Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Would you call Bill 36, please. Madam Speaker, I misread my notes. Would you call Bills 27, 71, 37 and 12.

Madam Speaker: And not 36.

Mr. Ernst: 27, 71, 37 and 12.

Madam Speaker: For clarification, second reading of bills in the following order: 27, 71, 37, 12 and then 36.

Mr. Ernst: No. Just the ones I read before.

Madam Speaker: Just the four.

Mr. Ernst: 27, 71, 37 and 12.

Madam Speaker: Okay. Thank you.

* (1430)

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 27, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer), The Museum of Man and Nature Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Musée de l'Homme et de la Nature et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and speak to Bill 27, The Museum of Man and Nature Amendment Act. I understand that this legislation serves two purposes. The first purpose of the legislation is to create a foundation which is legally distinct and separate from the museum and to ensure that legacies, donations, et cetera, become a part of the foundation's assets and therefore cannot be absorbed into the museum's regular operating budget.

It seems to me that the museum's board of directors are looking into the future, reading the writing on the wall and deciding that unless they create a distinct foundation there might come a time when legacies and donations could be or would be expected to be used for operating funds. We know that the current climate when, for example, election promises are broken and funding to institutions like CBC slashed with the kind of cavalier disregard and without the provincial government voicing any concern, we know that in a current climate when our provincial government shows little concern for these jobs in the cultural broadcasting sphere, we know it is extremely important, in fact absolutely vital and essential, for boards to be concerned about their public presence, balancing the books and fundraising. We know it is extremely important to be concerned about retaining funds for their intended purposes.

I must confess that I was initially concerned about aspects of the new legislation. Making the Manitoba Museum's foundation incorporated a legally separate body means stopping what was a practice of awarding some research grants to other Manitoba museums, but being assured that reserving grants for work at the museum was the original and intended purpose of the foundation and knowing the relatively limited funds in the foundation, protecting funds designated for research money seems perfectly justifiable. So I congratulate board members on their foresight and on their diligence.

Second, I understand that for many years the Museum of Man and Nature, which included the Science Centre, the Museum and the Planetarium, has wanted to change its name. I know from the executive director of the museum that every few weeks she has received complaints about the name. I know from my own work in the women's community that many Manitoba women have for years been angry and hurt by the museum's name.

The current name is problematic as it is long and unwieldy, as it is sexist and exclusionary, is clumsy in translation and nonreflective of the museum's components. I am delighted that the museum's board of directors has had the good sense to ask for a change to the name, and certainly this side of the House supports the name change.

I understand that the Manitoba Museum will be the corporate name and that the popular name will be the Manitoba Museum and Science Centre. Surely this name change will satisfy all fair-minded, thinking Manitobans and especially the Francophone community who will undoubtedly be pleased with a name that makes for a happier translation.

Only language dinosaurs and fossilized patriarchs who fall back on male privilege will be disturbed by this change, and none of my colleagues, members on this side of the House, belong to these categories. We believe that the new name, the Manitoba Museum and Science Centre, is a step forward, and we recommend the bill to committee.

But one last addition. I want to take this opportunity to honour the Manitoba Museum-- wrongly identified a few days ago by the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) as the Museum of Man and Nature--I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the museum on its news of expansion, and I refer here to the construction of the Hudson's Bay Company wing which will house 6,000 artifacts from the Hudson's Bay Company collection. Congratulations to the museum's director, staff, board and all the volunteers. Certainly I look forward to viewing the collection and to reinforcing my personal understanding of our provincial history.

With that then, I recommend the bill to committee.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I just wanted to add a few comments on Bill 27, the Museum of Man and Nature Amendment Act. My colleague has just a few moments ago put on record our thoughts with respect to Bill 27 and our support for this name change. In fact, it is my understanding that this bill will change the name from the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature to the Manitoba Museum and Science Centre which I think is the appropriate change in the circumstances to remove the indication with respect to gender, leaving out a very important part of our society, in fact, the female gender. So I think that this is an appropriate change.

I would also like to indicate that the museum has provided a significant level of education and opportunities to experience, for the young people in our communities, issues relating to science. Having had the opportunity over the years to take my family to take part in this experience has been very rewarding for our children in that they were able to expand their knowledge and their experience with respect to both the history of our province as the museum activities and also with respect to the science portion of the complex and the opportunities that are presented there.

We think that this legislation is needed at this time to reflect the changes that are indicated in the bill, changing it from Man and Nature to Museum and Science Centre. We support this legislation and look forward to it going to committee where we can listen to members of the public and their comments. So with those few comments, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 27. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

* (1440)

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 71, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer), Bill 71, The Manitoba Film and Sound Recording Development Corporation Act (Loi sur la Société manitobaine de développement de l'enregistrement cinématographique et sonore) standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, again I am pleased today to rise and speak briefly to this bill before sending it on to committee. We know that the main purpose of this bill is to restructure the Manitoba Film and Sound's governance and administration and to clarify the relationship to the province. We understand that public consultations were carried out prior to drafting the current legislation and that officials from Culture and Heritage have examined the legislation in other provinces. We know, of course, that the public has the opportunity to make presentations when this legislation is passed on to the committee, and I of course, in my capacity as critic, have spoken to members of the film and sound community. My side of the House is always pleased to hear that the public has been consulted and that the public will continue to have a voice in the workings of legislation.

I note here that the bill stipulates that board members will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the proposal of the minister after consultations with professional associations considered to be representative of cultural industries, that is, film, video and sound. We, of course, expect the minister to be fair and judicious with regard to the selection of consultees. I am merely noting here that there is room for possible abuse, and this will be a concern of ours and we will certainly monitor this.

I note, too, that the majority of funds from the corporation will go to film which, after all, does require a great deal of money for its production and, I understand, much more than the production of sound recordings. I do not have a problem with that, but I know as well that a mere 4 percent of Canadian cinema time is used by Canadian film, and I trust that in the future the minister may take it upon himself to do his level best in making sure that Canadians, and especially Manitobans, have an opportunity to view the films that the Manitoba Film and Sound Development Corporation is funding.

I note, Madam Speaker, that if the Province of Manitoba were marketing potash or copper or zinc, there would probably be a comprehensive plan to advance the sale of these products. We probably need the same for film and sound, and I hope the minister will take my concern under advisement. After all, if the only persons who get pleasure from films or recordings are the artists who made them, then we have the cultural equivalent of masturbation, and this is not a good idea.

Last, let us beware of colonialism in the cultural industries. If, for example, a film is shot here in Manitoba and then carried off to the U.S. to be spliced and polished and put together, then we serve as the equivalent of a natural resource, a kind of source of raw material, but the manufacturing and finishing is done elsewhere. This means that local jobs are lost and local artists will be forced to leave the province in search of challenging positions. We can and should finish work right here in the province of Manitoba. Let us remember that we are not a colony and that subservience in the arts is not necessary. There does not need to be a mother country.

Films, video games, the Internet, sound recordings, we all know that there is a burgeoning industry here capable of vast economic spinoffs. In fact, those spinoffs are already with us. We support the minister in recognizing the potential of these industries. On the other hand, we do regret the regulations included in the legislation whereby the minister, like so many of his colleagues, is intent on hugging power to himself and granting himself absolute control and authority, that centralizing tendency that we have seen in so many of this government's bills. This kind of authoritarianism is distasteful and insulting to the sensibilities of all Manitobans, and especially in this case, those particularly affected, artists and others who work in the cultural industries.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, with these reservations then, I will take my seat and pass the bill on to committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 71 before it passes on to committee and we have an opportunity to hear the public presentations on this. Bill 75 creates the Manitoba Film and Sound Recording Development Corporation. This corporation will deal specifically with promoting, training, development, technical and administrative aspects of the film and sound industry. This bill will give the corporation the power to administer loans and grants to the film industry. In doing so, the government hopes to tap into the multimillion dollar entertainment industry.

