaker, and find out how New Democrats in Saskatchewan feel about that. Then he can come back to Manitoba and attempt to defend that approach. That is not the approach we take in Manitoba. Our approach is to ensure that the health services that people need are available.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, to quickly pose a question.
Regional Health Boards
Appointments
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, people across rural Manitoba and, in particular, the Parkland are very concerned with the way this government has appointed their regional health boards.
I want to ask the Minister of Health whether he recognizes the concerns in the Parkland, both in Winnipegosis and in Grandview, that they have not had appointments in those areas where there are hospitals. Will he use his power--those two seats that he has--to cover those areas off to ensure that those people are represented on the regional health board, which will be making the decisions for all parts of the Parkland?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Yes, Madam Speaker, we do recognize the concern; and, yes, we are working to attempt to alleviate that concern.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition with close to 1,100 people from the Winnipegosis region requesting that those positions be filled. I would ask the minister if he will also encourage the board to recognize the need for aboriginal representation on the boards, which has not been recognized in the Parkland and in other parts of the province.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.
The honourable Minister of Health, to quickly complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, with the leave of the House, I could--even though the clock has run out, the question did get asked, and I am quite prepared to answer it.
The honourable member will recall that she wanted the time for nominations extended because nobody knew about it. It was advertised throughout the province, and in no region were there more nominations than in the Parkland Region. So we can only wonder why the honourable member made that demand.
Nonetheless, we were disappointed in the response from aboriginal organizations in terms of getting nominations out there. They did not make very many nominations, and that is a problem for us. I met recently with some chiefs with respect to this matter, and we have addressed it--or we talked about it. There are concerns because a number of aboriginal people agree that their relationship ought to be with the federal government and that the responsibility for services is that of the federal government. So, for a variety of reasons, there were very few nominations, but I, again, share the honourable member’s concern, Madam Speaker.