Hog Industry
Marketing System
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the hog industry employs a number of people in this province including over 2,000 producers that are involved in this industry. To borrow a term from the Manitoba seniors letter last week, many of those producers feel quite betrayed by the action of the government to proceed, in their opinion, with the unilateral action on the marketing system that we had in Manitoba. Many people feel they were given the word of the government during the last election campaign, and they have been betrayed in that word that they received.
I would like to ask the Premier specifically, did he ever give his word to pork producers here in the province of Manitoba that he would not change the marketing system for pork unless the majority of pork producers had voted for the change?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we have never talked about votes of the producers because the fact of the matter is that Manitoba Pork was set up by the Legislature as a sole marketing entity and, indeed, that power is given to a group and can indeed be altered or changed by the government. Indeed, we are looking at this as an opportunity for expansion of hog production, a major expansion that has the opportunity to create some 8,000 jobs. We double hog--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I think the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) wants to answer the question.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I asked the Premier whether he gave his word, and I want to table a letter that is signed by Mr. Darvin Firman, a pork producer who met with the Premier approximately four or five days before the last election campaign and was told by the Premier himself that there would be no changes to Manitoba Pork unless the majority of producers ask for a change.
I would like the Premier to consider his words, and ask the Premier today: Will he, in the spirit of honesty, keep his word and not proceed with the changes in the marketing system for pork producers here in Manitoba unless a majority of pork producers ask for those changes?
Mr. Filmon: We have always said that governments have to act in the best interests of the people of the province. The fact of the matter is we have an opportunity to add tremendous value to the production in our agricultural community in this province in a way that will create an additional 8,000 jobs for this province. That is not an opportunity that can be denied by a group that wants to have a monopoly situation on the production and marketing of hogs in this province.
This will require investments of major proportions, investments in processing that will create 500 to a thousand jobs for each new unit of processing, $40-million, $50-million investments. Those cannot be controlled by one private interest group. We need to have investments in the million-dollar range to create major production facilities in this province, and they need to be bankable. They need to be able to take pork production agreements for sale to the bankers to be bankable so that they can have that kind of investment.
What we are talking about are jobs. We are talking about thousands of jobs, and this government will continue to act in the best interests of all Manitobans.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the only private interests we see affecting this government is the McMaster family on their proposal on We Care and home care, not the majority of pork producers here in the province of Manitoba.
I have asked the Premier a couple of specific questions about something as fundamental as his word. I have asked him on two occasions to talk about the commitment he gave in the election campaign to pork producers, not the rhetoric he is giving us now in the Chamber a year later.
I would like to ask the Premier, why did he give his word to producers and farmers in Manitoba that they would not change the marketing system unless the majority of the producers desired so? Why did he break his word after the election campaign?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that we had a report that was produced by an independent commission that outlined the alternatives that were available to government. Government has said that government makes the final decision, that this is not a matter that will be set to referendum, and that is not a commitment that I would ever have made.
* (1400)
Hog Industry
Marketing System
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that the Premier and many of the Conservative candidates in the last election gave their word that they would not change Manitoba Pork unless the majority of producers asked for this change, in light of the fact that feed processors and many of the large packers have said that the system is working very well, will the Premier agree today that what they have done is wrong, and will he tell producers that he will give them the opportunity to have a say, give them the opportunity to have a referendum on this issue before they make the change from single-desk selling to dual marketing of hogs in this province?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I repeat, the issue here is jobs and economic opportunity for all Manitobans. The issue here is an opportunity for 8,000 additional jobs in pork processing, in transportation, in production, in support services to the farm economy. Those are opportunities that all Manitobans should be given.
Ms. Wowchuk: I beg to differ with the minister. This is a matter of honesty.