The entertainment industry has significantly changed in the last two years. Hollywood is still the dominant player, but as more and more films are being shot on location, the large studio complex that was once needed had disappeared. Producers are now looking for good, cheap locations with an entertainment infrastructure in place. Attracting Hollywood producers is already a big time industry in the States. Remember that a small film costs anywhere from $10 million to $20 million, and a blockbuster like Waterworld costs $240 million. This is a lot of money to pump into a small town or a small city like Winnipeg.

By creating this corporation, what the government is saying is that they want to attract more industry like this to Manitoba. This is a noble gesture, but there are no guarantees that this will be successful. We question if the money spent on this corporation will be considered as money spent on the arts. It should be in addition to the money spent on arts and be seen as economic development. When a primary reason for our spending is to foster local talent by investing in a film and sound infrastructure, it is possible we will attract new industry and money to Manitoba, but we must ensure that local artists benefit from this spending. So we welcome this bill to proceed on to committee and hear what the public presentations and debate occurs there.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 71. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 37, The Ambulance Services Amendment Act, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services d'ambulance, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

Is there leave that this matter remain standing. No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to add my comments with respect to Bill 37, The Ambulance Services Amendment Act. I have had the opportunity to look through the comments that are contained in Hansard of members of this House who have spoken on Bill 37, and having had the opportunity to take a look at their comments, felt that I should add my comments as well with respect to what my thoughts are on this industry and what seems to be lacking.

I want to start off, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in principle we support this piece of legislation, although we have some reservations with respect to the regulations, which I will get to in a few moments, but in principle in looking through this bill it lays out specific areas where there will now be requirements for licensing of individuals that operate stretcher ambulance services in the province of Manitoba.

As my colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has pointed out in his comments here on Bill 37, he said that perhaps this bill was misnamed and it would be more appropriate to name it something else other than just strictly ambulance services, because it does go beyond just the need for ambulance services. There are stretcher services that are provided here. It is not just ground transportation, there is air transportation that is involved with respect to transportation of patients from one medical facility to another or from one community to a medical facility.

This legislation goes into a discussion with respect to the licensing of those persons that are going to operate the emergency medical response system or the stretcher transportation service. I think that is long overdue.

I know listening to questions that have been posed in this Chamber here over the course of the last six years, my colleague, again, the member for Kildonan has raised this issue as our Health critic, that there was no regulation of this particular industry, and I know, listening to the comments and the questions, even some discussion about the way advertising takes place with respect to stretcher services where there can be some confusion as we saw from the phone book that came out where people would open the cover of a phone book in an emergency and find that there are stretcher services listed inside that front cover and could inadvertently call for that kind of service instead of dialing for the necessary ambulance in emergency situations.

To go on about the licensing applications. It lists several sections in the bill with respect to employment of unlicensed persons, and it does go into some discussion in the clauses of the bill with respect to people who are entitled to operate and engage in that type of service delivery with respect to stretcher and ambulance operators or attendants. There are also provisions in here that deal with the unauthorized equipment or equipment that is prohibited and that the licence holder shall not take certain actions, and it references those actions in the legislation.

* (1450)

I am not clear where in this act that it shows that there are any sanctions that can be imposed for anybody who would contravene this legislation once it becomes law. I would imagine though that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) would have some thoughts to including that in the regulations, although one of the things that I do note, there are no regulations that are available to allow us to see what the real intent of this legislation is and how the government intends to implement the clauses of Bill 37.

There was some confusion in our communities throughout the province for some time through the nonregulation of this particular industry, so in principle this bill goes some way in the direction of bringing some needed regulation of those that operate and work in the stretcher transportation or ambulance systems in our communities, which of course are vital to the health care system and to the maintaining of life and limb within our province for those who are in need of those services.

This bill will clarify the role and function of the ambulance services and I think give some measure of security to the public in that they will hopefully know that they are being transported by a transportation system whether it be stretcher or ambulance system and that these particular companies or services will be provided in a regulated way and within a certain level of protocol guidelines or rules and that the patients being transported will feel comfortable in knowing hopefully that the people who are providing that service are trained or experienced and that the patients are being well cared for.

Getting back to the regulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate, and I have asked my colleague, the member for Kildonan (Mr Chomiak) if he has received regulations with respect to Bill 37. He has indicated to me that, no, he has not, so we are unable to see exactly what it is the government intends to do with this bill, because the regulations are an interpretation of the act, as all members of this House know. It would be nice to see how the government intends to implement clause by clause of this bill.

There seems to be a pattern developing here though. With Bill 37, when the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) asked for regulations on this bill, he was denied those regulations by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae). It seems to be a pattern developing, in that I believe that my colleague, our critic for Education, has asked for regulations with respect to some of the education bills that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) has tabled in this Chamber. My colleague, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), has been denied those regulations which are an interpretation of the education bills. Then just about a month ago, just after this session resumed or just prior to when this session resumed, I took the opportunity to write to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) about the labour bills that we have before us in this Chamber. I asked in writing to the Minister of Labour if he would provide for me a copy of at least the draft regulations. The minister wrote back to me last week and said, no, that he is not going to provide those regulations, so that we can see how the government is going to interpret the legislation.

There appears to be a definite pattern that is developing in this government. As my colleagues have indicated in the past, there appears to be a bunker mentality on the government side, and they do not want to release the regulations so at least we can see the interpretation they have of the legislation that has been tabled here. I am not sure why they want to deny the release of those, at least the draft regulations, so we can see how they interpret the bills that are before us, but I think it is wrong for the government to take that step. They should have, if they are confident in their legislation, nothing to hide. They should be forthright and at least, if nothing else, table the statements that they have on the bills with respect to the interpretation clause by clause like we get from some ministers, like the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) has done for most of his legislation, and I congratulate him for it.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has taken that opportunity as well. I can tell members opposite that, because the government through cabinet has the opportunity to have the Legislative Counsel and other experts so-called in their particular areas at their disposal for interpretation of these bills, they have a distinct advantage in this area and that we would like to see what the interpretation of those bills are. The only way we can see that is if at least the draft regulations or the documents, the interpretative documents would come from their particular departments through the minister. But, of course, the minister of Education, the minister of Health and the minister of Labour have all denied that through this particular session. Each of them have a number of bills that they have introduced under their various portfolios, and they have all denied members of the opposition the opportunity to take a look at, at least, the draft regulations.

Now having had the opportunity just recently to go to the Minister of Highways' (Mr. Findlay) own constituency and do a little canvasing, talking to his constituents, we find that there are a number of issues relating to health care as we have found in other communities that we have gone and talked to people throughout the last number of months. We find that the people in Oakbank, in particular, when we questioned them about issues that are on their minds affecting them and their families and their communities, it is interesting to note that education, the way the education system, the public education system is being run in the province of Manitoba was an issue that they raised with us.

It is interesting to note that they are quite concerned that the personal care home facility that had been promised by the government prior to the 1995 election is now, I take it, either on permanent hold or cancelled, because there has been no progress. Now that is an issue that has been raised by the people of Oakbank. They are quite concerned that their representative had made that commitment to his community. He promised that he would go forward with that project as part of the capital works program under the Department of Health, and of course as soon as the election was over, that project was put on hold and quite likely on a permanent basis.

An Honourable Member: No, no, no.

