ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

1996 Summer Olympic Games

Premier's Travel Expenses

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on July 25 the Premier told all of Manitobans through broadcasts that he was in fact a guest of the Pan Am Games Society, and later we found out through Premier Frank McKenna that he was in fact not just a guest of the Pan Am Games Society but that he had been a guest of IBM. The Premier should know by now that the Premier of New Brunswick has tabled all his pay-ments back to IBM, reimbursements of the gifts given to the Premier of New Brunswick by the IBM corporation– room, tickets, hospitality, et cetera.

I would like to ask the Premier now, in light of the fact that he has followed the example of the Premier of New Brunswick in eventually telling the truth about who the sponsors were to the Olympic Games for those two days, will he now make public his full expenses and gifts from IBM and the reimbursements he has made?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, although I know that the member opposite does not want to understand it, I will repeat for him what I have said before.

Contrary to the situation of the Premier of New Brunswick, who was there completely on a trip related to his IBM invitation and they did pay not only his travel expenses but all of his other costs there, I was there with the Pan American Games Society who did pay for my trip, who did pay for my lodging and meals in the first seven days that I was there. On the last two days I moved into the hotel, at which time the IBM corporation had been, of course, the sponsors. I have since repaid in full all of those costs that were incurred by IBM, and that is a matter between me and IBM corporation because there is no involvement of the public in it. I have chosen to pay those costs and therefore it is a matter between me and IBM, just as it would be a matter if I went to the store to buy groceries or to buy furniture for myself personally and I paid the bill.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Premier knows that IBM is a corporation that does millions of dollars worth of business with this government. The Premier told the people of Manitoba that he was only a guest of the Pan Am Games Society, and only after Frank McKenna contradicted the so-called word of this Premier did we find out that in fact he was not telling the people the truth.

Madam Speaker, does the Premier of this province not think he is setting a double standard when he is telling everybody that we must disclose and be accountable for decisions we make, we must have a standard of full disclosure, which we support? Should not full disclosure and full accountability start with the Premier, especially when he did not tell us the truth on July 25? Should not full accountability and disclosure start with the Premier, and will he now make public the IBM repayment of the gift that he received and ignored to tell us on July 25?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat: The question was asked, who paid for the trip. I said the Pan American Games Society paid for the trip, and they did. The question of the two evenings that I spent in the hotel as a guest of IBM has been answered in that I have paid them in full for those expenditures.

Mr. Doer: I guess we have to go on the word of the Premier just like we went on the word on July 25–that only the Pan Am Games Society was paying for his expenses–on the radio. You are in the same boat as Frank McKenna, and we are entitled to the same honesty and integrity and release of information that they have in the province of New Brunswick.

* (1340)

Cabinet Ministers

Spousal Travel

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, a further question to the Premier: On Thursday the Premier said that there had been no change in policy dealing with cabinet ministers and spousal travel policies. Can the Premier inform this House whether the travel policy in the Manual of Administration was not amended in October of 1993, amending the November 1, 1986, policies of travel of cabinet ministers and spouses?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the policy with respect to the eligibility of ministers to take their spouses on trips remains as it has been since back in the 1980s, in fact all the way back to the '70s, which is that cabinet ministers' spouses may be in attendance with them at the public cost if there are programs that involve the spouses and if there are activities that require the spouses' presence. What changed in 1994 was the General Manual of Administration removed the require-ment for advance approval from the Premier or his designate for that purpose. The fact of the matter is that ministers–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, members opposite ask questions and do not want to hear the answer.

An Honourable Member: No, you gave us an answer on Thursday.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: I said the policy remains as it has for decades. It has not changed. Ministers may take their spouses. The General Manual of Administration no longer requires the permission of the Premier or his designate.

The policy remains the same as to the eligibility of ministers to have their spouses accompany them. The General Manual of Administration no longer requires them to obtain the permission of the Premier or his designate. That is fact, and that is as it should be because as ministers they have budgets of tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars under their jurisdiction. They are perfectly capable of making those decisions in accordance with the policy.

Cabinet Ministers

Spousal Travel

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the old policy PA11272.3: Advance approval from the Premier is required.

There is no mention about the purpose of travel. There is no mention about the appropriateness of travel of spouses, nothing whatsoever about that issue. So if there was a policy, it clearly is not in the old General Manual of Administration.

