ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Health Care Workers
Collective Bargaining
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, comments made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) this week have indicated the extent that ministers will go to abuse their power and intimidate working people in this province. It is consistent with a pursuit of an autocratic style that we have seen from this government in dealing with working people over the last couple of months.
I would like to ask the Premier, is it the policy of the provincial government to eliminate the rights of health care workers to vote for the bargaining unit of their choice and replace that right or give that right to a government-appointed czar or commissioner in terms of deciding what labour unit that person will join without a vote?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have no knowledge of what the member refers to.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, of course we know that MHO, in a draft document, has called this proposal of the government, this policy of the government undemocratic and abhorrent, and that is the management body. You should hear what the workers say about the Filmon government's strategy to eliminate their democratic rights.
I would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), was this amendment to various parts of acts an intemperate policy of the government and the Minister of Labour, or is it a deliberate strategy to place more autocratic power in the hands of the Filmon cabinet and take that away from working people to decide the bargaining units of their choice?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, no, the honourable member is making reference to a way to resolve disputes arising from labour issues which would come along during the course of transition in the health system, and by way of example, a very positive development in Brandon, for example, at Brandon Mental Health Centre. We want to build psychiatric capacity at Brandon General Hospital and one union represents the nursing profession there, another union represents the nursing profession at the Brandon Mental Health Centre, and as of this time we still do not have that matter resolved as to which bargaining agent should represent the workers in those cases. The idea of this commissioner envisaged in Bill 49 is to attempt to iron out those issues that come along in a co-operative way so that the workers would receive the maximum benefit from the resolution of these difficulties.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this is not ironing out situations. It is stomping out the rights of people to vote and determine in a democratic way the bargaining units of their choices.
I would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), was it the policy of the Ministry of Labour to oppose the fact that the Department of Health and a commissioner would override the rights of people to determine their bargaining unit, which is contained within The Labour Relations Act? Did the Minister of Labour fight these changes? Does he care about these changes? Does he care about the democratic rights of working people to have a vote, or does he just want to give that away to a government-appointed dictator as we have under the Filmon policy of the government?
Mr. McCrae: The other people I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to think about in this matter are the patients, the consumers of health services who will not benefit if union disputes are not resolved in an expeditious and amicable fashion. You see, we have at Brandon Mental Health Centre patients who need the resolution of these kinds of disputes so they can get the proper care. The honourable member's characterization of this is totally off the wall, Madam Speaker, has nothing to do with the principles he is talking about and has everything to do with friendly labour relations and has everything also to do with the best care for the patient.
* (1340)Teaching Profession
Collective Bargaining
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, in recent days we have seen a minister of the Crown in an intemperate and unpleasant dispute with ordinary Manitobans. It recalls similar scenes in the hall with the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) telling teachers who were concerned about their profession that they were not real teachers. This same minister is now introducing divisive labour legislation in education.
I want to ask the Premier, whose views on university negotiations were well known in this House, who do Manitobans turn to to find a balanced and trustworthy voice that both sides to a negotiation can believe?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Well, Madam Speaker, it certainly would not be the member opposite.
As is the case in any democratic society in the world, we will obviously have an opportunity to debate the issues that are brought forward in government. We will obviously have our differences and the member opposite is perfectly entitled to represent her point of view, however biased and one-sided it may be, but the fact of the matter is that we as a government will do our best to listen to all those in society, to represent in the long term--[interjection]
Well, Madam Speaker, the members opposite come here representing special interest factions all the time. They are supported only by special interest factions. We have a greater responsibility, and that is to create a sense of fairness amongst all of those in society. Every Manitoban, whether they be a voter or a taxpayer, a citizen of this province is entitled to our consideration. That means we do not get to choose on behalf of certain special interest groups, as the members opposite do. We instead represent everyone and try and create that balance of interest that creates the greatest good for the greatest number. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member is not on the record and has not been recognized.
