LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, May 13, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Committee of Supply
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.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND
TABLING OF REPORTS
Emergency Preparedness Week
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister
of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I have
a ministerial statement.
Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the administration
of The Emergency Measures Act, it is my pleasure to advise the House that at
two o'clock today I will proclaim the forthcoming week, May 15 to May 21, as
Emergency Preparedness Week in the
The establishment of an annual Emergency Preparedness Week
has been identified as a most cost‑effective means of creating public
awareness respecting improvements to protection of life, property and
environment which can be achieved through effective emergency planning.
Emergency Preparedness Week will be held annually during
the third week in May, which coincides with the anniversary of the cresting of
the Red River in
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the United Nations declaration
of '94 as the International Year of the Family, the theme for Emergency
Preparedness Week '94 is Family Emergency Preparedness. Booklets and brochures
have been published in both official languages to provide guidance in family
emergency planning. Copies of these
publications have been distributed to all members of the House and are being
made available to the general public through the Manitoba Emergency Measures
Organization.
* (1005)
Further, with the assistance of Manitoba Education, the
Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization has developed an emergency
preparedness activity for students in Grades 4, 5 and 6. This activity, called the School Report Card,
will be implemented in many
Mr. Speaker, in November of '80, the mandate of the
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, just a few words on the
statement dealing with Emergency Preparedness Week.
We wish the government well on their work in this
area. Obviously, it is an important
government role, to provide for the provincial government to work with the
federal government and defence forces and other civic forces to have an
appropriate response to emergencies.
There is still concern, Mr. Speaker, about how we utilize
the floodway in flooding situations in the city of
We wish the government well. We think it is an all‑party issue to
respond to our emergencies but to prevent our emergencies from taking place where
we have that ability, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the area of forest fires and
those kinds of issues. We believe also
that we should have an appropriate disaster assistance program.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
I am particularly pleased with the emphasis that has been
placed on the home and school emergency planning activities. Having taught in schools, and I know there
are a number of others in this room who have done the same, it is very
difficult sometimes to make young people understand within the school
environment that an emergency means they must act and they must act quickly.
The Fire Department has often done a wonderful job in
trying to bring that home to them, but there simply is not that sense of
awareness. That was brought home, I
think, in spades last evening on the news when we watched the number of young
people who have now suffered what appears to be permanent eye damage because
they watched the eclipse without any protection whatsoever.
Children think they are going to live forever. That is why I take particular note of the
decision by the government to emphasize some emergency preparation experiences
for young people so that perhaps their sense of their own longevity will be
brought home to them. But if they are
not prepared for emergency, then they can in fact suffer the consequence of not
having been prepared for that.
So a preparation of a young person to know how to access a
school or a home is a positive thing and for that I congratulate the
government.
* (1010)
Addictions Foundation of
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): I am tabling today Supplementary Information
for Legislative Review for 1994‑95 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for
the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.
Department of Urban Affairs
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Urban Affairs): I am pleased
to table Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the 1994‑95
Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Department of Urban Affairs.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention
of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this morning from
the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this morning.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
The
Operating Losses
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
Pursuant to the agreement signed by the Premier in November
of 1991 in which he recommended to his cabinet and had subsequently approved
his cabinet dealing with the Jets hockey team and the operating losses, we have
asked the Premier on at least two occasions in the last two weeks what would be
the projected losses to the hockey team and therefore the projected liability
for the Province of Manitoba as a 50 percent participant in the operating
losses of the team along with the City of Winnipeg.
It was reported of course to all of us yesterday that the
projections the city has is for between $7 million and $8 million for this
current year, for some $14 million for the next hockey season which is in this
current fiscal year of the government's budget and for some $20 million the
year after that.
I would like to ask the Premier, does he now have his own
numbers and own figures for the operating losses of the team, and can he share
those numbers with the members of this Legislature?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not, as the city does
not. The city, as I read and understood‑‑the
figure that was quoted is based on no increase in revenues for the Jets, and I
think those of us who are season ticket holders know that the Jets have already
put through an increase in the cost of the tickets for next year.
Secondarily, there is much discussion about additional
revenues from an ABC contract and perhaps pay‑per‑view and other
things that may click in for next year.
In addition to that, on the cost side, it is based on a
worst‑case scenario anticipating some massive increases in the costs of
signing various players. At this point,
one can only say that it is a speculative figure and not the basis on which one
would do their actual planning for the purposes of taxation and/or budgeting,
Mr. Speaker.
I could not do anything other than indicate that this is
the speculative position that the City of Winnipeg has taken as a worst‑case
scenario, and we are waiting for actual figures from the hockey club before we
commit anything to paper.
* (1015)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier indicated in his
Estimates that they had taken numbers through Treasury Board to cabinet prior
to cabinet approving the operating losses of the hockey team. Our phones are ringing off the hook. I am sure members opposite are having the
same phenomena with the projected operating losses of the hockey team. Yet, six weeks to the so‑called
deadline, we still do not know what the status is going to be of the team, the
arena, the ownership of the team which the Premier has talked about.
Can the Premier indicate to us what is the best‑case
scenario for the losses of the team over the next two years? How will this best‑case scenario fit
with the option of the government that they have stated that they may look at
purchasing the team which would cost $16 million, and then, of course, on top
of that, there would be this best‑case scenario of the operating losses of
the team? Can the Premier indicate what
our liability is on this matter in terms of the Legislature?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, our liability is to accept one‑half
of the losses of the Jets subject to approved budgets for the remainder of the
agreement, which covers potentially an additional two years. If, of course, the team, in passing the June
30 deadline, is able to be sold and transferred out of
I think that most Manitobans would prefer us to continue to
work towards a long‑term solution that would see the continued operation
of the Jets hockey club with minimal investment on the part of governments or
the taxpayers, and we have continued to talk in terms of only looking at some small
investments in the establishment of a facility in Winnipeg that would be a
facility utilized by the public for many purposes, including the Winnipeg
Jets. That continues to be the
situation.
We do have, because of the agreement though, an option to
be able to either purchase on a short‑term basis for transference to
other private ownership or nominate other private owners to purchase the Jets
at a fixed price that is in the agreement, and that might be a vehicle by which
we can transfer ownership into other hands that are willing to invest
considerable money.
But all of that takes considerable time, and even with the
best work of people who are very active in the financial community, who are
involved with the Burns committee, it is difficult to put together a package
that may involve hundreds of millions of dollars ultimately.
They are working steadfastly on that. We continue to support their work as the best
effort to try and transfer that club or strengthen that club with additional
private investment and keep it in Winnipeg, but in the final analysis, if it is
not possible to do so because private sector money is not available, we have no
interest in the long‑term operation of a hockey club with taxpayers'
money.
I have said that all the time, and I repeat that
comment. It would only be utilizing the
option and utilizing our power under the option to effect a transfer that would
get us involved, and it would only be on a short‑term basis.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the government in
the sense that we want to have a hockey team with minimal investment from the
public, but it does not sound to the public that we are having a minimal
investment when we have numbers like $14 million for next year, $6 million to
$7 million for this year, $20 million two years from now.
We do not have a guarantee that the hockey team will stay
here. We do not have an asset in terms
of a new arena. We have six weeks to go
before the Burns report is allegedly going to be prepared for us, which is
almost six or seven weeks past the due date that was set by the
government. We had an agreement in
November of 1991 that had all the same objectives that the Premier just
mentioned in this House in the same agreement that he took to cabinet.
So the question becomes, when does this government expect
the Burns report and will the taxpayers get any relief in terms of the
recommendations the Burns committee will make?
Will they get any relief from covering the operating losses of a hockey
team which do not give us a hockey team for the long term, do not give us an
asset and only just give us losses and liabilities from this Legislature?
* (1020)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I would correct a number of
statements the member is making.
Firstly, as long as they continue to operate in Winnipeg,
the Winnipeg Jets, according to third‑party evaluation done by different
chartered accounting and consulting firms‑‑these repeatedly
indicate that the Jets are responsible for approximately 1,400 jobs, an
economic benefit in the range of $50 million annually and direct taxation to
three levels of government annually of $14 million. So it is not that there is nothing coming,
that we are getting nothing out of having the team remain here, even during this
period of time in which we are responsible for one‑half of the
losses. That is the benefit, in addition
to whatever other benefits people see, from the operation of a professional
hockey club here in
In terms of having said that nothing has changed, that is
true. That agreement was signed in 1991
as a short‑term measure of maintaining the Jets here until a decision
could be made.
