Eye Examinations
Deinsurance
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.
During the election campaign, the Premier had a number of ads on health care in the province of Manitoba, and he stated in the election campaign on those ads that he would not allow anyone to take away health care services here in the province of Manitoba. He would not allow this to happen.
Since that time we have had a number of reductions in health care services here in the province of Manitoba, contrary to the word of the Premier, and just yesterday, again, we learned that a preventative health care program with eye examinations was now going to be taken away from many Manitobans and be deinsured.
I would like to ask the Premier, will he keep his word and not allow the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to take away those eye examinations and reinstate it, as he promised in his ads during the election campaign?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, indeed the services continue to be available for Manitobans. Manitobans in this respect are, because of the federal reductions in transfers for health and post-secondary education, having to re-examine, we are having to re-examine how we fund so many of the different matters that are a part of this system. Quite honestly, these are not easy choices and we have to examine how we fare versus the rest of the country.
In the change that was brought in in the budget yesterday, in response to that $116-million reduction in transfer payment cuts from Ottawa, Manitoba joins seven other provinces that provide this kind of service coverage to their people with respect to eye examinations. In fact, I believe four of those provinces do not even provide insured services for those under 19 and those over 64. These are difficult choices, but in making these choices we obviously join provinces like Saskatchewan which, under the New Democrats, provide this same level of service.
* (1335)
Pharmacare
Reductions
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Premier will know that his promises were made after the federal budget was presented. I would also quote that these ads and the policy or platform or the alleged platform of the Filmon government or the Conservative government stated that they would maintain spending at $4.465 billion--and this is on page 10 of the Premier’s promises--he would maintain spending right through the years ’98 and ’99 and that they would make different decisions on cutting red tape and bureaucracy, not cutting on vital health care services.
I want to table a letter today from the Manitoba Society of Seniors, which the Premier has received, wherein the letter states that this government has acted, and I quote and I want to get the quotes properly, in a very, very radical way in cutting the Pharmacare services. These leaner and meaner changes that have been made by the government have raised concerns with thousands of seniors of Manitoba, and the seniors are in shock. They are outraged, they feel betrayed by this Premier and this government and they have deep fear about the changes.
I would like to ask the Premier, will he keep his word to the seniors of this province and reinstate the Pharmacare program that he had promised to maintain?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that this province spends a greater proportion of its budget on health care than any other province in Canada, almost 34 percent of the budget. He need only read coverage in today’s paper of the fact that this province has increased its commitment to health care under a Conservative administration versus that which was provided under the Pawley-Doer administration of the 1980s, 33.8 percent of our budget on health care versus 31.4 percent on health care throughout the years of the Pawley-Doer New Democratic administration. In fact, our commitment to spending on health care is a half billion dollars a year more than it was when we took office. That is the kind of commitment we make to health care and we make no apologies for it.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, of course the Premier also had ads, I believe at the Children’s Museum, talking about seniors, about what a nice and kind government this would be. It is too bad he did not tell them the truth that he was going to radically cut Pharmacare in Manitoba. They may have voted a different way then by knowing the truth of what this government was going to do.
Madam Speaker, the Manitoba seniors association further goes on to say that many seniors may not be able to participate in this program or may buy cheaper or less effective drugs. They further say and ask the Premier to rethink the radical changes that his government has made, contrary to their election promises on page 10 of their election campaign platform book, to rethink their radical changes.
I would like to ask the Premier, will he keep his word that he made in those ads and in his platform, or is he going to continue to break his word and break his promise to the people of Manitoba?
* (1340)
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, first and foremost, this party and this government ran on a balanced budget as being the cornerstone to all of our future programming in Manitoba. That was the basis on which people voted for us. We even took the unprecedented step of having the balanced budget as part of our lawn signs. It was the cornerstone. It was the fundamental No. 1 issue upon which we ran in that campaign.
