ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Health Care System

Audiology Services--Children

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have been calling on this government to reverse a number of their spending decisions and start investing in preventative health and start investing in children in our health care system.

We understand today, in another pre-election cynical move, the government on its last days is going to make an announcement on children's health. This is after having a period of government where they have gone in the opposite direction.

They have cut children's health programs. They have flip-flopped all over the map on physical education, and they have cut back on audiologists and speech and language therapists in the province of Manitoba.

I would like to ask the Premier what has been the impact of their spending reduction to children in the audiology programs and audiologist assessment programs in terms of the impact on children's health in Manitoba and the number of assessments performed in Manitoba after their government cut the money for those children in the province of Manitoba.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, a little later today, I will be pleased to be releasing the report of the Child Health Committee, which is the first population health-based report of its kind to be released in Canada, and we are very happy about that.

It is interesting that late last year, when the New Democrats announced their child health platform, it appears they had taken their policies straight from a draft of the report that I will be introducing a little later today. I guess it is a bit of a compliment, Mr. Speaker, when New Democrats borrow our policies from us.

Mr. Speaker, quite seriously though, I think the honourable member will share my concern when I got a letter the day after the federal budget from the Honourable Diane Marleau, national Minister of Health, setting out--and this will be of interest to Senator Carstairs and of interest to honourable members of the Liberal Party, I am sure--how the federal budget cuts allocations for nutrition programs and for prenatal programs and for the Headstart programs for disadvantaged children.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member will join with me in expressing outrage and concern about that when the Prime Minister boldly states in his red book that he is going to save the health care system and does it by cutting as much as $220 million out of the Manitoba health and social services budget.

* (1015)

Mr. Doer: We have been calling on this provincial government from 1990 on to move forward on preventative health care programs for children.

Mr. Speaker, report after report after report, whether it was the MacDiarmid report in 1989, other reports that the government has had for months and years, have also called on the same government and this same Premier (Mr. Filmon) to do something for children. He went in the opposite direction.

The minister did not answer the question. In 1990 and '91, this Premier cut out money for audiology programs for children in the province of Manitoba. I asked the Minister of Health in December, what has been the impact of that cut on children's preventative health and assessments. I would ask the Premier now, today, since I have asked this question, to stand up and tell the people of Manitoba what has been the impact on speech and language therapy and assessment programs and audiology with his cut on our children in our province of Manitoba in 1991, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McCrae: I think, while I agree that the federal programs that are being cut by the recent budget, while they are being cut, they are programs that were targeted programs, which I support, and I hope the honourable member opposite supports.

I mean, rhetoric is one thing. Actually having a real concern for the children of our province is quite another thing, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important for honourable members opposite to note that there are certain neighbourhoods and certain populations in Manitoba that are extremely disadvantaged, and we need to target our programming in those areas.

Without telling the honourable member everything I am going to announce a little later, that will be very much a focus of the child health strategy in Manitoba.

Mr. Doer: This Filmon team, this Premier (Mr. Filmon), cut back money for children's audiology services. The member for Tuxedo, in his cavalier attitude, Mr. Speaker, has reduced the number of assessments.

If he cannot answer the question, I will give him the answer. The number of assessments has gone down 50 percent in this last majority government, and this Premier should be ashamed to even make announcements on this last day. It is cynical. It is dishonest to children, and it is totally inconsistent with the decisions they have made in the past four years to reduce the services to children.

A further question to the Premier: There are criticisms of the government's VLT policy on children's health services, Mr. Speaker, making a number of recommendations to the government to proceed with VLT programs for children to deal with the overutilization in some communities by families, affecting children, and, further, they also recommend preventative programs for children's dental health. Remember that? That was another program cut by the Conservative government in rural and northern Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, is the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today saying that they are going to reverse their negative decisions on all of the audiology programs and lack of dealing with the problems with VLTs for children in rural Manitoba and deal with the reductions in children's dental health programs and the lack of prevention for those services for rural and northern children in our province?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, with respect to issues related to VLTs, children may indeed be affected by the problems experienced by their parents with respect to VLTs, and that is why the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba has virtually doubled its budget for treatment programs for people adversely affected through addiction to gambling.