Mr. Reid: Well, maybe the Minister of Agriculture is right, maybe till the next election. That is what it sounds like, you promise it at in one election, and then tell them you have to do a little bit of work on fundraising and then say, okay, well, we do not have our resources in line now, we do not have our ducks lined up here, so we cannot go forward with the project, and we will have to put this off till the next election. No doubt a month prior to or a couple of months prior to or maybe even during the election campaign, the government will come forward and they will have the silver spade stuck in the ground and the old sod-turning--[interjection] Well, maybe it is a silver spoon. Put the old silver shovel into the ground and turn that sod just at election time.

An Honourable Member: You are good at shovelling it.

Mr. Reid: Well, maybe they are good at shovelling it. Heaven knows, taking a look at the Apotex facility over in St. Boniface industrial park, where you have slabs of concrete with fingers of steel sticking out of it, it is a testament to this government's failure on capital works programs even when industry was supposed to be on side with projects like that. So to me, when I drive by it every morning on the way to this building, I see the reminder of the failure of this government to move forward with improvements in job opportunities for Manitobans when that particular project failed. Now we see those fingers of steel sticking up out of the slabs of concrete like tombstones on the bald prairie. That is what those fingers of steel remind me of.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have just asked the honourable member, maybe he could explain to me, I have been listening, but there does not seem to be much relevance with Bill 37. You might want to bring it back and explain that to me.

Mr. Reid: Indeed, I did wander, so I thank you for bringing me back onto topic here.

This Bill 37 is an important bill. As I said in the beginning of my comments, we in principle, looking at the bill, support the intent of this bill, although we want to have the opportunity to take a look at the regulations which the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has denied us. It seems to fit into the pattern that this government has, because those regulations will allow me as the elected representative of my community to understand to some degree and hopefully clearly the intent of the government with respect to Bill 37. Without those regulations we cannot make that clear determination of what the government's intent is, although it appears on the surface that there is some reason to support this bill.

With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to pass Bill 37 to committee. This bill hopefully will have some presenters come from the public who will make presentation at committee and that we will hear their thoughts and concerns, and perhaps even some members of the public who are involved with, engaged or own some of those services throughout the province can come forward to committee and add their thoughts, knowledge and experience to that of members of the committee and that together we can have some good debate or discussion at committee with respect to Bill 37. With those few words, we are prepared to pass this bill through to committee.

* (1500)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not go into the details of what this bill entails because I think it has already been spoken and explained very well in this Chamber. I think the positive note for this bill is that it is in response to recommendations leading from public hearings. We are always happy to see the government respond to the public's concerns.

As the member for Transcona mentioned, without the regulations it is hard to determine if it is fully responsive to what the public were asking for in the hearings that were held on emergency services. From personal experience, I remember when I started in police service a number of years ago, at that time the rule of thumb was quickly snatch and get them to the hospital as soon as possible. At the time we thought that the sooner you get them to the hospital, the better their chances of living. Well, now I have seen, with well-trained paramedics, well-trained professionals that in fact treatment at the scene is probably a bigger determining factor of whether someone survives a very serious accident.

So I think this is very important legislation and I welcome it to go to committee and I am looking forward to any public presentation so this matter can be debated at committee. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 37. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 12, The Barbers Repeal and Hairdressers Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les coiffeurs et la Loi sur les coiffeurs pour dames), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Deputy Speaker, considering the state of my hair or hair loss over a number of years, it might seem unusual that I would stand to speak on this, but I know--[interjection] Maybe that is a reason why the government is repealing, looking at the number of shiny foreheads across the way, that perhaps they sense there is no need for this legislation, and that is why they are repealing it.

To get back to the intent of the act, we had the opportunity to read through Bill 12, and you can tell that it was quite an extensive bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you open the front cover of the bill, of course, the first page you see is a blank page, and then the next page is just repeal and repeal. So it is not something that you would find that there is a lot of room to comment on, although I have had the opportunity to talk to members of my community who are involved in the barbering and hairstyling industry. I took the opportunity, since being elected and even again just recently, to talk to members of my community who are involved in, as employees, or own those particular types of businesses to find out their thoughts about this bill.

It is interesting talking to them that they were supposed to have in place a system that would regulate the particular industry here in the city of Winnipeg. Well, even talking to my own barber, whom I go to from time to time, although not often, I guess, my barber and the barbers in my community know that there have been some problems with the regulation of this particular industry for some time. The barbers in my community, the hairstylists in my community have indicated that they even had a process where they were supposed to be issued a certificate with respect to their competence or their ability to perform that type of public service. They referenced the fact that after going through the process of filling out a number of forms and papers and sending them back to the government, it took a significant number of months before the certificate was issued to the particular people who are employed in that industry.

So they wonder about, first off, what is happening within the government departments that it would take so many months for that particular certificate to be issued, after they diligently sat down and completed the necessary paperwork and returned it to the government. So they themselves question the need to have The Barbers Act and The Hairdressers Act in this province, and they sense that perhaps there is a better way to regulate this type of industry. They have also referenced to me that there is no uniformity of the way the rules or the regulations are enforced or not enforced within the province of Manitoba.

We have rules, my understanding, for the cities of Winnipeg, Brandon and perhaps a few other communities in Manitoba, although I only know of Winnipeg and Brandon being the two regulated or governed areas with respect to the barbers and hairdressers acts, but other areas, other communities of the province do not have that type of regulation in place, so there seems to be some inconsistency in the way the legislation had been applied.

What they have referenced and indicated to me is that they would like to see a regulation of all of the barbering and hairdressing provisions within the province. They would like to have some regulation. That is what they have indicated to me, and I have to trust them in their judgment, having worked in that industry. In one particular case, the business was handed down from father to son, and there is a whole family history that is involved that goes on for generations. They want to see some regulation or some uniformity of rules that are applied across the province. So they want to have that spread out across the province.

Both of the acts currently require the persons to be licensed in the regulated regions but, as I have indicated, not in the other regions of the province. It is my understanding, listening and reading the words and comments by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) when she introduced Bill 12, that she says that there are industry representatives that have approached her, have approached the Minister of Education to look at making some changes with respect to the act. The minister indicated that is why she has come forward with Bill 12 that will allow for the repeal of the barber and hairdressing act in Manitoba.

I agree with the comments of those who are employed within that industry that there should be some uniformity or consistency within the industry throughout the province and that while Winnipeg requires that particular regulation, Winnipeg and Brandon, it is not required outside of Winnipeg.

I know that my colleague has raised the issue here with the minister with respect to regulations of the government's intent, because I believe it is the Minister of Education's decision to repeal the legislation and to move the trades training for estheticians, barbers, for hairdressers, manicurists, under the Apprenticeship and Training division of her Department of Education.

The minister is saying here that she wants us to trust her by allowing her to repeal through Bill 12 those two acts, the barber and the hairdressing act. At the same time when my colleague, our critic for Education here, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has asked the Minister of Education quite clearly, I believe on a number of occasions, for the Minister of Education to give us some idea of what her intent is when she repeals this bill, what is she going to replace it with, what type of training are we going to have for the people through the Apprenticeship and Training branch, how are we going to have some control over the health and safety issues that are involved with respect to people who are working within this industry, because, after all, they do serve members of the public, and members of the public come from all walks of life--we want to understand what the minister's intent is with respect to the health and safety issues and how the minister is going to certify that the people working within this industry or training for it go through the necessary training and type of accreditation that they would receive.

* (1510)

The only way that we can determine that is if we see copies of the regulations, or at least the draft regulations, to show what the minister and the government's intent is with respect to training of individuals wishing to be employed in this particular industry. The Minister of Education has said here in this House and said to my colleague, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that she is not going to provide the regulations. So while we understand that there is perhaps a need and that the industry has lobbied the government to abolish the act itself, both acts, the hairdresser and the barbering act, the government is not coming clean on what their intent is with respect to the industry.