I say, Madam Speaker, that the seniors, like everyone else in this province, know the value of a balanced budget. The only people who are out of step with that are New Democrats and their friends. They are the people who will not acknowledge that every province in Canada is moving towards the balanced budget. Every area, including New Democrats in this country, are committed to trying to keep our finances in order and to keeping taxes down. The only people who are out of step with all of society are of course the New Democrats who would tax more, spend more and run up deficits indiscriminately as they did when they were in office. They share an ideology that has been discredited and failed in every area of this country. Yet, they cling to it ideologically and they cling to it without the responsibility of being in government, and Manitobans leave them there in opposition because they know that their ideas would not work.
Health Care System
Service Reductions
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question to the Premier, and the Premier knows this, that this government is forcing individuals to pay millions of dollars more in drug costs. It is charging nursing home residents more money to stay in nursing homes. They are charging individuals to pay for eye examinations and probably physical examinations.
Will the Premier not admit that his tax grab, his tax on the sick, his tax on medicare, is offloading the cost of medicare and is a tax on the sick and is the largest tax grab on the sick and elderly in Manitoba history?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): If the honourable member would review the budgets brought down between 1981 and 1988 he would know what real tax grabs are all about, Madam Speaker. Those are the tax grabs that were brought to us by the government of which his colleagues were members and that is the opposite direction that we have been going in since that time. There have been increase-free budgets for eight years and Manitobans have moved from a position of being amongst the highest taxed people in Canada to being amongst the lowest taxed people of Canada, all the while keeping spending for health, social services and education at levels that reflect appropriate priorities of Manitobans. That is what the budgets have been doing for the last eight years.
I remind the honourable member, as the First Minister has already done, that at 33.8 percent of all of our spending being on health care in Manitoba, that provides services to Manitobans at levels that are unparalleled anywhere else in the country, so that the commitment to the health care system is certainly clear. Sometimes we differ on how we should achieve those ends.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how can this First Minister (Mr. Filmon), this Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) or this Minister of Health give millions of dollars in this budget to private nursing companies that are friends of the government, give a $26-million line of credit to the Royal Bank of Canada and charge the sick, the elderly, user fees for Pharmacare, increased fees for nursing homes, have to pay for their own eye exams and probably have to pay for their own physical examinations? How can they do that?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member referred to nursing homes. The changes that are in the budget will be of benefit to some 80 percent of the nursing home population in our province. It is true that some 20 percent will face adjustments but about 80 percent will face downward adjustments in their per diem rates. That was one matter that was incorrectly reported in today’s news, but they got the 80 percent and the 20 percent turned around.
The honourable member knows, like I know--he has been around to many, many meetings just like I have--that we in Canada face very challenging times. We face some great opportunities as well. These are times when we are forced, whether we want to or not, I think we should want to, but it is a time for us to adjust our systems so that we can sustain them for the future.
If I listened to everything that the honourable member told me to do, we would offer nothing to generations of the future, which would be a terrible legacy.
* (1345)
Mr. Chomiak: We are only asking the minister to listen to the people of Manitoba--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan, with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain how they are giving money to home
care that is going to go to private nursing home companies, having the minister’s salary increased by 11 percent, giving $26 million to the Royal Bank of Canada, and then going to the seniors of Manitoba and the sick and saying, oh, but you are going to have to pay $20 million more for your drugs, you are going to have to pay more money for your nursing homes, you are going to have to pay for your eye examinations and you are probably going to have to pay for your physical examinations? How can the minister say that and state that they are actually working on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, we have been working for the people of Manitoba for eight years on this side of the House. Up until yesterday, we were proud to be able to say that we have increased home care spending by 93 percent. As a result of the announcement in yesterday’s budget, we are now over a 100 percent increase in home care expenditures since 1988 when this government took office. There is $8 million more going into home care this coming year. That reflects the need that is going to be there, reflects the shift that is going to be taking place from institutional care to the community. We are going to need that $8 million to provide for the increased pressure that is going to result from changes in our hospitals and from an aging population.
Madam Speaker, the honourable member would rather we not make any allowances for those kinds of changes which would leave us with nothing but chaos in the future in terms of looking after the elderly people of our province. That is not good enough for us. It might be good enough for honourable members opposite, but it is not good enough for us and it is not good enough for Manitobans.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Health.
