Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

On Monday I asked the Premier some questions dealing with the information we had received from the people of the Grande Pointe area and relatives of the people from Grande Pointe. Consistently throughout the discussions we had, the people were saying to us that all along they were given forecasts that would indicate that they would not receive the amount of water that they eventually received on Friday.

Again last night, in a town hall meeting for the people of Ritchot, people were speaking at that meeting, and people were raising the fact that they were assured by the Department of Natural Resources and the Water Services branch and the people working for the provincial government that the water levels would not be as high as eventually happened in the Friday flooding that took place with many of the homes in the Grande Pointe area. They had been very concerned when they were raising it with us, they were very concerned at the meeting last night and I would like to ask the Premier: What happened to the forecasts for the Grande Pointe area? It is something I asked him on Monday. What has been the evaluation of the forecasting that has been conducted at Grande Pointe, and why were we wrong, regrettably, in that situation?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, the concern and the angst of the people who were living in Grande Pointe, we certainly can feel for their problems and want to do everything we can to make sure that they know that we are examining and reviewing what may have caused the water levels that they saw. I want to put it clearly on the record that almost every forecast that the department brought forward has proven to be right on the--almost within the inch of where the predicted levels were. That does not help the people in Grande Pointe when they look out the window or look back at their properties.

The fact is, when we saw phenomena in the movement of water in the valley on the west side--and let me use the west side of the valley as an example--where there were observations of water running north over a road and then going east over the next road and then going north and then going east and then turning around and going south again depending on the elevations of the road, that has caused some very unusual patterns of water when we have seen such an enormous amount of water coming through the valley that has given some unpredictability to the direction that water would flow.

Mr. Doer: People again were asking--and they had been phoning the Water Resources branch and the Water Services branch and the provincial government, and they felt that these assurances from their department really put back, if not totally delayed, any preparation when they were told not to worry about the water levels in terms of the predicted crest in that area. Of course, I have quoted the projections from the press releases previously on Monday in this Chamber.

* (1350)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the minister: What has been the impact of the reduction of some 40 percent in the staff in the department of Water Resources? What has been the impact on forecasts and the ability to analyze water flow? At the meeting last night people talked about a 6-foot culvert that was not identified. The staff of the minister also said that they were not aware of that situation. What has been the impact of government cutbacks on forecasting capacity for water flow in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): The ability of the department to assemble and forecast on the information that they have available has continued at the same high level that we have always expected, but remember, in the event that we are facing right now and we are still facing, this is a flood event that is larger than anything that has been in recent recorded documentation.

As you get to the outside edges of what is now Lake Morris, the direction of flow and the levels to the outside edges that may redirect some water is very difficult to model. The direction that the department has always provided to individuals is that this is the level and please build with an additional 2 feet of freeboard. None of that can entirely preclude the possibility--and we saw two events where this occurred--of the water being redirected by a road that had been built up, by a road that can become breached. In fact, again to use the other side of the lake as an example, the water today has reached the Brunkild dike in all parts of the dike, and it had been sitting with four feet of a head two and a half miles or two miles south of that dike. That is an indication of the enormity of what they are dealing with.

Mr. Doer: We will continue to pursue the issue of cutbacks of staff and its impact on forecasts when we hear more definitive answers of what happened in terms of the Grande Pointe situation and other situations in the province.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the First Minister--he mentioned yesterday that no province in Canada had no deductible in terms of the compensation package, and we cited the Province of Alberta, which had, in our information, dropped the deductible from the 20 percent. We also cited Quebec which he answered yesterday in the Chamber. Last night at the meeting his own member of the Legislature the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) said he did not know what the government was going to do with the 20 percent deductible. Further to that, the federal member of Parliament said that they were willing to compensate and look at a reduction of the 20 percent deductible.

Has the Premier got an update on the analysis of Alberta, and what definitive answers can they give to the people who attended a town hall meeting last night in Ritchot in terms of not knowing what the status of that would be?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Indeed the member for La Verendrye has been out there working with his constituents to fight the flood every day now for a period of a couple of weeks. My recollection of the response I gave yesterday was specific to the question about Quebec. I do not believe that I said that no province did not have a deductible, because I know from the information I had in front of me yesterday that it clearly says that Newfoundland has no deductible and Alberta has no deductible in their disaster financial assistance.