Ms. Friesen: My supplementary question is to the Minister of Education, whose views on labour legislation and labour relations have been heard loud and clear in this House and who deliberately intends to create divisions in education with her collective bargaining proposals.
I would like to ask the minister, is she prepared to reconsider her labour legislation in education to find a process that can be considered fair by all Manitobans and that will serve all of our community?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, again, I indicate the member's preamble and the comments from the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who made a comment from his chair that was cruel, absolutely cruel--the member for Thompson, with his cruel comments, and the member for Wolseley, with her preamble, I will answer the question, not the cruel comments or the preamble.
Madam Speaker, I would indicate that we have worked very, very hard in terms of talking to people, experts, lay people, professionals in the field of education, to come up with legislation that I believe in my heart is absolutely and eminently fair, balanced things for trustees that they have to manage well, protection for teachers and rights for teachers that they have not had to this point.
There are things in Bill 72 that make it, in my opinion, a much improved system for both sides of the collective bargaining issue than ever we have had in Manitoba before.
* (1345)
Labour Relations Act
Teaching Profession
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My supplementary is for the Minister of Labour.
Will the Minister of Labour explain why his policy is to include teachers under The Labour Relations Act for financial reporting but to withhold from them the other protections of the labour act? Could he explain to the House what the underlying principles of fairness are there?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I believe that people who are compelled by legislation to pay union dues should also have union leaders accountable to them. That is the basic premise of the Labour Relations Act amendments. I am prepared to stand by those.
If teachers want further amendments in respect of what the member for Wolseley is saying, I am prepared to sit and listen.
Labour Board
Resources
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, on May 16 of this year in Labour Estimates, I asked the Minister of Labour questions about the resources of the Manitoba Labour Board to handle the increased workload that is going to result as a result of the government's Bills 26, 49, 72, 73, and perhaps others. At that time the minister said that the board assured him that they have adequate resources and were capable of doing the increased workload.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour today, does he still stand by his statement to the board, that they will have the capability and the resources to handle the increased workload as a result of the government's legislative agenda here?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I have raised that issue with the chairperson of the Labour Board on a number of occasions over this summer, and he, as the responsible administrative officer of the board, has indicated, yes, he does have the resources. The resources are at his disposal.
Mr. Reid: Well, then perhaps, Madam Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister: Can the minister explain then his statement of April 26, when he went to an 8 a.m. meeting with his deputy minister with all the seven members of the Labour Board, when he said to them at that time: I know that the board is in desperate need of funds and I can assure you that when this new process is in place, additional funds will be found.
How can the minister say one thing in the April 26 meeting with the Labour Board representatives, and then say to this House that they have adequate resources? Madam Speaker, who is telling the truth in these matters?
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, subsequent to that date, I in fact have had a number of discussions with the chairperson of the Labour Board. He advises me that he has sufficient resources to address the concerns raised by any of the new legislation.
Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, once again to the same minister: Whom are we to believe? Are we to believe the seven members of the Labour Board who told this minister on April 26 that they needed more resources to deal with the government's labour legislative agenda, or are we to believe this minister who has misled members of this House and members of the public with respect to the lottery workers in his statements to them this week? Whom are we to believe, this Minister of Labour or the members of the Labour Board who tell us they need more resources to deal with this labour legislative agenda?
Mr. Toews: If members of the Labour Board have specific concerns in that respect, they need only approach the chairperson who will then report to the Deputy Minister of Labour and those issues are discussed with me. I am concerned about that issue; I have discussed the issue on a number of occasions, and I have been assured that there are appropriate resources in place.
* (1350)
Autopac
Privatization
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would like to table a document that came from Manitoba Public Insurance from Jack Zacharias, president and general manager to MPI. It was sent to Autopac-designated managers, and I quote directly from the document where it is stated: Developing the terms of reference for a study to be conducted by an external organization. Further, if you like, to determine whether the exclusively broker-based system continues to be the best means of delivering Autopac to Manitobans.