Why is this minister bent on privatizing home care to American-style multinational corporations, temporary-help corporations like Drake Medox, when every affected group is telling you and telling us that this will hurt their care, their quality of care, the consistency and continuity of that care? Why are you so hellbent on doing it so fast?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if the honourable member had listened to my last answer he might remember that I said that there is going to be increasing pressure on our home care system. I think the funding for home care of the past demonstrates we have responded to the pressures that have been there. [interjection]
Madam Speaker, does the honourable member want to listen to the answer or does he want to interrupt from his seat? We have made very significant increases to appropriations for home care in the past. This budget demonstrates that trend is continuing because we have been talking about a shift from institutional care to community care. The proof of that is in the budgets of the last eight years and certainly in this last budget.
The honourable member has a philosophical problem about who it is that delivers the service. My problem is to make sure that the clients get service. Madam Speaker, that is the bottom line here. The honourable member would sacrifice services to clients so that he and his union boss friends can have it their way. I will not sacrifice client services. We will offer clients services at levels that are equal to or surpassing those of the past, and we will not charge user fees, as honourable members opposite would have people believe.
Role of VONs
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Why is this minister destroying a hundred-year-old nonprofit agency, VON Winnipeg, by taking away the VON’s role in providing nursing services to sick, homebound Manitobans? Why are you doing that?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, for a long, long time the Victorian Order of Nurses has provided good services, excellent services to the people of Manitoba. We think that the Victorian Order of Nurses is prepared to enter into a competitive environment and improve services if that is what is going to result from that, which is what we fully expect. We expect that the Victorian Order of Nurses--not unlike what it did recently when we contracted for home intravenous therapy at the St. Boniface Hospital, the Victorian Order of Nurses lined up with the other private vendors of services and won that contract. So I fully expect the Victorian Order of Nurses’ contribution to the people of Manitoba to continue for many, many more years.
* (1350)
Privatization
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, why is this minister prepared to give away millions in profits, including the new $8 million in funding, to a few owners like the McMasters while you confiscate even more millions in wages from already low-paid workers who face wage cuts of 40 percent and more, making it virtually impossible to recruit, train and keep dedicated and qualified staff? Why are you doing that?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we have a lot of clients in our home care system and we are going to have a lot more. We are going to have to be able to provide them with quality services in greater volumes than we have in the past, and we have to do it in a cost-effective manner. We have to do it with quality always in mind to ensure that the clients are not left the way they have been in the past where we were not able to guarantee services to them. We were not able to provide the services, if needed, on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis; we are able to do that now. Peter Olfert said so. It is quoted in the newspaper saying that he is delighted with that kind of service. The honourable member opposite knows how we got that service. We got it by letting tenders and taking bids for the service and a private company in that situation got the contract, but now we are able to provide those services in a more improved manner.
Pharmacare
Reductions
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, the actions of this government on Pharmacare show a number of things. It shows the incompetence of this minister and government, the way they bungled the handling of the changes. It shows very clearly that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this government ran a fraudulent election campaign and their word means very little in terms of health care.
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, from time to time the use of words in this House create some difficulties. Some are included on both unparliamentary and parliamentary sides. So the member for Thompson using the word “fraudulence,” I think borders on unparliamentary, if not unparliamentary, and I would ask him to consider his words carefully.
Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I chose my words very carefully. I did not use unparliamentary terms such as “lie” or “dishonest”; I used “fraudulent,” which is listed in Beauchesne, page 147, as having been ruled as being parliamentary.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, the honourable government House leader does not have a point of order. Indeed the word “fraudulent” has appeared as being parliamentary. If there is direct reference to a member, such as character, then indeed the word is unparliamentary.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, while the member for Thompson is correct, I might also point out Beauchesne Citation 489, which rules unparliamentary the use of the word “fraud.”
Mr. Ashton: I want to make it very clear, Madam Speaker, that I said that this government ran a fraudulent election campaign. That is a parliamentary word and it is also true.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I had previously ruled on the point of order, but I would caution all honourable members that they should exercise discretion in the choice of their words. Quite often just the choice of the words constitutes a lot of disturbance in this Chamber, and I was hopeful that all members were going to attempt not to provoke debate and cause unnecessary disturbances.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, to quickly pose his question.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, as I was indicating, the worst fact is the fact this government has no idea how much pain it is inflicting on many Manitoba families.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) if he could indicate how many Manitoba families will be cut off Pharmacare and how many others will be faced with huge increases in drug costs because of the heartless decision of this government to slash Pharmacare.