We have talked with members of the Trades Advisory Committee who have had the opportunity. I have a letter here in front of me from a member of that particular Trades Advisory Committee referencing the fact that--I would imagine, as she should do, having sat on this committee for some time--support the government's intent to repeal the barbering and hairdressing act. But it does not go on to say what is going to replace it. If we had some idea of what was going to replace and what provisions are going to be in place for the training, the certification and the health and safety, as two of the main issues, then perhaps we could say that there is some reason to wholeheartedly and openly support the government's intent with respect to Bill 12.

I do not have a clear understanding on what the government's intent is with respect to grandfathering provisions or grandparenting provisions of those who are currently employed in the industry, and there are quite a number of people--[interjection]

Well, that is true. I am sure all members in this House, those of us who still have hair to get trimmed from time to time, we want to have some level of assurance, as, I am sure, all members of the public do, that when we are going into those facilities, we have trained and competent people who are working at those professions and that they are doing--[interjection] Maybe I do need a discount--and that those people are indeed trained and performing their duties and service to the public in a safe manner, but we do not know that without the regulations.

So it is my understanding that while there are a large number of people who are employed in the industry in the province--and, I am sure, every community of this province has someone who is employed in that particular industry, whether the communities be small, medium or large--it will affect every one of us in our communities by the changes here. I hope that members opposite are taking the opportunity to represent their constituents and the businesses, those who are employed in those businesses within our communities, what the Minister of Education's intent is with respect to the repeal of these two acts and that the necessary certification and safety processes will be put in place through regulations under the apprenticeship and training. The health and safety issues are obviously important.

We would like to support, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what appears to be redundant and unenforced acts, The Barbers and Hairdressers Acts, but without the regulations, I find it difficult to openly and wholeheartedly support this move at this time, although we are prepared to go to committee and listen to members of the public that may come forward and make presentations either for or against the government's intent with respect to Bill 12 or may take a position where they want to see some other changes incorporated into the apprenticeship and training division that would regulate these particular industries.

So, with those few words, I think we are prepared to pass Bill 12 through to committee so that we have the opportunity to hear members of the public who may wish to come forward. Thank you for the opportunity to have my comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 12. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Would you call Bill 49, please.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives) standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Is the House ready for the question?

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, would like to put a few comments on the record in regard to Bill 49. I have sat patiently the last few weeks and listened to the opposition members across put forward some of their ideas in regard to how they see Bill 49 playing out in the province of Manitoba. While I appreciate their opinions and, I would suggest perhaps, guesses as to how it will play out, I would like to put on the record how I see it playing out in my particular area.

As I, I guess, looked at Bill 49 and how it was going to affect my area and again listening to the comments across, I, at this time, would just like to take the opportunity to thank the people who have put their names forward to sit on these regional health authorities. I know, the people in the communities that I represent, they were nominated usually by community groups, and their names were put forward for selection.

Although, at the time, I did not know all the names that were put forward for the region, I have gone out and tried to meet these people and at least discuss with them as to how they see health care developing in rural Manitoba and particularly in the areas that I represent. These people, many of them, from what I understand, have had experience sitting on hospital boards. They have served in communities that they live in, in various ways, and I think that it is far, far beyond us to criticize these people who are dedicating so much time, so much effort, for very little remuneration, which I do not believe that is why they are in it.

I believe they are in it for the betterment of health care for all rural Manitobans. These people, from what I understand, are meeting as much as two days a week to basically be up to date on all the issues affecting health care in Manitoba. I know that it takes a lot of their time, time away from their families, and in a lot of cases from their places of work, and I do not think that we should stand and criticize these people for dedicating their time and their efforts to the betterment of all Manitobans by serving on these regional health authorities.

I certainly--and again, for the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker--I do want to congratulate these representatives and commend them for the tough job that they have ahead of them. I certainly think that anyone here recognizes, when you are dealing with new directions and change particularly in the health care providing of services, it is tough to deal. You are not only dealing with the economics of it, you are dealing with personalities, you are dealing very much with the human side of it, and I would just like to put on the record that these people I believe are serving the communities that they represent, and not just the communities that they live in but the communities that they represent as a whole or at large.

Certainly, I am sure, as the honourable members opposite will recognize, rural Manitoba is a large community and it is a large area to travel as far as distances between one community and the other, and these people are not just representing certain segments of that particular community, they are representing a region, which I believe is probably a little harder and more difficult on them, but again I congratulate them for accepting the task.

* (1520)

A couple of the issues that I see as Bill 49 presenting to rural Manitoba and benefits that I see happening for us is the fact that I believe the recruitment of physicians to rural areas is going to be enhanced through the regional structure. I think that rural and remote physicians have always cited that they have suffered a little bit from a lack of collegial interaction and support amongst their colleagues, and that by going to a larger district or region as proposed in Bill 49, that this will allow them to interact more freely and be encouraged to discuss the issues that are facing them in regard to health care and also in their education and training and upgrading. I have always said, and I think I made that point a few days ago when I stood to speak and was corrected by one of the honourable members as to procedure in the House, that doctors too need that in the sense of the camaraderie of getting together to discussing the issues that affect them most and lessons that they have learned as they have moved ahead in their careers in the medical field, and I think that this bringing together of this group of people to not only provide the service but also have the input as to the direction and the areas that we should be providing the service to in these regions will certainly benefit us.

I think that permitting and allowing the pooling of doctor resources is only going to benefit us. I think in some of the communities that I represent the fear is not so much that we cannot get doctors, it is a matter of they want to know that a doctor is accessible and available to them, and one of the examples I often use is that there are two communities in my area right now that are sharing doctor services, and that seems to have worked out very well amongst the two communities. Again, when you introduce change to areas, there are areas of reluctance, and people have a tendency maybe not to accept it, but once they have had an opportunity to participate in that procedure they accept it and it becomes a part of our life, and I think in my particular experience it has worked very well. I also think that the idea of pooling the resources and consolidation of the doctor resources will maybe help us create some speciality services that are perhaps being provided in one area of the region but not available to the other representatives or members in that particular region. I am hoping that this will advance that shared co-operativism that is out there and will be out there with the regional health authorities and the associations that they develop.

I also think that when you get into a regionalization plan, the larger population base of the regions will provide a number of positive advantages for the communities. I think that the ability to have the larger data set will facilitate when they are trying to make some of the hard decisions that are out there for the region that they are representing. That evidence and that data will be available to them to make those decisions.

Again, as I said earlier, I think the ability to share the resources--I know some areas of the regional health authority of my particular area were envious of some of the hospitals down the road, some of the services that their communities in the past have worked hard to provide to the people that they serve. I am very pleased to say, now I will have an opportunity to share some of those services. I think that is a real benefit for all of us in rural Manitoba.

We talk quite often about the handicap of living in certain segments in Manitoba. I suggest that in rural Manitoba, southern Manitoba, we suffer from that too, Brandon being our major centre close to us, but Winnipeg, we do have travel costs. We do have overnight costs, and we do have expenses that are not considered as part of our health care and, I do not think, should be considered by anybody as part of the cost of health care.

I think going to the larger regional health authorities will allow us to access some of that within our own region. I think that getting into the regionalization will permit the government to basically minimize its involvement in the direct delivery of service but play a bigger role where we can set standards for the communities of the province, where we can monitor some of the programs that are being put forward and that we can set goals and objectives and be able to evaluate them honestly and truly as to how they are serving the people that they are accountable to.