I would like to ask the Premier, since they insist on moving into this system on open marketing against the will of the producers, will he agree to provide an ongoing evaluation of the open marketing system to ensure that it is in fact accomplishing what they want and not hurting the producers of this province?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, Manitoba Pork will continue to be in operation for the benefit of those who choose to utilize that system. In fact, Manitoba Pork will be strengthened by the opportunity to receive a checkoff on all hogs that are produced in this province which will give them even greater revenues to be able to support and promote Manitoba pork worldwide for the opportunities that exist.
Ms. Wowchuk: Since this is a dramatic change against the will of the producers, will the minister, the Premier, give his word that there will be an evaluation system that will involve the producers and this time that they will listen to the producers if the system is not working in the best interests of pork producers in Manitoba?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, what we are interested in is not providing monopolies that give privilege to certain people in this province. The fact of the matter is that what we are attempting to do is benefit the entire society and the entire economy of Manitoba, and that means that we have to have a system that works in the best interests of all Manitobans and their economy, and that is exactly what we will be providing.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Madam Speaker, there is no need for a contingency plan during the strike, no need to force people from their homes into institutions, no need to have a contingency plan in place, no need for coalitions like the coalition that was formed today to fight privatization of home care if the government would only listen to what the public has to say about the privatization, if the government would only listen to the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report that said we had the best home care plan in all of North America.
My question to the Minister of Health is, will the minister stop this in its tracks, feel no need to have a contingency plan, do the right thing, stop the privatization plan right now, go back to the table, talk to the public, prevent the strike, Madam Speaker?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if I listen to the advice of the honourable member, I would allow our health care system to deteriorate further and further. Manitobans expect much more from us than that. They expect us to have an eye to the future so that we can pass something on to future generations, something that honourable members opposite have attempted to take away from future generations.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister explain how the public of Manitoba can have any confidence in a privatized system or any contingency system during a potential strike when this government, this Department of Health and this minister have seriously botched every major health initiative, including the doctors’ strike, the hospital fiasco, the Pharmacare fiasco where they cannot get any of that right, Madam Speaker? How can we have any confidence in the welfare provided by this minister?
Mr. McCrae: In the face of the serious efforts on the part of honourable members opposite and their friends to convince Manitobans that there are all of these issues in front of us and all of these problems, in the face of that, Madam Speaker, what I offer and what my colleagues offer is to put the patient, put the client ahead of all other considerations.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister for that response, so perhaps the minister can now explain to members on this side of the House why his own Centre for Health Policy Evaluation in its most recent bulletin was saying that we should not be going to a private system because it costs 33 cents on the dollar in the U.S. system to go to a private system in administration costs and this government will be giving 33 cents on the dollar to profit companies and taking away from health care.
Will he at least listen to his own health policy evaluation division if he will not listen to the public, the opposition or anyone in this province, Madam Speaker?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member would like to have people believe that we are moving towards the American system of health care where millions and millions of people get no care whatsoever. I mean, the honourable member should wake up and smell the coffee. This is not an American system. We have a one-payer system in our country which distinguishes our system from the American system and from any other systems in the world and makes ours one of the best in the world. What we want to do is keep it that way, and I remind the honourable member that health care was one of the key measures that the United Nations used when it judged Canada four years out of five as the best country in the world.
Hog Industry
Marketing System
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, my question is for the First Minister.
During the 1995 election your government made the promise to consult with Manitoba hog producers before making any changes to the marketing system, yet your government has moved steadily ahead with changes to the way hogs are marketed in Manitoba even in the face of strong opposition from hog producers.
Can the First Minister tell this House why this government has unilaterally decided to abolish the single-desk hog marketing system in Manitoba when 76 percent of the hog producers are opposed to the move? I will table the survey.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, Manitoba Pork is not being abolished. Manitoba Pork in fact will have greater revenues with which to engage in promotion and marketing of Manitoba Pork worldwide to take advantage of markets that continue to expand and opportunities that continue to increase for the sale of Manitoba pork worldwide. Those are things that are in the best interests of all Manitobans and particularly our economy. I cannot believe that the member opposite would not be in favour of the creation of additional thousands of jobs in Manitoba.
