ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization--Impact on Rates
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister.
On May 2, 1996, when the Premier announced to the people of Manitoba that he was going to break his word and indeed sell the Manitoba Telephone System and privatize the Manitoba Telephone System, he included in his brokerage analysis the fact that there would be no impact on the rates for the local consumer here in the province of Manitoba if the telephone system was privatized.
I would like to ask the Premier, in light of his liberal use of the CRTC decision, did the government and the Premier consider the CRTC decision of February 19, 1996, dealing with the Alberta rate application when he made this commitment and this statement to the people of Manitoba on the impact on rates?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I considered all information available to me, principally the knowledge that the CRTC, in its decisions that it makes on behalf of telephone companies with respect to their rates, obviously considers all of the various factors that are there, but what they do is look at the business components of the decisions. It does not matter whether it is publicly owned or privately owned, they use exactly the same analysis with respect to the decisions they make.
I consider, for instance, what is happening in Saskatchewan today. I would like the member opposite to know, and I will quote from a story in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, SaskTel President Donald Ching's remarks Wednesday to the North Saskatoon Business Association, serves as final proof, if any were needed, that the provincial Crown agency has outlived its usefulness to its owners and should be privatized.
Quote, this is Mr. Ching: Individual telephones on farms are subsidized to the extent of $58 per telephone--Ching said, in explaining why SaskTel will move to recoup the full cost of providing the service. Facing competition for the first time for its long-distance markets, SaskTel says it can no longer afford to subsidize local phone service to the tune of $87 million a year, so the Crown agency plans to meet the competition head on and fight for every customer by, of all things, increasing the cost of basic telephone service and charging fees ranging from 75 cents to $3 for directory assistance.
He says more, and I will go onto it later, Madam Speaker, but the point is that they are having to move to meet market forces. The Manitoba Telephone System is no longer a private monopoly. Over 70 percent of its revenues come from competition and, like SaskTel, they have to fight that competition, and the best way to fight that competition is to be in the private sector, where they can more effectively move to new technologies and be much more--[interjection] Excuse me, I think the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has some comments. I will assume that she is going to ask the next question.
But they have to be able to move to meet that competition and will be better able to when they are in the private sector.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I would like to table the CRTC decision of February 19, 1996, dealing with the Alberta rate application, the private company, and the CRTC clearly states that the issue of rate of return for a private investor must be considered in the rate increases that are awarded to the privately owned corporation.
They further go on to state in the same decision that the Revenue Canada implications also mean that the private investor and the private company will get a higher rate increase for the consumers, something that was opposed by the Alberta seniors and a number of other organizations. When they justified a $6 a month increase in February when there was only a $2 increase here in this province, they basically stated that the reasons were the rate of return and the Revenue Canada treatment on private investments.
Why did the Premier say there was no difference between privately owned corporations and publicly owned corporations for rate increases when that is patently untrue?
Mr. Filmon: SaskTel, a publicly owned organization, has announced that it has to recoup $87 million that it had formerly been using to subsidize the rates in rural areas and on private telephones, and they are going to do it by increasing, under public ownership, dramatically the cost of private telephones and moving up all sorts of charges through the system.
The fact of the matter is that in order to be efficient and effective, telephone systems have to charge the rates that they need in order to provide those services and, indeed, in private ownership they will be able to be more effective in meeting their competition and in fact probably be better able to withstand those competitive challenges.
Mr. Doer: Of course, the Premier knows that Saskatchewan has not entered into long distance competition for five years and made considerable investments in their telephone system by not following through on another broken promise the Premier made about the corporate interests here in Manitoba. He made that before the 1990 election and, of course, flip-flopped on that position as well.
Madam Speaker, given the fact that the Premier has broken his word that he gave to the people of Manitoba during the election campaign, and given the fact that the Premier has also not told us the straight goods when it comes to the fact that the CRTC deals with private corporations differently than publicly owned telcos, who should the public of Manitoba believe? This Premier, who does not keep his word, or Dr. Mary Pankiw from the seniors' organization that says it will be seniors who will be paying the higher increases?
That is why the seniors of Manitoba are opposed to the ideological and extreme decision of this Premier to break his word and sell the telephone system.
