Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). The Access program has been one of the most successful programs in this province, indeed in Canada. Seventy-three percent of the participants and students in that program are First Nations and aboriginal people; 70 percent of those are women. They have trained nurses, social workers, teachers, engineers, doctors and a number of other people in professions and careers and lives of dignity.

Yesterday, when the Premier refused to answer questions on prevention in dealing with the United Way report, we asked about the cutbacks that were made by the provincial government to the Access program. The Premier then went in the hallway and said that the major cuts were made by the federal government and denied any responsibility at all on the cutbacks that have taken place in the Access program.

Now we all can universally condemn the federal Tory government of the past for cutting back on their role in the Access program, but I would like the Premier to either confirm or deny that his government has also cut back on the provincial portion of Access over the last number of years, contrary to his public statements in the hallway yesterday.

* (1340)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The Leader of the Opposition has to be careful not to confuse two things, Access programming and Access fund. The Access programming has not been reduced at all, Madam Speaker. It is still the same amount as last year. That commitment continues. There will be no change to students in their application for Access. Their criteria remains as they did last year. There was no change to that whatsoever.

What has had a change, and it is not a change that is unexpected to the field at all--we had an Access fund that was year to year, put in place in 1988 and continued on a year-to-year basis until such time as it was felt that the universities had modified their approaches to making available opportunities for aboriginal students and others in need. We feel that goal has been accomplished. The field was aware that we were pleased with their progress in that regard. That fund is discontinued except for some programs that we felt still needed to continue, and they are being funded by alternate sources. So the Leader of the Opposition is not quite on the mark with the implication in his question.

Mr. Doer: I have a copy of the ministry's briefing note which clearly indicates that the provincial government was funding the Access programs into the early 1990s at a level of some $11 million, and now the funding in this year's budget is down to $6.4 million.

Now the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is a big man out in the hallway. Will he stand up today and defend the cuts of his government, his caucus and his cabinet, and confirm in fact that he has been heartless and he has cut investments in the Access program, contrary to any advice for prevention and long-term dignity in careers for First Nations people and other Manitobans that need that program?

Mrs. McIntosh: I repeat to the member opposite that the global allocation for funding Access programs this year is identical to that given to the universities last year. I also indicate to the member that students who apply for assistance over and above the norm, because they are disadvantaged and require those extra funds, have the same criteria, can receive help to an unlimited amount if they require it. That has not changed either, so the member again has implications in his questions that leave a misleading inference for the people.

Mr. Doer: The only one misleading the people of this province is the Premier and his Minister of Education who refuse to take responsibility for their own cuts. They have used the camouflage of the cuts of the federal Tory government to camouflage the cuts that they have made to the Access program, contrary to any report and study about long-term preventative programs, Access programs, bridges for people, bridges for communities.

Would the Premier not confirm that his government--not the federal government, which has cut the program, we admit--the provincial government has cut the funding? In '91-92 from $11 million, '92-93, $10.9 million, and down and down it goes, until this year it is down to $6.4 million, a cut of some $6 million to people and students that need help, not cuts. Why do we not put a smile on the face of people that need Access programs instead of smiles on the faces of the business community that get their tax breaks from this Premier and this government that does not give a darn?

Mrs. McIntosh: The member knows that some years ago the federal government and the provinces had a new way of delivering loans. Here in Manitoba students were first asked to acquire a loan. Then, if they require more on top of that through Access, they can be given an unlimited amount up to whatever it is they require to meet their needs. That means we do not have to expend as much money because first the loan goes in place, then on top of that the nonrepayable bursary, Madam Speaker. That I think the Leader of the Opposition knows but has chosen not to make reference to it in his question.

The amount of money that is for Access programming remains unchanged. The Access fund itself, which was just a little over half-a-million dollars, was a one-time year by year to accomplish specific goals, most of which have been accomplished by the universities. Some of those programs under Access fund will still continue, and they are being funded from alternate sources.

* (1345)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A new question to the First Minister. We have always said that privacy legislation should precede private contracts, which of course is the opposite way in which this government has made an arrangement and contract with the SmartHealth operation, a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Canada.