Levy Collection
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Your government announced last month its intention of clearing up the backlog of $300,000 in levies owed to Manitoba Pork.
Can the minister tell the House what percentage of this money to date has been paid to Manitoba Pork?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).
Marketing System--Implementation
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): My final question is to the First Minister.
The producers have indicated they would like to see a delay in the implementation. Is the government prepared to do so?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, my recollection is that the initial announcement the minister made last fall was that implementation would take place on January 1. That was delayed as a result of many discussions and many other procedures that were in place. I think that the minister did respond adequately and properly to the requests of Manitoba Pork on that matter.
* (1410)
Teaching Profession
Post-Secondary Education
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.
I attended many of the hearings in Winnipeg responding to the minister’s document Enhancing Accountability. One of the most poignant presentations came from an experienced teacher in St. James who talked about his disruptive students, students who ran out of class, the student whose, for example, mother had been shot in her face and the child had never uttered a word since, about the autistic students that he had in his class, about the child who had been raped when she was 11. He concluded by saying: I want to state that I felt neither overqualified nor overpaid in these situations; I felt underqualified.
I want to ask the Minister of Education, why does she propose in her document that Manitoba’s teachers should have less post-secondary education, less training, for an increasingly demanding job?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I proposed no such thing in that document.
Ms. Friesen: How could the approach of Enhancing Accountability which suggests that teachers have four years of education or less, how does that fit with Renewing Education: New Directions which suggests that teachers must possess knowledge of their disciplines, have an in-depth integrating and probing mastery of foundational topics, have an understanding of economics in the global and local context, an understanding of personal financial management, labour market needs, career preparation, the national economy, fiscal responsibility--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, fortunately it also says teachers should have a sense of humour.
I want to ask the minister, which of these is the department reading from?
Mrs. McIntosh: I do not know if I am going to get time to address all the points the member has put on the record. What I will say, Madam Speaker, is the document Enhancing Accountability is a discussion document. There are only five proposals in it, those five being a series of variations on the dispute resolution mechanism currently in the collective bargaining. The rest of the paper simply lists--and the member knows this, she knows it very well--questions, concerns, comments that have been raised by people about education over the last decade. They propose no answers to those questions; they simply raise the questions for discussion.
She knows the point she raised in her first question was to deal with those teachers who do things such as get a degree in business accounting to run their summer store, she knows specific examples, should that be credited as credit for their teaching in the schools? It is not meant to apply to teachers who go and get relevant education that assists them in the classroom. She knows that. Talk about putting red herrings forward, Madam Speaker, I think we are hearing one right now.
Enhancing Accountability Report
Accuracy
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, does the Minister of Education then take full responsibility, indeed, accountability for the research and writing of this document Enhancing Accountability, a document which is not only full of inaccuracies but is demeaning to thousands of teachers across this province?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any inaccuracies in the document. I am aware of two instances where members opposite have raised questions about statements in the document which have then been checked and verified. I say that this is a government document which identifies the historical background on the collective bargaining dispute resolution mechanism in Manitoba and lists all the questions and concerns that have been raised by trustees over the decade for discussion proposing no answers except five possible models and inviting suggestions for other models on the dispute resolution mechanism. The rest of the points are there for discussion. They raise questions that have been raised over the decade. The member knows that and is trying to make an issue where none exists.
Manitoba Hydro
Reorganization
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
For reasons of ideology and helping his friends in government, this government has broken the Manitoba Telephone System into four divisions making it easier to sell off parts or all of MTS. Having the second lowest local rates in North America is not a reason to keep MTS, according to this government. Similarly, this government is upset that Manitoba Hydro has the lowest residential rates in North America and now plans to break it up as well.
Will the minister tell the House who the consultants were that recommended dividing Manitoba Hydro up, and were bigger ideas involved in any of the discussions?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Madam Speaker, it always helps a member, I think , when they come to this House to have a sense of history. The member for St. James perhaps should be reminded on this occasion that Manitoba Hydro has gone through internal restructurings in 1981, in 1985, in ‘86-87 and years when her party was in power, so for a corporation to deal with internal restructuring to meet the needs of the future is not an unheard of thing.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the minister.