Will the Premier confirm that the new General Manual of Administration policy change makes no reference whatsoever to spouses, no reference whatsoever to the appropriateness of the travel of spouses or of the spouses of other civil servants, whereas the old policy was very clear about that?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, all that the General Manual of Administration said was that the approval had to be obtained from the Premier or his designate. That is no longer in the Manual of Administration.

The policy on travel remains as it has been for decades for the eligibility of spouses to travel with the ministers.

* (1345)

Mr. Sale: I will table these documents of the old policy and the new policy.

Will the Premier simply confirm that when you replace a policy of four points on one page with a policy of about 12 or 14 points on another page, where one references the appropriateness of spousal travel and the approval of it and the other one does not even talk about spouses' travel, that is a material change?

The First Minister misled the House when he said there had been no change. Will he confirm that, Madam Speaker?

Mr. Filmon: The member opposite talks about the appropriateness. There is no place in that former state-ment that talks about appropriateness. All it says is that approval must be obtained from the Premier or his designate, and it is no longer required.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, with a final supplementary question.

Mr. Sale: Will the Deputy Premier now confirm that following this nice new policy that does not mention spouses whatsoever that he and his spouse and his deputy minister and his spouse, using a combination of business and economy class, travelled at government expense to New Brunswick to an annual meeting of the Taiwanese Trade Association, a really major event?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, first of all, a visit to the constituency is very helpful. Of course, the first thing that is pointed out is that this is a government in waiting across the way in which they are dealing with issues which were fully within the policy.

The trip, Madam Speaker, that the member refers to was within policy. It resulted in our province, our city of Winnipeg, receiving the Canadian-Taiwanese business association meetings here where several businesses, government people will come to this province in 1997 to have a convention. Now if that is not opening up our province to trade and investment dollars, I do not know what is. I think they should wake up and realize there are opportunities for this province in the international marketplace.

Health Care System

Surgery Waiting Lists

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, Manitobans have one of the longest waiting lists for surgery in the entire country. Every day we hear from Manitobans waiting months and even years to obtain surgery. In 1990, the government had a report that made four major recommendations to decrease waiting lists. The only decrease that has been put in place by this government was a short-term plan that was put in during the last provincial election and then was dropped.

Madam Speaker, can the minister definitively today outline for Manitobans what steps he is going to take immediately to deal with the consequences of the longest waiting list in the country for Manitobans?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The concern, I suggest to the honourable member, might more appropriately be described as the time that any individual has to wait for needed urgent or emergent or even elective surgery. That is an important distinction from what the honourable member talked about when he talked about a waiting list because, as the honourable member knows, the way of handling waiting lists is in transition; it is in a time of change.

The main reason for the announcement made on August 20 dealing with the reorganization of health services, one of the main reasons for doing all of that was to deal with the very question being raised by the honourable member. We would appreciate his support for the initiatives.

* (1350)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how can we have any confidence in the August announcements when the same announcements were made in 1990, when Don Orchard promised it in June 1993, when the minister promised it by September 1994, and when the minister promised it again in the Legislature–and it is all in Hansard–by June '95? Four separate occasions the ministers of Health have stood up and said the same thing: Central bed registry co-ordination would be put in place.

We have been waiting for seven years.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, in each of those seven years, the honourable member should be reminded that surgeries on hips, knees, hearts, cancer surgery, MRIs, all of those things, year after year, up, up, up.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how can we expect waiting lists to decrease in this province when the resources are not being put into it, when we are not putting in resources to surgery scheduling, where we do not have a central registry in place, though it has been promised for seven years, and when the government finds the resources to spend $200,000 on a propaganda piece talking about waiting lists, and yet that money could be used to reduce waiting lists all across the board as they did with a $500,000 grant during the provincial election?

Mr. McCrae: It would be helpful if the honourable member would begin to espouse principles like best practices. If the honourable member would get on board and support program management for our clinical and surgical services, if the honourable member would get with the program and join with the other people who are working with us to improve all these services, he would see the way. The way is very clear, and we have enough partnerships in Winnipeg and all of Manitoba to know that through measures like this we can indeed make improvements to build on the improvements we have already made.

Youth Gangs

Reduction Strategy

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is for the Minister of Justice.

While the minister certainly has some very serious shortcomings, we remain increasingly impressed by one characteristic. That is her vivid imagination. So when she recently responded to our Gang Action Plan and while she apparently endorsed it, Madam Speaker, she said, oh, we have already implemented this plan.