Getting back to the question of the member opposite, it has certainly been apparent, during all of the matters that we have had to encounter and all of the decisions that we as a government have had to take, that we are facing unprecedented circumstances, that we are facing unprecedented times. On the other hand, with respect to the way in which we have attempted to treat people, we have always indicated that we want to do what is reasonable and fair under the circumstances. Those kinds of principles have been applied in many disasters, even since we have been in office--in 1989 when we had unprecedented forest fires in northern Manitoba; 1995, when we had one of the largest flooding circumstances certainly this century on the Assiniboine River; last year when we had some very large flooding circumstances on the Red River. It will turn out to be the fourth largest flood this century as it was in 1996.

* (1355)

In every case--and we have made some decisions along the way, going from $30,000 maximum to $100,000 maximum in recognition of what is fair, reasonable and meets the test of a broadly applicable assessment. We certainly are looking at all of these elements with respect to this particular disaster. We want to acknowledge certainly the burden that people are bearing, the trauma that they have faced and will continue to face. But, in so doing, we also want to create circumstances that would be applicable in any other circumstance that we faced in the future and not just do this in recognition of a federal election that is ongoing, not just do it in recognition of this being greater than any other circumstance that we have faced.

So I will say to him that all of the issues that he has raised will not just be considered by us, as a government, but we will take advice, his advice, the advice of the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and others who have urged us to take a different view of this. We will take the advice of the people who have put together a financial support package and knowing that already those who have looked at these funds that have been raised for flood relief in Manitoba, that certainly many of them have indicated that they are prepared to look at the circumstances of those who might face a deductible and not be able to manage that. So the need as well as the circumstances of individuals can be taken care of, we believe, by an appeal mechanism that exists in our disaster financial assistance program as well as by the funds that are being collected for special flood relief and administered by a nonpartisan group that is outside of government.

In addition to all of those things, of course, there will also be the obvious backstop that always exists, and that is the government itself taking a look at circumstances and again addressing whether or not what policies are in place, what circumstances are in place are fair and equitable and reasonable in the circumstances, and we will be judged on that by people right across this province, I am sure.

Mr. Doer: New question to the First Minister: I asked yesterday for the government to look at the policy and the changes in the policy that have resulted in Alberta. The Premier looked at the policies that had changed in Quebec. We recognize some other provinces have not dropped the deductible. I would like to further ask in terms of this issue--and I recognize some money towards that deductible could be utilized from the great support we have had from other people in other provinces, and I recognize also that we have to take a long-term view of this situation, notwithstanding the federal situation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier: Would he look at the policy of the deductible with the great losses due to this flood disaster and look at it also in light of the fact that not all items are covered by the existing policy? Secondly--and we support the fact that only the depreciated value of items is covered. We are not suggesting the government change that, but that obviously also mitigates against the great disaster that people have. Will he look at the deductible policy in light of those other factors that are part of the present policy that is circulated by the government?

Mr. Filmon: We will take all of those things into account, as the Leader of the Opposition has recommended. We also will take into account the fact that people do not pay any premiums for this kind of coverage. It is given basically without having had to pay premiums, which other people would have had to do in order to get this kind of coverage, and also that insurance normally does carry a deductible. So we will have to take all of those circumstances into account and try and ensure that at the end of the day we have a balanced and fair approach.

* (1400)

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I think we welcome the new flexibility being shown by the First Minister opposite.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): The municipalities serving areas like Ste. Agathe, Grande Pointe, Aubigny and other areas did not have the opportunity, not because of any particular failure but because of the reasons that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) has pointed out, that simply the unpredictability of this flood was such that preparation was not always undertaken in areas that were subsequently flooded, not because people did not want to prepare but because events overtook them--they, therefore, were not able to mitigate damages to their own municipal infrastructures. They are faced, therefore, with enormous costs in relation to their ability to pay. What steps is the province now prepared to take to deal with the ability-to-pay principle in regard to municipalities, particularly the ones most hard hit in the areas that I have mentioned?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think the first thing we have to recognize is that we do not have any quantifiable bills at the moment. We do not have any bills submitted. We do not have any real--we have ballparks, we have estimates, but that may not be accurate. I do not think that you set firm policy change based on speculation, and that is what we are dealing with at the moment. Just as we could have speculated about worst-case scenarios for Winnipeg, we would have been wrong to set policy based on that. We would have been wrong to take actions other than back-up systems in place. So I do not think that now is the time for us to be dealing with those circumstances until we have much more definitive information at our disposal.