Mr. Speaker, if you take a look at all of the health strategies that have been undertaken in the last few years in Manitoba, combine that with the very, very significant application of funding resources for health in Manitoba, the highest level of spending on health anywhere in this country, take it all together and we have a recipe for a sustainable health care system, even in the light of massive, massive cuts at the federal level with respect to health care.

Our medicare system, Mr. Speaker, was set up years ago with a 50-50 arrangement between the provinces and the federal government, and over those years, that federal involvement has been drastically reduced. It does not really suit the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health of this country to tell us that they are going to be the ones who protect health care, when they are the ones who are bowing out of the partnership, and I must say bowing out rather quickly in the next few years, which creates serious challenges for all of the provinces, but Manitoba is better placed to deal with the challenges before us because of the astute budgeting of the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Manness) and the honourable member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson).

Health Care System

Waiting Lists

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, in the last 10 days, we have had more so-called positive announcements from this government than in the last seven years, which has constituted nothing but cut and cut and cut.

There has been a blizzard of announcements. One of those announcements called for putting in $500,000 to reduce waiting lists, Mr. Speaker, for three months, April, May and June, in the hospitals. Is that not coincidental, after taking $80 million out of the hospital budgets for the past three years and up to $20 million this year?

Can the minister outline what definitive programs they will put in place to reduce waiting lists, particularly for heart and orthopedic surgery?--since experts and specialists tell me, Mr. Speaker, that the government could do a very easy job of reducing the waiting lists by expanding the hours of operations in the various surgical rooms.

* (1020)

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): It may be of interest to the honourable member to know that the numbers of surgeries in Manitoba is going up, up, up, every year. That reflects the kinds of commitments that are made to health care in Manitoba by the government and by the hospitals and by the medical profession, as well. I refer to hip and knee and cardiac surgeries, overall, are up, up, up, every year.

It is true that anyone who has to wait for an operation, especially someone in a situation of discomfort or pain or a situation of acute heart disease, it becomes a genuine concern. That is why on March 7, we announced a $500,000 infusion and a partnership with the hospitals and the Manitoba Cancer Treatment & Research Foundation to make improvements in the areas of heart, hip, knee and cancer procedures, Mr. Speaker.

Medical Laboratories

Conflict of Interest

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Can the minister advise this House whether or not the government will be accepting the soft recommendation in the lab committee report regarding conflict of interest or whether the government will take a stand, finally, and recognize that what is necessary regarding the relationship between owners and operators of public labs and private labs is one that necessitates strong conflict-of-interest legislation and regulations to ensure that the integrity of the system is kept in place?

Will they accept and put in place strong recommendations in this regard, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Unlike the honourable member, the only relationship which he wants to enjoy is a good one between him and his union boss friends. The relationship I want to cultivate, develop, maintain and strengthen is the relationship between the government, between the professions, between service providers and the patient.

Unfortunately for the honourable member, he loses his case every time because every time he asks a question, he forgets whom he is supposed to be speaking for. He is supposed to be speaking for the patient, for the people who need services in our province, and if we design all of our health care programs as a patient-focused or consumer-focused program, we are going to have much better success.

Now, the lab services provided in this province are provided in a variety of ways, and in his idealistic and in his philosophical mindset, which he borrows from his union boss friends, anything done by the private sector is inherently bad.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that. I believe that the people of this province can be well served by a variety of sources of service delivery. I recognize that the lab committee has representatives on it who have conflicts of various kinds, and that includes the conflicts that are very, very obvious brought to these committee meetings by the union bosses who are on those committee meetings.

Pediatric Cardiac Care Program

Inquest

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My final supplementary to the minister: The minister outlined for the House today specifically when the inquest will commence into the pediatric deaths at the Health Sciences Centre since--for example in the J.J. Harper situation, from the time the inquest was announced until completion was only two and a half months.