We are now getting to the crunch point of having to make a
decision, and we will have to collectively as a community. Not just this provincial government, but the
City of Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba and all its citizens will have to decide
whether or not whatever is the best proposal that comes forward is worthy of
our support and consideration.
If it is not, because if it does involve too much
involvement by the public sector in supporting the continuance of that
franchise here, then we will all have to say we cannot afford to keep them
here, and we are not willing to put in any additional money to maintain them
here.
At the moment, they are maintained here for the purposes of
giving us the opportunity to make a long‑term decision, and they do
contribute, as I said, $50 million to the economy, 1,400 jobs and $14 million
of direct taxation revenue for every year that they stay here, so that is the
other side of the coin while we are awaiting the final decision that we have to
make collectively.
Police Informants
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (
Judge Newcombe has prepared an 84‑page document on
the use of police informants by the City of
My question to the minister is, has she received and
reviewed the Newcombe report, and has she discussed its contents with the City
of Winnipeg police department to ensure that the incident which led to
Manitoba's, I think, lengthiest and probably costliest trial will not happen
again, so we can get on with a new era of policing in Winnipeg?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, in fact the jury just announced its
verdict yesterday, so my department and I will now be reviewing exactly what
has come forward from this particular case that has been before the courts, and
then we will take action following that.
Mr. Mackintosh: My supplementary question is, has the minister
received and reviewed the City of Winnipeg police department's 1992 policy and
procedures on how officers are to deal with informants, and is she satisfied
that informants will not be able to rip off the taxpayers of Manitoba again, so
that we can deal effectively with the role between informants and officers in
the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member is speaking about
some of the process of a case which has just had its verdict announced by the jury
yesterday, and we have to have a look at exactly what was delivered within that
verdict and, also, then have a look at what may flow and what may follow from
the results of this case.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I remind the minister that the new
policy and procedures were put in place in 1992.
My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As the minister responsible for justice
across
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, it is always my intention to
make sure that the policing across
I continually work with police officers across this
province, and meet on a regular basis with senior officers to ensure that
policing issues are being dealt with in the most effective way. We will continue to do that also.
* (1025)
The
Operating Losses
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Premier. Eleven days
ago in the Executive Council Estimates, the Premier indicated that once the
expansion payments ceased‑‑this is with respect to the Winnipeg
Jets‑‑the team would likely be in a loss situation. He was speaking about the discussions around
the time he signed the agreement with Mr. Norrie and the majority owners. He goes on to indicate: "The magnitude, I do not think we ever
had any absolute assurance on, but certainly we recognized that there would be
losses after a certain period of time."
My question, Mr. Speaker:
When this matter went to Treasury Board, given those comments, there
must have been some range of possible losses that the government considered,
worst case and best case, and there must have been some range as to what those
losses could be. Surely the government
would not have signed that agreement without having some information on that. We have now received the City of
Can he share with us what those estimates are, were, what
his best estimates are today, Mr. Speaker, so that the taxpayers can know what
the potential for losses, which will be paid for by this government, are?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I think it is safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that
the experience that we have had up to date, and I guess this is the fourth year
of the agreement, I believe, that we are currently in‑‑1991‑‑we
are into the '94‑‑in any case, we have had three years of
experience. The losses and the costs
within that period of time have been within the range that we projected at that
time.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister also went on
to say: "As well as cabinet
approval, the projections were all based on best available information with
respect to the projections of increases in salaries." So there were projections.
Can the First Minister tell us what those projections are
for future years?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we have information available‑‑I
do not have it at my disposal at the moment‑‑but we would prefer to
deal with the actual budget, because the budget process‑‑the club
is limited to being at the top of the lower third of teams in the league in projecting
its costs this coming year. So that
means that out of 24 teams, they could spend no more than the eighth lowest
team in the league.
That is a process that will be overseen by the interim
steering committee, and in that process, they will obviously be taking into
account actual expectations of salary renewals and agreements. I would much rather deal with actual figures
as opposed to putting out for public debate any assumed figures, on the worst‑case
scenario, on speculative numbers. I do
not think that is a responsible way for us to deal with serious decisions by
fueling speculation.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have called them,
the First Minister has called them, projections. That is what they are. But the people of this province, I think,
want and deserve to see what those projections are.
I have a final question for the First Minister. There is speculation amongst a number of
councillors at City Hall that the $5‑million entrance fee originally paid
by the Winnipeg Jets hockey team to enter the NHL‑‑they have only
been paying interest on it thus far, and now they are starting to pay off the
principal as part of their operations, which of course ends up being paid for
by the taxpayer.
Does the First Minister have any knowledge of that
particular allegation which has been coming out of City Hall this morning? Is the First Minister aware of whether or not
that is accurate, and can he comment on those allegations that are being made?
Mr. Filmon: I have no information on that speculation and
will be happy to look into it on behalf of the Liberal Leader.
* (1030)
Social Assistance
Single Parent Families
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has
had the single parent family report since November of 1990. It is an excellent report. It contains 30 recommendations in four
categories. Of those, 12 would have a
beneficial effect on the income of single parents living in poverty, 60 percent
of whose families are headed by women living under the poverty line.
Can the Minister of Family Services tell single parents
living in poverty, headed by female heads of households in
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question for my honourable friend and
indicate to him that we have had consultations throughout the width and the
breadth of this province dealing with the issue of sole‑support parents
and our ability to move them off the welfare rolls into productive or
meaningful training or job opportunities.
I want to say that the meetings have been very
positive. We have brought together the
private sector, the service providers and members of the volunteer community who
have indicated that they want to take a more active role in providing support
to some of the most vulnerable and needy Manitobans in our community.
I am very pleased with the consultation process that has just
taken place and has ended, and we will be moving very quickly along with the
federal government into specific pilot projects that will indeed provide
additional supports and building of self‑esteem for those young women in
our community.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, single parents living in poverty
in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for Burrows, with your
question, sir.
Mr. Martindale: Can the Minister of Family Services tell us
how many jobs will be created as the result of the single‑parent project,
her sole‑parent project in co‑operation with the federal
government? How many individuals will be
moved from social assistance into paid employment?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are working very actively with the federal
minister and with a working group at the federal level to put forward our plan
and our proposal for pilot projects in the
Those discussions are ongoing, and we have been working
very diligently both at the federal and the provincial level. I have high expectations that the federal
government will be extremely supportive of the proposals that
Mr. Martindale: The minister fails to answer the question.
How many individuals will be moved from social assistance
into paid employment as a result of this program, the main features of which
are a seamless service accessed through a single wicket and a single
application assessment process?
There are no goals regarding jobs, but there should
be. Will the minister tell the House how
many individuals are going to be moved from social assistance into paid
employment as a result of substantial amounts of money spent on this store‑front
program?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I know not what the member
opposite is reading, because the proposal has not been put forward yet. So if he has a paper or a document‑‑there
has been no proposal put forward to the federal government.
We are in the process of doing that right now. We are looking forward to strategic
initiatives money from the federal government.
That might be his policy, but there has been no proposal put forward yet
to the federal government.
Legionnaires' Disease
Department of Labour Involvement
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, two cases of legionnaires'
disease have been confirmed at
I want to ask the Minister of Labour if his department was
contacted about these cases. Is there a
record of the calls with the Department of Labour, and what was the result of
the Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health Branch investigation of the source of
this virus?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as
notice, and when I have the information, I will bring it back to the member and
to the House.
Indoor Air Quality
Testing Program
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, since this incident and the
illness is preventable by testing indoor air quality, can the minister confirm
that he has eliminated the indoor air quality testing program from his
department, and can he explain any rationale for this very unsafe move?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, The Workplace Safety and Health
Act very clearly indicates that the owners or operators of a workplace have a
responsibility to ensure that the workplace is safe, including the air quality.
So the responsibility is certainly there, and it is the
responsibility of the Department of Labour to ensure that where there are
complaints, they are met, that proper information is provided to owners and
operators of workplaces to ensure that they comply with the regulations in the
law.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday was the day to
recognize ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, two other illnesses exacerbated by
sick building syndrome and poor air quality, and I know that schools and other
workplaces are calling the department to ask for inspections on indoor air
quality, can the minister explain to the House what he and his department are
doing with these requests that come forward for inspections?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, with respect to specific
requests, I will ascertain what specific steps our staff are undertaking.
I would point out to the honourable member for Radisson
that it was this administration some years ago when the Department of Education
provided a certain fund, made certain dollars available for the improvement of
air qualities in schools, and steps were taken to ensure that where we had
problems, dollars, resources were provided to correct them. I am aware of a number of schools that took
advantage of this program.
