Health Care System
Emergency Services
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Yesterday we cited October 6, October 10, October 16 and October 19, Hansard information, Madam Speaker, that is totally contradicted by reports we released yesterday in terms of the urgent and emergent cases at the Winnipeg emergency hospitals.
The minister later answered, the reason his information was wrong was he was going by 1992 to 1994 information. But in 1994, the minister said to the people of Manitoba, on July 14 of that year, that he would not close down any of our community hospital emergency wards. Because he did not have the data and he would have to monitor the impact on the intake on emergency wards in those community hospitals, he would not close those hospitals down.
How can he say now that he was using data from 1992 to 1994 when, prior to the election--and I would like to ask the Premier--this government said, based on the data they had they were not going to close down those community hospitals? The same information, different decisions.
* (1335)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member misses the point, the point being that everybody in the system agrees we have sufficient and indeed excess capacity in our emergency services.
Whether, as I said yesterday, Madam Speaker, the average usage--which ranges, by the way, in any given year at any given hospital between 1 percent up to 12 percent and perhaps in some cases higher percentages of the pure emergency services, so that whatever percentage one is talking about, the issue is the overall usage of the emergency rooms.
How many times has the honourable Leader of the Opposition been asked, what are we going to do about the inappropriate use of our emergency services in the city of Winnipeg? I wonder what the honourable member's answers would have been. I am sure they would have been, oh, well, yes, we certainly have to do something about that.
That is exactly what we are trying to do, and thrown into the whole process is the fact that early this fall, on Labour Day, the physicians and pathologists went on strike, putting us really to the task, Madam Speaker, at which we have been quite diligent ever since.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, my further question is to the new-hope-and-accountable Premier (Mr. Filmon) in terms of government decision making.
When the Filmon government made the decision to not close the emergency wards at our community hospitals and announced those conditions on July 14, 1994, not only did they talk about monitoring and gathering more data, which obviously they used later on, they talked about five conditions that would be necessary before they would make any changes to the emergency wards. This is the promise the government made to the people: five conditions, a provincial trauma centre, a hospital bed co-ordination, interfacility transportation program, a training centre for ambulance personnel at our community colleges. Those would be five conditions. The minister and the government went on to say, where would you go at three o'clock in the morning if you closed down the emergency wards at our community hospitals? We will not let that happen.
I would like to ask the Premier why they had one position before the election and now we have the kind of Mike Harris breaking a promise after the election by the Filmon government, Madam Speaker.
Mr. McCrae: I suppose it is beside the point, Madam Speaker, that the honourable Leader of the Opposition failed to refer to the issues that I referred to in my first answer.
The issues he speaks about, i.e., a trauma bed usage, transportation and the other two that I did not get down as he was asking his question, are all the subject of the work that is being undertaken now and has been undertaken for years. We have monitored for years and we have been monitoring very, very carefully ever since that strike began, Madam Speaker, throughout the duration of the strike and since the strike as well.
The honourable member also refuses to make reference to the fact that what has been happening has been a reopening of services. When the strike ended, normal service delivery resumed during the daytime hours and that, as I had said yesterday and was reported upon today, further changes are possible as we prepare for the busier season and also as we look to the longer-term future.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
The minister just contradicted the government's position on July 14, 1994, when the minister said that no emergency ward would be closed down until the five conditions would be met. He said that in July of l994. He is now saying they are looking at these conditions now after they have closed down those emergency wards. We have a Minister of Health who is flying by the seat of his proverbial pants, and it is putting at risk the people of this province.
I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that his own minister said, why go to a busy hospital and wait in line for hours and hours or be on a stretcher in the hallway when you do not have to--that was the position of the government in July of l994--will this Premier give us a new Minister of Health who will be straight with the people of this province, and will he reverse the decision of his Minister of Health and reopen these community hospitals, as they promised prior to the election?
Mr. McCrae: In the summer of l994, indeed my concern, as expressed by me at the time, was patients and how they would be looked after in the middle of the night because there were recommendations that there be downsizing or closure of emergency wards at that time. We were thrust into a situation on Labour Day. We have now had September, October, November, over three months of experience and of very, very careful monitoring. Each and every time honourable members would bring to me anecdotal incidents relating to emergency services we were very careful to check them out, Madam Speaker.