My question to the Premier: Is this government now considering the privatization of Autopac?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Lamoureux: Unfortunately, we did hear that for MTS, too.
My question to the Premier is: Can the Premier explain why the 335 independent Autopac brokers appear to be being shut out of the whole process?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I cannot fully answer on behalf of the minister responsible for Autopac, but I do know that he and Autopac officials have met with the president and other representatives of the Brokers Association in recent times. I have been contacted myself by brokers, so I know that the matter is under discussion. So I do not think that there is any thought that brokers are being shut out of this.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, can the Premier give the assurances to the 335 independent brokers that they will have a role to play in terms of the delivery of Autopac for all Manitobans well into the future?
Mr. Filmon: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can give that assurance.
Labour Relations
Minister's Comments
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we are seeing increasingly that this government, now that it has received a majority in 1995 through whatever means were available to them at the time, is now imposing their personal agendas, particularly in terms of labour relations. We have seen the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) talk about comments in this House about bombs and their caricatures of labour relations in this province. We see with the Minister of--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson has, on several occasions in this House, implied that a bomb that was thrown at my husband's office in an attempt to murder him was not a real incident. I am sorry, but it was real and I am not saying it is anything to do with labour relations. I am just saying it happened, and it was not the only time it happened. I think that when he says the kinds of things he says, regrettably, regrettably, he denies my reality and he denies the reality of some 385 incidents of criminal convictions in a very, very terrible affair that he keeps trying to relate to other incidences that have no connection whatsoever. He tries to take an incident that has no connection with our current labour relations and draw a parallel. In that, he is being dishonest, unkind and hurting hundreds of people who have suffered through hell.
* (1355)
Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, the comments I referred to were made on the record by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and by the Minister of Education in this House in which she accused not only members of this House but other people of Manitoba of supporting and condoning that. That is something we have never done, and it is the kind of caricature and the personalization of what is happening in terms of working people in this province that has led us to the kind of situation we have today. She should not impose her personal views on labour relations in this province or accuse us of supporting something that is a criminal act. We do not. We support the rights of working people.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Education, I will take the comments and the point of order raised under advisement and I will report back to the House.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, to quickly pose his question.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I will refer now to the comments, the personal comments that have been made by the Minister of Labour, and I want to ask the Minister of Labour if he has had time to reflect on the impact his comments have had not only with regard to the casino workers, most recently, but comments he made to such individuals as the president of the Steelworkers in Thompson, where it gets to the point in Manitoba where the president of Steelworkers 6166--they have been locked out by Inco; there is a labour dispute in my community; it is creating a great deal of impact on our community--now indicates, and this was on the record, that he has no trust either in the neutrality of this government or the neutrality of this minister because of comments the minister has made directly to him.
When will the minister recognize that his personal comments are having a direct impact on labour relations in this province?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I might say that I went up to Thompson and I met with that particular president. We had a good discussion, and he indicated to me it was the first time that a Conservative Minister of Labour had come into the union hall. My door--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Toews: And whether that is true or not--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Toews: He thanked me for coming to the union hall and speaking to him, and perhaps it was the first Minister of Labour in his term of office there that had been to see him, but I indicated to him that I was always prepared to listen to him.
My deputy minister has been up to see him on numerous occasions to seek his input on various matters. I do not know what else I can do at this time to assure him of my interest in the strike in Thompson but I am interested, and I am concerned.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Ashton: Supplementary, Madam Speaker. Can the minister then indicate why Mr. Desjarlais feels he was lied to when he was told at this meeting that there would be no major changes to The Labour Relations Act? In fact, the same minister then went on to the Rotary Club in Thompson and said it was a balanced piece of legislation, the existing act.
Why did this minister, once again, make the kinds of comments that are getting him in trouble in terms of casino workers, directly with the president of 6166, something that has destroyed any trust or credibility that minister has involving the current labour dispute?