So this is an area this government has been concerned with,
and it continues to work on this particular issue.
Health Care System Reform
Status Report
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the 14th of May, marks
the second anniversary of the government's document, Quality Health for
Manitobans: The Action Plan. In his remarks during the unveiling of the
plan, the former Minister of Health outlined what he said would be his
government's vision for the reform of the health care system in
My question for the current Minister of Health is, how does
he explain to the people of
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the honourable member
for Crescentwood calls our attention to the quality Action Plan with respect to
our health system in
If the honourable member would prefer that we use the
system used by New Democratic administrations or Liberal administrations in
eastern
Home Care Services
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the
minister. The former Minister of Health
clearly indicated there would be a shift from institutional services to
community care services and that we would see an increase in support and home
care services to help avoid people being institutionalized.
Can the Minister of Health tell us why we have not seen any
expansion in home care services and, in fact, we have seen a reduction‑‑home
care services.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Just to remind the honourable member that we
have opted not to use the approach, for example, used in places like Nova
Scotia, which has a Liberal government, where they have announced today the
closure of three hospitals and 29 further hospitals downsized‑‑
An Honourable Member: The Premier was here to speak to their annual
meeting in
Mr. McCrae: Oh, I understand the Premier of Nova Scotia
was a keynote speaker at the Liberal annual general meeting here in
* (1040)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, we know that
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I will remind the honourable member this is
not a time for debate. Now, the
honourable member for Crescentwood, with her question.
Ms. Gray: Can the Minister of Health explain to this
House why there has been a reduction in home care services, as opposed to an
expansion, because that is what the people who receive home care want to hear
about.
They do not want to hear about
Mr. McCrae: A member has defended the closure of three
hospitals in Nova Scotia and the downsizing of 29 more on the basis that they
had a high bed rate, and I say to the honourable member, tell that to the
patients in those hospitals and tell that to the workers who have to be laid
off in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, over the last six years in
Health Care System
Funding
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the new minister
has fallen into the same trap the old minister fell into of accusing the
opposition of creating all of the chaos in the health care system, when it is
their own failure of their own policies to put in place community‑based
services that has caused the difficulty.
My question to the minister is, since it is not only the
second‑year anniversary of the government's failed health reform plan, it
is also the year anniversary of Connie Curran, will the minister advise this
House where the additional $100 million that they have now said will come out
of the health care system, out of the hospital budgets‑‑where out
of each hospital budget is that money coming?
What are the community services to be put in place to replace that $100
million that is coming out of the hospitals?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, speaking of Connie Curran, do
the honourable member and his colleagues know who is now the chief executive
officer of the Canadian branch of the Connie Curran company?
Well, it is the person who sat around the table with the
member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman), the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), the member for Concordia (Mr.
Doer), and I do not know who all else over there as they ran the government
here in Manitoba.
He is the person who presided over the closure of over 5,000
beds in the
No, Mr. Speaker, we will not accept the policies of the New
Democrats, which is to cut great gobs out of our health care system and throw
hundreds and perhaps thousands of people out of work. We will not do that.
Mr. Chomiak: Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will answer
the question, because obviously the Minister of Health is unable to.
My supplementary question is, can the government explain
why they have continued the user fees for home care equipment, why they have
cut services in home care and why they are not revealing where the $100 million
in cuts to hospitals is coming from?
Mr. McCrae: Since the honourable member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans) raised the question several weeks ago‑‑they
keep flogging this dead horse using a figure, a mysterious figure which is speculative
at worst and mischievous at best.
Honourable members opposite use speculative figures rather than real
ones when they are talking about the future of health care in
But I do say, we are using a phased approach to the reform
of our system. We are shifting from
acute care to the community in a phased and organized way. We are providing high quality services to
Manitobans so that we can have outcomes.
We are not measuring the value of our system by the number of dollars
that go into it or the number of beds that are in it or the number of people,
but by outcomes.
We will continue to use that approach in the provision of a
sustainable health care system for generations to come.
Mr. Chomiak: This government's health reform plan has been
totally phased out.
My final supplementary to the minister: Can the minister explain the comments of the
head of MHO, who said that somehow there are some things on pause. The pause to layoffs and the pause in some of
the $100‑million cuts are sitting on the desk of the minister.
Can he explain what the status is of that so‑called
pause?
Mr. McCrae: On the one hand, we are told we are not
moving fast enough, and now I guess we have had a major conversion on the part
of the honourable member for Kildonan because he sees the error of his
colleagues' ways to the east of us and to the west of us. Now he wants to know how the pause is
working.
I should tell the honourable member that I felt it was
appropriate to have a good hard look at what we were doing in health care
reform in
We are not going to go and close whole hospitals like they
are doing in
We are not going to do it that way, Mr. Speaker.
Chief Medical Examiner
Investigation/Review
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (
Several days ago, I raised the question about admissions
made by the Chief Medical Examiner, putting in doubt whether suspicious deaths of
Manitobans were in fact even reviewed by the Chief Medical Examiner in 1990 and
1991 to see if inquests should be held.
My question is to the minister. What inquiry has the minister ordered into
this matter?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
have asked my department to begin looking at exactly what has happened, to
speak with the Chief Medical Examiner and, in addition, to speak with others in
the department to look at exactly what has occurred, under what authority that
occurred, and to make sure that we have a full explanation. Following that full explanation, I will then
make a determination.
Mr. Mackintosh: A review by the minister's department is
unacceptable to Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, a review by her department of her
department.
My question is, will the minister now order a fair
independent inquiry into this serious matter?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, I will first of all
gather the facts. Following having the
facts being gathered, I will then make a determination of any further action
required.
Mr. Mackintosh: My final supplementary is, can the minister
assure this House that the presigning of reports by the Chief Medical Examiner
has not continued since 1991? Will she
follow the proper course of action when there are fundamental questions about
the conduct of her department and order an independent fair inquiry?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the member
exactly what I will be doing. These
allegations and issues arose during something unrelated to an examination in
the department. I have now determined
that my department will investigate what came up during the course of another
hearing, that we will get the full background and then make a determination
with all of the facts before us.
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, we do not have all of the
facts.
Foster Care
Long‑Term Placements
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Family Services.
Two weeks ago, our caucus learned from an April 1994 policy
directive that the foster care rates for extended family care were to be cut to
$10 a day, and we raised our concerns for the aboriginal community.
These rate reductions will also apply to foster care rates
for children in permanent home placement.
My question to the Minister of Family Services is, does she
not see a problem with a funding policy which discourages the placement of
children with extended families and which works against permanency planning for
foster children, when we know that a stable long‑term care arrangement
provides these children with their best hope for growing up into healthy, well‑adjusted
adults?
* (1050)
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does allow
me again to put on the record the increased support of over $6 million that we
have in the child welfare system this year, in this year's budget. I look forward to getting into the detail
with her of what those major increases will hopefully accomplish, with a new
vision for child welfare in
Mr. Speaker, I believe the dollars that are within the
system will be redirected and reused so that children do not have to
necessarily be brought into care in the future to receive the supports they
need, to try to keep the family unit together.
I am thoroughly convinced that working along with Winnipeg
Child and Family Services, we have a new vision for a new way of doing business
in our child welfare system.
Fee Schedule‑‑Negotiations
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary: In advising foster parents of the reduction
of the rate to $10 per day, department officials are telling foster parents
that the rate is to be negotiated and will be subject to contractual agreement.
My question to the minister: If foster parents are willing to accept the
reduced rate for a child in keeping with this present policy, will the minister
guarantee foster parents that if there is change in the child's or the family's
circumstances, that the $10 rate can be negotiated back up to a reasonable
rate?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, what I indicated in the past and I will iterate again today is that
indeed we believe that $320 a month tax free for the basic needs for children‑‑and
that is shelter and clothing‑‑is an adequate amount.
Mr. Speaker, the money will still be in the system, and
more money will be in the system so that we can put additional supports around
children. Should the need arise, we can
put additional supports around that foster family unit. We can put additional resources around the
natural family unit so that we can keep children in their homes and try to
provide the best service possible in the best interests of the children.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Ducks Unlimited Waterfowl Celebration
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Gimli have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to share with the members
of this House some information regarding the Second Annual‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: What is the problem? Order, please. It is the honourable member for Gimli who has
asked for leave to make a nonpolitical statement, and it is only the honourable
member for Gimli.
Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, I wish to share with the members of this House
some information regarding the Second Annual Ducks Unlimited International
Waterfowl Celebration. This special
celebration will be held this Saturday, May 14, and Sunday, May 15, at Oak
Hammock Marsh and at the towns of Selkirk and Stonewall.
At Oak Hammock Marsh, the event takes place at the
Conservation Centre and surrounding area where the program on each day includes
more than 25 activities. For example,
there are a wide range of different conservation exhibits. There are wildlife art and wildlife
photograph displays, carving displays, a decoy carving show, wildlife calling
demonstrations and a competition, retriever demonstrations, a fly fishing
display, a wildlife film festival, an exhibit of butterflies and moths from
around the world and a natural history book exhibit.
The variety of special events for youngsters include
ecological games, nest box building, as well as waterfowl silhouette colouring and
face painting. The program starts at 9
a.m. and concludes at 5 p.m.
The marsh life posters submitted by youngsters from all
over
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all members of this House
and all Manitobans to come and participate in this very special celebration
this coming Saturday and Sunday.
Thank you.
The Winnipeg General Strike
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, May 15 is an important
anniversary in the history of workers, organized labour and
In April 1919, the building and metal trade unions in
The Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council then conducted
referendums with its member unions on a general strike.
At seven o'clock in the morning of May 15, 1919,
The main issues in the strike were the right to bargain
collectively, reasonable living wages and decent working conditions. Since 1919, there have been great
improvements in wages, and laws have been enacted governing minimum wages, the
health and safety of workplaces, and collective bargaining has been recognized
as a right.
Today, we pay tribute to the courage and tenacity of the
workers and union leaders who, in May 1919, took collective action to fight for
the rights of all workers. While they
were not immediately successful, we, their successors, were, and we owe them a
debt of gratitude.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable government House leader, what
are your intentions, sir?
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Before we get into
Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I do have a few items of House business which I
would like to confirm.
Firstly, the Committee on Public Accounts will meet Monday,
May 16, at 10 a.m., to continue their deliberations of the 1993 Auditor's Report
and Public Accounts.
On Tuesday, May 17, the Committee of Public Utilities and
Natural Resources will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the 1993 Report of the
Manitoba Telephone System.
On Thursday, May 19, the Public Utilities and Natural Resources
committee will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the 1993 Report of the Manitoba
Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.
On Tuesday, May 24, the Public Utilities and Natural
Resources Committee will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the 1993 report of the Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation.
On Thursday, May 26, the Standing Committee on Economic
Development will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the 1993 report of the Communities
Economic Development Fund.
On Tuesday, May 31, the Committee on Public Utilities and
Natural Resources will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the 1993 report of the
Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.
On Friday, June 3, there has been agreement amongst House
leaders that we will consider condolences on that day.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to Orders of the Day, would you call for second readings of Bills 4, 5
and 9, and following that, the bills as listed under Second Readings on the
Order Paper, Bills 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10.
SECOND
Bill 4‑‑The Energy and Consequential
Amendments Act
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 4, The Energy and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'énergie et
apportant des modifications corrélatives, be read a second time and be referred
to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this
bill which will replace outdated legislation and provide for the introduction
of regulations governing minimum energy‑efficiency standards or codes.
Bill 4 outlines the role and functions of the Energy
ministry and provides the authority for carrying out the responsibilities
assigned to the department and to the minister.
Once enacted, Bill 4 will clarify and reduce energy‑related
legislation by repealing The Manitoba Energy Council Act and The Manitoba
Energy Authority Act. Amendments will
also be made to The Manitoba Hydro Act.
The Manitoba Energy Authority Act was introduced in the
late 1970s when no Energy ministry existed.
With the establishment of the Department of Energy and Mines in 1979,
the majority of the authority's responsibility related to energy planning and
policy development were provided through the department.
The authority was primarily used as a vehicle to negotiate
extraprovincial power sales and to encourage the development of energy‑intensive
industry. The authority was discontinued
in 1992. With the passage of this bill,
the legislated role of the authority to negotiate and approve transactions for
exporting or importing electricity will be left with Manitoba Hydro. This will be accomplished by the
consequential amendments.
Section 12 of the bill repeals the section of The Manitoba
Hydro Act which requires the approval of the Manitoba Energy Authority for all
extraprovincial power negotiations.
Approval for future extraprovincial transactions will be by Lieutenant‑Governor‑in
Council. Mr. Speaker, this was the
situation before 1980.
In addition, developing and co‑ordinating contingency
plans to deal with possible energy shortages will be the responsibility of the
Energy department. Promoting and
encouraging energy‑intensive industry in
* (1100)
In the absence of an Energy ministry in the 1970s, the
Manitoba Energy Council was passed which provided for the appointment of an
energy council to provide advice on energy matters to the Minister responsible
for Energy. When the Energy department was
established in the early 1980s, the council's role was gradually reduced and it
was last active in 1987. Bill 4 will,
however, enable the minister to appoint an advisory committee to respond to any
energy matter on which the minister may wish to have public consultation or
advice.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide enabling legislation
for implementing and enforcing regulations concerning minimum energy‑efficiency
standards or codes for products which use energy or products that affect the
use of energy.
Bill 4 is intended to provide a mechanism to prevent
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell this House the bill will
also require the development and use of energy resources in
In closing, I wish to state the primary reason for
introducing Bill 4 is to establish the Energy ministry as the responsible
agency for energy planning and policy development, particularly on energy
supply and demand issues. The bill will
introduce, for the first time, enabling legislation to implement regulations
for end‑use energy efficiency in keeping with the principles of
sustainable development. The bill is the
result of considerable discussion by representatives of government departments,
and I commend the efforts of all those who have been involved in its
development.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the support of this bill by every
member of the House and look forward to their comments.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 5‑‑The Highway Traffic
Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training
(Mr. Manness), that Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route et apportant des
modifications corrélatives), be now read a second time and referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce
Bill 5 amending The Highway Traffic Act, The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act, and The Off‑Road Vehicles Act.
There are two purposes for introducing this bill. The first is to implement a new system of
providing Autopac services to the citizens of
One of the most significant features of the corporation's
business plan is the introduction of staggered vehicle registration and
insurance renewal periods in place of the current fixed renewal date of March
1. For individual motorists, the new
registration period will be determined by using the registered owner's birth
date plus an offset of some months. The
result will be 365 possible renewal dates per year. Introduction of staggered renewal periods is
an extremely positive innovation from every aspect. It will reduce the financial burden felt each
year during the traditional Autopac renewal period. It will eliminate customer line‑ups and
smooth out customer flow for Autopac agents thus allowing for better public
service. It will also enable Manitoba
Public Insurance to administer the renewal process more efficiently.
Another component of the business plan is the daily
proration of fees and premiums. At the
present time fees and premiums are assessed based on a system of monthly
proration. This means the vehicle owner
must pay for an entire month when the vehicle is registered or deregistered
during any part of that month. With
daily proration fees the premiums will be assessed in accordance with the
actual number of days the vehicle is registered in that month.
There is one more component of the plan I know that members
would be interested in. This is a
transfer‑of‑ownership document.
The transfer‑of‑ownership document introduced a new level of
consumer protection for the vehicle purchaser.
It will provide potential purchasers with better assurance of the
credibility of the seller and the accuracy of the odometer. Every person registering a vehicle will be
issued this document in conjunction with the vehicle registration card. It will describe the vehicle and the owner,
or owners, who have the right to sell this vehicle. When the vehicle is sold, the owner must pass
on the transfer‑of‑ownership document to the new owner. The owner must also indicate the vehicle's
odometer reading at the time of the sale on the ownership document. The new owner will be required to produce a
transfer‑of‑ownership document, along with the bill of sale, at the
time of vehicle registration.
We are very pleased to introduce these amendments which we
believe will lead to a significant improvement in the way vehicle insurance and
registration of services are delivered in Manitoba.
The second purpose for introducing this bill is to ensure
the admissibility of the register of motor vehicles records as evidence in
court. Last July the Manitoba Court of
Appeal declared the registered records inadmissible because of the use of
preprinted letterhead containing the registered signature. Amendments contained in this bill correct
this legal technicality.