Mr. McCrae: Contrary to what the honourable member has said, Madam Speaker, we approached this difficult task very, very carefully and every step of the way reminded ourselves that there are people in Manitoba who are in very vulnerable circumstances. They are either very poor or they are very much in need of prescription drugs--in some cases, large amounts of prescription drugs which cost a lot of money.
We also had to be aware that we are facing, as has been pointed out on one or two occasions, the reality that the federal government’s funding for health, social services and higher education is declining very, very significantly. We could not just wish that fact away. Would it not be nice if we could, and would it not be nice if our friends here with the Liberal Party had done more to help us in that regard? But that all being a reality, we had to deal with some difficult realities.
So one of the things we did in order to ensure that we could protect those who needed protection most was to say that anyone who had an income over $15,000 should not have to pay more than 3 percent of their income for prescription drugs; anybody with an income under $15,000 should not have to pay more than 2 percent of their income for prescription drugs. Those are the kinds of considerations that went into it, Madam Speaker.
* (1355)
Reductions--Consultations
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): If the minister cannot or will not indicate how many Manitoba families will be impacted by the changes, will he then indicate to this House who was consulted, Madam Speaker? Since the government did not raise this in the election, who was consulted about this drastic change to the Pharmacare program?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, no one on this side of the House or anywhere else would try to get away from the idea that changes like this are not going to have an impact on people. We know they will. All we try to do is to ensure that those who are able to absorb the impact of these kinds of changes are going to be in a position to absorb them. Those who are not so able to do so are given appropriate protection. The income-based Pharmacare program is not unlike the health care program, which honourable members opposite support, which is based on ability to pay through the tax system. There is really not much difference in principle in those things.
We have people in the New Democratic Party, lots of them, who want to have two kinds of systems at work at the same time. We are trying very hard to protect those people who need the protection through programs like this and still have a program, which, I remind honourable members opposite, is still amongst the richest of Pharmacare programs anywhere in this country.
Reductions
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final supplementary is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
Since we are getting absolutely no answers from this minister, who is proving again the incompetence of this government in handling health care, will the Premier do the right thing and withdraw the Pharmacare changes now?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I did not hear the last part of the honourable member’s question, which contained the question, but I assume it was a general condemnation of the policies of the government. We are going to have an opportunity to debate that during the Budget Debate.
Eye Examinations
Deinsurance
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. We, in the Liberal Party, have found it most unfortunate that the government has decided to deinsure eye examinations.
The question that I have for the minister is: If an individual has a referral from a doctor to get an eye exam, is the government prepared to cover that sort of a cost?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I just missed the last part of the honourable member’s question.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, to quickly rephrase the question.
Mr. Lamoureux: Will this government pay for the cost if there is a deferral or a referral from a doctor to get your eyes checked?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the reduction here has to do with the routine eye examination where a patient is not known to be symptomatic, and so it would depend. It seems to me that the way the policy works is that if there is a change in your vision of .5 or more, then that is covered under the program. If, by referral for medical reasons, one is referred for an eye examination, that too is covered.
Optometrist Charges
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister of Health can give clarification to the Chamber. I have a document, and I will table a copy for the minister, and it comes from the Association of Optometrists, which has suggested a retail, if you like, price for the routine eye examination of $46. So now Manitobans who want to get their eyes examined can anticipate receiving a bill in the nature of $46, whereas with the province, formerly it cost $28 for that same routine procedure.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the examination that was under the insured program covered the fee charged to the government by the optometrist. The fee has now been deinsured for those between the ages of 19 and 64 years of age. Optometrists will charge fees to those not covered under the program, and I am sure that any fees that are exorbitant will be dealt with appropriately.