* (1340)
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I reject totally the preamble of the Leader of the Opposition and based on the nonsense in the preamble, his question is also nonsense.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization--Impact on Rates
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): The Premier may find the concerns of seniors and many Manitobans to be nonsense. I think they find his word in the election on the sale of MTS to be nonsense when he said he would not sell MTS.
I would like to ask the Premier how he had the nerve, when he announced along with the Minister responsible for MTS at the press conference announcing the sell-off of MTS with no mandate from the public of Manitoba, to say that there would not be rate increases as a result of the sale, when we had the CRTC on the record February of this year increasing rates in Alberta at the request of AGT directly because of the tax implications of the sell-off of AGT in 1990. How could he say that when he either knew it was not true or he was incompetent enough to make such a ridiculous statement?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I repeat that the CRTC will look at the business plan of a corporation whether it is publicly or privately owned and will justify the rate increases based on the operations of the company whether it is publicly or privately owned. Neither circumstance--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: The efficiencies of the company will have more to do with--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the members opposite do not want to hear the answer.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I will ask him--because this decision was made by the CRTC in February. He announced in May, with only the consultation with the investment brokers, they were selling off MTS. Is the Premier--was he not aware of the fact that the CRTC in the case of Alberta, which mirrored the exact way in which they privatized the Manitoba Telephone System, is allowing a pass-through of costs related directly to the privatization? In other words, the people in Alberta are paying more on their phones because of the privatization.
Did he either not know that in May or was he not telling the truth once again to the people of Manitoba when he made that announcement?
* (1345)
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I might also point out that AGT derived significant tax advantages by the sale of the corporation into private ownership. They were given a tax ruling that allowed them to depreciate assets that had already been fully depreciated. As a result, they gained something in the range of--it was certainly hundreds of millions of dollars of tax advantages. It gave them the ability to operate without having to pay taxes.
So those things are also a factor to be taken into consideration that members opposite are not, that there is a corporation that would not pay taxes as a result of the advantage that they had in moving into private ownership.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Ashton: When will the Premier finally tell Manitobans the truth about what will happen with the sale of MTS and that in fact he was wrong when he said that rates will not increase higher under a private company and in fact will end up just like Alberta under a privatized company? We will pay far more for our phone service than we would if we stayed with the public ownership of MTS. When will he tell the truth to Manitobans about what will happen with MTS?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I make the point that under public ownership the people of Saskatchewan are going to pay significant increases in the ownership of their corporation, and that is the fact that members opposite do not want to accept.
Regional Health Boards
Aboriginal Representation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health told us that he had done all he could to ensure that there is aboriginal representation on the regional health boards in the North and that he was disappointed in MKO for not nominating anyone.
I would like to quote from a letter that was written from George Muswagon, the Grand Chief of MKO, to the Minister of Health: This partnership that the minister obviously was talking about requires clarification. Our organization requires that a full 50-50 partnership be established. MKO is seeking the reorganization of the geographic parameters established by the province, meaning that Swampy Cree Tribal Council is having to deal with three regional health authorities for their member First Nations.
They go on to say: We request that the criteria for appointments to the regional health authorities and the authority of the boards be clarified.
They are also seeking some information as to how these people can be appointed. They are requesting that the remaining vacancies, which is now six, be aboriginal.
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what commitments he is prepared to make today to accommodate those requests.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I acknowledge that those things were discussed, Madam Speaker, in a very cordial way. The MKO people I believe are now interested in participating; whereas it appears from nominations or a dearth of nominations received earlier on that there was not that interest, there appears to be that interest now. I made the commitment to try in future to keep that in mind when further appointments to regional health authority boards are made.
I took note of the issue or the problem related to the fact that the Swampy Cree communities are placed in three different regional health authorities and to look carefully at how best to deal with that, but to make comments like the honourable member did yesterday would be incorrect. It has been clear from the beginning that no matter what the geographical delineation of these regional health authorities, people's access to health services and the patterns therefore are not likely to change.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Lathlin: My supplementary question to the same minister is: Because he has already told MKO that he cannot live with more than two members on the board to be aboriginal, will the minister give me one good reason why he will not consider giving 50 percent of the board seats to aboriginal people seeing as how the population in Norman region is more than 50 percent aboriginal and that to do less than 50 percent would be akin to maintaining systemic racism?