My question for the minister is, would she–the minister never known for her modesty, I suggest–explain to Manitobans how she was able to hide from everyone, including her own department, implementation of our plan, including such programs as a specialized gang unit in her own department, a young offender monitoring program or even demanding gang laws in the Criminal Code? How did she do that?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): As I said on the day, first of all, we finally see some constructive and positive recom-mendations coming from across the way that are finally in sync with what this government has put forward for some time. We have listened to the NDP over the past many years who have been far more interested in taking the easy route, far more interested in being concerned with offenders, not really caring about putting the victim back in the system. I have asked them for the past several years, where do they stand on the Young Offenders Act? I have asked them for several years to come and provide support–[interjection] Well, the member asks where our government stands on the Young Offenders Act.

I would be very happy if you would give me the time, Madam Speaker, to speak about the position that our government has taken on the Young Offenders Act, which has led the way across Canada. In fact, very specifically, we have been interested in finding a mechanism to deal with children under 12 who at this point do not come into the justice system, but the NDP have been silent on this until finally they woke up and they gave a few suggestions.

Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister–who, by the way, should get a grip on reality here–actually misread our Gang Action Plan when she apparently endorsed it? We did not say cut but enhance family supports, youth employment, literacy. Did she get it wrong?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am very happy to go through the initiatives and check off all of the ones that in fact our government has in place. In fact, I am really quite surprised–actually I am amazed at the nerve that they would come forward as if this is their idea. I can only thank them for coming forward and endorsing what this government has put in place.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Vodrey: Where have you been?

* (1355)

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete her response.

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You know, I believe for the people of Manitoba who are paying attention today, they do not want to listen to the back-and-forth of the member across the way. They want to know that we are co-operating, they want to know that departments within government are co-operating, and I am sure they would be very happy to see members in this Chamber co-operating on such a serious problem.

So, Madam Speaker, it was announced by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) some time ago, the Child and Youth Secretariat, co-operating departments among this side of government which are working to assist families who are comfortable perhaps in receiving assistance in Education or perhaps in Health or Family Services or Justice, there is a co-operative effort to deal with all of the issues. Members across the way have been silent on that. I believe the people of Manitoba really want to see us working together on this serious problem, rather than the grandstanding of the member for St. Johns.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister who has just made our point–you know, if she has been so serious about gang crime for so long, why is her nine-point plan on youth crime, unveiled two and a half years ago, still not implemented and why–only one of her 36 election promises on crime dealt specifically with gangs, and she just never got around to implementing that one, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Vodrey: This is my point exactly. The member across the way has been taken through the nine-point plan and the implementation of initiatives. The member has seen many additional initiatives such as the $100,000 that this government gave for a joint police operation to deal specifically with gangs. We never heard a word from them on that.

We have added 40 more police officers to the city of Winnipeg through a targeted grant. We have set up the provincial youth council on crime. We have set up the surveillance for the sharing of information. We have taken a position on the Young Offenders Act. The position and the steps that this government has taken to deal with gang activity go on and on, and they are not finished, Madam Speaker.

I think it is very important to say that this is an ongoing issue and involves an ongoing series of initiatives. It does require us to work carefully with the police services across this province. It also requires co-operation of the federal government in changing some of the legislation. We are asking for all of that. We will keep working, Madam Speaker, in the interests of the people of Manitoba.

Lottery Employees Labour Dispute

Minister's Position

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

The Minister of Labour has gone out of his way to imply motives of the MGEU with respect to politically motivating this whole casino strike. Madam Speaker, one could speculate that if there are any political motivations behind this strike, it is on behalf of this government and, in particular, this Minister of Labour.