I look forward to discussing the details of this bill in committee
and urge all members of the House to quickly move this bill along to
completion. I will, Mr. Speaker, also
tell the members opposite that I will supply the spreadsheets as soon as I have
them available. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 9‑‑The Convention Centre
Corporation Amendment Act
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I
move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 9, The
Convention Centre Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
Corporation du Centre des congrès, be now read a second time and referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
* (1110)
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for
second reading the bill entitled The Convention Centre Corporation Amendment
Act.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is primarily for
housekeeping nature. The Board of
Directors of the Winnipeg Convention Centre and the City of
Mr. Speaker, I will like to take a few minutes to describe
each of the amendments.
The first amendment, Clause 6(1)(b), will allow the
Winnipeg Convention Centre Corporation, with the approval of council, to make
short‑term banking arrangements in which amounts not exceeding the sum of
$250,000‑‑I would like to indicate that when the act was enacted on
July 20, 1972, the amount of $100,000 for short‑term banking arrangements
was reasonable in relation to the operation at that time. Due to the growth and the magnitude of the
present Convention Centre operation, short‑term cash flow deficiencies
have occasionally occurred when hosting major events.
This proposed amendment will facilitate ongoing cash flow
requirements of the present Convention Centre operation.
The second amendment is to increase the board of directors
from 13 members to 15 members and to specify the following: term of councillors, term of directors,
incomplete term of office, maximum consecutive years of service, reappointment
after a period of absence, transitional staggered terms of appointment.
Mr. Speaker, these amendments will facilitate a more
effective and timely rotation as well as ensuring continuity of directors of
the board of the Convention Centre Corporation.
In addition, the maximum years of service by directors on the board, the
reappointment of directors after a period of absence from the board, and
transitional measures will now be clearly specified.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would expect that these are
noncontentious issues with respect to the amendments, and there ought to be no
difficulty on the part of honourable members supporting this bill; at least, I
would hope not.
I would recommend the bill to the honourable members of the
legislature for their consideration and adoption. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 2‑‑The Prescription Drugs Cost
Assistance Amendment and Pharm aceutical Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 2, The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance
Amendment and Pharmaceutical Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide à
l'achat de médicaments sur ordonnance et la Loi sur les pharmacies, standing in
the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
The Liberal Party has been on the record for some time as
recognizing the need for reform in our health care system. We have also been on the record as saying that
one of the ways in which the health care system needs to be reformed is to move
from the dependence on acute care to home care service delivery.
We need to philosophically change our attitudes so that the
health care system is directed not just to illness care but to wellness
care. An integral part of keeping people
well, keeping them healthy, is the insurance that they get adequate drug
therapy when they need adequate drug therapy and that that drug therapy be
considered part and parcel of the health care system.
What has been happening over the last few years is the
removal of a number of drugs, even those which formerly were covered by
prescriptions, from coverage by our Pharmacare system. The reason for this determination has
presumably been a cost‑saving measure; however, I would suggest to the
government that it does not always work that way.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
In the case of senior citizens, when they no longer have
adequate coverage for their drugs, many of them choose not to take those
drugs. The ramifications of them not
taking those drugs is that they then find themselves back in a health care
system, back in a hospital situation, which is far more costly, I would suggest
to the government, than had they been continued on a drug therapy program.
The cost of prescription drugs for many people is far too
high. We know the changes that have been
made by the
It has always amazed me that we fail to recognize, as a
society, that it is the working poor who are often among the most disadvantaged
in our community. Social assistance
rates, although certainly not as high as many of those families need, often put
families in a better position than families who are working, because with low
minimum wage laws we have a situation in which those people who have to live on
minimum wage frequently find themselves in a decision. I am speaking most particularly about single
parent mothers who find themselves in a position of having to choose whether
they continue to work or whether they go on social assistance because in some
cases the social assistance benefits are better than the benefits they were
receiving from remaining as a working parent.
What also hits them very dramatically by living on low
wages, as a result of their gainful employment, is that their health care
benefits are diminished. Drugs are covered
if they are on social assistance. Drugs
are not covered for many of them when they are low income families; low income
because they have chosen to be gainfully employed and to not exist on the
social safety net provided by the province and by the federal government.
When drugs are delisted, these families are very adversely
affected. This time of year, for
example, for many families is a particularly difficult one, because if their
children are asthmatic, if their children are subject to a variety of
allergies, the allergens tend to be at their highest. As the pollens begin to bombard us, those who
suffer from allergies, particularly allergies to pollens and grass and weeds,
find that they have difficulty breathing.
They are frequently subjected to severe nasal congestion.
Most of those drugs are not covered. I think it might shock some of the members if
they went to their local drugstore to discover the high cost of many of those
drugs which are not covered. If those
children, and if adults who suffer from the same type of allergen, do not treat
themselves adequately, if they do not keep the antihistamines in their system,
then many of them will find themselves in hospital. They will find themselves in emergency rooms,
on inhalation treatments, necessitated because they had not provided themselves
with adequate care.
The cost of emergency, the cost of inhalation treatment, in
a hospital for just one of these children is far greater than the cost that
would be covered under prescription drugs.
We must change our philosophical orientation and recognize that if we
are genuinely interested in the reform of health care, then we must also be
interested in what should be covered by prescription drug legislation.
* (1120)
It concerns me, when I see sections of this bill dedicated
to "The minister may make regulations." I am referring to Section "9(1.1) The minister may make regulations (a)
specifying drugs and other items in respect of the cost of which benefits may
be paid."
Well, that is part of the present act. The result of that present act has been more
and more drugs have been deleted, have not been added‑‑they have
been deleted. The implications of that
on the health system are very negative.
They are negative for the treatment of the patient. But more importantly in terms of the fiscal
arrangements of this government, they are more costly.
Therefore, I would have liked to have seen in this bill a
recognition that prescription drugs are not a luxury. Prescription drugs are a part of the
treatment system; prescription drugs are a part and parcel of necessary reform;
prescription drugs are a part of wellness; prescription drugs are, in fact,
cost‑effective in allowing individuals to remain outside of the acute
care hospital system in many instances.
The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment and
Pharmaceutical Amendment Act does provide, we hope, for a long‑awaited
efficiency of the system. This party is
on the record‑‑and I mean this party, the Liberal Party in Manitoba
is on the record in 1988 as supporting the concept of a Pharmacare card whereby
people could, once they had reached the maximum benefit that they had to pay,
they would be then afforded the opportunity to pay only the minimum, they would
be given their prescription, and it would be the pharmacy who would then, in
turn, bill the government.
We knew this would be cost‑effective. We knew it would be efficient, the government
has admitted to that, and here we are in 1994, some six years later, and we are
still waiting for those efficiencies in the system.
Those efficiencies must be found. The formulation of a smart card, the
formulation of an ability to ensure that people do not deny themselves their
drug medication because they cannot afford to pay the 100 percent, when we know
they are going to get a rebate, must be provided for and as soon as possible.
The other difficulties that people find themselves in, and
have found themselves in, are those who have not submitted their forms soon
enough. Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, in the
normal course of events, clearly people should be efficient about their filing
of claims, but there are always extenuating circumstances. There are circumstances in which there has
been a death in a family, and which the family left behind is not perhaps
working at its most efficient and therefore does not claim their benefits as
quickly as perhaps they might.
Surely there must be some discretionary power used and
employed by the minister so that when there are extenuating circumstances and
when it is clear that there are extenuating circumstances that there are not
these callous letters back from the Department of Health saying your deadline
was April 30, and you did not submit in time for April 30 and therefore you do
not meet the requirements. That
certainly should be applicable to most cases.
There should be an onus on the patient to submit quickly and
efficiently, but there must be the leeway so that the government can act in a
more compassionate manner. The
discretionary power should be left with the minister. I do not see it in this particular
legislation, but I hope that the minister will take my words and perhaps put it
in the legislation in order to provide him at this moment, but others, with that
discretionary power for the extenuating circumstances that do exist.
With those comments, Mr. Acting Speaker, I leave the bill
standing and hope that others will also bring in amendments to this legislation
to make this legislation effective and efficient legislation and responsive to
the needs of the citizens of the province of Manitoba.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has this
bill standing in his name, and I want to indicate that we are prepared, we will
be prepared, to expedite as swiftly as possible the passage of this particular
bill, although we recognize that the critic for the Liberal Party also wants to
speak, and there may be one or two members of my party who wish to comment on
this bill. But, in general, of course,
certainly in theory and in philosophy, we would like to see this bill go to the
committee stage to allow for public input and to allow for discussion of some
of the aspects of this bill. Like the
other two parties in this House, we supported, by way of resolution in the last
session of the Legislature, the provision of a Pharmacare card, the provision
of a PHIN card in order to assist the people of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, the government's record in terms of reforming
health reform is not a very favourable one.