Mr. McCrae: Despite the harsh language used by the honourable member, Madam Speaker, I was unable to make the kind of commitment that the honourable member is suggesting, having already appointed the boards and not having received nominations from aboriginal organizations to the extent that we could possibly, possibly follow through with what the honourable member is suggesting.
The honourable member cannot reasonably be believed, on the one hand, when there was a lack of interest initially and then come along and talk about racism. It is simply out of line.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Minister of Health then to explain why the nine people who have so far been appointed to the Norman board include three defeated Tory provincial candidates. The aboriginal people, in order to be appointed to the board, do they have to be defeated Tory candidates or what do they have to be?
* (1350)
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, by raising the spectre of racism as the honourable member has done, he has effectively dealt himself out of the discussion because he has no credibility whatsoever. The honourable member does a great disservice to people who have allowed their names to stand, having been nominated by their fellow citizens in their communities and selected through a process which was designed to allow for maximum community input. The honourable member does a disservice to the whole system when he talks like he does.
Pharmacare
Deductibles
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, yesterday, in trying to explain the government's $19-million screw-up on the Pharmacare program, the minister stated that the program, and I am quoting, was changed to provide “less coverage for people who are rich.” Well, now I am sure Manitobans will be very happy to see that most of them are now rich Manitobans by the minister's definition.
Can the minister explain to me how a single senior with an income of $15,500 will now pay $246 more for their deductible or a family of four living at the poverty line with an annual income of $31,000 will now pay 179 percent more on their deductible? Are these people all rich, Madam Speaker?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I would ask the honourable member to do a little research into the effect the NDP 2 percent net income tax had on lower-income Manitobans and maybe we can judge his bona fides by that study.
What is it about an egalitarian program that offends the honourable member so much? What is it about a program which was raised by the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) last spring and who took such great offence when she was reminded that this program benefits the poor to a larger extent than it benefits the rich? What is it that is so wrong with that? It seems to go contrary to everything the NDP ever talks about. Madam Speaker, in developing this program, particular emphasis was placed on people who had incomes less than $15,000.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister explain how he is going to take away benefits from two-thirds of Manitobans, by his own count, taking $20 million away from them, and by his own definition say that all of these people are rich? What is the new definition of rich? Two-thirds of Manitobans are now rich by the minister's standards, and that is why they are being cut off from this program.
* (1355)
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, in his first question, the honourable member for Kildonan carries a brief for those who are poor and he fails in that question because of the egalitarian nature of the program. So he decides, in typical New Democratic fashion, in his second question to carry the brief for the rich people. Now, which is it? Whom does he represent when he comes here?
The fact is that if your income is under $15,000, you are not expected to pay more than 2 percent of your family income for the deductible. If your income is over that, then a maximum of 3 percent is called for. That is what is called a sliding scale, which is based on income. So the honourable member is having quite a time here today because he cannot argue for the poor successfully and he cannot argue for the rich successfully. So what we have is a fair program.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister finally and the government be up front to the people of Manitoba that what they are doing is cutting off two-thirds of Manitobans from Pharmacare--by the minister's own numbers--average Manitobans, taking $20 million out of their pockets and, incidentally, screwing up the government, by the way, of $19 million yesterday?
Will the minister not admit that it really is a tax grab on Manitobans and a tax on all Manitobans and a tax, most importantly, on the sick?
Mr. McCrae: The issue is clearly not that of the fairness of the program. That has been clearly established. The issue is the credibility of the honourable member for Kildonan.
Boundary Trails Hospital
Government Commitment
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Health.
Leading up to the last provincial election the government made commitments, very solid commitments, in terms of capital dollars being spent in health care. Shortly after that election they went ahead and they put a freeze on those capital expenditures. One of the freezes that they put on was for the Boundary Trails hospital which was in essence to replace two hospitals, one in Morden and one in Winkler.
My question for the Minister of Health: Is the government committed to building the Boundary Trails hospital?
* (1400)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member refers to a very, very difficult decision that had to be made which arises in large part because of the reduction in funding that his colleagues in Ottawa have imposed on all the provinces, including the province of Manitoba. But as we proceed to develop a new capital program, we decided that priorities were an important consideration.
The people from all over Manitoba are interested in, for example, cancer programming for the province of Manitoba, and we were able, with the co-operation and help of the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, to get the cancer program back on the tracks but at a very much reduced level of funding required from the Manitoba government but with no change to the cancer services to be provided to the people of Manitoba.