Will he tell the House what the plans are, having received it now from Manitoba Hydro, for dividing up Manitoba Hydro? Will the minister table the report?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member for St. James spoke about the operation of Manitoba Hydro. I can tell her, on this side of this House, we are very proud of Manitoba Hydro in terms of its ranking in the country. It is virtually top or second in its category in all the variety of ratings. It is an extremely efficient and competitive entity and one of the reasons is because Manitoba Hydro over the last number of years has had a very good board of directors and a very, very good president in administration, and they have done internally a very significant review of their operation. I have to tell the honourable member that this current internal reorganization is very much being driven by the administration of Manitoba Hydro because they are far more foresighted, have far much more foresight than the member for St. James and her colleagues.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, is the minister denying that the chair of the board of Hydro clearly articulated at the PUB hearings that an external consultant was being hired to aid Hydro in this reconstruction? Who is it, and how many employees are going to be cut under this plan?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, let not the member for St. James or her colleagues get into another fearmongering campaign about the future of this utility. If the member for St. James would take some time and study the electrical industry in North America--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the minister’s response.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if the member for St. James, as critic, and her colleagues would take some time to study the changes that are going on today in the North American electrical industry, she would appreciate that Manitoba Hydro has to undergo some change internally in order to meet that. I can tell her again that this change is very much driven by the administration in Manitoba Hydro who is far more farsighted in their view of Hydro and electricity in Manitoba Hydro than her colleagues.
I am pleased to inform the member that, yes, they have used some outside consultation. One of the groups they consulted was the electrical utility industry group management consultants, as well as Ernst & Young. I would be pleased to provide her, or have Manitoba Hydro’s chief executive officer give her, a full briefing on what they are doing. If she would ask, I would be more than pleased to provide it.
Barb Biggar
Manitoba Telephone System Contract
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, yesterday we learned that while this government is cutting hospitals, Pharmacare and privatizing home care, it is also going to be putting on a series of ads co-ordinated by one Barb Biggar at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars. The same Ms. Biggar has also--we had this confirmed by the Minister responsible for MTS--a contract for communications with MTS, and of course, this comes at a time when many thousands of Manitobans have been speaking out in favour of keeping our publicly owned telephone system in public hands.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) if he can indicate just how much more money Barb Biggar is going to be getting on this contract, the contract with MTS.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Telephone System, through its board and management, makes decisions of the nature that the member is raising the question on as to who to hire to do certain functions and what they are paid. If the member wants to know, I will find out and get back to him.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Since the minister is going to be providing that information later, I would like to ask the minister if the contract will have anything to do with the proposed privatization that the minister has been floating, and in fact, whether there will be, on the other hand, any provision put aside for the members of the public, the owners of MTS, to have input on the final decision regarding the future of MTS?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act ): Madam Speaker, I think the member is aware that the telecommunication industry is under an awful lot of technology change. We have gone from less than 10 percent of the revenue in competition to now 70 percent of the revenue in competition. We have a technology explosion that is going to cost more money in the future, require more investment on behalf of somebody to keep MTS at the forefront of the industry where it currently is.
Madam Speaker, we are going through that analysis as to how to recapitalize MTS in the future, and when that report is in the public will be made aware.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I asked the minister and I will ask him again, will the public of Manitoba have a say over the future of MTS, or will they be doing what they are doing on home care and with the hog producers and refuse to allow the public of Manitoba to have a say over their phone company?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, there is ongoing discussion around what I have just mentioned to the member and discussion will definitely continue around MTS and how it can continue to provide its services in the most cost-effective manner and keep the strength of the corporation as strong as possible in the process of delivering that information and that discussion through various processes will definitely occur.
* (1420)
National Securities Commission
Proposal
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Securities Commission.