I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will close up very quickly, but I do want to just put on the record that, again, I am pleased to see this bill moving forward. I do believe that when you introduce change to the people, it is sometimes done in reluctance, but the people that I represent in the communities I am hearing from, as they receive the information and become more educated in what is happening in the direction that we are going--and I know that the people that we have in the regional health authorities are getting the message out to the people. They are understanding what we are doing and what direction they want to go, and I certainly support them. I support the minister on this bill, and I would really dearly like to see all of Manitoba support Bill 49. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to rise to add my comments on Bill 49. I listened to the comments for the member, I believe, for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), when he said that he congratulates those who have put forward their names to be included in on the committees, the regional health boards. I guess the question that comes to my mind is, what process is in place that would allow members of the public to come forward to put their names forward for inclusion on these committees, these regional health boards? Do they have to go down to the Minister of Health's office? Do they have to go to the Speaker's office? Do they have to go to some other department's office in the Health department and put their name forward and fill out a form, or do they have to have a little blue card and go to that office, not far from this building? Perhaps the provincial Conservative Party's offices that are not far from this building, is that where you go to apply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I guess another question I need to ask, what is the criteria that you have to have? What criteria are in place for the selection of these people?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Even though the member is on a fishing expedition, I do believe we have to have a little bit of decorum here. The honourable member for Transcona, to continue.

Mr. Reid: I guess that is the appropriate analogy. Perhaps this is a fishing expedition, because I am at a loss to explain how you get to be a member of these particular regional health boards, the ten that are being struck plus the one superboard in Winnipeg. What are the criteria? I want to ask the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) or the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae).

An Honourable Member: You have got to run for the Tory party and lose.

An Honourable Member: Just simple competence.

Mr. Reid: So the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) is saying that you have to be purely competent. That is what he is saying. So the Minister of Labour is saying that all of the people that have been selected for these boards, the majority of them are competent people and that there are no other competent people in the province of Manitoba. That is what the Minister of Labour is saying and, yet, well--

An Honourable Member: There is no NDP in rural Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: The member for Turtle Mountain must recognize that I think with respect to Bill 49--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing this. Could I ask the honourable member for Transcona to put his comments through the Chair. It might not provoke the debate quite as much.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Speaker, getting back to the criteria that is used for the selection of these people, I listened to the questions that were asked by my colleague the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) when he asked about vacancies that exist on the regional health board that is going to be serving that area, and the government had made the statement through the Minister of Health that there are no people that have come forward with their names and, yet, my colleague the member for The Pas said members of the First Nations communities have put forward their names in writing to the Minister of Health and to the government for inclusion, so I guess--[interjection]

Now the member for Turtle Mountain, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the member for Turtle Mountain, said that there was a deadline. I guess we have to ask the question, did the public know about the deadline? They knew about the deadline. Okay, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to ask the member for Turtle Mountain, where do you go to get the application forms to be included in the selection process to sit on these boards?

* (1530)

Well, my colleague the member for The Pas put forward the names in this House of constituents of his that wanted to be included for consideration to sit on the regional health board that will serve The Pas and district, and the only names that we know of that are sitting on that board are defeated Tory candidates or Tory hacks.

An Honourable Member: There are a lot of them up North.

Mr. Reid: True, there are a lot of defeated Tory candidates in the North. There is no doubt about that.

Getting back with reference to Bill 49. I listened to the comments that were made by my colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), fine man that he is and a fine representative of his community. He referenced the fact that the three representatives that were selected for the regional health board for his area of the province are again three defeated Tory candidates. So is there a pattern developing here, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I guess one has to ask the question--

An Honourable Member: You are jumping to conclusions.

Mr. Reid: Well, the government House leader says I am jumping to conclusions here, but a few moments ago when I was talking on the other bills, and I do not mean to wander here, but there seemed to be a pattern developing where ministers of Health, Education and Labour do not want to divulge the regulations affecting at least a dozen pieces of legislation here that are somewhat controversial or very controversial, and now we have here government saying he wanted to congratulate the members who had put forward their names to sit on these regional health boards and they are going to do a great and wonderful job, and perhaps they will, but it would be nice to see the criteria that were used for the selection process to sit on these.

I go back to the comments and the questions that were asked in this House by my colleague the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), asking the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to keep his commitment, to keep his word and the word of this government that there would be elections for the members of the public who wanted to run for the regional health boards. After the Minister of Health indicated to Manitobans that he was going to have elections for those people, he reneged on his word, went back on his word and said there would be no elections and that he went ahead and politically appointed people to sit on those boards.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one should look at the reasons why the Minister of Health and this government wanted to politically appoint people to sit on these regional health boards. It is very obvious that the Minister of Health for some time, and his predecessor who is no longer here, wherever he may be now, serving on some board or committee somewhere, and I believe he is working in the health field, that the Minister of Health and the government has been taking quite a bit of heat, and, in fact, some time ago, lost their three by-elections largely related to the health issue.

Now what this government is doing, of course, is setting up the regional health boards with their politically appointed people, all defeated Tory candidates or at least the majority of them, and the government will no doubt cap the funding to these regional health boards and say, now you are responsible for determining what level of services are going to be provided to the people that you are politically appointed to represent, not democratically elected, but politically appointed to represent.

So there is no doubt in my mind that the government's intent here is to transfer the responsibility, the decision-making responsibility, and the public flak that will no doubt follow for the decisions to cut back on health care services in the province of Manitoba. That is the intent of this government through Bill 49, to transfer their responsibility to their politically appointed people.

Now, I want to get back to another portion of this bill relating to something that ties in with other pieces of legislation here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, namely The Labour Relations Amendment Act, and other pieces of legislation that the government tabled that will affect working people in the province of Manitoba. The way this government has spun through the media their decisions with respect to The Labour Relations Amendment Act changes is that there is a need to democratize the workplace. There is a need to democratize unions in the province of Manitoba.

Well, let us take a look at what this government has done through Bill 49. This government has once again undermined the thought that there would be any democracy practised by this government. This government, through Bill 49, is a power grab by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the other members of the cabinet who obviously made this decision. Now, I hope they consulted with the backbench members because they are going to be tarred and feathered by the same decision.

This government, through Bill 49, is going to politically appoint a commissioner who will have the powers to make decisions that will affect the lives of every person who will fall under the responsibility of these regional health boards. This minister and this government, through their political appointment of this commissioner, in cases where the employees who are represented by various health care unions in the province or people who work in the health care industry who would fall under direct responsibility of those new regional health boards will be under the direct control and thumb of the new commissioner who is politically appointed. He, indeed, will be a czar and will be only answerable to the Minister of Health.

It is my understanding that this government will, through its politically appointed commissioner, be able to make the determination which certified union in the province of Manitoba will be directly charged with the responsibility of representing and negotiating on behalf of working people who are employed in the health care under these new regional health boards. So what this essentially does is it transfers power away from the people that were democratically elected by the unionized members employed in the health care field and transfers that power to the commissioner who is politically appointed by the Minister of Health and the government of the day.

Now, I hope that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) is listening to the comments because I believe that this is in direct--the former Minister of Labour should know this, and I hope he as a member of cabinet advise his own colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), that what he is doing here perhaps could be in contravention of The Labour Relations Act of the province of Manitoba. [interjection]

Now, the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) says that they are going to change The Labour Relations Act to take away that power from the unions. I do not doubt that is what he really means, and that he is an anti-union individual, there is no doubt about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt that he is anti-union just listening to his comments here today, and if he was not, I am prepared to allow him to rise on a point of order and say he supports unions in the province of Manitoba. But if he does not want to do that, the only result and logical conclusion to draw from that is he is an anti-union individual.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt, looking at the power grab that this government is taking through The Labour Relations Act amendments, through The Construction Industry Wages Act amendments, and Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments, that it is a power grab that this government is making, a power grab that is going to affect every working person that is working in the health care field and is a member of a union that represents them, democratically elected in the province of Manitoba.