That was a very good example of why the suspension of the program was necessary in the first place, and the honourable member can be assured, as can everybody else interested in Boundary Trails, that that is very much a part of our consideration in a newly developed capital program.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Minister of Health acknowledge this government's lack of action in an attempt to make a commitment to the Boundary Trails is causing problems in terms of capital requirements between the two hospitals of Morden and Winkler, and that the government needs to make that commitment today in terms of the long-term needs and requirements of rural Manitobans to have a first-class hospital facility in that of Boundary Trails and today indicate that they will get that particular hospital in the next budget coming down?
Mr. McCrae: It is nice to see that the honourable member for Inkster has finally caught on. He can take his place in line behind the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), the honourable member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan), the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) and all of the honourable members on this side of the House who are also advocating on behalf of the Boundary Trails project.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, then, Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health: Why does he not see the light that not only the Liberal Party is trying to shed on his mind but also his backbenchers and make a commitment to building the Boundary Trails hospital so that plans can be put into effect so we can see this facility. We do not have to wait until the next provincial election before this minister makes a commitment. The need is now; it is not when the next provincial election is called. I request that the backbenchers of the government stand up and ask the question also if they want to see that hospital facility.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, speaking for all Manitobans, I think I could probably say that I would--I can say that I would rather be spending their tax dollars building hospitals rather than paying interest, which is what honourable members in the Liberal Party propose here today and what NDP members propose every day.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization--Impact on Seniors
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, one distinguishing feature of a good government is how it treats its senior citizens who are on the threshold of the twilight of life.
Earlier today the president of the Manitoba Society of Seniors incorporated had pointed out correctly that seniors are the primary losers of this MTS privatization decision of this Tory government.
I would like to ask the honourable Minister responsible for Seniors whether or not he had given this concern of the seniors to his colleagues in cabinet, either in committee or in the entire cabinet, prior to the making of the decision or whether he did not participate at all in this decision.
An Honourable Member: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that--
Madam Speaker: No, I have not recognized the honourable minister. Order, please.
The honourable Minister responsible for Seniors.
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister responsible for Seniors): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for Broadway for that question because indeed anything that affects seniors in any type of cost or associations, of living conditions, is of concern to this government. One of the reasons that this government embarked on economic development was so that there is a tax base, there is a revenue base, there is an industrial base, there are jobs, there is the creation of wealth, so that there are not these burdens that are put on to the seniors through our health and family services.
The matter of rate increases that the member refers to regarding MTS, as he knows, goes before the CRTC review and the rates are set there. The rates are not set by this minister or this government as to what is going to be charged by the MTS. So the member should be aware that we will continue to try to respond and be receptive to the needs of the seniors here in Manitoba.
Mr. Santos: Madam Speaker, the honourable minister did not answer the question. If he did not participate, please tell this House who did for seniors. Who stood up for seniors in cabinet?
Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, let it not be said in this House that this government does not stand up for seniors in the cabinet, in the caucus, or in this government. Seniors are a very, very important part of our population.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Are the members now ready to hear the response by the honourable Minister responsible for Seniors?
Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, as has been indicated, as Minister responsible for Seniors, I find that I have to indeed bring forth issues, bring forth concerns. I bring these forth to my cabinet, to my government, to my caucus. In making decisions through all various aspects of the department whether it is in the Department of Health, the Department of Finance, the Department of Family Services, there are ongoing consultations all the time as to anything and everything that might be affecting seniors. So it is an ongoing basis and seniors are brought into the consideration very, very definitely in the decisions that are brought forth.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway, with a final supplementary question.
Pharmacare
Reductions--Impact on Seniors
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): My final question to the honourable minister, Madam Speaker: Did the honourable minister get in touch with his cabinet colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) with respect to the $20-million cut in Pharmacare, and did he bring the concerns of senior citizens about this decision?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister responsible for Seniors): Madam Speaker, one of the criteria of decision making regarding seniors is consultation. I make a point, along with my colleagues, of being involved with the seniors associations whether it is in their community, whether it is in presentations that are made to the group, to this ministry, and we will continue to be in consultation with all aspects of the seniors.
It should be pointed out, too, that seniors make a lot of long distance phone calls and in the last five years, rates of long distance have gone down 50 percent. So there we are showing that there is a concern. We will naturally be involved with any other decisions that are affecting seniors. It is an ongoing process.
