Funding

Government Position

Inquiry

Manager Position

Mr. Maloway: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker, reading from the steering committee minutes of July 14, 1995, it clearly states that the telephone system put in $385,000 of in-client services plus $100,000 in cash. The provincial government put in $500,000, the federal government put $200,000. If you add all that up, you get to $1.2 million and climbing.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Elmwood does not have a point of order. I would remind all honourable members that points of order are intended to draw to the attention of the House a breach of the rules of the House.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Stefanson: Very briefly. The member for Elmwood confirmed exactly what I told this House, that the Province of Manitoba has contributed $500,000 to this initiative, so I am glad that he finally, for once, did put some accurate information on the record. As I have indicated, he asks a lot of specific questions about a company operation. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) has assured this House that information that he is able to share about this operation he will do so, and he will provide a full and complete disclosure of this entire transaction.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the minister responsible for the Liquor Control Commission. The other day I asked the question in terms of the brew pubs. The minister delicately danced around the issue at hand. We have the potential to have brew pubs in the province of Manitoba, and the concern is that there is a requirement to bring forward some sort of positive amendments that would accommodate and facilitate the hundreds and thousands of dollars that Manitobans are prepared to invest in this industry.

My question to the minister is: Today, will she commit to bringing in the necessary changes that are required in order to make these brew pubs feasible for the province?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): What I said the last time when this question was raised in the House--the question has been answered--is that it is possible for individuals who wish to set up brew pubs to do so now under the current regulations and under the current act. Now, if the member is asking for certain changes to be made to the act to accommodate a plan that he has in mind, put it on the record, tell us what his plans are. What would you like to see?

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the minister responsible acknowledge that there are problems in the sense that a cabaret licence does not facilitate the hours that would be required to be opened and other explanations that she gave the other day just do not carry any water, do not suffice? If you believe in the industry and you want to help these business people establish brew pubs, bring in the necessary required legislation amendments in order to make it possible. Do not treat it as a joke.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, the member has referenced some changes that he wanted in terms of cabaret hours or the ability for brew pubs to be open at certain times. He has not made himself clear about what changes he is asking on behalf of individuals. Put it on the record. Tell us the changes, because he is quite right; this is an industry. There are a number of businesses that are operating at the moment, so tell us what kinds of changes he would like to see and let us examine them.

* (1025)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister would acknowledge the fact that maybe she is incompetent in dealing with this issue. If she wants me to resolve it and provide her the information, I will be more than happy to be able to sit down with her and tell her what the problems are so we can deal with the issue at hand and resolve the issue, so that millions of dollars can be invested in our inner city and other areas of the province, so that we can actually have an industry as opposed to letting the industry completely disappear.

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the member is quite right. This is an industry, and there are in fact a large number of people who are employed in the industry. When he would like to make changes and, Madam Speaker, he totally underestimated that in his question--I reject completely the kinds of statements that he has put on the record about the industry at the moment, very wrong and very-- underestimates the hardworking business people that are currently in place, and I do say shame on him. That was a disgraceful outburst.

However, Madam Speaker, I would say that as looking at any changes, there requires a balance. If the member has some ideas that he wants to bring forward, please bring them forward, but as I said the last time, the MLCC is very open to working with individuals interested in opening brew pubs. They have in fact done so. There have been a number of conversations with individuals who would like to open brew pubs under the current regulations, and if the member has further changes that he would like to see, then I would like him to bring them forward, but please acknowledge this is a vibrant industry now.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I was raising on Wednesday errors in the Minister of Housing's news release of April 15 regarding the destruction of public housing units in St. Vital. One error was the claim that the units were vacant when this government knew full well that they evicted the tenants, forcing them against their will to move out so that they could sell the property. Another error is the claim that the value of the salvage material to be donated is $540,000.

I want to ask the Minister of Housing: Why did he claim that the value of the materials was $540,000 when at most it is $100,000, as quoted publicly today, minus the cost for extracting the material.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, the member is misinterpreting the news release. The value of the buildings was $540,000, not the materials that were involved with the buildings themselves. So though Home Depot has said that they would be able to realize approximately a hundred thousand dollars on the resale of the material, the value of the units was $540,000, not the value of the material in the buildings.

Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister explain why the news release says materials from the buildings valued at $540,000 will be recycled to new homes when that is not the case?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I used the word "pretzelization" at one time in regard to the interpretation of events. If the member reads the press release again, it says material from the buildings, comma, valued at $540,000, the buildings valued at $540,000, not the material from the buildings.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson, on a point of order.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. To ensure there is no misinformation about this on the record, I am going to table a copy of the news release which says: This includes cabinets, electrical systems, light fixtures, interior doors, fireplaces, door casings and millwork from several units.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson, with a final supplementary question.