We need answers. We prefer a public inquiry, but can the minister today tell the House when the inquest will commence specifically, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I know the honourable member wants to learn all of the details and all of the matters that are relevant to the pediatric cardiac program at the Health Sciences Centre. So do the parents of any children affected and so do future users of our health system in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, that, too, is my wish, to get to the bottom and have a full and wide-ranging inquiry into all matters related to the pediatric cardiac program at Health Sciences Centre.

Once the Chief Medical Examiner recommends that an inquest be held, the conduct of the matter then falls to the Provincial Court, the chief provincial judge and whichever judge it is who is assigned to that, and dates are set in the ordinary course, and I do not have that date.

* (1025)

Education System

Recess

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in an ironical twist on the healthy child announcement today, the Minister of Education has forwarded correspondence to school boards, superintendents of education, principals and presidents of parent councils in which he says that in order to meet the blueprint requirements, school divisions will now be enabled and essentially will have to, in order to meet what is required, eliminate recess for 10- and 11-year-olds, and it is open to them to reduce the number of minutes for lunch hours across the school system to 45 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister of Education of his blueprint at page 11, which states that there will be an emphasis on physical well-being and that there will be exercise, and fitness will be the focus of an integrated physical education curriculum. Physical education will be designed to lead students to lifelong fitness, emotional and mental well-being through a healthy life style.

On what principle of a healthy life style and allowing children to learn and be physically active during the day which will enhance their learning ability, 10- and 11-year-olds we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, on what basis is he now suggesting in essence that recess should be eliminated for 10- and 11-year-olds in our school system?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party does a terrible injustice to not only the reform document but indeed to the letter that he has in his hands.

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that through the emphasis, through the attempt to try and put greater emphasis on literacy, which, by the way, the Liberal Party has not supported in one of their utterances with respect to the reform plan, and taking into account that there are going to have to be some difficult decisions made by principals with regard to those elective, supplementary courses that are now in place, we are giving greater freedom to school divisions and licence to make decisions in accordance with what their school community would want to do.

Mr. Speaker, we are not mandating anything. We are giving greater opportunities as to how, indeed, more time can be found for the classroom and for recess, as determined by the school community.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about allowances and discretion as opposed to mandating. What he has said by his actions is that recess is not essential for 10- and 11-year-olds.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where is that in the blue guide or the blueprint or the action plan, where is there any suggestion that recess is not essential to the learning process for a 10- or 11- year-old? In fact, on what basis, on what credible authority in the education or the health sector, is he presuming to say that recess is not an essential part of the ability to learn for a 10-year-old?

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker, we can look at it two ways. I gather by the question that the Liberal Party would dictate that the whole day should be recess, and there should be no focus whatsoever on learning. That is the approach that the members are bringing forward by way of the question.

Again we say, we are allowing greater licence to the schools to decide if they want to maintain the level of elective subjects, if they want to maintain the courses and second languages and music, that within the existing day, they may want to reflect on the amount of time that is put into recess, into also the noon-hour period, because that happens in many schools today outside of the province and within the province. There is not homogeneity around these times.

* (1030)

Mr. Edwards: This minister has absolutely no clue. The truth is that every educator will tell you recess is essential to the enhanced learning of everything else, and every single expert in the health and education field will say that about a 10-year-old child.

My question for the minister: On what basis, with what credibility, does he produce any support for taking recess away, when the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation says Canadian children are up to 40 percent less active than they were 30 years ago? They say that only 6 percent of children ages 10 to 19 are active on a regular basis. They say everyone who knows about healthy children and the ability to teach children and have them learn will say that recess and physical activity on a regular basis during a day is essential.

Why does the minister say the opposite, and on what basis does he make that suggestion to school boards around this province?

Mr. Manness: The very essence of the member's question is saying that literacy is not important, because there are only five and a half hours in the school day.

We are doubling the amount of time that is going into literacy. The members are against that. We are still trying to maintain slots for music, for second languages. The reality is something has got to give.