We have probably more concern than honourable members opposite on this point because we are the ones who are going to be asked about it should there be a problem, and we have monitored very carefully. We have expanded service when necessary and where necessary to ensure that the patients are looked after. We recognize the issue of some inconvenience for some people. We are mindful of that, and when it comes to people in nonurgent situations, we get complaints of longer waits as a result and those are the kinds of issues that we now need to address as well, Madam Speaker.
Minister of Health
Replacement
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
The minister misled the people of Manitoba when he said five conditions would be met before they would close any emergency wards. He misled the public when he said it was 4 percent and not the 12 percent he had in his hands. He misled the public when he said there was consensus that the wards should be closed and instead it was only him and his consultant who recommended the closing of the wards.
My question for the Premier, Madam Speaker, will this Premier replace this Minister of Health before he does further damage to the health care system as he has done with emergency wards?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, when it comes to misleading the public the honourable members opposite could do seminars to teach people how to mislead other people. In terms of any misleading, the misleading that the honourable member talks about is nonexistent.
We have been working very, very carefully with all kinds of stakeholders, including providers of services and consumers of services, as we develop these policies. You cannot be misleading people if you are going to have that kind of a process. That is the kind of process we have. We consult. Honourable members opposite do it the other way.
Health Care Facilities
Alternative Uses
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Then perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) can assure individuals who live in the vicinity of Misericordia Hospital and individuals who live around Seven Oaks Hospital that their hospitals will not be converted, Misericordia into an outpatient daycare facility and Seven Oaks into a chronic rehab facility. Will the Premier give assurances that those hospitals are not to be converted, since we are told by officials of Health that it is a 95 percent certainty that is going to happen?
* (1345)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I understand the honourable member took advantage of the opportunity to attend the seminar or the forum that is being facilitated by KPMG, and that forum is used to assist us in developing plans for the future of acute care and other services in the city of Winnipeg in the future.
You see, the disturbing thing about all of this is that virtually every initiative taken by the stakeholders, providers, consumers and the government in the development of a reformed health care system virtually every step of the way has been attempted to be blocked by honourable members opposite. They say they believe in reform. Their actions belie that.
Seven Oaks General Hospital
Emergency Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will not listen to MARN, he will not listen to the nurses, he will not listen to the doctors, he will not listen to any experts in emergency care, will he listen to the 2,l07 residents of the constituency of Kildonan who wrote letters to me demanding and asking the government to reopen the emergency ward at Seven Oaks Hospital? If the Premier would like, I am prepared to table the 2,107 letters from residents to the Premier, to me and to the Minister of Health saying, do not close the emergency wards and reopen it at Seven Oaks Hospital.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Kildonan has demonstrated ever since he has been critic for Health for the New Democratic Party that they have no interest whatever in taking part in any decision making or discussions related to integration of services, related to getting rid of inefficiencies, related to getting rid of duplication of services in our health care system--no interest whatsoever.
Yet, look at their colleagues when they are given an opportunity to govern in other jurisdictions, how they do it, in Saskatchewan, for example, where their colleagues closed 52 rural hospitals; in Ontario, where before the Rae government was removed from office, they closed 10,000 hospital beds; where, in British Columbia and Vancouver, the Shaughnessy Hospital has been closed by a New Democratic administration, cutting off whole arms and legs of the health care system without consultation and without getting people involved in designing their own health care system.
Madam Speaker, the honourable member, if we listen to him, we would not have a health care system.
Louisiana-Pacific
Federal-Provincial Review
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
On at least three occasions in the last sitting of this House, members on this side asked the minister to address concerns coming from federal departments on Louisiana-Pacific before public hearings took place. The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and I wrote the minister, again asking that his department deal with these concerns so that the CEC had all the information for a fair and comprehensive review. The minister did not act and as a result the hearings have been delayed.
My question is, will the minister and his colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) call for a federal-provincial review so that gaps in information do not continue to delay and tarnish this process?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, there is an old saying that says a little knowledge in the wrong mind is a very dangerous thing, and I think that would probably apply to the member for Dauphin.
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) at the same time, as well, who is always talking about press releases--he is making fun of press releases from the government side--he should maybe go and check with the member for Dauphin and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) who run around making press releases without having very much information, based on how they make these statements.
The issue--and I will address that later on when I am making my address to the Speech from the Throne when I will have more time to basically go into details--but I want to tell you that the member for Dauphin, as well as the member for Swan River who keeps hiding among the trees I guess on the issue of Louisiana-Pacific and cannot seem to make up her mind which side of the fence she wants to be on on this issue, Madam Speaker--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1350)
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I expect we are getting a preview of the minister's speech later in the throne speech. I was wondering if he could save his debate comments and perhaps deal with the very serious question raised by the member for Dauphin.