Mr. Sale: Will the Premier, who must know by now that some municipalities do in fact know that even their flood-prevention costs have greatly exceeded their annual budget in revenue terms--those bills are already known--will he not simply reinstate the flexible provision found in the disaster relief guidelines, Disaster Assistance Board guidelines which were in place until January of 1997, the guidelines that were in place through all of the previous incidents which made it possible, depending on the good judgment and necessity of the situation, to waive or reduce or amend the deductible or the co-payment levels of municipalities, businesses or individuals? Simply restore the previous policy.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that we have a lot of thinking to do, we have a lot of evaluation to do and we will take the time necessary to get all the information that should be put on the table when we make those judgments.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Northern Affairs confirm that it is the policy of the federal government to waive deductibles in the case of the municipal and local authorities under federal jurisdiction and that they did so in 1989, 1993 and 1996 in regard to lands, roads, infrastructure located in lands under the responsibility of the federal government?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Northern Affairs): I do not have the answer to that question, but I will take that as notice and get the answer for my friend.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, according to the government's news bulletin as of Sunday, May 4, more than 17,000 Manitobans evacuated from their homes have had to rely on assistance for food and lodging through Emergency Measures Organization. Of course, many of these Manitobans have not been able to work or have lost their access to their regular income while being forced out of their homes.

I want to ask the minister responsible for Emergency Measures: What has been the rate of allowance for food per day for people who have had either to have their own accommodations arranged or have had to have accommodations arranged through Emergency Measures and the Red Cross?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, those people that had to evacuate their premises and consequently move into one of the reception centres, either in rural Manitoba or in Winnipeg, once they registered with the emergency social services group with regard to the accommodation that they had, they were allowed to have--and I do not have the numbers in front of me, so I hope the member will forgive me if I am out a dollar or two, but I believe it is around the $20 to $22 per diem for those people that were lodged in a hotel setting and had to use a restaurant facility for food. I believe those families that had accommodation within an apartment block-type setting where they could cook their own meals were allowed $7.40 a day, I believe, for groceries per person in the family.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I would appreciate it if the minister would provide me the accurate dollar figures since he has said he does not have them available. I want to ask him then to clarify: What was the rate for lodging with hotels, the residences, the different colleges and universities that have been arranged through Emergency Measures operations?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, I do not have an answer to that. I will take that question as notice and get the information for my honourable friend.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Can the minister tell us when this policy for these rates was set, and have there been any changes recently in this policy for the rates through Emergency Measures operations?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Again, Madam Speaker, I do not have the specific information for that question. I will take it as notice and get the information for the member.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Earlier today the Premier indicated that what he wants is something that is reasonable, he wants something that is fair. The government's ability to forecast flood levels many would argue was impacted because of some of the cutbacks that this government had enacted in previous years.

The question that I have for the Premier: Given the special circumstances, the false sense of security that residents in the Grande Pointe area, for example, were given, should they have to be additionally penalized by having to pay a deductible? Will the Premier acknowledge that in fact special consideration should be given to these area residents?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will resist the temptation to talk about the federal reductions that are planned and perhaps some that have already taken place by the member's colleagues in Ottawa with respect to water resources monitoring in the Manitoba watershed area.

I am informed, and I have the details--I could go through position by position--where any reductions took place in the area of Water Resources. They were in the area of construction workforce; they were in the area of design workforce, because those matters are being contracted out. It makes little sense to have people on staff to do design and construction where you are paying them for 365 days of the year where it could be done on a job basis at lesser cost to the taxpayer. I am sure that the member opposite would agree with that, that we do not want to be having people paid to do a full year's work when perhaps the time of their work is less than half of the year and you can do it at less cost.

All of the positions, as I went through them one by one, did not involve people who were doing monitoring for water levels and measuring for water levels. Add to that the fact that we now have computerization of much of this; we have in fact better information available to us than we have ever had in our history.

What all of these things cannot do, of course, is predict nature. If I adopted the attitude that is being portrayed by the member opposite and others, it would say that today we should be able to, if there is any damage due to sewer backups or water problems because of the precipitation, sue Environment Canada because they were only predicting 15 millimetres and we now look as though we are going to get 50 millimetres. Every time something like that happens--and we had sewer backups massively in 1993--you cannot sue Environment Canada because they cannot accurately predict a power much greater than us. I know that sometimes those of us in this Chamber think that we are pretty powerful, but there is a power much greater than we are that controls the weather, that controls the environment, that controls all of those circumstances, and this massive flow of water that has been visited upon us this year is not something that any of us either can control or predict to the kind of accuracy that some people are suggesting should be done. I think, under the circumstances, the Water Resources engineers were remarkably accurate in most areas.