My question to the Minister of Labour is, what specifically makes the minister believe that the strike by the casino workers is politically motivated?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, while I can refer the member to the comments of Peter Olfert in respect of the health care workers strike where he said the strike was politically, not economically, based–a similar situation here. If in fact this strike is not politically motivated, let the leader of that particular union make it clear. I for one have in fact dealt–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I can assure you that whether or not this strike is politically motivated, I am prepared to deal with this strike in terms of appropriate intervention at an appropriate time.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would question the minister again: What specifically is the MGEU doing that is causing this minister to believe that it is the union and the casino workers who are politically motivated to try to do what to this government, or is it the political philosophy of this particular minister and this particular government in the sense that they do not want to settle this strike?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, this union has made it very clear that they will take as many workers out as they possibly can. They have stated that to me in con-versations over and over again. There is no other basis; there is not an economic basis. They have settled the administrative officers or the administrative lottery workers strikes within the mandate and for some reason they have left the lottery workers out to dry. They wanted 10 percent. They made extravagant promises to these workers that they knew they could never fulfill. There is only one conclusion, that this was not for an economic reason, this is a political strike.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister of Labour can tell this House and tell the casino strikers, who does he believe is going to profit politically by the casino workers walking the picket line? Who is going to politically benefit from this?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, as I have stated, whether this strike is motivated by Mr. Olfert's bid for re-election, I do not care. That is none of–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Labour, to complete his response.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, whatever has motivated this strike and whatever has caused Mr. Olfert to continue on this action is none of my business. My business is to ensure that this strike is ended, and I will do so at an appropriate time in terms of appointing a mediator if that is required.

I might indicate that over this weekend the parties have been negotiating, they have been involved with a con-ciliator and they are making progress. I am told this by both the Lotteries Corporation and by the union. That is the way to resolve the strike, by getting back to the bargaining table and concentrating on the concerns of workers, that the workers have in respect of that.

Lottery Employees Labour Dispute

Mediation

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, now over 200,000 days have been lost to strike or lockout in the province of Manitoba during this year. We are quickly approaching the record held by the Lyon government, and now we have a Minister of Labour who does not understand his role when he states that strikes and lockouts are okay.

The minister stated last Thursday that he hesitates to get involved in the lottery workers strike. I want to ask the Minister of Labour, what in his mind constitutes reasons for him to get involved or not get involved con-sidering that the lottery workers have been out now for over 90 days? Does this not constitute reason enough for this minister and his department through Mediation Services to get involved?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, firstly, in respect of the amount of days lost, that comes as no surprise to me when at the beginning of this year the union leaders came to me and said that was their intention, and every member of the press came up to me and said, we heard that the union is going to be having a lot of strikes this summer. It is not a surprise that, when one party specifically says that we want to go out on strike, that in fact happens and I recognize that, but I think that this is an example of why we should be working together to ensure that the concerns of workers and not union leaders are met. We need to address the concerns of workers. That is what I am concerned about, that is what this government is concerned about and that is what I will work for.

Mr. Reid: That is a pretty serious charge that the minister has levelled here today in the House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the Minister of Labour a supplementary question, because it is my understanding that the MGEU is asking for status quo specifically on the wage issue. They are asking for zero, Madam Speaker.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour because on Thursday last week he said that the parties are very far apart and that is why he does not want to implement mediation to resolve this dispute. Does the condition that is on the table now, from my understanding of zero wage increases, specifically on that issue, not constitute fair and reasonableness on the part of the union and that will allow the minister to bring in Mediation Services to resolve the other disputes? Why is the minister not bringing in mediation on this now?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, it is not appropriate for me to get into the details of the conciliation efforts or the position of either of those parties today, but I can tell you that the member is wrong. He has been wrong on several occasions in the past week. He is wrong again.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the minister then, does he not think since his pension–he has a 7 percent pension entitlement that we voted for in this House, Madam Speaker. We have all voted for it. We have the option. This minister has a 7 percent pension entitlement.

Does this minister not think that the request on behalf of the MGEU for a 1 percent adjustment of their pension is fair and reasonable and is not far apart like this minister is trying to portray to the public of Manitoba, that the requests that they are making are fair and reasonable?

Mr. Toews: What I am prepared to say, Madam Speaker, is that this is a union that took its membership out seeking a 10 percent increase in wages alone. What I do want to state is that over the past week the union and the parties to the contract have in fact moderated their position. The conciliation process is working, and that is the place at the table to resolve these disputes.

As for this member, he has his facts wrong again. If he wants details of what in fact the positions are, I am prepared to provide those to him on a private basis.

* (1410)

Employment Development Centres

Funding

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, this government continues to cut publicly accountable training programs and yet at the same time continues to give millions of dollars to corporate training programs such as Kozminski Ford, IBM, Northern Blower, none of which are required to be publicly accountable for the training they provide.