What the Leader of the Liberal Party is saying can give is language arts and literacy. What we are trying to do is offer still greater flexibility, a decision to be made within the public school, but members opposite are saying the status quo is okay, and we want it. Mr. Speaker, we are saying the status quo has to change.

Social Assistance

One-Tier System

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, for several years, various governments in Manitoba have debated the merits of a one-tier social assistance system. I believe Manitoba is one of only three provinces in Canada that has a two-tier system. There are advantages and disadvantages to each way of handling social assistance in Manitoba. A smaller system, for example the City of Winnipeg Social Services Department, may have a more personal system and may have smaller caseloads for their workers.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services, what are the implications for the city staff who have a five-year contract and for the rates which in some categories are considerably higher on the city social assistance schedule of rates?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question. I also want to thank him for his comments when contacted by the news media indicating that he was in support of a one-tier welfare system.

I think it is incumbent that we ensure in today's economic times, when we know that there is not going to be more money from the federal government, but there is going to be less, that, in fact, we look at the overlap and duplication and the inefficiencies that are in place when two levels of government are delivering the same service.

We look to co-ordinate that in some manner, so that the taxpayers of the City of Winnipeg and the taxpayers of the province of Manitoba will benefit.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the media did not report that I am not in favour of it if it means lower rates. We know that in the case of infants, the rates are much lower for the City of Winnipeg.

I would like to ask this minister if it is the policy of her government, not her personally but her government, if they care at all about the nutrition of children which is very important for learning and for normal development, or is their policy that of Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake, let them eat donuts, let them eat bread from food banks.

Is that their alternative by taking over the city welfare system and lowering the rates?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I do want to indicate to all members of this Legislature and indeed all Manitobans that we are genuinely concerned about the health and well-being of all children in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, higher welfare rates do not necessarily mean better nutrition for all children. I think we can all agree on that fact, but I want to indicate that as we open the dialogue and discussions with the City of Winnipeg, we will be addressing all of the issues that he has raised in his questions in trying to determine what is fair and reasonable and sensible for the children in the City of Winnipeg and indeed right throughout the province.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, this minister should tell poor families in Winnipeg that more money for food does not--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.

South Indian Lake

Federal Responsibility

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Family Services and the minister of northern development have written to the federal Minister of Indian Affairs on February 21, objecting to the federal offloading of responsibility for people at South Indian Lake.

Since these people are treaty and a federal responsibility, I would like to ask the minister if she has received a response from the federal government about this offloading to this community, who are First Nations people and expecting their community to be designated as a reserve.

What is the response of the federal minister to this new policy and the objections by Manitoba?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my honourable friend for that question. There has not been a response from the federal minister. As usual, the federal government unilaterally has made decisions that impact the taxpayers of Manitoba in the offloading of their responsibility for Status Indians off reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated when we introduced Manitoba's perspective on social security reform that the cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba had been $60 million since the offloading of the federal government, and that bill is now up to $70 million. All indications are, if they offload again at South Indian Lake, we are going to experience another $1.6-million offload to the province of Manitoba.

I want to say that when this originally happened under the former Conservative government at the federal level, my colleague, who was then the Minister of Family Services, stood up and made a statement in this House condemning the federal government and asking all members of this Legislature to support our position to fight the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to quote for you because I believe it is very important that the Liberal Party, with one Reg Alcock who was the critic at that time, stood up in this House, and this is what he said: "I think it is disgraceful action on the part of the federal government. I can tell the minister that I personally--I know my caucus will support him absolutely in his attempts to force our federal government to live up to their responsibilities."

Mr. Speaker, he went on to say: "I think Mr. Mulroney and that gang of crooks that he heads should be brought to heel."

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba today was a member of that caucus, and I want to know what their position is and where they stand and what they are going to ask their federal counterparts to do to resolve this issue.

Crow Benefit Elimination

Impact on Crop Insurance

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, the change in the Crow benefit will have a dramatic impact on incomes of farm families this crop year as they begin to pay the higher freight rates as of August 1.