* (1410)

I can tell the member opposite that I visited six different locations on Friday, speaking to municipal officials in Emerson, in Letellier, in Dominion City, in St. Jean Baptiste, in Morris, in the R.M. of Morris and in St. Adolphe, and people were saying compliments, nothing but compliments for the accuracy of the predictions, given all of the variables that they faced. So I will not accept the premise of his argument that somehow we can hold responsible the Water Resources engineers for what appears to be an anomaly in the Grande Pointe area that nobody seemed to be able to predict.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what we are asking the government to do, and particularly the Premier, is to remove the deductible for flood damages where the homeowner can in fact prove that incorrect information was provided. Whatever the Premier might say, he must surely to goodness acknowledge the fact that many of the residents did have a false sense of security in an area. The vast majority of Manitoba, the accuracy was absolutely amazing how accurate the bureaucrats were. In one area, to no fault of their own, individuals did not anticipate. They were told, in some cases, that they were not going to--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, firstly, I understand the trauma that people are facing and the tremendous emotionalism that surrounds this issue, but Water Resources engineers do not go to individual properties and say this is where you should do it. They put out figures daily at different points along the Red River system, and they leave it to others to extrapolate and interpret among those different levels where their houses are and what their level of protection ought to be. Local authorities oftentimes transmit and transfer the data to the individuals or attempt to assist them, but at the end of the day the individuals who decide that this is where they want to locate their properties in a flood-prone area, on a flood plain have to take some responsibility. We, I think, want to do everything that we think is humanly possible to support them in their efforts, but I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that it is the Water Resources engineers who have to be held responsible for an individual decision or interpretation of information and data that is made available.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, as my second supplementary question to the Premier: Will the Premier or this government commit that those individuals for whatever reasons of limited financial means will in fact be allowed to use up to the full $100,000 if need be, that they are not going to be fearful of not being able to come up with the deductible portion that might be difficult for some people? Will he guarantee that the deductible in one way or another, whether it is through low-interest loans, no-interest loans, a reduction of the deductible, that those individuals will be able to get their work done?

Mr. Filmon: I believe that everybody in this House and indeed all Manitobans want to act with a good deal of compassion as they face the circumstances along with their fellow Manitoba citizens who are in difficulty right now. That being said, I think that there have to be some principles that have to be applied of fairness, of balance and of reasonableness. That is what is behind our desire to try and look at this on a broader basis as opposed to doing something in the middle of an election campaign or under great stress to try and achieve some purpose.

So we are certainly aware that there will be a number of opportunities for people to address what they believe is inadequate support if they believe there is inadequate support for their flood relief requirements and their damage payments, and that includes an appeal process to the disaster financial assistance program. That includes a committee that is being set up now. I even heard on the radio this morning people from public service organizations, service clubs, who are suggesting that, if there are people in hardship who cannot afford to pay the deductible, they will be looking at those kinds of issues. The people who have been collecting money--and there have been generous donations from right across this country--will be looking at these kinds of issues and try to address them again out of a sense of understanding people's needs and people's abilities to pay. I think that is the way that we should look at it and say there is a whole series of potential applications for these issues of hardship and that there will be people looking at them.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Deputy Premier continually refers to the ManGlobe project as an R and D project when he knows full well that it is a failed Internet mall. Madam Speaker, if it is an R and D project, then why does page 3 of his ManGlobe Virtual Corporation status report of July 11, '95, say the following? Under provincial government it says: Funds from the Canada-Manitoba Communications Agreement will be used mostly for human resources along with other operation expenses.

If this is an R and D project, then why did he not use the money for R and D?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): It certainly is important that the human element be very much involved in this type of activity in doing the research and development that does in fact lead to job creation, to new technology that can be applied and the broader context as it relates to the Internet activity. I can assure the member and assure all members of this House that the intent of the project, the support that was given will in fact continue to be used as it was intended to do and that is to create employment and new activities.

Mr. Maloway: The minister knows that there was no R and D developed here. I do not know why he keeps insisting that there is. Mr. Fred Holder from SHL at a steering committee meeting July 14, 1995, was noted as saying that the likelihood providing an off-the-shelf solution through the initial pilot and port to a blueprint model, architecture already developed by SHL, clearly indicating that there was no R and D in this project.

Will the minister admit that this is not an R and D project but a failed Internet shopping mall?

Mr. Downey: No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the same minister is this: Why does the minister continue to hide the salary figure for the president when the project figures clearly show that the salary was $240,000? If this is not the figure, then what was the actual figure?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I have been informed that part of the agreement by which financing was made available to the individual, that the salary would be no more than $90,000 a year. I made reference in the House last week to 18 months of something like $130,000-some. I think that is comparable to what I said the other day.