Could I ask the Minister of Education to explain to the House why she chose to cut the employment development centres, which enabled hundreds of my constituents to gain access to both training and jobs?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, not necessarily accepting any of the preamble–I state that as a matter of course; the preamble sometimes has to be ignored because time must be there to answer the question. It does not mean the preamble is accepted.

I would indicate that the employment development centres, in most cases, worked very well. That is why the employment development centre in Portage la Prairie, for example, is functioning extremely well and supported to the highest level. However, the one centre in Winnipeg, the Winnipeg Employment Development Centre, was not giving the results that we were seeking for a variety of reasons. We found that of the 261 clients who were serviced there at a three-month follow-up, only 18 percent were employed. Those results are just not sufficient for the very high sums of money we were putting into it.

So we will be taking that money and redirecting it into programs that have a higher and better success rate so that we can achieve the results on behalf of not just her constituents but all constituents in Manitoba who seek that kind of assistance.

Success Rate

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I want to ask the minister if she will table the study that produced those results that the Free Press reported as 20 percent and the minister reports today as 18 percent, because the people I have spoken to who are involved with these programs in Winnipeg at the community level have argued that for a number of years these programs produce success rates of 60 percent and, in some cases, as high as 80 percent. So I want to ask the minister to table that study.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I would be pleased to table that information. I do not have it here, but I will. It indicates that we had 261 clients receiving training; only 55 or 21 percent went on to employment, some of which was part time, some of which was casual, and at a three-month follow-up of those 55, only 18 were still employed. We just do not think those results are good enough for the money being spent, and we are seeking to find and will have in place by the end of next month vehicles which will give better results for the money that is spent. But I will bring that information to the member.

Funding Redirection

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Could the minister tell the House what proportion of the employment develop-ment centre monies will be transferred to community agencies, which agencies will receive the funds and when those new programs will begin?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member should under-stand that we are not cutting money here, we are changing program delivery to be more effective.

We will, because the Winnipeg Development Centre will be closing at the end of next month, have about $206,000 left in that particular envelope–the new money coming in will be redirected elsewhere–and that $206,000 will go to places such as the Literary Partners that I think the member is familiar with, to the truck driver training program and Employment Connections, which has done a sterling job of being able to help people find jobs, retain jobs and keep them over the long term. So the money will be redirected into existing programs. They have been identified, and they will see that people have access to employment opportunities.

Gillam, Manitoba

Health Concern–Drinking Water

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

As the minister may be aware, beginning today and for a period of six months, residents of Gillam and the surrounding area are being told to boil their water before drinking or washing with it and, regrettably, this problem is all too common in Rupertsland and many northern communities.

I would like to ask the minister what actions his department is taking to ensure that Gillam Hospital and also the residents of Gillam, in general, will have safe water during this period.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I will make inquiries and report back to the honourable member this afternoon, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, perhaps when the minister gets back to me this afternoon, he could also report, particularly for the people in Gillam, what the department will be doing in terms of monitoring the situation and also what the department is prepared to do in considering supplying extra-pure water for the community, indeed, if it becomes necessary.

Mr. McCrae: I will incorporate the honourable member's suggestion into my inquiries.

CBC

Funding Reduction

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, last week CBC President Perrin Beatty announced further cuts which will mean that from 1994 to 1998 the CBC will have lost or will lose $410 million and 4,000 employees. Clearly, the cultural and economic impact of these losses will be staggering and all Canadians, including Manitobans, will suffer.

I want to ask the Premier what actions he plans to take in response to this assault on employment and culture in Canada; that is to say, how will he hold the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accountable for their red book promises?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have in the past and will continue to express our belief that it is important to have balanced and thorough journalism in this province to ensure that we do our utmost to preserve the culture, the culture that in many cases has evolved from Manitobans and the very talented people who are in the performing arts, in the production and filming side, music and all of those areas that Manitoba is so famous for, and that it is important for us as well of course to ensure that we get a broad range of fair and balanced coverage with respect to all of the matters that journalists cover in our province and in our country. I have met personally with the president, Mr. Beatty, I have met on regular occasions with the regional director, Jane Chalmers, and her predecessor, and I will continue to ensure that we get that message across to those who make decisions in Ottawa.

What the member opposite, of course, has to understand is that this is a decision that is made solely within federal jurisdiction, solely made by the federal government with respect to their budgetary imperatives, and that she would do well to raise that issue directly with them and express her feelings to them where the decisions are being made.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.