* (1030)

Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask the minister: How much did the government get from Home Depot when they sold the land, given that the assessment from the City of Winnipeg said the land and buildings were worth $531,000, and will he confirm that the $540,000 figure quoted in his news release includes the value of the land?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, the total realization for the sale of that land, including the buildings, was close to a million dollars to the provincial government.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege on this very serious matter because of the minister's unwillingness to clarify on the record issues that we have been raising about this news release. He has had the opportunity to clarify why he has put forward wrong information in a news release the other day and again today. He has now confirmed that the value of the land was included in the figures quoted in the news release. It is important, I think, on an issue as significant as this, when we look at our job, to do our job in representing the people of Manitoba, that we have accurate information brought forward by the government whether it is through news releases or in this House.

When the government does not clarify the record when they have provided misinformation, it violates our privileges in this House. The government must be held accountable for information that they put forward. We have given the minister an opportunity to deal with the error in terms of the claim that there were vacant suites, 20 vacant suites, when it is clear that they have evicted these people, that these suites were not vacant, and now we have learned again today as quoted in the public account through the Winnipeg Free Press that the value of the materials to be transferred for reclamation is not as the news release has said, $540,000, but is indeed less than $100,000. This type of misleading information, manipulation, cynicism, must be challenged at every opportunity, and when the minister would not verify the truth about these units and this agreement, he has violated all of our privileges in this House. I raised the issue of the 20 units being demolished, and the minister has claimed that they will be replaced by two homes built from the salvaged material and this, again, is not the case. That material will go to the Re-Store and will not necessarily be used to build these new homes.

The other issue that was raised was trying to justify this bad decision to destroy public housing units so that Home Depot could build a parking lot was that there were vacant units. I have with me the most recent information from the Manitoba Housing Authority regarding vacancies, and in the St. Vital area there is a nine-month to a year waiting list for the types of townhouses that were destroyed in this situation. The member across the way, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), is walking a very fine line, Madam Speaker, with the information he is bringing to this House. I believe that he has misled this House and that is why I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Motion presented.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, questions of privilege should be handled with care and treated very seriously whenever they are raised in any legislative Chamber, and ours is certainly no exception. As I listened to the discussion between the honourable member for Radisson and the honourable Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), it strikes me that we have some dispute here over the facts that form part of the issue being raised by the honourable member for Radisson. I do believe that it is appropriate for anyone to raise their dispute or their disagreement in an appropriate way. I do not always think a question of privilege is the proper forum for that type of discussion.

In any event, Madam Speaker, you will no doubt want to review the facts of this situation, and I think that opportunity should be made available to you. We would hope that you do that and bring forward some kind of ruling on this matter at a subsequent date after further review.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I first want to deal with the technical nature of this, and I believe the member is indeed raising this at the first opportunity. I would note this is being raised after the member gave the minister one more chance to try and put accurate information on the record. I want to stress we believe this goes beyond a dispute over the facts. Indeed, if it was a dispute over the facts, we would not be rising on a matter of privilege, but this goes to the root of the cynicism of this government. You know, this is a government and this minister--and I really think the minister should apologize to this House for what has happened. They put out a press release which I think is some of the most deceptive propaganda we have seen in quite some time. To say as they did in the press release, for the purposes of a cynical media event, attempt to try and make good news out of this situation, to suggest that these were 20 vacant units is absolutely offensive because the only reason those units were vacant is because the residents of those units were evicted.

Talk about double-speak; talk about cynical manipulation. I do not know who came up with the idea this was good news, but I can tell you, for the 20 families that were affected and the many other Manitobans who are being affected by this government's wholesale removal of social housing as a goal and a policy of this government, that is not good news, Madam Speaker; that is just one more sign of how cynical and uncaring this government is about Manitobans.

But, you know, the minister did not just stop there. The minister went and inflated the value of this. I believe some very serious questions have to be raised about the situation with Habitat as well, as to whether they were informed of where this came from. I know that they are not happy, because the goal of Habitat for Humanity is to add to the housing stock, not subtract 20 units.

So, once again, we are in the situation of what do we as members of the opposition do. Well, I say, Madam Speaker, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) gave the minister one more chance to do the right thing, and that to my mind would have been to apologize for misleading the House, apologize for misleading the public and apologize in particular for doing something that destroys the housing stock of the province of Manitoba.