* (1400)
Mr. Toews: What I said to both Mr. Desjarlais and the Chamber of Commerce is that there is a balance in the act between management and unions. Unfortunately there is a serious imbalance between employees and the leaders of a union that are supposed to represent those employees. That is what the amendments to The Labour Relations Act are all about, not to change the balance between management and labour unions but to give workers for the first time democratic rights--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Labour, to complete his response.
Mr. Toews: Democratic rights, Madam Speaker, that were denied by workers of the civil service when the NDP government passed legislation unilaterally and statutorily recognizing the MGEU as the only bargaining unit without any vote. That is not democracy. I want to see democracy in the workplace.
Minister of Labour
Replacement Request
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, as a final supplementary, when will this minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) recognize that the only serious imbalance in this province is in terms of the lack of fairness in this government and either remove the Minister of Labour or at least change the name of the department and this minister to something more applicable such as the minister responsible for corporations, because he has nothing to do with labour?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I have many responsibilities in my office that this Premier has entrusted me with. I intend to carry out those responsibilities in a fair and even-handed way, and when my colleague across the way indicates that I only have a corporate background, he deliberately chooses to ignore that I had a career, a proud career as a public servant, and I am proud of that fact. I bring that experience to this House and I care about public servants in the province of Manitoba, and I will do my best on their behalf.
Home Care Program
Records Confidentiality
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, today it has been reported that private health information from a private company was found by members of the public. One of the main concerns we had with the privatization of home care was the inappropriate use of health care information by private companies. Now that the government is still proceeding to privatize a portion of home care, what assurances can this minister give that private information will not be used inappropriately, will not be sold and will not be used by private companies to sell additional services to those people that they serve?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member's concern is well-founded, Madam Speaker. Whether it be private sector or public sector or information from a doctor's clinic or some such information like that, the concern is well-founded. This is why we have, under the auspices of the Health Information Network, consultations that are going on. We have consultations going on with consumers and care providers dealing with the privacy to which people are entitled with respect to their health information, and the experience reported on today is one of those things that ought to form part of those discussions. I have instructed that the private providers' records also become the subject of these discussions so that whatever mechanisms we put in place in the future will reflect the concern that we all have about the question being raised today by the honourable member, and, also, as we work towards the development of legislation to guarantee people's privacy with respect to their health records, this concern will be reflected in all of that work.
Drug Program Information Network
Records Confidentiality
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, perhaps then the minister can address the fact that this consultation group has been criticized by a subcommittee, by the consumer group and by the pharmaceutical group about the fact that the government has not put in place with respect to DPIN, the pharmaceutical program, the appropriate security and safety measures for that program that already exists, and they have already been criticized by his own consultation group for not doing that.
Can the minister confirm that?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): No, but any legitimate concerns being raised, this is indeed--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, Oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: Any legitimate concerns there might be, this is the appropriate time for those kinds of concerns to be raised and to form part of our consultations with respect to privacy of health information and indeed the whole endeavour to look at the issues related to access to information and where it ought to be allowed and where it ought to be limited. If the honourable member can be more specific with me, I will look into the specific concerns that have been raised.
Mr. Chomiak: I would appreciate if the minister would confirm and table for this House whether or not any complaints have gone forward to the pharmacy association, or other body, concerning the inappropriate use of information on the health care network that presently exists. Can the minister report back to this House whether or not any complaints have been received in that regard?
Mr. McCrae: Yes, I would want to know about that, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the honourable member bringing this matter forward. I can tell him though that, because of the Drug Program Information Network, we have seen literally thousands and thousands of cases where pharmacists have had reason to double-check or pharmacists have had reason to give the patient a specific warning because of what is on the screen with respect to their health care. Pharmacists have had specific reasons because of information on the system to contact the doctor, the prescribing physician, to make sure that the prescription is right.
Unfortunately, I cannot tell you how many hospital admissions we have prevented, but we do know--because you never do know how many problems you might have prevented--that it must number in at least the hundreds, if not the thousands, of hospital admissions prevented because of all of the safety measures that are now built into our Drug Program Information Network. It is extremely positive and better health care.