* (1540)

So the government on the one hand is trying to sell us on the need to democratize unions and workplaces in the province of Manitoba; and, on the other hand, through Bill 49, they are saying that there is no need to have democracy at work and that the government knows better and that they will through their politically appointed commissioner determine which union will be the negotiating body to represent people employed in the health care field under the various regional health boards in the province of Manitoba. So I raise that issue with the members opposite, with the former Minister of Labour who should know better and perhaps did not advise his colleagues that this was in contravention of the act and that it was a power grab on their part and would not look good to the public. But I guess he did not take that opportunity.

I hope that when this bill goes to committee that members of this House, who may sit in on that committee and hear the public presentations of those that are going to come forward to speak on Bill 49 to add their thoughts, will recognize quite clearly that this government has not only gone back on their word with respect to the election of people to represent all Manitobans on those regional health boards, and that the government has skewed the process by politically appointing their defeated Tory candidates to sit in and make the decisions that have to be made by government instead of the government through cabinet and the Minister of Health, and that this government is on a power grab and are doing things in a way that are contrary to the labour relations history in the province of Manitoba by the appointment of a commissioner that will have the powers, nonappealable through the courts, and make decisions that will affect people that are employed in the health care field throughout the province of Manitoba.

I hope the government understands quite clearly, as I am sure they do, that they are moving in a direction that is contrary to the stable history of labour-business peace in the province of Manitoba by the move that they are making through Bill 49 and, of course, other regressive labour legislative changes in the province of Manitoba.

With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Bill 49, I think this government is going in the wrong direction and that they should look very seriously at either seriously amending Bill 49 to correct the imbalance. If they cannot do that, to restore fairness to the working people of the province of Manitoba and the people that are going to be affected by this bill, at least have the courage to withdraw this bill. I think the public will respect you for having that courage to recognize that you are moving in the wrong way with the way this bill is laid out now and that there are changes that are seriously needed with respect to Bill 49. If you do not make those changes through amendment, do the honourable thing and withdraw Bill 49.

With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I look forward to this bill going to committee. Thank you.

Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to just put a few brief comments on the record. I think that one of the important things that we have to remember when we are talking about health care in this province is who is health care for. Health care is for those people who require the attention and need for health care. It is not necessarily the system itself. The system has to be put in place to serve the needs of the patient.

With that, I would like to relate in terms of where we are at coming into this regionalization, the regionalization of health care in Manitoba. I think it behooves us all that the point we are at today is we are here because of factors that have been forced upon us in terms of health care, with over 33.8 percent of our budget being spent on health care, having gone up over 2 percent since 1988 and continuing to rise--this past year another $90 million was spent on health care.

Then, on the other side, having the federal government withdraw funding from health care, which really puts a lot of pressure on us as a province to be able to deliver health care as we now have it, it is imperative that we go through this health care reform process. The regionalization, or the regional health authorities, is one of those venues whereby we can take existing economic resources that are available to us and use them more efficiently to deliver health care throughout Manitoba.

Why have regional health authorities with their own boards? Why I would like to relate with some of the other members, because my background is agriculture and it is not in health, is that in history many programs have taken place in Manitoba which were Canada-Manitoba shared programs. That funding was put into place of local groups who then utilized those funds to carry out programs within a defined plan. These groups prove, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in terms of efficiency of spending that they were able to take the public dollars and spend them wisely, spend them efficiently and they got the most success or the most results for the dollars spent.

Going to a regional health authority system or a regional board, as we are doing here in Bill 49, is exactly the same thing of placing funds into the hands of those that would be able to deliver health care at the local community level. These are people that know what the needs are, know how to manage the finances, will get the most efficient delivery of health care for the dollars that are spent.

I would like to just put some facts on the record in regard to Bill 49. One of the areas of the bill implies that under this bill, when the 10 health regions and regional health authorities are established, that it provides for the continuation of the directors until the successors are appointed or elected. I think that is a very important part of that bill that comes out. It also indicates in the bill that the regional health authorities shall be nonprofit corporations. So, therefore, their intent is not to create profit but to spend the money that is given to them from government. It also requires, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that under the regional health authorities all of their by-laws that they pass, that they will have available, that these will be open for public inspection at all times during the business hours of the board office.

Another important area for the regional health authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I feel is most important is the fact that this regional health authority must have an annual meeting each and every year, and this annual meeting must be open to the public so the public will have direct input into the regional health authority and that this regional health authority shall appoint, hire a chief executive officer to carry out the day-to-day activities of the regional health authority. The regional health authority also must put into place a regional health plan that must be approved by the minister. I mentioned earlier that many of the funding agreements between the province and local communities have to fall within a set framework. There is no question that these regional health plans would have to fall within a defined network.

Also, the bill requires, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that each regional health authority can have as many as four district health advisory committees. These district health advisory committees are put into place in order to have feedback from every local community within this regional area back up to the regional health authority so that they can take a look at the data and the feedback that is coming back to this regional health authority to make decisions about delivery of health care.

Then there is the area of funding, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Health minister, who now funds each local district health board and also supplies funding for home care and supplies funding for personal care under this act will provide funding to the regional health authority. It will then have the responsibility of entering into agreements with each acute care centre in terms of home care, in terms of personal care, in terms of all the other health care services, community health care services that are offered in terms of underneath the one umbrella of funding. I think that is very important, because you are able to integrate the whole system of health care. The existing health boards that are presently in place with each acute care centre, and that is the prevalent health boards that we see, each one of these health boards can choose to stay in existence or can choose to take on a different role under this new regional health authority.

* (1550)

One of the very important things, I think, under this Bill 49 is the fact that the regional health authority will not be able to apportion debt if incurred. Under the existing system of health care in Manitoba, if you had a district hospital board and if it incurred a deficit, the member municipalities and jurisdictions that are part of that district health board can be held responsible to collect that debt from the local taxpayers. Under Bill 49 the regional health authority will not have that ability to go back to the member jurisdictions to be able to recover debt. So it is important that they as a body with funding be able to operate the regional health delivery system within the parameters of the funding that they receive.

The other area that I would like to mention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the fact that in the debates over the last few days, we have heard that all of the power in health care is going to be concentrated in the office of the minister. Then we turn around and we hear another statement being made saying that the government is just offloading its responsibility onto the regional health authorities.

I would say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, No. 1, the responsibility will be with the regional health authority to deliver health care but deliver it in a linked manner, a linking between, you know, prevention, population health, how the population lives, and the treatment of the symptoms. That is very important, and I think that overall the power that is with the minister right now in terms of health care in this province is probably all concentrated in one office. After Bill 49 it will be spread out into the regions. So the minister will indeed have probably less power in the future than he has right now.