Education System
Special Needs Review
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Education about her promises made in 1994, 1995, 1996, to establish an independent review of special needs education, and although money has been allocated to this every year--and, in fact, in 1994, the annual report even claimed their independent review was underway--in fact, no independent review has yet been created, and there is no prospect of a report before 1999.
Could the minister explain what the reason has been for this unconscionable delay and what the impact of three years of broken promises will be on the families of those special needs children?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I should indicate, of course, that I was not minister in 1994 but that is just a small correction because I hold to the commitments of this government. It is just a technical error which we often find in the preamble from the member opposite. But having said that, the commitment to a special needs review is real. I invite the member to stay tuned.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, with a supplementary question.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, we have been staying tuned for three years and all we get is the minister passing the buck to another minister.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member that there is no preamble or postamble required on a supplementary question. The honourable member, to pose her question now.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the minister make a clear commitment to this House today that she will establish a fully independent review which will hold public hearings to hear the views of the families and schools of those special needs children and perhaps she could make a commitment to begin that process before Christmas?
* (1410)
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member knows, as do many members of the House and certainly all members of the education community, that special needs interests are one of the very dominant interests of mine personally and of this government as well.
Madam Speaker, I indicate to the member that within the next few days she should hear the details of the special needs review. The detail in putting forward the preparation for it was extensive. The people that have been chosen are eminently qualified to consult with all of the people that will need to be consulted throughout the course of the review. We respect that review will take some 18 to 24 months to complete and--[interjection] Pardon me? The member opposite wishes me to pre-empt my announcement by providing the details which are being prepared for announcement, and if she does, I do invite her to stay tuned for the details of that announcement within the next week or two.
Workplace Safety and Health
Inspector Reduction
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) why his department had cut the number of Workplace Safety and Health inspectors since his government came to office from 58 to 42 inspectors. The minister misled the House when he said that the number of inspectors remained constant during that period of time.
I want to table some documentation that will confirm that the minister's department in 1988-89 had some 53.48 staff years confirmed to the position of inspectors and that this year, Madam Speaker, the number is 34.26 in this year's budget document.
I want to ask the minister to explain why he misled the House yesterday. Will he please now once again apologize to this House and members of the public for his misstatements?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, the resources dedicated to field inspections have remained constant and I stand by that. If the learned member for Transcona wishes to have an explanation of that, I will have my staff sit him down and go through the documentation line by line to show him exactly why that is an accurate statement.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, it is clear the minister does not even understand his own budget documents.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, to pose his question now.
Fines
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Can the minister explain his statements of yesterday where he said for companies who violate The Workplace Safety and Health Act that prosecutions can be a very ineffective mechanism? Is it the fact that the $150 fines that are assessed or levied against these companies who break the act, is that why he is saying it is ineffective?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, the member for Transcona proves exactly my point. The maximum fines are $15,000 on a first offence, $30,000 on a second offence and the court has assessed a penalty of $150. There has got to be a better way of ensuring that workers are safe on the job. We are committed to that task, and our numbers in terms of decreasing injuries and decreasing deaths are demonstrating that we are on the right track.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona, with a final supplementary.
Mr. Reid: Then I want to ask either the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) because the Minister of Justice has through her department the ability to make recommendations to the Crown attorneys that represent the cases that the Ministry of Labour would send to that department. I want to ask the Minister of Labour--Minister of Justice why--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Reid: This is serious. You may not think so. You may not think this is serious.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. This is not a--
Mr. Reid: You have lives on the line here and you do not think that this is serious--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona, to pose his question now.
Mr. Reid: Can the Minister of Justice tell the injured workers of this province and other Manitobans in this province why her department only goes to the court and makes suggestions to the judge in cases where injured workers' cases under The Workplace Safety and Health Act go to the court, why her department only asks for minimal fines as we saw under the Power Vac situation where not the maximum fines were asked for in a case like that?
Why is that Ministry of Justice not taking action to look for and seek in serious workplace accident cases maximum fines?
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Toews: I can assure you that this government, both the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour are very concerned about injuries that occur to workmen or workwomen in our workplaces, and if the member needs some instruction in what is called due process, I would be happy to sit down and talk to him about it.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.