I want to say that the only way to get this dealt with, by the way, I believe is to have it referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I say to the minister, and I say to government members opposite who seem to have taken some mirth at this particular situation, it is a very serious matter. It is very serious because I believe every minister has an obligation in this House to always tell the truth. Indeed, when it is clear that the truth has not been told, that minister has an obligation to correct the record and then apologize for misleading the public.

I say to you, Madam Speaker, the only appropriate thing for you to do as Speaker on this particular matter of privilege is to allow us as members of the House to deal with it. That, I believe, will go a long way to ensure not only that this minister is honest and straightforward with the people of Manitoba but other ministers who do the same thing, who use cynical manipulation of the media to try and distort the facts in this province. That kind of cynicism can only be stopped when we get truth in this House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. A matter of privilege is indeed a very serious matter. I thank all honourable members for their advice, and I will take the matter under advisement and report back to the House.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Earlier in the week, during the anniversary of the home care strike, the minister attempted to answer a question concerning the privatization of home care. I want to ask the minister that question again because he has now had time to reflect on it in his answers, which were clearly wrong.

During the home care situation one of the major issues raised was that private home care companies offer additional unneeded services to home care clients. I am asking the minister, with regard to the largest contract ever entered into regarding privatization, a $5-million contract to Olsten services, whether the government will prohibit Olsten from selling additional services to the clients they have who in fact are government clients, are captive clients and have no choice but to deal with Olsten?

* (1040)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Under the particular contract--and I apologize; even ministers of Health can come down with a touch of a cold. I would indicate to the member for Kildonan, under that specific contract the types of prohibitions that he is speaking of are part of that contract, so that is not the case. What I attempted to flag in my answer to his question--and I am sure we will get into this discussion in Estimates--there are very real opportunities even in the public home care system for those types of feed services, certainly with the support services for seniors, a combination in rural areas. There are concerns with how that operates. It is a policy issue that is going to have to be addressed in the next while. But it is equally applicable to public home care as well.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, for clarification, is the minister therefore saying that in the context of the Olsten contract that the Olsten corporation can offer no additional services and no services that they provide to any client that is contracted with Olsten beyond those provided under the government contract? Is he giving us a definitive statement today that that is prohibited by the contract? Because I do not find it in the contract.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I believe that in the contract are provisions that prevent that provider from soliciting, advertising or offering any goods or services to any client other than the services indicated in the service plan. That is my understanding of the agreement. As I have pointed out to him, a very real issue in the rural health authorities was if there was a potential to combine support services for seniors, often which have a fee, with the home care services, which are both going to be governed by the RHAs, to provide an economical way of delivering that service. It is very applicable in areas where seniors are sparsely populated, like a good part of my constituency. It is a policy issue to be decided.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister is also concerning home care. Can the minister give assurances that the home orderly service that was once privatized, and because of difficulties was brought under the public gamut, will not be broken apart into regions within the regional structure that is being set up by the province because that appears to be one of the policy directions that the home care service in Winnipeg is going towards, that they are breaking down the home orderly service into the regional quadrants that have been established artificially by the government?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I must admit to the member, on the specifics of that question I do not feel comfortable in giving him a definitive answer. It is something that I will entertain to check up on, and I hope we can get into that discussion in Estimates. I would just make this point, as the member has flagged in making a decision about including services with fees attached whether it be public, private or what have you, there are pros and cons to that and he has flagged some of them. I share some of them. There are demands in other areas, but it is an issue on which I hope we can have a very good discussion in Estimates because it is a public policy, a decision that may have to be made at some point in the future.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am just rising in respect to the question that I took notice of in respect of the Roulette group home that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) raised. In response to his question about the concerns that the operators of this home had raised, I had written back to them already on March 25 indicating that I have asked officials from my department to schedule a meeting with them to discuss these concerns. Indeed, there are a number of operational issues that should be discussed with this home, with the particular operators, and I trust that those conversations and discussions will take place. These matters have been ongoing for some time in respect to some of the concerns that have been raised by my department officials, and I trust that this will be an opportunity to deal with those.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question to the minister responsible for the continuing $4-million investment the government has in McKenzie Seeds. The Brandon management of McKenzie Seeds issued a statement to employees a few weeks ago that, and I am quoting: It is recognized that our major customers are located in Toronto. It is therefore appropriate and essential that the marketing and sales office be located in Toronto.