Madam Speaker, can the Premier tell the people of Manitoba why the Manitoba Medical Association is urging its doctor members to refuse to co-operate with the Manitoba SmartHealth program?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I think the Manitoba Medical Association will have to answer that question themselves, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, we, like members opposite, are very concerned that, in the new age of technology and the great benefits it can provide in the flow of information, there be very strong protection of privacy. That is why we will be bringing forward legislation to cover that in this session of the House. With respect to the committee that was developed to work on that particular area, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, as the professional body representing physicians, has been involved in that process, if I understand it correctly, rather than the Manitoba Medical Association.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, in a letter to the doctors across Manitoba, the president of the MMA states that the paramount concern that they have is the security of confidential patient records, individual patient records. Would the Premier please advise this House and the people of Manitoba: Why are doctors worried about the confidentiality of patient records? Should the Province of Manitoba not have dealt with this prior to this private contract being issued to their friends in the Royal Bank?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, everybody should be concerned about the private records of individuals. Whether those records be on paper or on an electronic medium, we should be concerned about it. The difficulty, of course, is when you put it onto an electronic system, the opportunities to access are far greater. That is why we will be introducing into this House in this session very, very tough legislation, in fact, leading-edge legislation in Canada on privacy protection. The doctors, the physicians of Manitoba have been represented in the development of this legislation through their professional body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Mr. Doer: Most confidential experts in Canada have concluded that Manitoba is in last place in dealing with the legislation. So, if that is the leading edge, Madam Speaker, the only leading edge we see is the hundred-million-dollar contract--is the leading edge of a contract to a private firm for public records. That is the leading edge we see from the Conservatives.

I have a simple question to the Premier: Who will own the individual patient records, the private company or the public interest?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continually in this House exaggerates, in fact is sometimes absolutely wrong and proves time and time again his lack of knowledge on the subjects on which he inquires.

If the member for Concordia, the Leader of the Opposition, was right in saying we are so far behind, why is it one of the difficulties we are encountering in actually drafting this legislation is that we have no other precedents to follow? The fact of the matter is that we are drafting provisions for which there is no precedent. All provinces today who are heading into this in one form or another--Ontario, I know, is advancing this as well, and we are attempting to share basic information on how we draft the legal provisions. So the Leader of the Opposition once again demonstrates he knows very little about the topic. With respect to ownership information, that is a matter that will be settled in the bill, and I ask him to await its introduction into this Assembly.

* (1350)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I might suggest to the Minister of Health that he could borrow my B.C. file on privacy protection legislation.

Today we have registered the Manitoba Medical Association's concerns regarding SmartHealth, especially their fears with regard to security and confidentiality of individual medical records and the possible privatization of these records.

To the Minister of Health: I would like the minister to explain why, though the HIN privacy and confidentiality committee has been struck and though the Manitoba Medical Association has repeatedly asked to have representation on this committee, have they just as repeatedly been refused membership on this committee. They are the stewards of the records--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if the member for Osborne would check her British Columbia file, she would probably find out that British Columbia, as every other province except Manitoba, is not advancing into information technology as we are in this province. We are in the leading edge with the SmartHealth project in developing probably the first comprehensive project of its kind. When you are dealing with such a large, massive change and use of new technology, many of the issues arising around confidentiality are very different than in the traditional form. So I think if she would check the details of her file she would find, like her Leader, she is not correct.

Madam Speaker, with respect to this committee that was struck some time ago, it is my understanding when it was struck by my predecessor that the various stakeholder groups would be represented, and I believe rightly so, by their professional body, not by the organization that negotiates their salary.

You are right. Physicians are the stewards. They are also represented by their professional disciplinary body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Ms. McGifford: Given that the government will--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I am attempting to ask a question.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne, to pose a supplementary question.

Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given that this government will in the near future be tabling privacy legislation regarding health information protection, is the request to allow the Manitoba Medical Association a place at the table indicative of the stubborn resistance to input that we can expect once the legislation is tabled?

In other words, will the government--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if there is one lesson to be learned in the comments of the member opposite, it is that you cannot ad hoc every time some group says they are not at the table.

Madam Speaker, a very conscious decision was made when that committee was struck that the professional bodies--and physicians are not the only players in this. There are other health care providers whose professional bodies are represented on this committee. It is professional bodies that are important, because they have the power to license and discipline. I do not know if the member for Osborne appreciates that.

The member would like more detail. I can tell the member that I have scheduled a meeting with the committee, which includes the professional bodies. I believe we are meeting next week. I am going to be providing them with the latest legal wording around many of those provisions. I want their input. Many of these decisions are in the final stages of conclusion, before we have a bill that I can bring to this Legislature.