* (1410)
Extreme Fighting
Licensing
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): My questions are for the Minister of Sport. Last Friday, on September 20, the Walker Theatre broadcast another extreme fight. This is billed as the most brutal event in the history of sport. It is broadcast via satellite from Atlanta, Georgia, and this fighting is banned in 30 states across North America.
I want to ask the Minister of Sport, did the minister and the Boxing Commission know about this fight, and can he confirm if the commission gave this bout a licence under the Boxing Commission?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister responsible for Sport): Under The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act, the powers given to the commission deal with live events, not broadcast events, Madam Speaker, so I have no idea if they knew about it. I am sure they have not given them a licence to do it because they would have no jurisdiction.
Regulations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Can the minister confirm that if this was a boxing event it would invoke Section 25(1) of the regulation under the commission, and if then there could have been criminal charges under the Criminal Code for this bout?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister responsible for Sport): I do not want to confirm anything that the member said, Madam Speaker, but I can assure her that--nor did I see the event to which she refers, but fights of extreme violence, the sort of no-holds-barred types of fights or the Iron Man or tough man or whatever they call them, are prohibited under the Criminal Code, and if an event took place that involved that, then the police could act.
Provincial Ban
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): My final supplementary for the same minister: Will this minister take steps to specifically ban the broadcast or the live bouts of these events, as they have done in 30 jurisdictions across North America?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister responsible for Sport): I believe that the decision over what gets broadcast in this country is carried out by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and not by the Manitoba Boxing and Wrestling Commission.
Rural Stress Line
Funding
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, in their election platform, this government in their health platform said that they are now emphasizing wellness and a variety of creative preventative strategies.
Madam Speaker, the rural stress line is an excellent example of preventative health and one that has been successful and supported by many farm organizations and farm businesses. Unfortunately, it is no longer supported by this government.
Since the Canadian Mental Health Association, the rural stress committee and Klinic have come forward with a proposal to help the line continue, and they have asked this government for $80,000 to keep the line going, will the minister recognize the importance of this line and make a commitment to the people of rural Manitoba that they will have preventative health services through the rural stress line?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, a couple of years ago when the Canadian Mental Health Association and its partners came forward to request some funding, the government of Manitoba decided to assist on a one-time basis with a contribution to get them going. A year later, because the program was still, it could be said, in its infancy and in its development stages, the government of Manitoba made another $40,000 contribution to assist them to get going.
It was very clearly understood on each occasion that our funding would be limited to that which we made available and that support from the community ought to be sought, and that was the position the government took. Subsequently, the partners came back to government even though the government had been very, very clear about its commitment, returned to government to make further funding requests, and we, in our analysis of the situation, found that the line could indeed be operated much more efficiently and cost-effectively. Subsequent to that, the CMHA has been engaged in some discussions with Klinic, and we are interested in seeing a partnership go forward on the basis of cost-effectiveness.
Ms. Wowchuk: How can the minister be taking such a lengthy time to make a decision on this issue when he knows that, without a definite commitment, the people who are supporting the line, the corporate sector, the farm businesses, are starting to withdraw their funding from the line? Why will this minister not recognize that this is a preventative service and was something that he promised during the election?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member somehow has not been listening, I guess. Madam Speaker, our contribution as a government to this program, a worthy program, but our contribution has been made. There is no further contribution to be made. We have been very clear with the partners that this is the position we have taken.
We have provided mental health services in some 52 locations throughout Manitoba, unfortunately, without the support of the New Democratic Party, but mental health services had never existed before. Right in the town of Swan River, for example, where we have a crisis stabilization unit, the honourable member claims to be supportive of that, but--you know, we have provided services everywhere across Manitoba--mental health services had never existed before. What the honourable member did not hear is this: Our contribution to the farm and rural stress line has been made.