* (1420)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, the Minister responsible for MPIC just released the 1996 annual report for MPIC, and there is clear indication that rather than take the concept of no-fault, which was intended to make sure that claimants received the full amount of claims, we are now seeing evidence in a report of what has happened under the no-fault system brought in by this government, which ignored 35 recommendations, amendments brought in by the NDP, that the injury costs going to Manitobans under MPIC have dropped from $194 million prior to no-fault to $103 million. I am wondering if the Minister responsible for MPIC can confirm that this is partly due to the fact that the number of claims now filed under this new system has been cut by nearly one-half.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, thanks to the good work of the Manitoba Public Insurance in sponsoring RoadWise projects and getting people involved, part of the answer to the honourable member's question may have to do with the fact that at least 39 fewer Manitobans lost their lives in 1996, and there were almost 4,500 fewer Manitobans injured in collisions. That would account for some of the numbers the honourable member referred to, but the important thing that Manitoba Public Insurance does is it plays a role as a key partner in bringing about a safer Manitoba, which is one of the things that MPIC can do and is doing as reflected in these numbers.

Mr. Ashton: I am wondering if the minister would care to read his own report. Will he confirm that his own report which he just tabled a few minutes ago indicates that the no-fault system is, quote, performing even better than anticipated, resulting in a lower-cost per-injury claim?

Will he confirm the fact that the way they have implemented no-fault has ensured that Manitobans who get injured as a result of automobile accidents are now receiving far less benefits than they did under the previous system, because this government ignored 35 amendments brought in by the New Democrats?

Mr. McCrae: The honourable member cannot have it both ways. He and his colleagues support the no-fault aspect of Autopac insurance coverage on the one hand, and then they come along and complain about it when it appears to be working to the benefit of Manitobans. The fact is that the honourable member forgets a very significant feature of all of this: 35 percent or so of the costs of these kinds of claims in the past had to do with legal costs. The honourable member for Thompson wants to go back to that system; well, let him say so.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that Manitobans injured as a result of automobile accidents receive what they are entitled to.

I would like the minister to explain--because obviously he either has not read this report or does not want to listen to the facts--can he explain again why the number of claims has dropped from $194 million to $103 million, when in fact his own report indicates it is not because of declines in legal costs; it is not because of declines in number of accidents; it is because under the new system Manitobans who get injured receive far less benefits, something that is confirmed in this report.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, again, the honourable member ignores altogether the wonderful results that Manitobans are achieving for themselves simply by being better drivers and paying more attention to the rules of the road and going along with the concepts embodied in the whole RoadWise program. So, again, I cannot understand the honourable member not supporting the results being achieved under the no-fault insurance aspect of MPI when what is required is to see that people are appropriately compensated for legitimate claims that they are making, and every indication suggests that is exactly what is happening. Indeed, we have in place a review of the no-fault, which was part of the legislation brought forward about four years ago, and that review under the stewardship of Mr. Sam Uskiw is underway right now.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources announced some regulations regarding fishing on Lake Winnipeg. The minister in one meeting with the north basin fishermen promised that, before he would introduce any further regulations, he would meet with them again and get their input on the regulations that he was considering before he made them law.

Why did the minister not consult with these fishermen before he announced these regulations on Monday?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Well, Madam Speaker, the nature of the changes that we made were such that I think the majority of the fishermen in all basins of Lake Winnipeg should feel comfortable that they fall well within the parameters of advice that they were providing to me. We did not make any radical deviations from the recommendations that they made. In fact, I suspected that the criticism might have been that we did not make enough radical changes.

Nevertheless, the most significant aspect of this is to contain the opening of the fishing season until the appropriate number of pickerel and sauger have spawned. I am sure that the member for Dauphin and every fisherman on the lake would concur that we need to make sure that we have an adequate spawn in order to rehabilitate the stocks in the lake.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, if the minister was worried about conserving fish stocks, why did he then reduce the mesh size from 5 inches to 4 and a quarter inches for the whitefish fleet in the north part of Lake Winnipeg?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, that change is quite in line with the other areas of that lake. Remember--and I am sure the member is well aware--that there is a significant volume of whitefish available, but there is a significant restriction on the whitefish fleet so that they may only capture 20 percent of their take in pickerel and sauger. That change in mesh size really only allows for the capture or the harvest to proceed without changing the type of fish that is being taken or the volume that is being taken in the two species about which we are concerned. It does, in fact, harmonize the mesh size with most of the other areas in the lake.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.