So, Madam Speaker, I am personally involved in this consultation. We are meeting with that committee, and I want to make sure that the stakeholders are comfortable with this legislation.

Ms. McGifford: We are talking about putting patient records--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am certain the honourable member would like her comments on the record or question on the record.

The honourable member for Osborne, with a final supplementary question.

* (1355)

Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the minister today to assure Manitobans--and I want to quote from Dr. Ullyot--that the possibility of any arrangement, other than public ownership of individual persons' private information, is outrageous or, in other words, out of the question.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member says only public ownership. What about private, individual ownership of my own health records? That is another possibility.

Madam Speaker, those are the issues that this committee is considering. I can assure the member that it is our intention to have leading-edge, strong legislation to protect the health records of Manitobans.

Madam Speaker, it is very regrettable that the member for Osborne has yet to recognize that the physicians of this province are properly represented in this process through their professional body, which will be the body that can discipline them should they breach the professional ethics in the release of records now. It is not the MMA; they are only their negotiating body for fees.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Sophia Schmidt, Nadine Beaulieu, Megan Ramsay, Crystal Colomb, Randy Sherwood, Devon Cook--Madam Speaker, this is a partial list of children who have died violently at the hands of adults. What they have in common is that they all died in 1996.

The Children's Advocate has recommended a formal public review of all recent child deaths to examine the circumstances leading to the deaths of these children. Will the Minister of Family Services support this recommendation of the Children's Advocate, and will she call for a full public review, as recommended by the Children's Advocate, so that more children will not die?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. I take very seriously, as does our government, any issues surrounding the death of any child in our province. I do know that we have been through a fairly lengthy court process on one of the recent child deaths, that being baby Sophia Schmidt. I know that the Chief Medical Examiner has called a public inquest into that death. I will not rule anything out at this point in time, but I do want to indicate very seriously that we want to understand what the causes of the deaths are. We want to try to prevent any future deaths.

Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of Family Services implement her own government's report entitled Families First which calls for the establishment of a system for independent investigation into allegations of abuse by caregivers? This is her own government's document. She has written a covering letter in this document. Will she implement her own--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I can indicate to my honourable friend today that, indeed, in order for that to take place, there will need to be legislative amendments. We will be bringing legislation in this session.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Can the Minister of Family Services tell the House if that legislation will include an item that she commented on on April 11 last year when she said that a partial release of recommendations contained in confidential child-death reports submitted to her by the Chief Medical Examiner would be made public in cases where there was no conflict with any criminal charges? This is something that she said she was going to do. Will the amendments to the legislation actually do it?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I want to indicate to my honourable friend that we are in the process right now of compiling that information for public release.

* (1400)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Housing. At the onset, I would state that one has to question this government's commitment to our two shelter allowance programs for seniors and for families and quote specifically from a letter that I received just about an hour, an hour and a half ago. In this particular case, it states: In my case, in 1989 my rent was at $290 a month, and my SAFFR allowance came to as high as $82 a month. My rent has steadily gone up since 1989, and it is now $350 a month. At the same time, my SAFFR has steadily decreased from $78 to $72 to $68 and now stands at $54.53 a month.

My specific question to the minister is: Why has this government not acknowledged the need to index these two valuable shelter programs?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, I should point out to the member that, in relation to the subsidies and grants that are associated with the SAFFR and SAFER programs, it is based upon the income that the individual has at his or her disposal. The grant is adjusted. If income is going up by that individual, the grants would naturally come down. They will not stay in a fixed position, and the individual will have his or her income increasing. So that is a natural progression. If the income goes up, the grant goes down. It makes sense to me.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that that makes sense to the Minister of Housing. I would ask the Minister of Housing, using his logic then: Will he acknowledge that individuals on fixed incomes in future years will in fact receive increments that increase to match the cost of living so that, as their incomes remain relatively the same and the expense continues to go up, in fact they will be indexed so the senior or the low-income family is not going to be put into a further handicapped position?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I am just trying to get the logical sequence of the events that are put before me. If the income remains the same, the grant remains the same. If the income goes up, it will be adjusted. I mean, if the income goes--it just seems a natural progression. I do not know how else I can explain the logistics behind it. If the grant goes down--it is not a one-way street. The grants are tied into income. If the rent and the income--if the income is going up, the subsidy will go down. I will say it a little slower next time.