Canada Pension Plan
B.C. Proposal--Government Support
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
The B.C. government has made some innovative and progressive proposals to deal with the problems now facing the Canada Pension Plan, including the lifting of the $35,400 per year ceiling which eventually would increase benefits for middle-income earners plus protecting benefits for disabled persons while increasing premiums only modestly in the near term. These proposals were put forward at a recent deputy ministers' conference, and I understand the Minister of Finance will be meeting with the federal minister and provincial ministers to discuss this next week.
Can the minister advise this House whether he is prepared to support the B.C. and Saskatchewan proposals, which will deal with the problems facing CPP, while making it more generous and more equitable for Canadians?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, without accepting any of the preamble of the member for Brandon East, we are doing an assessment of the proposal put forward by British Columbia, but the initial reaction to that is there are some concerns that even though there can be some immediate financial gain to Canada Pension Plan, there can be more significant long-term costs to the Canada Pension Plan as a result of the B.C. proposal.
What concerns me most with what I am hearing out of British Columbia is that it appears that they are not ready to come to the meeting on October 4 to work constructively towards finding a solution. They are talking about putting the issue on a track two and deferring the issue and tinkering with changes to the Canada Pension Plan. If we want to do justice to the Canada Pension Plan, everybody has to be a part of the solution--people who are currently benefiting in the plan contributions, people who will be contributing today and into the future. That is the kind of attitude all governments have to come with to this meeting to find a solution for this plan to put it on a sustainable, affordable basis for today and for future generations.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, the B.C. position will not put it on a sustainable basis, Madam Speaker.
Is this minister prepared to join B.C. and Saskatchewan in opposing the proposals to reduce disability benefits and freeze the basic exemption which would hurt the most vulnerable groups in this society? Would he agree with that?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the most important thing for all citizens, including the most vulnerable groups in society, is that the Canada Pension Plan be put on a sustainable, affordable basis. That is the single most important thing that government should be focusing on when they go to this meeting. That will probably require a contribution from everybody--people who are currently receiving benefits, people who are currently contributing to the plan and will be contributing to the plan in the future and people who are currently receiving Canada Pension Plan. That is the kind of attitude that is required of all governments to find a solution to this very serious problem.
* (1420)
Government Position
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I would like the minister, at this point, to advise this House that he is prepared to table documents on Manitoba's position so we can see it, because the proposals put forward by B.C. do allow for the plan to be sustainable and, at the same time, make it more equitable and more generous for Canadians in the future. It is a viable proposal that B.C. has made.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, once again I do not accept the preamble from the member for Brandon East in terms of what he is suggesting about the B.C. proposal in terms of what it will accomplish for the Canada Pension Plan. There are all kinds of information available on the Canada Pension Plan, the detailed document from the consultation process that is available.
An Honourable Member: What is your plan?
Mr. Stefanson: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is asking for our plan. We are going to this meeting to deal with all issues. We are going there with a broad framework but realizing there has to be flexibility on the part of all provinces, because to ultimately fix the Canada Pension Plan, it requires the support of seven provinces and the federal government. So no province should be going there with an absolute rigid, blinker-like approach. You should go there with the attitude prepared to fix the Canada Pension Plan, and that is the attitude we are going with, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington, for one quick question.
New Year's Eve 1999 Celebration
Funding
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, yesterday the City Council approved the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars to plan a New Year's Eve party for 1999 in the city of Winnipeg. I understand, as well, that they are going to ask the province and the federal government to share in the expenditures of this money.
I am wondering if the Minister of Urban Affairs can tell the House if he has received a request from the City of Winnipeg to spend money on this party, and if so, what the response from the province will be to this ridiculous request.
An Honourable Member: . . . like a good party.
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I am always interested in a good party, that is true.
An Honourable Member: This is a good party.
Mr. Reimer: And this is a good party to be involved with. However, Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, I have not received any indication or any correspondence from the mayor or from the council as to their plans for the millennium.
I imagine all Manitobans are waiting for this in anticipation of one big party. Naturally we will all be invited, but until I get a formal request, I really am not too sure what commitments the city has made at this particular time.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.