Family farms are very concerned about the extra costs that they are going to have to pay, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can tell this House if his department has looked at what the impacts will be as a result of the reduction in the Crow benefit and reduced transfer payments. What will be the impact on crop insurance coverage and in gross revenue insurance?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I cannot give her the specific details. I can acknowledge that there will be an impact. We are sorting out the final impact of it, and, of course, it will come in two steps.

The bigger hurt, quite frankly, to Manitoba farms comes, as the honourable member would know, next year when the pooling question is dealt with. That, by far, is the most serious impact to the farmers of Manitoba and has the greater potential for driving down prices.

All I can tell her at this point is that her premise is essentially correct, that there will be an impact, and this is yet another demonstration of how serious the overall issue is for our grain farmers.

* (1040)

Crop Insurance

Notification of Changes

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Can the minister guarantee this House that farmers will know in advance of the deadline, any changes that this government will be making to crop insurance coverages, so that farmers will know what plans they have to make and that they will not face the same problems that they did when the government made changes to lentil coverages and has still not dealt with?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that she raises. In the first instance, the lentil farmers have certainly been dealt with. Cheques have flowed out to all of those contract holders, some 900 of them.

On the question of the levels of support, farmers have signed and will be in the process by this deadline--I believe it is end of March--of signing their normal contractual agreements with Manitoba Crop Insurance. They will purchase the different levels of coverages that the corporation offers, and they will be totally apprised of their coverage level at that time.

Crow Benefit Elimination

Transition Period

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, considering that the cuts in the Crow package to all farm supports is going to have such a dramatic impact on farmers, will the Minister of Agriculture contact the federal government, federal Minister of Agriculture, and tell him that the package that they have put forward is unacceptable? There must be a transition period.

The whole package that they have put forward is not acceptable. Will he lobby the federal government for a transition period, so that farmers can adjust to these dramatic changes?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I genuinely hold out to the honourable member for Swan River and seek her and her party's support for the position that the farm leaders of Manitoba, which, I remind her, included all of the farm leaders of the different commodity groups, including Manitoba Pool and other farm organization leaders who have put a strongly worded request to the federal government to do precisely that, that the bulk of the $300-million adjustment fund that was mentioned in the budget be principally applied to the problems that Manitoba grain farmers will face.

Other than that, I cannot upset or ask the federal government to rewrite its budget. I welcome her to try, but we have certainly made known our concerns right through the budget time. She is well aware that we talked about a five- or seven-year phase-out period. We talked about a $7-billion one-time payment settlement if that was to be the case, but the federal Minister of Finance chose to ignore that advice.

Provincial Parks

Consultations

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last month, the minister announced four new provincial parks to partially fulfill promises from the last election on the Endangered Spaces Program.

I would like to ask the minister, with those announcements of the provincial parks, on what basis did the minister claim that these were endangered spaces, since the minister previously confirmed with mining, logging and hydro officials that they had no economic plans for those areas?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question because there seems to be some confusion as to what kind of process of consultation had taken place prior to that, and I will be tabling some information at the end of my comments.

Mr. Speaker, there were 331 articles sent out prior to the process that was evolved, and 61 of those invitations were sent to First Nations aboriginal associations, et cetera, in terms of asking for their input.

There were basically two organizations that submitted some interest in the area, but all the other ones did not, and, Mr. Speaker, I want to table the list of all the people that were contacted for the member, so that he can look at that.

Mr. Robinson: My question further to the minister: Why did this government not have the First Nations of these areas, particularly the treaty land entitlement bands and the First Nations organizations, involved in the process, in the selection and the approval of the new parks?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I do not how the member views consultation because, by and large, it is my understanding that when we are looking at some involvement from the public, we correspond with them and ask for input into the matter. This was done. If nobody responds, we can only assume they have no interest in the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have tried to deal with this as fairly as possible, and we had the president of the World Wildlife Fund who said that the process and consultation--and they are the ones who are most critical of what we are doing with this thing. They claim that the process was a proper process.

Provincial Parks Act

Proclamation

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a difference between consultation and agreement with First Nations.