Mr. Lamoureux: What we are asking is the Minister of Housing to acknowledge the fact that the shelter allowance programs are in fact of great benefit as an alternative to nonprofit housing stock. The problem is it is not being indexed on an annual basis. The simple question is: Is the government prepared to index it so that this way individuals on low incomes, fixed incomes, like seniors and low-income families, will in fact be subsidized so you are not forcing them in an indirect way into nonprofit housing which will cost the government more money?

Mr. Reimer: I will try to explain it again. I will concede to the member that it is a very beneficial program. We have had great take-up with the actual numbers of participants. In fact, what I could indicate to the member is that actually the numbers of clients have declined in the amount of monies that have been put into the program. I should point out that back in 1993-94 there were 850 clients on the SAFFR program. In 1997, there are 790. So the clients are going down. The program is still a very effective use, but it is tied into the logical progression that if the individual income is going up, then our grants will be going down. Now it can only work in that type of relationship.

As to the indexing, we have not looked at that as a consideration. All those decisions are made during budgeting of a process through our department, and we can look at it in our next budgetary process.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): We are concerned that this government has cut a half million dollars from the Shelter Allowance for Elderly Renters and the Shelter Allowance for Family Renters.

I have a letter from the Manitoba Society of Seniors that is recommending that a minimum claimable rent figure and the income levels for the seniors' program annually be reviewed and indexed to rise with the consumer price index. Now that was sent to the minister back in 1992.

I want to ask the Minister of Housing if that has been reviewed and what response they have given to the Manitoba Society of Seniors of making the seniors' rent program more fair to seniors.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): I thank the honourable member for that question, because it gives me a chance to put on record the fact of what was brought up before and has been alluded to today in regard that there has been a decrease in the budget. The relationship between the applications and the budgetary items is what is brought forth for consideration at this time. When we do our budget, we put in a projection based on previous pickup of applications from the prior year.

In looking at our budget, we put in a figure for '96-97 of 850 clients. The actual pickup on it was 760 clients. That is why the member is referring to a decrease--I think she mentioned something like $200,000 or $300,000--in the program. If the clients are not there and the pickup is not there, naturally that money is not going to be utilized. So it is not a decrease.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask the Minister of Housing very simply: Given that seniors have their pensions indexed, will he also index the program for seniors' rent supplement so that they do not lose their entire pension benefit to this program when it is taken back from their rent supplement?

Mr. Reimer: The basis of this whole program is a rental supplement. It is a program that has proven that we can help with the SAFFR program and the SAFER program for elderly people who are renting. We have had good take-up on this. We continue to support it to a tune last year of just over $1.2 million. We had budgeted $1.5 million. The pickup was not entirely there based on the figures that we had anticipated, so naturally there is a decrease in that budget line. But that does not mean that there was money that was not available for expenditure. The applications did not warrant the additional funding.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice. After two prisoner escapes from the custody of sheriff's officers within just over a year, we became aware of serious safety concerns in the Sheriff's Office and asked the minister at the time to provide me with the recommendations from an internal review following the last escape in January of '96 to oversee the department's follow-up.

My question to the minister is: Given my information that line officers have no knowledge of the implementation of the 10 recommendations or of significant improvements--that is over a year later--will the minister provide those recommendations today and tell us, in his view, how many of those recommendations have now been fully implemented?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am not about to interfere in the decision of professionals relating to workplace safety and health issues. There in fact is a Workplace Safety and Health committee at the courthouse that deals with these issues. If there is any particular issue that is still outstanding, it is open for any employee. Indeed, it is open for a Workplace Safety and Health officer to make recommendations and look at any security issues. I am more than happy to co-operate in any respect.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who was posed with a serious question of public safety and procedures and protocol staffing his own department, just tell this House how many of those recommendations in his view are now in place, given that all but two of those recommendations were to have been in place last week?

Mr. Toews: As I have indicated, I, unlike the member for St. Johns, am not about to interfere in professional decisions relating to workplace safety and health. If there are outstanding workplace safety and health issues, there is an appropriate forum. If there are any outstanding ones that have not been dealt with and the Workplace Safety and Health committee says that they should be implemented, we will take a look at that.