My question to the minister is: Does the wording of the sale agreement with Regal Greetings permit this, or is it in contravention of the agreement, at least in spirit if not in the letter?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, as I have indicated to my honourable friend on many occasions, the government set out six preconditions prior to selling the company to Regal. These conditions were incorporated in the agreement, and the company has lived up to these conditions and not breached any of them.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I have a supplementary to the minister who is responsible to ensure that the McKenzie Seeds operation remains in Brandon. Does the sale agreement specifically ensure the continuation of the president's position as CEO in Brandon or does it allow Regal Greetings to eliminate this position?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I have clearly indicated to the member that the preconditions that were set out by the government have been met and in fact exceeded in all their requirements, and they are in complete compliance with the asset purchase agreement signed in December of 1994.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the minister: Has Regal Greetings invested any capital in McKenzie Seeds thus far, pursuant to the sale agreement and as mentioned in your official news release of December 20, 1994, wherein Regal is expected to invest $4 million in McKenzie Seeds? Has any capital yet been invested in the past two years?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, as a country we have an international reputation that is bar none, the highest quality of life according to the United Nations, a record on human rights that is respected throughout the world, but if there is one blot on that it is our treatment of aboriginal people in this country. Given the historic nature of the protest yesterday, I think it is an opportunity for us all to reflect on the need not for talk anymore but for action.

I would like to ask the Premier: Will he begin to address the injustice faced by many aboriginal people by making a commitment as Premier responsible in jurisdiction for Northern Affairs communities to, within a reasonable period of time, perhaps by the new millennium, ensure that every community in this province has the most basic infrastructure, including sewer and water, something that does not exist in many Northern Affairs communities today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I indicated in response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, we believe that there are many issues that ought to be addressed with respect to our aboriginal peoples and their needs. Many of the challenges, of course, occur today off reserve, and in communities throughout the province two-thirds of the Status aboriginals in Manitoba, I believe, live off reserve today. We announced just this week, an urban aboriginal strategy development that is taking place through the Manitoba Round Table on Environment and Economy chaired by George Campbell and vice-chaired by Mary Richard with a number of very, I think, qualified people participating in that.

We have, of course, programs available through the Department of Northern Affairs. The minister, I know, will certainly be available for questioning in his Estimates vis-a-vis the specifics of where the investments will take place, but there are ongoing investments that take place in infrastructure, and they are part of the Estimates commitments that are made each and every year. The member may know that, among other things, the Department of Highways announced a greater commitment towards highway infrastructure this year in northern roads.

So we are aware of demands and needs that take place. We know that basic infrastructure is important to people of northern Manitoba of all backgrounds. Certainly our aboriginal people are part of that equation and very much an important part of that equation.

* (1050)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I hope there will be a target to give basic infrastructure to every community in this province by the year 2000.

I want to ask about education to the minister, because education is the key for aboriginal people being able to take the place in Canadian society that they wish. I would like to ask the Premier if he will not only seek to have the federal government live up to its obligations, particularly with the cuts to Access programs, but reinstate provincial funding both for the Access programs and for New Careers and make a new commitment to ensure that there is a commitment to aboriginal education in this province.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this government is very much committed to education for aboriginal peoples. I see it as, obviously, one of the key cornerstones to allowing our aboriginal people to change very dramatically their social and economic circumstances.

Madam Speaker, among many things, of course we have to continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs that we deliver. We have to ensure that the dollars we invest result in outcomes that are productive and positive for those who take the training. Certainly the commitment to aboriginal education at the post-secondary level has been very strong in this province over a couple of decades. Things like BUNTEP, the Brandon University Native Teacher Education Program, has resulted in hundreds of teachers of aboriginal origin being developed, and as well there have been commitments.

I know that I very proudly have met young engineers who are graduates of our university programs that have been developed as a result of our Access funding, Access funding that has created graduates who are professionals, as doctors, as lawyers, as social workers, as so many other areas. We continued to fund Access. We also have as many intakes as we have had in the past. We also have as many graduates as we have had in the past. We have as many students who continue to be in those programs.

Madam Speaker, like all other Manitobans, our aboriginal people are expected for the benefits that they get from these post-secondary educations to also be able to access our loan programs. Like all other students, they too are expected to take some portion of their support in loans that are repayable in recognition of the tremendous asset that becomes to them and the tremendous increase in their earning power throughout their lives after they take this post-secondary education, so it is all part and parcel of changes that have taken place, changes that reflect the fiscal realities that we have to live with, that every Manitoban has to live with, changes that reflect the reductions in transfers from Ottawa, realities that we have to live with. In a balanced fashion we are attempting to do as much as we can for all people, and that is important to us.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.