The performance of the last several years leaves a lot open to question
and to challenge. But I think that the
introduction of the Pharmacare card, which was recommended by all political
parties in this House, is a very positive step forward. We certainly have some concerns with respect
to the introduction of something as complicated and as innovative as this card
will be, and that is why we would like the matter to go to the committee stage
in order to allow for comments from the community and comments from experts and
specialists in the field to determine the bugs and the debugs and the flaws in
the introduction of the card.
We welcome it for many reasons. First and foremost, it will result in people
not having to go through the archaic procedure of submitting their forms and
having them come back in my mail and all of the steps that are involved in the
old system, Mr. Speaker, the old technology.
We have access now to expanded technology, to communications that will
allow people to have instant access to not only their prescription drugs, to
not having to put money up front. It
certainly has been a problem with those on fixed incomes, and people that have
very exorbitant drug costs have to put the money up front and then wait for the
return of their funds from this system.
So we certainly welcome that.
There have been concerns expressed to us about the whole
question of the protection of privacy, and these are very real concerns. That is one of the reasons why we would like
to hear expert opinion and hear discussion from the public concerning the whole
question of privacy.
As we move into new and expanding technologies, Mr.
Speaker, we are clearly in some cases in uncharted waters, and we must go forward
with caution and with prudence in order to ensure that we do not jeopardize the
privacy and we do not jeopardize the confidentiality of those involved in the
system. This is a classic example of a
new technology being introduced, and the technology and a process being
introduced which has the potential for difficulties in terms of communications
of information regarding privacy.
I reviewed the comments of the minister, and I was pleased to
see that the amendment to the act was developed with the assistance of the
Consumers' Association of Manitoba, the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the
Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, the
* (1130)
Having said that, we are also very pleased because, as I
recall, from my readings of Hansard, one of the former colleagues, Mr. Jay
Cowan, spoke of this card in the introduction a long time ago in this Chamber
in 1988, I believe. I know that there
has been resolutions in this Chamber since then, so we are very pleased that we
are proceeding with this.
Although I understand that there are bugs in the system,
and they are being worked out, because I was under the impression that the card
was to be in effect March 1, and I understand it has been moved back to April
1, and now I am not entirely certain of what the start date of the particular
card is.
The member for
The move toward community‑based service is one that
has been long advocated by members of this side of the House, and it is
something that must be put in place prior to the dismantling of the acute care
system and the downsizing of the acute care system. Therein lies the failure of this government
with regard to its health reform plan‑‑the failure to put in place
realistic, meaningful community‑based care and outreach programs prior to
the movement of individuals out of the acute care system. That has been our major criticism, as well as
the criticism of the lack of communications.
As I have posed it to the minister, the problem with the
Department of Health is that it is a monologue disguised as a dialogue. I have mentioned that to the minister on many
occasions and it continues, Mr. Speaker, that the efforts and the movement with
regard to health changes in this province continue to be top down and not
adequately taking into account representations of the community.
That is why we are very interested in this process, the
introduction of this particular bill, The Prescription Drugs Costs Assistance
Amendment and Pharmaceutical Amendment Act because this affords us an
opportunity‑‑and the minister has indicated that there has been
input from the community, Mr. Speaker‑‑to go to committee and to
hear realistic, subjective and objective viewpoints presented by members of the
public and presented in a form that allows us to amend and change where
necessary.
And that may have to take place, Mr. Speaker, because as I
previously indicated, we are venturing into relatively uncharted waters in this
regard, and the one constant that will remain with us will be the constant of
change.
The theory and the philosophy behind this particular
amendment is one that we support. I only
wish that other aspects of the government's health reform had adhered to this
particular philosophy. Perhaps we would
not be in this state that we are in presently with regard to health care in
this province if this philosophy had been adhered to that provided for
contribution of members of the community, that provided for meaningful input,
that provided for a chance to dialogue and that provided for change coming in
once the technology was prepared.
Unfortunately, that has not characterized the government's health reform
to date, and the result has been a real difficulty. If one looks at the area of prescription
drugs, it is pretty clear that there have been changes in this area.
There is no doubt that prescription therapy is, in fact, a
preventative and in many cases one of the areas of health that can contribute
to keeping people out of acute care bed hospitals, Mr. Speaker, and it has been
disheartening to see a movement away from universal coverage under our
provincial Pharmacare program. [interjection] The member for Pembina (Mr.
Orchard) asked me to comment on the question of the generic drug issue, and I
will get to that.
It has been disheartening to see the government move away
from universality in many areas, certainly in home care supplies and other
areas, and it has been disheartening to see the government move away from
universality with respect to our prescription drug program.
There were major changes to the formulary last year, and
one notes that a lot of those changes resulted in real difficulty with
individuals who had been previously under a form of drug therapy and saw their
particular drug delisted, and forced them to either pay the cost or change to
some other type of therapy or none at all, Mr. Speaker. That was unfortunate, and it was a‑‑I
can recall questioning the previous minister in the House on this particular
issue and attempting to have some moderation changed to the policy, but it was
to no avail, and changes did occur that severely impacted on individuals.
Not only did we see drugs come off of the formulary and
prevent and preclude people from having access to this form of drug therapy,
but we have of course seen the government break its promise on Pharmacare on a
yearly basis, which was to, at a minimum, maintain the level at the rate of
inflation, but to increase the deductibles so that individuals have to put more
money up front and to decrease the total amount returned to individuals in this
year.
In fact, we see the deductible increased again. In fact, since the Filmon government took
office in 1988 they have raised the deductible by nearly 50 percent while inflation
has increased by less than 25 percent.
It is unfortunate because it impacts on those who are
generally not well, the sick, and those who can ill afford, both financially
and physically, to bear an additional burden.
We have been critical of this, and it is unfortunate that it has
occurred in the past several years and continues to occur.
So while we are quite positive, philosophically and
otherwise, in our comments with regard to this particular amendment and in
regard to this particular bill, we of course have been highly critical of the
changes made by the government in the Pharmacare program, which has moved us on
the road away from the broad‑based universal health care system that is
so admired in Manitoba and Canada. [interjection] I note that members opposite
on the front bench are encouraging me to discuss aspects of the Americanization
of our health care system or Connie Curran, but I would be loathe to indicate
that even though members opposite would wish me to, because the whole question
of this‑‑we on this side of the House tend to be very positive as
often as we can.
In fact, that is why we have introduced again this year a
bill for The Health Reform Accountability Act, which I am sure members opposite
will support, I am positive. Another one
of the positive aspects is‑‑one of the reasons why we raised the
issue of the private labs and the potential for dealing and increasing the
amount of money available to the public health care system by dealing with this
issue.
I know members support us in our initiative to deal with
these questions and why we have raised many of the issues of the decrease in
service to home care: To put in place
the broad‑based community health care that is so desired and required as
a result of the government's hacking and slashing of the acute care system,
which is why I speak favourably, both philosophically and structurally, with
these amendments‑‑a process and a change that we asked for and
called for in this Chamber. It was
called for unanimously in this Chamber.
That is perhaps one of the better examples of how we can function to
work together to improve our health care system.
* (1140)
But at the same time, members opposite have to be aware
that there are‑‑and that is the difficulty, I am not certain that
members opposite are aware of the flaws in this system, of the failings of the
system. It is incumbent upon us in the
opposition to point out these failings and the flaws in the system in order to
make a better health care system. I know
members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is incumbent upon us in the
opposition to do it, because if they do not hear it from us, they will
certainly hear it from the people who sent us all here, when next we have
occasion to go to the polls.
Mr. Speaker, there are many areas of preventative health
and wellness that the government could put in place with regard to this. This is a small step, but there are certainly
many, many areas. The government has
talked for some time about their healthy child development, and I think they
would have support of this House, all members in this House, on a meaningful
healthy child development.
We know that infant mortality is much higher amongst those
in the low‑income level. We know
that low birthweights are a major factor based on socioeconomic
background. We know that these must be
dealt with if we want to have a healthier population, if we want to have a
population that spends less time in these high‑priced acute care
hospitals, that has less need for the kind of thing we are talking about today,
that is, prescription drugs and prescription therapy. So we must have movement on the part of this
government with regard to healthy child development, with regard to wellness.