* (1410)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister acknowledge that we have seen this scenario just over a year ago and earlier than that when requests were made of the minister to get involved in the department? Would the minister now acknowledge that having responsibility and accountability for safety in his department is not a matter of interfering? It is his department. It is his officers' safety.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I recognize what my responsibilities are. My responsibilities are to assure the public and to assure sheriff's officers that there is an appropriate system and to ensure that that system is a safe one as far as can be reasonably expected as The Workplace Safety and Health Act says. I am committed to that process. I am committed to the safety of my sheriff's officers. I am committed to the safety of the public.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

In January the Minister of Health was told loud and clear by municipal leaders in Dauphin that he was going too fast with his plans for regionalization and that they should be delayed. They were not well thought-out. At least at two meetings in Dauphin, two huge meetings, concerns were expressed about this government's plans for regionalization. Last night the governors of the Dauphin Regional Health Centre voted not to join the Parkland Regional Health association.

Does the minister now realize that he should delay the plan for regionalization to allow rural Manitobans the time we need to understand this government's plans?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all with respect to the Dauphin hospital, I was there at their meeting last night. Let us remember, I think all but one of the members of the board of directors voted to evolve. That was their recommendation to the board of governors. The governors met; I believe there are 43 governors. To become a governor I believe you buy a membership for $5 on an annual basis. There are 43 such citizens with that position in Dauphin. Of those, 26 voted. Sixteen of the governors voted to evolve into the regional health authority; 10 did not. It required a two-thirds vote. So the minority of governors have chosen to continue to govern and that is their responsibility. They shall govern.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): The minister knows that the rules were followed all around. What is he going--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has a question, I am sure.

Mr. Struthers: How can the minister tell the town councils and the R.M. councils in Dauphin that they are now going to be responsible for the debt carried by the hospital when he has got the money, he obviously has the money? How can he now take that money off the table just because they will not join his Parkland Regional Health Authority? That is heavy handed and that is blackmail.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): The meeting I attended last night was a public meeting. The member for Dauphin, I gather because of his commitments in the House, was not able to be there. But, Madam Speaker, when the issue of the debt came up, the offer by us to facilities that entered the RHAs--that we would cover the entire deficit; otherwise, the regular process begins. The Dauphin General Hospital or the Dauphin Regional Hospital will then--and in fact has appealed many of their issues with Manitoba Health. They are in the process of negotiating, and the regular status quo pre-RHA process will continue. If there are parts of that deficit that were unforeseen, they will be considered for coverage; those that are not, the hospital will have to manage that. As the member knows, in Dauphin the municipality is not the constituent body, it is in the governors, and it will be their responsibility to deal with whatever part of the deficit is not covered.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) in Estimates this week stated that his assistant deputy minister was a member of the multidepartmental committee looking at the potentially catastrophic closure of Eaton's stores in Winnipeg and Brandon. When I asked the minister to provide me with an update on the work of this committee, excluding of course anything that was of a sensitive nature, he unbelievably replied that he did not know. He had not been briefed or asked for a briefing from his assistant. Today we learn that there have been--the catastrophe begins with 120 layoffs.

I would like to ask the Minister of Urban Affairs: Does he wonder that the people of Winnipeg have no confidence in this government's commitment to their community when he does not even take the time to be briefed by his staff on an issue that has an enormous social and economic impact on the city of Winnipeg, the city he is responsible for? If he does not want to answer, maybe the Premier would like to answer for once today.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that the member for Wellington has the audacity to now come crying about Eaton's having difficulty in Manitoba when her predecessor, the member for St. James as he was at the time, the New Democratic Minister of Labour, went out publicly and cut up his Eaton's card and urged everybody in Manitoba to stop shopping at Eaton's. You reap what you sow, because then when you tell people not to shop at Eaton's and their business drops, that is what happens. People lose their jobs.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne 417 is quite clear that--

Madam Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, most definitely--answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. First of all, I would note that the question that was raised with regard to what this government is doing, if anything, to deal with the very serious situation involving the anchor stores with Eaton's, and second of all, I wonder if you could perhaps remind the Premier that this is 1997, not 1987, and he is supposed to be the Premier and should expect to accept some responsibility for trying to save the Eaton stores in Winnipeg.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, when people cut up their credit cards and urge people not to shop at a place, that destroys jobs and that is precisely the point that the New Democrats are doing here. They are the ones who destroy the jobs, and then they try and cry over it.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, the Premier should, in following our rules, point out that Eaton's expanded in the 1980s and unfortunately may be leaving under his stewardship, which is a tragedy.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I will take the point of order raised by the honourable member under advisement and report back to the House.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

* (1420)