* (1400)
Physical Examinations
Deinsurance
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is to the Premier, and that is to ask the Premier to give Manitobans the assurance when it comes to physical exams that he is not going to allow the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to do what he has done with the deindexing of eye examinations, to assure Manitobans that the physical exam will in fact be at no cost to our patients.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, you know, when it comes to protecting the health care system I find it difficult to accept the kind of criticism that is implied by the Liberal member for Inkster when just about 15 months ago his own Prime Minister said that medicare now was only available for catastrophic illness and hospital coverage. So he has little to instruct us about protecting the health care system in this province.
Health Care Facilities
Funding Reductions
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, one of the biggest cuts that we saw in the budget yesterday was $53 million that was cut from hospitals. This is a devastating cut that will have ramifications right across the province.
Can the Minister of Health tell this House what the impact of this will be on Manitoba hospitals? For example, does it now mean that Seven Oaks and Misericordia will no longer be operating as full-service hospitals?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I know the honourable member and her colleagues have been watching with interest the work of the design teams and the urban planning partnership. The honourable member knows--I think agrees--that an integrated approach to health service delivery in the city of Winnipeg is the way to go. They will continue, however, to tell other people something else which is a little disturbing and troubling. However, the reduction in the hospital line in the budget is offset by a $38-million transitional fund that will assist in making an orderly change to the new system.
The honourable member is specific about a couple of hospitals, and as I said yesterday, those decisions have not been made, decisions about recommendations that have come forward about, for example, Seven Oaks Hospital or Misericordia Hospital. Those recommendations are still being looked at for cost-benefit analysis. It was incorrectly reported recently in the newspaper, Madam Speaker, that those analyses were completed and they are not.
Ms. Wowchuk: Since the minister has not told us what is going to be happening in the city, can he tell rural Manitobans how much of that $53 million is going to be coming out of rural hospitals? How many hospitals can we expect to be closed? Will Winnipegosis be closed? Will Grandview be closed? Will Shoal Lake be closed? Which hospitals in rural Manitoba are going to be closed because of this cut?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I remind the honourable member that this is the Filmon Manitoba, not the NDP Saskatchewan where they shut down 52 hospitals. I remind the honourable member that this is not Bob Rae’s Ontario where Bob Rae shut down 10,000 acute care hospital beds. This is Manitoba where we take an approach that has more to do with making decisions that are evidence based, and it has more to do with consultation than we have seen anywhere else in this country.
The honourable member names three rural hospitals, none of which have been targeted, as suggested by the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) in his mischievous way of working with the--so-called informing the public.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.
Madam Speaker, all throughout today we have been asking questions to this same minister about health care. We have not received one answer yet. This latest non-answer is a clear indication of that.
I would ask, Madam Speaker, that you ask the Minister of Health to answer the questions, or do the right thing and resign.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, it may save you the trouble of having to do any research. I would say I am sorry to the honourable member for Brandon East for my comment. He has put out information, and only he knows what his motivations are. I should not speculate on what they might have been.
The honourable member has named three hospitals. Are they slated for closure? No, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Health.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, with a final supplementary question.
Ms. Wowchuk: Will the minister tell us then, does he have a plan or does he not have a plan? There is a cut of $38 million, there is money for transition for $58 million--$30 million for transition, and yet he is saying there are not going to be any hospitals closed.
Mr. McCrae: Rather than doing it like the honourable member’s counterparts in other NDP jurisdictions, that I should go around and just sort of pick out a hospital here and a hospital there and shut it down, we have chosen to ask the regional health associations to get involved in needs assessments. So the honourable member thinks that we do things the way New Democrats do. We do not. That is why we are here, and they are over there.
Social Assistance
Funding Reductions
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) in his budget stated that his budget protects priority social programs. This statement is a bold-faced lie, because the largest cut is to social assistance--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member for Burrows to withdraw his comment “bold-faced lie.”
Mr. Martindale: I withdraw the word “lie.”
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Burrows.
* * *
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have a question?
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services how she can be a participant in this budget and statements that prove that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and his government are strangers to the truth, because the largest cut of any program was to social assistance, $23 million.
How can she and her government justify this when there is a $120-million surplus? What is she going to tell to those people today?