The federal government has been actively promoting the idea that there should be one securities licensing body in the country. I understand that the Maritime provinces have agreed to this proposal, that Ontario is in serious negotiation on this proposal.
I would like to ask the minister responsible for the commission, what is Manitoba’s position on having one single securities licensing body in regard to the function of the current commission and the potential impacts?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, since that issue was raised in the Speech from the Throne in Ottawa in February, we have been endeavouring to gather information with respect to what proposal, if any, is floating out there beyond the 1994 proposed Memorandum of Understanding. In 1994, when the federal government floated this issue, there were a number of concerns related to Manitoba, none of which apparently as yet seem to be addressed. However, we are in an information-gathering mode at this point to try and find out exactly what is being proposed and then we will have to address the issue accordingly.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, my second question is also for the same minister.
Will the minister tell the House what the impacts of such a change might be upon such vital institutions as the grain exchange or the Manitoba commodities exchange, both of which attract and maintain large offices, head offices, here in Winnipeg and are a very vital part of our economy? What is the government’s estimation of the impact such a federal move might be on those two important bodies?
Mr. Ernst: As I indicated, Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, there are a number of concerns that are raised by this entire issue of a proposed national securities commission. Those are a couple of the issues that caused us some considerable concern, and until we find out exactly what is being proposed and how issues such as that would be dealt with, then we have made no decision with respect to whether we support or do not support that proposal.
Proposal--Government Position
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm to the House that there are meetings planned in Ottawa shortly, I believe within the week, to consider and discuss this matter with the federal government?
Will the minister be representing Manitoba at that meeting? What position will he be advancing on behalf of Manitobans at that meeting?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): For the information of the member opposite, the meeting is today and at that meeting representing the Province of Manitoba are my deputy minister, as well as the chair of the Manitoba Securities Commission. They are there, Madam Speaker, to present our list of concerns and to learn from the federal government and from the Province of Ontario who have been the only ones carrying on bilateral discussions, as far as we are aware up to this point, to find out what proposals they have to make.
Treaty Land Entitlements
Mathias Colomb First Nation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister about a meeting that he had this morning with the representatives of Mathias Colomb First Nation and ask him to report to the Assembly as to whether any real progress was made in that meeting, specifically in regard to the band’s issue of treaty land entitlement firstly and then, secondly, as TLE pertains to the rest of the bands in Manitoba.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, the member asks two questions. I will deal with the latter one first.
With respect to the overall treaty land entitlement situation, there has been a series of discussions going on intensely over the last week between the three parties involved, and I am hopeful that we will have some very positive news in the near future. I am not in a position today to give a full report to the House, as I am sure the member can appreciate.
With respect specifically to the Mathias Colomb First Nation and their particular issue in a Repap cutting area, we wrote to their chief last week and invited him to a meeting this morning that was held not with myself but with my deputy minister, as well as officials with the Department of Natural Resources. We have suggested very strongly to them that they get on with selecting their particular land that they are interested in and working it through the process in that general area.
Part of the problem here has been that they have wanted Repap to stop their cutting in a rather large area because they had not yet made their specific selection. I understand from the report I had back during the noon hour that they were in agreement with this type of process. They still had some work to do on their specific selection, and I understand we should be meeting again in the next few weeks. Hopefully, this will lead to them getting on with their selection, and we certainly are very willing to get on with the process of actual selection of land.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for, on the bigger question of treaty land entitlement, saying that there is progress being made and he is not at liberty to say in the Chamber as to when that issue might be settled, but I want to also advise the minister that he knows full well that currently in Winnipeg there are meetings going on between a federal negotiator and the representatives from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.