In closing then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to say that opposition to Bill 49 will actually mean opposition to the linking of prevention, population, care and treatment into a seamless continuum of care. Opposition will be against the evidence-driven decision making. Opposition to Bill 49 means people will be opposed to better physician recruitment. Opposition to Bill 49 will mean that they are opposed to a broader base for service planning and delivery. Opposition to Bill 49 will mean opposition against enhanced consumer choice and involvement, and opposition to Bill 49 will mean opposition to getting government out of service delivery. Opposition to Bill 49 will also mean that they are opposed to more efficient, effective service delivery.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

So, Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that this Bill 49, sure, people have a lot of apprehension about it. The talk in the coffee shop is a lot of speculation, some innuendos being tossed around, but basically change always brings about that no matter what it is in. Whether it be health or whether it be in agriculture or what have you, change always brings about apprehension, and I say that under this bill we have the opportunity to be able to deliver an integrated health care system throughout Manitoba within the constraints that we have in terms of the health care dollars that are being spent. Even though they are still on the increase, it means that there has to be a more cost-effective means of delivering health care so that all Manitobans can enjoy all health services. Thank you very much.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I wish to put a few brief comments on the record in terms of Bill 49, because I think, as the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) was just referring in our private discussion, it is a scary piece of legislation, and it shows just how far this government is willing to go to extend its authority over pretty well every sector of Manitoba society.

I think there is something particularly scary about that because, sadly, this bill, which started with the basic concept of regionalization of health authorities, has turned into a bill that brings unprecedented powers to this government and to the minister.

I want to indicate on the record, it should be noted that the MHO, which represents the hospital boards, has put in a brief to the minister, has met with the minister, and I have had a chance to talk to members of MHO, and they are saying that this is a very scary item of legislation. I do not know what more it takes for the government to recognize than when those who are running our hospitals are saying there are problems with this legislation, that this bill is fatally flawed.

The second point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is, it is not just a question of the power, it a question of the legitimacy of what we are seeing take place here, and I appreciate the comments from the member for Transcona in terms of the appointment to the regional boards, because the government had a choice.

They did not have to adopt a policy, as I perhaps more jokingly called it, of affirmative action for defeated Tory candidates. They have got lots of places to put defeated Tory candidates. They put them in the civil service. There are quite a few of them there. They put them--[interjection] No, that is Saskatchewan, for the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen). They put them into boards and commissions, and you know what? I expect that from this government. There are certain ministers that are particularly adept at putting defeated Tory candidates and just plain Tories into main civil service positions.

An Honourable Member: Who do you think we are going to appoint, our enemies?

Mr. Ashton: Well, the government House leader says, who do you think we are going to appoint, our enemies? Madam Speaker, you know, right now, given the controversy this government is creating in this province, they are eliminating a lot of people from appointment if they include their political enemies as not being eligible for appointment, and I want to say to the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), because I was kind of concerned about some of his comments from his seat, and I know he was being facetious, when he said that there are not a lot of NDPers in rural Manitoba.

Well, it is interesting because, you know, this is sort of the yellow dog kind of mentality. I remember before the last federal election when they used to run around in rural Manitoba and Conservatives would say, well, this is yellow dog country. We always vote for Conservatives.

Madam Speaker, people in rural Manitoba, they said they have had enough of the Mulroney government. They elected not only Reform but they elected Liberals. Do you remember the days when the Conservatives used to say there were no Liberals in rural Manitoba? Now, there may not be too many after the next election, but that is another question.

But, you know, to the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), I want to tell him there are a lot of people in rural Manitoba who are not Conservatives. There is an increasing number who are not Conservatives, but even in his own constituency there are a lot of fine people who support the New Democratic Party, support the Liberal Party. In fact, I mention this on the record. In Arthur-Virden, represented by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), there were more people who voted NDP in the last election than Conservatives who voted for the Conservative Party in Thompson.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am listening very intently to the member for Thompson, and I am having some difficulty recognizing the relevancy of his comments to the principles of the bill. I am sure the honourable member for Thompson is going to clarify that in his ongoing debate.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I realize that you were not here for the earlier debate, but there was considerable debate as to why it is just coincidental that we have so many defeated Tory candidates being appointed to these regional boards, and there was some suggestion by members opposite that there are not people other than Conservatives in a lot of areas in rural Manitoba, there are not a lot of NDPers, and I wanted to put on the record that there is a significant number of people who are not necessarily aligned with any political party who I believe could have been very good appointments to these hospital boards.

But I have a better suggestion to the government, and I think this is what should have happened this time around with the regional hospital boards. If you want some kind of legitimacy, allow for the regions to elect the people. They said they would do that, and there is an irony, I find. I mean, let us be blunt about this. In the last provincial election, Madam Speaker, one of the key issues was health care, and one of the reasons there are as many defeated Conservative candidates is because they ran on health care. There is an irony for a lot of people I know in The Pas and Flin Flon, the people who ran on health care and were rejected out of hand.

In my area, by the way, and I respected the defeated Tory candidate, but one of the reasons he was defeated by the biggest margin in 25 years is because of health care and what was happening in our local hospital institution, and I know he is now serving the community on the hospital board itself, but there is some concern that is being expressed about people who run--and they are fine people individually, but you know, the way you deal with that is you have a democratic election.

I was talking to somebody yesterday. They said we are going to invent a new term for this government. They have adopted a corporate decision-making model. We have seen it on other issues, but this is not even autocracy anymore. It is certainly not democracy. It is not autocracy. Someone was saying we should call it corpocracy. I mean, whatever word you want to use, it is based on this kind of we-know-best mentality, and in this case the key person here or the CEO, if you like, is going to be the minister. He is going to have all sorts of powers in this legislation that are unprecedented, and even the MHO has stated that, and who are the board of this? It is going to be these appointed individuals, many of whom may be fine people individually but just coincidentally a lot of whom happen to have run for the Conservative Party or be active Conservatives.

* (1600)

Madam Speaker, how can you have a legitimate regional board, for example, in northern Manitoba with the lack of representation from aboriginal people? How can you have that, and The Pas being a classic example. If you want legitimacy you have to have a democratic process. Democracy in this province is much more than having an election every four or five years. It is about democracy in all our institutions on a yearly, on a monthly, on a daily basis.

I appreciate the comments from the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) who acknowledges a lot of concern in the coffee shops in rural Manitoba--there certainly are in my area in northern Manitoba--about what is happening with our health care system and a lot of concern about this structure. People do not want to see the Minister of Health, any Minister of Health, having this kind of authority. The sad part is, there are a lot of advantages to regionalization if it is done in the right way. It could be looked at. There is no problem with the principle of regionalization.

In my area, I have been fighting for years to see a personal care home. We have none in our region, but it is because those decisions are not made in our region, and people leave our communities and they go to other communities because the overall health care bureaucracy has not recognized that. I believe we can solve that by having the control in our area, but we will not solve it unless we have a representative board. Once again, I am not saying anything critical of any of the people who are on the board in my area. They are very good people, but you know what? They would be far more legitimate in terms of their democratic authority if they were elected.

I look at the comparison between school boards where you elect people and people are accountable, and, for example, hospital boards where we do not have elections, or in this case the regional health boards, and I think anybody in this House knows what I am talking about, because each and every one of us at some point in time has to be accountable. Whether we like it or not, we have to be accountable. The buck does stop and it stops at least once every four or five years with the voters, and that creates the accountability we see in this, and each and every person in this House is accountable because of that, and it makes the people who sit in this House representative.

Now, we may argue back and forth, as we do on the issues of the day, but in the end we know that at some point in time we have to be accountable to the people. That is not in this legislation, Madam Speaker, and that is a serious, serious error.

So we are caught in a dilemma on this side, and I appreciate some of the rhetorical suggestions by members opposite who were debating this bill, saying if we vote against this bill we are voting against this, that, the other. I will tell the members opposite why we are voting on this bill and why we are voting the way we are. It is because it is a fundamentally flawed bill. It is undemocratic in the extreme. It is not the only item of legislation, Madam Speaker, that falls in this category, but you are dealing with health care. When you are dealing with health care, do you really need to bring in something that is so draconian that even the MHO has said this is a serious problem and there are serious problems with this bill?