* (1410)
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I do thank my honourable friend for the question. The tone of the question I do not appreciate, but I do thank him for the question, because it does allow me the opportunity to tell Manitobans that we have taken a very balanced approach to our welfare reform in the province of Manitoba, where in fact we have protected those that are most in need in our province: those single parents with children under six years of age, those women that are in abuse shelters and their children, seniors in Manitoba. And those with mental disabilities, with disabilities right throughout the province, have been protected and the rates have been maintained.
We have said as a government the best form of social security is a job, and we have taken a very proactive approach, along with the Department of Education and Training, to develop new initiatives that will help find work opportunities for people in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, and ensure that they have the opportunity to move up into a meaningful job that will take them off the dependent system of welfare that they presently see today.
Food Allowance
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to table articles from the Scientific American of February 1996, entitled Malnutrition, Poverty and Intellectual Development, which show that malnutrition affects brain development from birth to two years and many other harmful effects of poverty, and I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if she can tell parents what they should cut out of their greatly reduced budget? Should they cut out breads and cereals or vegetables or fruits or meats or poultry or fish--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I again thank my honourable friend for the question, although the information that he provided obviously was wrong.
I indicated very clearly that the support for single parents with children under the age of six, the children that he was referring to in the document that he tabled, was maintained. So we did not reduce the rates for families, for single parents with children under the age of six. I think he should maybe go back and look at the announcement in some detail again and gain a clear understanding of the people that we protected in Manitoba as a result of our welfare reform and welfare changes.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why she is reducing the food allowance for children on city welfare as a result of her policy of standardization which took effect on April 1 when the health of Manitoba’s children report recommends that there be an increase in social allowance to provide for adequate nutrition. Why is she not listening to the Department of Health’s own recommendation and reducing the food--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, again, my honourable friend is bending the truth considerably when he indicates that children that are on the City of Winnipeg’s caseloads have been reduced by the provincial government. He only needs to look to his cousins sitting in opposition, members of the Liberal Party and the federal government--[interjection]
Well, his cousins in opposition in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, and the federal Liberal government who has said that it will no longer contribute to the City of Winnipeg’s higher rates. We made no reductions; it was a decision of the City Council of the City of Winnipeg, and they have to accept responsibility for their decisions.
Sarah Kelly Inquest
Report Recommendations
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Justice.
Yesterday the report of the inquest into the tragic murder of Sarah Kelly was released, citing among other things, and I quote: Within the provincial sphere a patchwork of services, fragmented and poorly co-ordinated, leaving substantial gaps.
Indeed, the recommendations as a whole, Madam Speaker, say that sex offenders are not being treated seriously by this government.
My question to the minister: Explain please why it had to take an inquest to tell Manitobans how abysmally this government, in particular the Justice department and Community Mental Services, is failing to protect the safety of Manitoba’s women and children, in particular, contrary to this government’s talk.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Acting Minister of Justice): Madam Speaker, first of all, I think the member for St. Johns has probably misrepresented to some degree that information, as is usually the case in what is brought to this Chamber. I know that the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) would be more than pleased, upon return, to provide a full answer, a complete answer to the member for St. Johns.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, rather than reading Covey, read this report? Would the minister commit to ensuring that the Minister of Justice take all steps to ensure that each and every recommendation in this report is implemented and not thrown on the trash heap with the AJI report, the summit on youth crime and violence, the War on Drugs Report? That was a lulu.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member for St. Johns does a great disservice to a very serious and important issue. Our Minister of Justice in this province is very much deeply committed to working on solid answers to many of those issues that are faced by our society. She is deeply committed to that, and when he comes to this House to talk about a very complex and difficult issue, he does it a great disservice to try to simplify it in such a way.
He mentioned the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. I can tell the member that this government has done more than any government in the history of this province to settle many of the long-outstanding grievances of our aboriginal community, and this was not the case when his party was in government, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister at least do this: Would he at least straighten out the Minister of Justice who yesterday was up to her old tricks blaming the federal government and saying it was the federal government’s responsibility to make change when 22 of the 25 recommendations in this report are directed at this government to implement?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I think it is very clear that the only member who needs straightening out is the member for St. Johns, and I think a certain reporter of the Winnipeg Sun did that some time ago.