What I would ask the minister then, as a follow-up to my first one, is what kind of time frame is he looking at in terms of when the issue at Pukatawagan might be finally resolved.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if I may for a moment--the member asks a very good question, I think, about time frames, and one of the problems to date in this whole process, I would hope he would agree, has been quite frankly all of us, including the bands, the provincial governments, federal government, when it comes to specific selections, have been debating a lot of theory and criteria. One of the things we have suggested in the last while is we get on with specifics, because my experience has been when you look at specific pieces of land, it is much easier to work the problem and be able to resolve it rather than dealing with theory and criteria.
On that basis I can assure him that we have made, in my opinion at least, very significant progress in the last while, and I hope that within a very short period to have a very positive announcement, along with my colleagues, of the treaty land entitlement committee as well as our federal colleagues with respect specifically to the Mathias Colomb Band. They have selected a portion of their land. Some of that we have already agreed to; others we are working through the process. They have indicated a willingness to select specifically in the area where they are in dispute with Repap, and I am not trying to say there still will not be problems, but I think those problems work themselves through when we get on to specific selections.
That is the kind of initiative that we have been talking about and I think has had a good response from everyone involved. I am hoping very shortly that we can have an overall positive announcement. Mathias Colomb still has a lot to work out. I do not want to give the impression otherwise, but at least we will be working on specific problems rather than theory.
Hog Industry
Land Usage
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
This year this government embarked on a move to destroy the single-desk selling advantage for Manitoba hogs. My question to the Premier is, when will his government be acting on the sustainability recommendations, specifically those relating to the establishment of the livestock operations renewal panel which municipal councils and hog producers could call upon when considering land uses?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).
Waste Disposal
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, to the Premier again: When will his government introduce guidelines relating to waste disposal which will specifically examine how much hog sewage can be stored in lagoons, and what the maximum limit will be on the disposal of effluent?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).
Marketing System
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, will the Premier show some courage and come out to rural Manitoba with a ballot box and let producers vote on the single-desk selling advantage of Manitoba Pork?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, my response is the same as it was to the similar question asked both by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
Pharmacare
Income Statement--Student Loans
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, I asked him whether it was meanness or incompetence that led to the government including student loans in the calculation of income under the new Pharmacare program, and apparently he admitted then outside the House that it was in fact incompetence, perhaps because he was in such a hurry to get rid of universality in Pharmacare.
My question to the minister is: How much will this bungle cost Manitobans in order to correct this mistake, this second bungle by the minister, on the Pharmacare changes?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, in an overhaul of a program of the nature just undertaken, there are pamphlets and information pieces that go out, and indeed in the one the honourable member brought to our attention yesterday, there was a word that was wrong that led people to the impression that student loans were considered income, which anybody can figure out that a loan is not income, and so obviously a mistake was made in the printing.
There will be subsequent reprints of the document because Manitobans will continue to need to be informed about how to access the Pharmacare program, and in subsequent printings that error will be corrected.
Mr. Mackintosh: My supplementary to the minister since he did not answer the question is, how much will this mistake cost Manitobans?
Mr. McCrae: I do not think there is any cost attached to the correction of the problem. There will be a cost attached to subsequent printings which would have been undertaken in any event.
Enhancing Accountability Report
Written Submissions
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education has ordered that all the written submissions to Enhancing Accountability and the hearings that were held across the province, that all those submissions be held in confidence and that citizens of Manitoba be required to go to Freedom of Information and pay the fee, wait the time, to learn what their fellow citizens said elsewhere in Manitoba.
I wonder if the minister could give us some explanation of why this requirement for such secrecy.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the member frequently just goes to Freedom of Information without coming to me first to get us to do her research for her--saves her caucus staff some time, I guess--notwithstanding that, the written submissions are certainly available.
The only things that we have said are not available, and in my opinion would never be available from me in my 16 years as an elected official, are private letters that come to me which have always been treated by me as confidential. Something addressed to me I never reveal without that third party’s permission, and that is how Freedom of Information works.
Any written submission that is in a formal presentation is certainly available without FOI, but if she is talking about people, and she knows I have received many written documents that were sent to me as personal correspondence, without those people authorizing the release of those, I would never breach their implied confidentiality to me.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.