Madam Speaker: Indeed, the honourable member for Thompson does have a point of order. I would request that the honourable minister respond to the question posed.
* * *
Mr. Driedger: Madam Speaker, I will save the spicy ones for later then.
I just want to say, Madam Speaker, that my professional people who spent an awful lot of time preparing the information that was basically presented to the environmental hearing process which is still in progress--it has been postponed for a month; it will be resumed in January--our information is complete. We feel very confident in the professionalism of my people there and I stand by those reports.
Information Release
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, if this minister had done his job we would not be delayed now.
Given that yesterday the minister referred several times to a proposal sent to the federal government, in the spirit of disclosure, will he now table that document?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was speaking yesterday--and I was encouraging some comments from him, I suppose, and he made reference to the fact that we should divulge the position--he asked whether we were supportive of a federal-provincial joint process. I told him that we had a proposal, that the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) had a proposal before the federal minister. At that time he was trying to draw the question or make me reply to the point as to whether we supported a joint environmental process. Again, I replied that the Minister of Environment has a proposal before the federal minister and that ultimately--
An Honourable Member: Table it.
Mr. Driedger: Well, that is his business to do so.
If the member for Dauphin wants to raise that question with the Minister of Environment, given the permission with your consent, Madam Speaker, maybe the Minister of Environment would like to address that.
We have the best environmental system in the country, and I stand by that.
Mr. Struthers: I will ask then the minister of the Department of Environment. Will he table the proposal that has been sent to Sheila Copps?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I think the member for Dauphin should be mindful of a number of times in this House that we have referenced the fact that we have been working for years with the federal authorities to make sure that we have a clean process here that always acknowledges the interests of both the provincial and federal responsibility in doing these reviews.
We have taken every opportunity, both at the provincial and the national level, to encourage the harmonization of environmental assessment and environmental reviews. When my colleagues reference that activity, I can tell you there is probably a file about that thick that talks about how we have been attempting to bring further harmonization to environmental assessment.
I think we should all be reminded of the fact that Manitoba is the only jurisdiction in Canada that not only does it require a forest harvesting licence, it also requires an environmental licence to be required at the same time. That is the toughest environmental process in Canada.
Education Newsletter
Production Costs
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My questions are for the Minister of Education. I wanted to ask the minister some questions about the blue news sheet that she has asked Manitoba children to deliver home taking useful information to their parents about changes in the education system.
I was a little concerned the parents might mistake this for a Tory election piece because the colour is the same and the format is somewhat similar, but it does say very clearly right down here at the bottom that this is from the Department of Education.
So I want to ask the minister, first of all, if she could tell us the cost of the writing, the design, the printing and the distribution of this news sheet.
* (1355)
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will take the question as notice and get the specific information for the member as to the exact cost. I will also ask the department for an explanation as to why they chose that wretched colour.
Content
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the minister if she would consider an insert in her next news sheet, perhaps such as the one I have prepared here which offers more and equally useful information for parents about the impact of New Directions on the elimination of senior level Canadian history, the reduction in physical education, the elimination of--you can take your choice--industrial arts, home economics or basic French, reduced emphasis on English at the senior high level, a loss of 900 teachers in the last four years and reductions in clinician services.
Would the minister consider that vital information for parents about Manitoba education?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I apologize for my sarcasm when the member had as her biggest issue in the first question a particular colour of a publication.
The comments she has raised just now, I think she and I have discussed and can discuss in some detail. If she has suggestions for the Department of Education on any topic, I have indicated before and I indicate again that any suggestions coming from the opposition, if they are constructive and useful and of some ability to improve things, I am most willing to consider them. If they are for other reasons, I would still consider them but probably reject any reasons that are not in that first category of constructive, helpful, meaningful criticism.
Ms. Friesen: Well, then, I assume that the minister will clearly undertake to send out in her next piece this accompanying graph that I have prepared for the department which does document the long-term decline in financial support for public education from the Filmon government, which is constructive and useful for any parent in Manitoba who wants to evaluate their education system.
Point of Order
Mrs. McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the member rose and made a preamble but followed it with no question.
Madam Speaker: There is no point of order. If the honourable Minister of Education did not hear a question, that is her prerogative to not respond to a question.
Health Care System
Emergency Services
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) for the Minister of Health, and it is an interesting quote: "The quality of health care provided to the community must be the primary consideration of all health care providers."