I want to appeal to members opposite, because we will vote, as we will in just a few minutes, on this bill, but this will go to committee. There is an opportunity for the government to at least take a few steps back from where it is at right now in terms of the regional health authorities. There are a number of areas of this bill that can be amended, and that is part of the committee process.

Let us start with the MHO brief. Please read that brief. It is a very well-prepared brief. It has some very excellent suggestions. I would say go into the committee with some sense of removing the arbitrary power that is established, whether it be over employees or the power of the minister in other areas. Try and reform the bill to be a democratic bill.

You know, regardless of the political disagreements we may have, I still believe that if we allow the committee to listen to the presentations, and I understand there are a significant number, we can bring in a better piece of legislation in the final analysis. That is one of the reasons we are taking the stand we are on this bill right now before committee, to signal the government. I look to members opposite--and, by the way, I look particularly to rural members who I know are getting a lot of questions raised about this--to listen to those people because I believe there are some very legitimate concerns out there. I look to them to support some of the concerns that have been expressed, some of the concerns we will be taking to the committee, and I think it is a good opportunity to put aside in that committee process some of the partisan differences and look at some very real problems in this bill.

So I want to say, Madam Speaker, that we believe this is a flawed bill, and we believe that you should not be bringing in this kind of arbitrary decision-making process, an unrepresentative process that you have on something as important as health care.

If there is one area that should be accountable and should be democratic in its administration, it is health care, the largest area of government, the area that we have to be concerned the most about. I say, and I appeal to the government members, they have the opportunity at committee, please listen to the presentations and please correct many of the fundamental flaws in this bill. Thank you.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I would just like to add a few remarks in support of Bill 49, the Manitoba health authority act. I think it certainly is a step in the right direction, and I certainly support the initiative of our minister, Mr. McCrae. I think that the regional boards will take a new approach to protect the health care of Manitobans.

I am a little familiar with the Interlake area because I have served on a local health board and know how the health board works. I think we have in Manitoba and in the Interlake one of the best health care systems in Manitoba, and I think it is our duty to protect that. Some of the reasons are because of the cutbacks by the federal Liberal government, the number of dollars that have been cut back to Manitoba in the transfer payments. It is putting our health care in jeopardy.

The cutbacks by the federal Liberal government are putting our health care in Manitoba in jeopardy. [interjection] Yes, that is correct, so in order to continue the health care system that we have, and present the quality care that we have, we must look at the whole system and find a way of doing things a little more efficiently. I think the idea of the regional health authorities is certainly a step in the right direction.

I just want to mention the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) spoke about the appointments to the boards. I think our minister did an excellent job and, to the point, we have very good people on the boards. I just want to mention the hypocrisy of the NDP of how they shuffle things around. I happen to have the statistics here of the number of personal care beds in the Interlake region. Out of the 504 care beds in the whole Interlake, 274 are in Selkirk. Do you know why they are in Selkirk? Mr. Pawley, the former Premier, came from Selkirk. That is why they built all these personal care beds in Selkirk. The NDP--

An Honourable Member: How about public housing in Selkirk?

Mr. Helwer: Well, that is another one. That is another story.

Just getting back to the excellent health care facilities that we have in Manitoba. In the Interlake, we have one of the most modern eye care centres in Manitoba. Dr. Oakley, in Gimli, has built a new eye care centre. He and his partner Greg Hosegood have one of the most modern eye care centres, and they look after the--in the whole Interlake we have 76,000 people. We have two people that look after the eyes, the ophthalmologists, Dr. Oakley and his partner. They do an excellent job and have some of the best equipment in Manitoba. I am really proud to say that we have one of the best eye care centres in Manitoba.

One of the reasons why health care is so important and one of the reasons we have to protect it in the Interlake is 27 percent of our population is over 60 years old. The town of Gimli, Winnipeg Beach, areas such as that, are great places to retire--[interjection] Yes, sir, Mr. House Leader, I will complete my remarks as soon as possible, but it is important that I do put a few remarks to support Bill 49.

I also want to say just how things are not properly distributed. In Selkirk, we have 274 personal care beds; in Stonewall, we have 30. Now a town, a progressive community, like Stonewall and only 30 personal care beds--we are correcting that. We are going to build 20 more new ones, and we have a new hospital in Stonewall, so things are going to be corrected. Plus, I think, we had a 27-bed addition at Teulon which is being held up by the minister, but hopefully those will be able to go ahead.

In conclusion, I just want to say that I support Bill 49. I think our Health minister is doing an excellent job and we want to protect health care in Manitoba, for Manitobans, and to improve the system and the health care that can be provided. In order to do that, in order to attract the physicians that we need, we must look at the whole area as a region. I support the bill 100 percent. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 49. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No. All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

* (1610)

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested, call in the members.

* (1620)

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers.

Madam Deputy Clerk (Bev Bosiak): Yeas 28, Nays 24.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Would you call Bill 36, please, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, Bill 36, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, this bill is one of the most mean-spirited of all the legislative package that is before this House. That is strong competition.

I want to make only a very few remarks, but I will tell the House that my partner works with people in one of the most difficult areas of the city, many of whom, in fact the majority of whom, are on social assistance.

Without exception, these people have serious physical handicaps, mental handicaps. They are not equipped for the kind of work that is available to anybody today. The expectation that these people will turn in every couple of weeks 15 job contacts when they have no means of transportation, when they have no realistic opportunities to do the kind of work which is available to them is simply punitive, mean-spirited and ultimately counterproductive.

In particular I want to close my comments by pointing out that when you deliberately cut people off social assistance because they have not followed some bureaucrat's direction to make 15 futile contacts for work that is not there anyway, and when you reduce their income you increase the lack of public safety on our streets, Madam Speaker. If we are worried about people who are desperate now, think what we will face when people have been cut off public assistance or had their public assistance so reduced that the only option they have is a food bank or petty theft. If you want to make streets safe you do not cut off people's income, you do not cut off their hope, you do not demean them, you do not send them on useless job search for work that is not there. This is a bad bill. It is bad legislation. It is mean spirited. It lowers our ability to meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, and we oppose this legislation.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, just in the event that matters do not proceed quite as quickly as we had anticipated, is there leave of the House to not see the clock in order to complete Bill 36?

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House for the Speaker not to see the clock at 4:30, to proceed, if necessary, on debate on Bill 36? [agreed]

Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No? All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested, call in the members.

* (1630)

The question before the House is second reading of Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers.

Madam Deputy Clerk (Bev Bosiak): Yeas 28, Nays 24.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, as a result of actions taken by the House this afternoon, Bills 27 and 71 are referred to the Committee on Economic Development which will meet on Thursday, October 10, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker: Bills 27 and 71 are accordingly referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Development which will meet Thursday, October 10, 10 a.m.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Thursday, October 10, at 7 p.m., to consider Bill 36. If unable to complete their work Thursday evening, the committee will resume again at 9 a.m. Friday morning.

Madam Speaker: The Committee on Law Amendments will meet Thursday, October 10, 7 p.m., to consider Bill 36, and if the committee is unable to complete its work, the same committee will reconvene at 9 a.m., Friday, October 11.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet on Thursday, October 17, 1996, at 7 p.m., to consider Bill 54.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet Thursday, October 17, 7 p.m., to consider Bill 54.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the Committee on Economic Development for Thursday, October 10, at 2:30 p.m., to consider the report of Venture Manitoba Tours will now start at 3:30 p.m.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Economic Development to meet Thursday, October 10, originally scheduled for 2:30 p.m. to consider Venture Manitoba will now be rescheduled to meet at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed).

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to call it 5:30 p.m.?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No, leave has been denied.