Mr. Speaker, there were many policy papers that were put
out by the former minister with regard to preventative health care to a
wellness model. Unfortunately, very few
of them have come to fruition, and that aspect of reform, that is, prevention
and wellness, seems to have been lost in the government's single‑minded
attempt to cut costs and only costs. As
a result, that initiative has been lost, and we have been trying diligently in
the Estimates process to have the minister acknowledge this and move towards
this.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
We find that we have basically been stonewalled by rhetoric
and by steadfastness and a refusal to budge and a refusal to move at all in
this regard. It is unfortunate because
that is the way we must go. This is not
a political issue. It is a practical
issue and it is an important issue and it is a philosophical issue. If we all believe that our health care system
should move towards a wellness model, should move towards a preventative model,
then we must undertake real initiatives in this area.
If the government were to launch meaningful initiatives,
they would have the support of members of this side of the House. From the comments, I know, of the member for
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
To return, just in general, to the whole question of
prescription drugs, we also had an interesting experience and an interesting
development this week. Unanimously again,
Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, all parties called on the federal government
to undertake to live up to its commitment in the recent election campaign to do
something about this whole question of the bad legislation brought in
previously concerning pharmaceuticals, the bad legislation that extended the
patent rights on prescription drugs to 20 years, the bad legislation that we
were told was brought in because of GATT or because of NAFTA and which, in
fact, did not have to be brought in, which is probably one of the reasons why
drug prices have gone up so dramatically in this country, which is one of the
reasons why drug prices have gone up so much in Manitoba, which is one of the
excuses given by members opposite‑‑and to a certain extent it is
legitimate‑‑that the costs have become out of hand in the
Pharmacare program, which is why they have justified their cutbacks.
Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the
action should have taken place and should take place at the federal level. The federal government must step in and must
do something about the whole question of this extending of the patent right,
because we know that it is a licence to print money for large pharmaceutical
multinational companies at the expense of the consumer, at the expense of the
people that we are trying to help through this particular amendment and through
the changes to the Pharmacare program.
The unfortunate thing is, the initiatives‑‑Bill C‑22
and Bill C‑98‑‑of the federal government have resulted in increased
costs for Pharmacare drugs. It has had a
severe impact on all the economies, and more importantly, it has had a severe
impact on those requiring drug treatment.
So tangential with this, with improvements to our system to
provide‑‑to improve the system for the delivery of pharmaceuticals
in
We also unanimously agreed this week in this session, by
way of resolution, to call on the present federal government to do something,
to live up to their promise to deal with the issue of this extended patent to
large pharmaceutical companies and to allow for their flourishment and the
advancement of the development of generic drug companies who we all know from
experience and otherwise have enabled us, at one time, to enjoy a better, lower
level of drug cost. So it is comforting
to know that members unanimously passed that resolution this week in the
Chamber.
Now we are dealing with a bill that was a result of a
resolution passed also unanimously last session concerning the introduction of
the pharmaceutical card, the PHIN card or the PIN card, however one wants to
characterize it. That in itself is a
positive step, and maybe that is an example, perhaps. In this era of massive government cutbacks to
the health care system and chaos in the health care system, perhaps there is
some action that we in this Legislature can take in harmony to try to improve
the system for the benefit of all Manitobans.
Certainly, because this bill was unanimously passed‑‑pardon
me, the resolution was unanimously passed, which is the predecessor to this
bill, perhaps it could show the way to the proper development of our health
care system. Because at present with
acute care bed hospitals in the city of Winnipeg and Brandon facing $100
million in cuts with no expansion of home care services, with the introduction
last year of user fees in home care equipment and supplies, with the various
cutbacks, the strains and the stresses amongst the population are very real.
We must remind members opposite that these are very real
people suffering very real difficulties as a result of the changes that the
government has imposed on the health care system. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is not getting
better out there.
It certainly is not getting better, which is one of the
reasons why we called on the government this week to not pay Connie Curran that
three‑quarters of a million dollars still sitting in trust that has not
been paid out to her. We called on the
government this week, do not pay that money out. She does not deserve that money. The health care system, the people of
We called on the government this week to not pay that
money. I still might be hoping against
hope, but I am still hoping that the government will see the light and say, no,
we are going to stop payment of this three‑quarters of a million
dollars. That money could go back into
the health care system and provide meaningful service. It could perhaps expand some home care
programs. It could perhaps result in
more drugs being put on the formulary, could perhaps result in improving the
deductible for Manitobans. That money
could help to expand community‑based care in our community clinics, to
provide nutrition to young mothers and young families.
* (1150)
That three‑quarters of a million dollars waiting in
trust, sitting there just earmarked, Connie Curran, U.S.A, if you would stop
that, if members opposite would stop that, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could use
that money to improve this very system we are talking about, this bill, and
that is the system of introducing the PHIN card.
I know members opposite are encouraging me to continue on
my course of talking about Connie Curran, but I digress, and I prefer to
confine my remarks to the general philosophy of this bill. Frankly, as I said, we are very anxious to
see this bill go to committee, because we are anxious to hear from the public,
we are anxious to hear from the experts in the field, we are anxious to hear
what improvements can be made in this process, because it is a new process, it
is uncharted waters, and I am sure there are suggestions and amendments and
there are changes that could be brought forward that could improve the system.
Let members recognize that this is a significant
change. Let members recognize that by
introducing this technology in this legislation, that access to information,
confidential information becomes a problem and it becomes an issue.
I reiterate, I recognize that many groups have been
consulted, but I suggest that as broadly based as possible advice should be
sought on this bill, because if one is aware of the ramifications of this
particular bill and the implications, if one looks at the implications and the
ramifications of this bill, we should ensure that we consult broadly and we
look at and talk with as many experts in the field as possible.
I had occasion to hear a discussion on Morningside of new technologies
and privacy incumbent upon those new technologies, and I thought that every
time there was in that discussion a suggestion that privacy was assured as a
result of the introduction of a similar kind of technology, there was a
counterargument put forward as to how that privacy could not be assured. So, Mr. Speaker, this area is rife with
difficulties, and I‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, members opposite are encouraging me to use all
of my remaining 12 minutes. In fact, I
hear cries from the back bench to perhaps offer me leave to continue my
discourse, but I do wish to‑‑we should not underscore the
difficulties in this area and we should not underscore the difficulties of the
technological changes and the whole issue out of privacy, and I suggest that
when the technology is introduced, that when the‑‑[interjection]
The member talks about new technology and old technology, and I must add that
in certain cases I utilize old technology.
This area is ripe with difficulty, and I think we are going to have to
be very cautious in the introduction of this process to assure individuals who
may be concerned about the potential for misuse of information and the
potential for loss of privacy and loss of confidentiality regarding this
technology.
Just let me‑‑and this is no criticism, Mr.
Speaker, but just let me cite an example.
Supposing an individual is on, shall we say, an antidepressant or some
other psychiatric drug, there is a stigma.
I think we have to recognize there is a stigma associated with psychiatric
illness and mental illness in general, and it would be interesting to note if
an individual was to receive or was receiving a psychiatric drug they might be
concerned about who was aware of this fact, because it obviously would reflect
upon their‑‑it may reflect upon their competency, even though that
is not realistic. An illness of the mind
in my opinion is really fundamentally no different than an illness of the body.
Nonetheless, one could foresee situations where individuals
might be not as inclined to perhaps approach their druggist or their doctor to
obtain, say, a psychiatric drug or a drug of some kind because of fear that
that information would be made public or could be made public. That is just one example of an area that as
we move in these uncharted waters has to be considered, and that has to be
considered with respect to individuals.
I know that the bill has penalties with respect to the
release of information and has guidelines built in, but I think we have to look
very carefully at the specific government agencies and others who interact with
individuals who may have access to this information.
It is one thing, for example, for the Department of Health
and certain areas and aspects of the Department of Health to have access to
this information, but what happens if an individual, for example, is
incarcerated? The individual is
incarcerated, and we have now introduced the element of the Department of
Justice and Corrections into the equation.
To what extent does that particular department have access to the
information that is contained in the individual's prescription profile or
registry?
I know that safeguards, or I hope that safeguards are built
in in that regard, but these are the kinds of questions that will come up, questions
with regard to Family Services, questions with regard to access to information
from other government officials and from outside officials. One of the concerns expressed in that
Morningside discussion that I referred to previously was the fact that private
agencies have obtained access to a fair amount of information contained in the
new technological area.
The fact that these private agencies had access to it
opened up a whole new area of discussion, and also an area of potential abuse.
I am not suggesting by these comments to indicate that this
will necessarily happen in
So, Mr. Speaker, certainly, as I have indicated throughout,
we are looking forward to this matter going to committee. I believe I probably will be the only, with
the exception of the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), who will make very brief
comments, I will be basically the only member of our party dealing with this
amendment. We look forward to its movement
towards committee, we look forward to the opportunity to scrutinize it in
detail.