My final question to the same minister: Why was the new parks act that was passed in this Legislature not proclaimed before these parks were announced, and why was the process of selecting the parks considered illegal by some people under this new act that was proclaimed in 1993?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member is right. The new parks act that was passed has not been proclaimed. We are going through a process in terms of where we will be consulting again with all the people, and the parks that we have designated, the four new ones--which is part of the process of trying to reach the 12 percent commitment that we have by the year 2000--are going to be subjected to the same process that the existing parks do.

So his people will have an opportunity to get involved with the hearings and to put forward submissions as to what should happen with them, as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say I think the process is a good process. I think it gives everybody a chance to get involved, and the fact that they possibly missed the window of opportunity to participate because they did not have any interest at that time, maybe now, when the process takes place, they will show that interest and participate this time.

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Emergency Worker Guidelines

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, emergency service workers, such as firefighters, ambulance attendants and police officers have a greater chance of being involved in a motor vehicle accident than the average motorist simply because they are duty bound to respond immediately to emergencies.

Whenever there is an accident, MPIC reviews the incident to determine if the emergency worker could have avoided it. They try to discover whether the emergency situation caused the accident, or driver negligence caused it. However, at present, no guidelines or rules are in place to ensure that consistent standards are applied in determining fault, with the resultant increase in the worker's driver's licence fees and insurance premiums for his or her own personal vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for MPIC.

What is the minister doing to ensure that such guidelines are produced, so that emergency workers can concentrate on saving lives, rather than on demerits and increased licence and insurance fees?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good question, and one that has been troubling for more than a short period of time is how to best make sure that those who are responding to emergencies can do so adequately and yet still have some effort on their part to make sure that they are approaching the job in as careful a manner as possible in the exercise of their duties.

We have attempted through internal reviews and in the long run a second level of review in terms of attributing fault to make sure that the emergency response people are taken care of as much as possible within the system. Frankly, other than a blanket exemption--and I do not think that is what the member is asking for--this has been a very difficult situation, and we are working to make sure that the policies are applied as fairly as possible.

Mr. Kowalski: MPIC representatives may not be aware of the particular unique pressures involved in responding to an emergency situation. In many cases, internal reviews with their employers decide that the emergency workers are not responsible.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for MPIC.

Does he support government policy that directs MPIC to treat emergency service workers in a manner more consistent with the nature of their work?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, in fact, I believe that that is the manner in which we have been and the corporation has been addressing this issue. If he has information to the contrary, I would be more than glad to discuss it.

* (1050)

Mr. Kowalski: My final question to the Minister responsible for MPIC is that since many emergency workers face a very real prospect of job loss if the status of their driver's licence changes, would it not be prudent to ensure that they are protected from wrongful penalties, the result because of MPIC's lack of clear understanding of emergency work and emergency procedure?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are more than anxious to make sure that we deal fairly with this segment of employees in our society.

I would have to indicate, however, in the last number of years, I cannot recall this matter being brought to the attention of my office more than twice. As I recall, both of those instances have been appropriately dealt with in my view.

I would be more than interested to hear any discussion that representatives of drivers of emergency response vehicles would be prepared to make.

Workers Compensation

Merit Surcharge Program

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for giving Workers Compensation funds back to companies.

I have a number of concerns with regard to the government's Workers Compensation merit surcharge problem, which is giving compensation money back to companies with no decrease in Workers Compensation claims or an increase in safety, necessarily, or meaningful participation or training of workers.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour, can he confirm that more than $300,000 has gone back to companies from Workers Compensation funds and that there had been no training of workers with respect to this program and that there are a number of concerns with regard to workers, so they know what they are signing when they sign on to the claim forms, the checklist criteria forms, for this program?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): No, I will not give that confirmation to the member.

The member has regularly brought information to this House on a host of issues, whether it be PMU in western Manitoba, whether it be on Workplace Safety and Health, that has usually been very much lacking in facts upon investigation.

If the member would like to provide me with the details of her request, I would endeavour to check it out for the member.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.