That can, in fact, be found in Resolution 27 on today's Order Paper. The member is right, and I ask for the minister responsible for health care, would he not agree as a health caregiver that the primary concern has to be the community health centres that we have, community hospitals? I would ask the minister specifically to assure this House that no political preferential treatment will be given to any or some community hospitals over the others when it comes down to reopening of emergency services in Winnipeg's community hospitals.
* (1400)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the honourable member for Inkster calls attention to the significant contribution to policy development made by the honourable member for River Heights. We appreciate his input very much.
We also appreciate the input of the honourable member for Inkster who has tried to play a constructive role in the development of health policy in the last year or so, but he does not always follow my advice either.
One of the reasons we need to develop a more efficient and effective health care system, of course, is that his colleagues in Ottawa are making that necessary because of the reduction of funding in the amount of $147 million this coming year, $220 million the next year coming off the health and social services account. But even if that was not happening, Madam Speaker, it would be a good idea to make our health system work and make it sustainable for the future, and so we appreciate any input the honourable member has to offer. The days when considerations other than health outcomes considerations had a place in the debate are clearly over.
Mr. Lamoureux: My question is fairly clear. Will the Minister of Health ensure or indicate to this House that the Seven Oaks Hospital and the Misericordia Hospital will be given equal treatment when it comes to emergency services being provided to the communities in which they serve?
Will the Minister of Health make that commitment today?
Mr. McCrae: I do not think it is my place to give any lectures to the honourable member, Madam Speaker, but we will try to give proper treatment to the people of Manitoba.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, then I would pose the question to the Premier of the province. Is the Premier prepared, as the Leader of this government, to ensure that Manitobans, in particular Winnipeggers in the Seven Oaks and Misericordia communities, will have emergency services well into the future under his administration?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I just want the member opposite to know that in all of the decisions that we make, we seek and solicit the best advice possible. We are in the process of extensive consultations and we will indeed be guided by the advice that we are getting from the professionals. We will not go around making the kinds of political decisions that the member opposite would make if he were in government, or members there, for instance, political grandstanding day after day, suggesting to people, like the Burger King solution, that they can have it their way all the time. That is absolute falsehood and that is why they are in opposition.
Canadian Wheat Board
Government Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, in the November 16 issue of the Manitoba Co-operator we have two government backbenchers advocating dual marketing of wheat and barley. However, in the same article we have the Minister of Agriculture saying this is not their policy and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said the same at the Pool annual meeting.
However, today we see the Minister of Agriculture is saying his position on the Wheat Board is the same as it is on hog marketing, which is dual marketing.
It is no wonder that Manitoba farmers are confused by this government.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to clarify this government's position on the Wheat Board. Yes or no, do they support the monopoly of the Wheat Board, or not?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify the statements that were attributed to me. I was asked specifically yesterday about the Alberta plebiscite and the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. Some view a greater flexibility in any marketing system as the automatic demise of the system currently in place, and it was in that context that I used the analogy of Manitoba Pork.
I do not view the introduction of a greater flexibility in the way in which we market hogs in this province as the automatic demise of Manitoba Pork. In fact, everything I have said to Manitoba Pork directly and/or publicly has indicated quite the opposite.
I believe that Manitoba Pork can and will continue to be a major force, a major player in the marketing of hogs in Manitoba. I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board can and will continue to be a major player in the marketing of grain in western Canada and in Manitoba, Madam Speaker.
I do not believe that introducing some question of flexibility need in fact be the demise of either of these organizations.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he understands that this is not an either/or situation. If the monopoly of the Wheat Board is changed, then it is going to take money out of farmers' pockets and put money into grain companies' pockets.
I want to ask the minister who he is speaking for. Is he speaking for the Farmers of Justice or is he speaking for the many farmers who voted for the advisory committee pro Wheat Board? They want the Wheat Board to stay. Which farmers is he speaking for?
Mr. Enns: Having been in this House for some while and having sat opposite the members opposite, on both sides of the House for a period of time, it is surprising that they have in fact become the party of no new ideas, no change in radicalism, just as they are with respect to the health situation.
I might ask her, where does her party now stand on the matter of the $700 million Canadian taxpayers paid out to the Crow? Would they sooner see that to help ease the pain in terms of health cutbacks that all provinces are facing? Is she still calling for the return of the Crow as though this was ancient history time?