And I might add, when it does go to committee, I would
suggest that we be vigilant and spend adequate energy, time and discussion on
this at committee to ensure that the effects of this amendment are followed through
with, because once we are into this technology and once we are into this
development, there is probably no looking back, and if we want to have an
effective program in Manitoba, if we want to build on this program to further
develop the technologies by way of the smart card, if we want to do that then
we must assure ourselves that we are laying adequate groundwork and that we are
establishing an adequate system in place for Manitobans.
When bills and other matters are considered at committee it
is always a very important area and function, but I suggest that with this
particular bill it becomes of greater importance because of the implications,
the long‑term effects and the precedents that can be established by this
bill and by the introduction of this technology.
* (1200)
Mr. Speaker, in general, that fairly well sums up my
comments and I believe most of the comments of my colleagues, and I certainly
thank members opposite for their helpful suggestions with regard to my comments
and the effect of same, and I believe that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
has a few brief comments to put on this bill, and I can assure the House that
that will complete our discussion of this bill at this reading, and we will
look forward to its movement to committee.
I understand that the Liberal Health critic at some future point wants
to put on the record some comments in this regard, but I want to assure you
that that will be our suffice in terms of our review of this bill at this time.
Having put those comments on the record, Mr. Speaker, I
thank you very much.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I will be very brief with my comments, Mr.
Speaker, regarding Bill 2, The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment and
Pharmaceutical Amendment Act.
This is an important piece of legislation, I am sure, for
most Manitobans, and I know it is for my constituents. I have had dealings with several of my
constituents over the last four years with concerns that they have with respect
to the prescription drug costs in our province.
I know I have had several of them come to my office and talk to me about
problems that they have encountered with respect to the government's decision
not to extend the deadline for the refundable monies, and I am talking about the
artificial deadline.
I believe that this piece of legislation will allow the
cost to be immediately refunded to the individuals that are applying or are
receiving prescription drugs through the dispensing pharmacies or agencies, and
at that time it will effectively reduce the immediate costs for the consumers,
for those that need prescription drugs.
They will then be able to go to the pharmacies and receive their
prescriptions or have their prescriptions filled, and at that time they will
not have to pay out of their own pockets the full cost that they would have
done under the current system.
This will reduce their immediate costs and, of course, will
reduce the risk of them losing the refundable portion of the monies for those
that, through either oversight or through personal circumstances, may not have
applied for the refunds by the artificial date that had been in place in the
past.
It is my understanding that there is supposed to be a smart
card that is supposed to be coming, although we do not know when the start date
is for this program or this initiative.
We think that this will increase the opportunities or speed up the
process to reduce the costs for the consumers in the marketplace, most likely
the seniors, the sick and the disabled of our communities that will have to pay
these monies out of their pocket. This
will reduce the cost for them.
I hope that it will improve the service delivery for the
people. I hope, and I look at the
legislation itself, that there is going to be some insurances or some
protections put in place for those that may attempt to issue false receipts or
provide misleading information. There
are also other sections of this legislation that protect information
confidentiality. My colleague the member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has put his comments on the record pertaining to
individuals who may be incarcerated and the problems that might be encountered
there. I am sure the minister would have
listened to those comments, and I hope he will take them under advisement.
The concern that people in my community have as well, Mr.
Speaker, is the 20‑year patent protection and the ever‑escalating
cost of prescription medications in our province. We hope that the federal government will
seriously consider and effectively implement a repeal of that 20‑year
patent protection for the prescription drugs within
The other concerns that came to my attention, Mr. Speaker,
by constituents who have drawn their concerns to my attention concerning
prescription drugs, is the deinsurance of some of the drugs or the delisting of
some of the drugs that the government had previously covered. Of course, this further adds to the costs of
those who require those drugs, and quite often it is the seniors in my
community that are impacted by this decision.
That is an unfortunate decision that the government had
taken last year, and of course, we have drawn that to the government's attention
in the past.
My colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has
indicated that we are prepared to have this legislation move through to the
committee stage and to allow the members of the public the opportunity to come
forward with any concerns or any comments that they might have with respect to
this Bill 2. We look forward to those
committee hearings taking place, to listening to members of the public. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a
matter of House business, there has been discussion amongst House leaders with respect
to sitting next week. I suspect, if you
canvassed the House, there might be unanimous leave to sit on Wednesday, May
18, in the evening from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. and to waive the sitting for Friday,
May 20.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to not sit on Friday, May 20?
[agreed]
Is there leave to sit Wednesday night, May 18, between the
hours of seven and 11? [agreed]
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 3‑‑The Cancer Treatment and
Research Foundation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 3, The Cancer Treatment and Research
Foundation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation de traitement
du cancer et de recherche en cancérologie, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
The remarks that I want to make are primarily about the Cancer
Treatment Centre itself, which provides some very valuable service in this
community and to all of Manitobans. The
fundraising efforts of this foundation which have been, quite frankly,
magnificent in the amounts of money they have been able to bring in, should be,
I think, recognized by the citizens of the
* (1210)
However, there are a number of foundations, the Cancer
Treatment Centre Foundation being one, that go seek from corporations and from
individuals vast sums of money, and it never ceases to amaze me the degree of
generosity that is portrayed by Manitobans when these foundations come to them
and request funds. They literally turn
out their pockets in order to achieve the sums of money they need to remain
viable foundations.
One of the changes that I must say I am absolutely
delighted with in this bill, has been the change in the membership of the
foundation. In the past there has been a
tendency for the governments of the day to appoint large numbers of the members
of the board to the research foundation.
What has happened in this particular amendment is that the individuals
who will now sit on this board come from very specific representative
bodies. The Health Sciences Centre will
have a representative. The St. Boniface
General Hospital will have representative.
The board of governors of the
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Unfortunately we are still left with 10 persons appointed
by the Minister of Health and another seven appointed by the foundation,
subject to the approval of the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council. That concerns me because I think the
foundation itself has a better understanding of the type of individual it needs
on that foundation board than frequently does government. All too often the government appointees, no
matter what the government in power‑‑this is not a criticism of the
present government‑‑tend to appoint people, not because of their
knowledge of cancer, not because of their knowledge of fundraising, which are
the two most important components of the foundation, but because they belong to
the right political party of the day or they represent a favour due and owing
or whatever, and I think that is unfortunate.
It has led to a lack of consistency on the boards, and that is not in
the foundation's best interest.
I think when we look at the very fine work that has been
done by this foundation in the past, and hopefully will continue to do so in
the future, that we should be trying to depoliticize to a greater extent than
what this particular amendment allows for.
I was hopeful, quite frankly, that the balance would have
shifted more dramatically, that instead of seven persons appointed by the
foundation subject to the approval of the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council,
they would now become the predominant number, and that has not happened. Ten persons will still be appointed by the
Department of Health, and that leads itself to the political type of
appointment which I do not think serves this foundation particularly well.
I would ask the minister to reconsider and to change the
mix. I am not suggesting there is not an
interest in the Department of Health for this foundation and that the
Department of Health should not, indeed, have representation. I think they should, but I do not think they
have to have the majority of members on this particular foundation. I would like the government to consider that
and to amend the bill accordingly.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Barrett: We do not . . . .
Mr. Speaker: There is no need for that. Leave has already been granted to allow this matter
to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid). Okay.
Bill 7‑‑The Crown Lands Amendment
Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), Bill No. 7, The Crown Lands
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les terres domaniales, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Stand?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 8‑‑The Fisheries Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), Bill No. 8, The Fisheries
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pêche, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Stand?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
I think the provisions in the bill, particularly with
respect to search and seizure and with respect to additional fines, are ones
that should be put into place as soon as possible and, hopefully, even for this
particular season of the commercial fishery in the province of Manitoba. Therefore, I think that it is mostly a
housekeeping bill but with some positive additions, particularly with regard to
the fines.
I think this will keep our fishery, hopefully, in better
control against those who would violate, and unfortunately, there are those who
would choose to break the rules as they presently exist. This will give some force and effect to those
who have the authority to enforce this regulation.
I hope that with the agreement of the other opposition
party, we can move this bill along quite quickly.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 10‑‑The Wildlife Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), Bill No. 10, The Wildlife Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la conservation de la faune, standing in the name
of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30? [agreed]
The hour being 12:30, this House now adjourns and stands
adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday. Have a
great weekend.