* (1420)
Social Assistance
Funding Reduction
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. This budget cut $7.7 million from the poorest people in this province by eliminating property and cost of living tax credits. At the same time, this minister and this government is prepared to give millions of dollars in tax credits to corporations.
How can this minister, in all conscience, reduce the welfare assistance to the poorest people in Manitoba while at the same time maintaining corporation welfare assistance?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, it is an interesting approach that the member for Brandon East brings with that question. Firstly, the issue of the tax credits for welfare recipients, I think we have to acknowledge that their occupancy costs are paid for by the taxpayer, unlike individuals who pay for their own rent or pay for their own property taxes in terms of entitlement to a property tax credit. As well, as the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has outlined, we have also looked at our total package of rates in a relative basis across Canada.
The other link he makes is the whole link to economic development. I would suggest that if you talk to anybody in the business community they will speak very positively about initiatives like, if he is referring to, the manufacturing investment credit. That is one of the reasons that we are seeing 10,000 more jobs in Manitoba. That is one of the reasons we are seeing record levels of investment in our province. That is one reason we are seeing a 58 percent increase in manufacturing shipments and so on. That is important for individual Manitobans in terms of job opportunities and obviously that also adds to our treasury here in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us this afternoon sixteen Grades 5 to 10 students from Oakbank, Transcona and North Kildonan Home Schoolers under the direction of Mrs. Gwen Neufeld. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.
MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS
Senior Curling Championship
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Do I have leave to make a member’s statement? [interjection] I don’t need leave?
Madam Speaker, Gimli Branch No. 182 of the Royal Canadian Legion is currently hosting the Senior Curling Championship in Gimli. The championship started on March 30 and will wind up on April 6.
As most members in this House know, curling has a long history and tradition in this province. Many a cold harsh winter has been made shorter and brighter by the companionship of others whose involvement was motivated only by the love of the game. However, curlers are no longer as bound by the weather as they used to be. Instead of having their games on frozen ponds, rivers and streams, curling has moved indoors. This, however, has not lessened the appeal of the game or the thrill of a perfect draw to the button.
It is this spirit which is evident in Gimli today as curling enthusiasts from across the country come together in order to share their love of the sport. The game of curling is well known for its camaraderie and hospitality, and I know that all the curlers competing today will find the same qualities evident in the town of Gimli and in our wonderful province. Our province and the community of Gimli have a variety of interesting tourist attractions, great restaurants and dining establishments and the most spectacular scenery to be found anywhere in Canada. I hope all participants will have the opportunity to enjoy and experience the many wonderful features of this province which make Manitoba such a great place to live.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the volunteers and organizers who have worked so hard to make this event a reality. Legion Branch No. 182 also deserves the recognition for their efforts. They have worked many long hours planning and organizing this event. The success of events such as this is due in large part to the dedicated and committed community members.
I know that all members of this House join me in welcoming all curlers taking part in the legion’s Senior Curling Championship in our province and wishing them good luck. Thank you.
* (1430)
Misericordia General Hospital
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement in the House about the role of the Misericordia Hospital in my community. This government has put the place of that Misericordia Hospital in jeopardy. It has led to serious concerns and very difficult times for patients and staff in that hospital, and I want to draw the attention of both the government and all of this House to the situation that is occurring there.
Madam Speaker, for nearly a century the Misericordia has been the hospital that Wolseley and west Broadway residents have depended upon. It is where we have gone in emergencies. It is the hospital that local doctors use. It is where many of our children were born. This community serves patients from many disadvantaged circumstances. They have more severe illnesses. The local community service is essential for those without cars, and there are many in my constituency who do not have cars and who do not have phones, people who may be new to Canada or who have very serious issues that need dealing with both during the day and in the evening and nighttime.
Madam Speaker, compared with other Winnipeg hospitals, the Misericordia Hospital’s emergency department deals with more serious emergencies. It sees more elderly patients. It has a much higher admittance rate than many other hospitals and indeed that admittance rate is increasing. It is clearly serving a growing need in this community, and as poverty increases--and this government through its last budget is doing what it can to see that poverty increases in Manitoba--indeed, I found today that one of my constituents is being asked to live on $7 a day. Those are the people who are using the Misericordia Hospital.