Let us get on with it. Agriculture is changing; agriculture is not immune to the changes that we are all experiencing, and that quite frankly is my responsibility, to help Manitoba farmers face these changes in the best possible way.
Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, let me acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) on the opening day of the session. He acknowledged that in agriculture, in agribusiness, this province and the farmers of Manitoba are responding in a positive way and he lauded their accomplishments, and I support the Leader of the Opposition in that statement.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, after that confusing answer, I want to ask the minister, how can Manitoba producers have any confidence in a government or in a Minister of Agriculture who says in the throne speech that they are going to have a task force that will listen to rural Manitobans on their views on changes in policy and programs and then, the next day after the throne speech, tell them that he is supporting dual marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board which producers have told them they do not want? How can they have any faith in a government that says they will listen and then makes arbitrary decisions?
Mr. Enns: What I can tell the honourable member, Manitoba farmers and producers have a great deal of faith in the future of agriculture, and that is being demonstrated every day in the farms and in the farm businesses across this province of Manitoba.
The member is hung up with the words "dual marketing," "flexibility," "choice."
An Honourable Member: Freedom.
Mr. Enns: Some would call it some freedom of marketing. Madam Speaker, what is obvious as a result of the significant numbers of producers who were asked a question on that matter in Alberta, there is a great debate going on on the western Prairies on that issue.
As I have indicated before, I am quite prepared, I am looking forward to the panel appointed by the federal minister, whom I am sure will be spending time and having public occasions to discourse with Manitoba producers on the future of marketing grains by the Canadian Wheat Board in Manitoba, and await their decision on the future of that organization come this spring.
* (1410)
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
Pinawa Research Facility
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my questions are to the Premier.
We are seeing today many of the people of Pinawa and southeast Manitoba rising up and speaking about the proposed closes or pending closes or possible closes to the Whiteshell research facility. We are very concerned about this potential loss, as we are of the loss of over 300 jobs that we have already seen since 1988.
Almost two years ago our Leader called for an all-party agreement to protect the jobs in Pinawa and to try and remove some of the politics from this issue.
Can the Premier tell the House what proactive measures has his government taken to develop the linkages between Manitoba businesses and the research facility in Pinawa?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we have facilitated a number of different meetings and linkages through the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. In fact, the Economic Development Board of Cabinet met with senior officials from Pinawa. I personally have been there at least twice in the past year and spoken to officials there, held meetings there. We have attempted, as much as possible, to create opportunities for commercializing some of the developments that have taken place there and set up linkages with the business community.
We have also, as the throne speech says, appointed a committee that will be chaired by the member for the Pinawa area, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), who will be leading a delegation of his colleagues, and we have invited the participation of members opposite to help us in the effort to convince Ottawa that, when it comes down to a political decision, there are very, very strong reasons why AECL's operations ought not to be centred in Chalk River but ought to remain distributed because of particularly many of the locational advantages and the assets that are in Pinawa that can help them do a better job than they ever could do in Chalk River.
Ms. Mihychuk: My question to the Premier: Has the Premier, given the seriousness of this situation and the importance of that industry to Manitoba and the people of Manitoba, called up the Prime Minister and asked him to intervene, to be fair with Manitobans? And, if so, what was the result of that conversation?
Mr. Filmon: As I indicated, the member for the Pinawa area will be leading a delegation of ministers and members to Ottawa and has himself initiated discussions. I leave that option obviously for a future potential, depending on what we are told.
The fact of the matter is that AECL has taken out ads in the major newspapers claiming that nothing is happening, and we will want to see the results of the actions before I proceed to the Prime Minister level.
Real Estate Industry
Fraud Investigation
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs. In 1993 and 1994 at least 30 houses were flipped under a ring that worked together to defraud CMHC for well over $500,000 and likely much more. I would like to know, on what date did the minister contact CMHC on the need for proper appraisals, and what were the results of any investigation that was launched?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): The question of jurisdiction with respect to the control of the real estate industry in the province of Manitoba rests with the Manitoba Securities Commission. The complaint is lodged with the commission, they investigate and, if necessary, take the appropriate action. It is a quasi-judicial board and as such there is no ministerial interference.
Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask this minister, when he became aware of the investigation that was ongoing, why did this minister not issue some sort of public warning on the fact that these operations were preying on low-income people?
Mr. Ernst: As minister responsible for the Manitoba Securities Commission, I became aware of this matter yesterday upon my return to the city, having read some certain newspaper articles that occurred. If there is legitimacy, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, then it should be lodged with the Manitoba Securities Commission, and they will take appropriate action.
Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask my final supplementary to the Minister of Justice.
Has the minister launched any investigation as to how these properties were listed at the Land Titles Office?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am very careful about any details which I reveal relating to investigations, so I will have to take the question as notice and, if possible, provide some information to the member.
VLT Revenues
Information Release
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, yesterday I raised questions about the commitment in the throne speech to, after nine years of this government, greater accountability of public sector institutions, and no public sector institution is probably more secretive, nor is the government more secretive in the area of lotteries, and particularly in regard to the breakdown of lotteries that have been siphoned out of rural and northern communities.
I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Lotteries whether under this legislation and supposed new policy of the government, we will now receive, as has been requested by such organizations as the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, information on how much is taken out of communities, far more than the current 27 municipalities that are listed out of the 202 in Manitoba, because we do not get information on the rest, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, I think the member for Thompson knows that the reason that a summary was prepared in the fashion that it was, that it only shows breakdown for communities that have more than three locations, is because of third-party confidentiality. That was something that was acknowledged by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, was supported by the Ombudsman. Certainly I would hope that he would appreciate that in many instances there is a need to protect third-party confidentiality and that information will continue to be prepared on that basis.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, how can the minister justify this supposed new policy not giving a breakdown for close to 180 municipalities? Those are machines that are owned and operated by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. That money goes directly into his Treasury. How can he justify under this supposed new policy still refusing to give information to the municipalities on how much money is taken out of their community?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, all I can do is repeat the same answer to the member for Thompson and hope that he listens, that the Ombudsman and Manitoba Lotteries Corporation respect third-party confidentiality. I know he does not and at times the NDP party does not. We do, and we will abide by those rulings.
REDI Program
Information Release
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): So, if nothing has changed, Madam Speaker, I have a further question in regard to the other side of the lotteries ledger which is in terms of such programs as REDI which has also been subject to some criticism by the UMM.
I would like to ask the minister responsible for the program if, under this new policy of accountability, we will still--as we currently have as recently as this week--have to go through Freedom of Information through his department to try and get a breakdown on where REDI grants go, or will we finally get information given to us without the kinds of delaying tactics we have had over the past nine years of the tenure of this government?
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I was not aware that in fact the member had requested information on the REDI program, but indeed that information is available. I would be happy to provide him with the information with regard to the REDI projects that we have proceeded with over the last couple of years. I would be pleased to do that.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1420)
Speaker's Rulings
Madam Speaker: I have two rulings for the House.
On October 24, 1995, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) about the content of a nonpolitical statement being made by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).
In raising his point of order, the Leader of the official opposition indicated the subject of the statement, that being the Charleswood Bridge, is a matter of political disagreement in this Legislature and that the statement was therefore political.
The government House leader (Mr. Ernst), in his submission, stated that the project was completed and the politics of the project were over.
I have reviewed the comments of all concerned with care and have looked at past rulings of Manitoba Speakers. On October 24, 1989, Speaker Rocan, in ruling on a point of order about what was complained to be increasing political content of nonpolitical statements, noted the following points: Nonpolitical statements are made by leave and are allowed for by practice of the House, not by our rules. The history of nonpolitical statements appears to have begun in 1973 and for about 15 years the statements were what we could call truly nonpolitical or nonpartisan, focusing on community or athletic achievements. Since 1988, it appears that the trend has been that the statements have been more political in words and intent.
As recently as June 9, 1995, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) was called to order when he attempted to congratulate a political party on its election to government.
Turning to the specifics of the statement on October 24, I have carefully considered the topic and I must rule that the honourable Leader of the official opposition indeed had a valid point of order. The building of the Charleswood Bridge has been a controversial and a political issue, and the statement of the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) was not in order.
Having ruled, I would like to reiterate what I said on October 24, that I believe members' statements would be a good topic for an early discussion of House leaders. Perhaps using some of the practices of other Canadian Legislatures would be useful in facilitating members being able to make statements with a greater degree of freedom of topic than the Manitoba tradition has provided for up to now.
* * *
Madam Speaker: I have a second ruling for the House.
On Tuesday, October 31, 1995, during Question Period, a point of order was raised by the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) stating that words used by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) were unparliamentary. I took the matter under advisement to check Hansard.
Having done so, I find that there was no point of order. Procedurally the matter had already been dealt with when I cautioned the honourable member for St. Johns on his choice of words.