Madam Speaker, this hospital does not know whether its future is going to be in the community. It does not know whether it can play the dynamic preventative role that it has played in the past. It has tried as a community to strengthen its links with the community, to create a mobile clinic, to develop other centres such as the eye care centre, the Easy Street program, the breast disease clinic, and so I want to urge the government again--I have done it many times in this House--on behalf of my constituents, some of whom are the poorest in the society, to tell us what the role of that community hospital will be and to maintain for the use of my constituents that community hospital.
Budget--Rural Manitoba
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, first of all, before I make a statement I want to say one thing to the House today. Today I was not proud to be a member of this House. The language that I heard coming from two members opposite, both men of the cloth, did not make me proud to sit here.
Secondly, I would like to congratulate our Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) for the budget that he presented, recognizing the needs of many communities in rural Manitoba, especially after two of my colleagues and I had the opportunity for almost two months of straight meetings across the province to hear literally thousands of people and talk to thousands of people about what the needs of those communities are and how to reflect on value-added initiatives. I want to recognize one couple today. They operate the RCS Greenhouses in Waskada and their names are Roy and Candice Consi. These people developed and built, as our initiative states, a greenhouse that covers an acre of land. They are currently employing a dozen or more people to work this greenhouse, providing those kinds of jobs to those kinds of communities, and it is in recognition of the adjustments that have been made through MACC to allow for the funding and financing of those kinds of operations.
It also recognizes that there are a tremendous number of initiatives that rural Manitobans want to get involved in. They have asked for program changes which have been recognized in part today by this Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) in the budget that he presented yesterday and it will allow those communities and individuals in communities such as Waskada and others to move towards the diversification that is badly needed.
There is another couple, the Marc Summersfields at Stuartburn, that are currently initiating the establishment of an organic vegetable processing plant in the Stuartburn area that is very similar, and the irrigation initiative that was identified through this budget yesterday is the kind of thing that Manitobans and rural Manitobans especially have been asking for.
We should congratulate the Minister of Finance for a fine budget.
Seven Oaks Hospital
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, Seven Oaks Hospital is too good to lose. Residents of north Winnipeg waited many years to have their own full-service hospital and we will not give it up without a fight. We want the same access to emergency services, psychiatric services and all the other services that people in other parts of Winnipeg receive in our own community. No one has said we deserve more and we certainly will not accept less. We hope that the Filmon government has been listening to the phone calls and reading the letters, petitions and news coverage of rallies whereby thousands of outraged ordinary citizens are trying to convey a simple message. Do not convert Seven Oaks to a geriatric centre, not now, not ever. Seven Oaks is too good to lose as a full-service community hospital.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, as a political party we have great concern in terms of the general direction this government is taking towards hospitals and their roles well into the future.
Madam Speaker, what I would like to comment on very briefly is the Seven Oaks Hospital. This is a hospital in which both I and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) have invested a great deal of time and energy in terms of trying to do what we can to bring to light to the constituents that we represent our feelings and thoughts of how important this institution, our hospital, our community centre really and truly is.
Having said that, we want to acknowledge jointly the efforts that so many people, in particular the grassroots members, have put in a phenomenal amount of effort at trying to bring this issue to the government’s attention. The staff, the grassroots members have gathered 30,000-some signatures on petitions; they have gathered thousands of letters of protest. The efforts have been overwhelming. We have seen three very successful rallies: one in the community of Kildonan, another one at the steps of the Legislature, yet another one at the hospital itself. And we have heard, Madam Speaker, from the community itself in terms of how important this hospital is, again from a wide spectrum of individuals. The other day, for example, we heard of an individual who attributed to the Seven Oaks Hospital saving of her life. We heard of another that had a child there at the Seven Oaks Hospital. We have heard the passion for the need to keep this hospital from the grassroots, from the community, and we--when I am referring to we, not only the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and I, but those individuals in the north end community and outside the community appeal to this government to do the right thing and keep the Seven Oaks Hospital open.
* (1440)