Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon four different groups. Firstly, we have forty Grade 11 students from Warren Collegiate under the direction of Mr. Jake Wiebe and Mr. John Smith. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).

Also, thirty Grades 11 and 12 students from Sisler High School under the direction of Mr. Chris Bandfield. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

Also, 20 adult ESL students from Red River Community College under the direction of Mrs. Alice Landry. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos).

Also, fifty Grade 11 students from Churchill High School under the direction of Mr. Edwin Lenzmann. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

* (1335)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the acting Acting Premier, Madam Speaker. In the 1993 federal election, the federal Liberals campaigned under the platform of integrity, commitment and vision to remove the drug patent law here in Canada, Bill C-91. Unfortunately, since that time, the federal Liberal government has now come out with the report shared and authored by one David Walker which recommends that the 20-year period for drug patent laws be maintained here in Canada and that we accept this 20-year patent protection law.

I would like to ask either the Acting Health minister or the Acting Premier: What is the impact on drug costs here in Manitoba, and what is the impact on jobs here in terms of the potential for our generic drug industry in this province?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition because, as a matter of fact, Manitoba has the genesis of a very good generic drug manufacturing capability. We have some of the strongest opportunities here, which are being frustrated by the legislation as it is presently being maintained and being supported by the federal Liberal government. As a matter of fact, while the job numbers are not at my fingertips, Manitoba is missing an opportunity and the patients of this country are missing an opportunity in saving some costs.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): As I understand it, this will cost the drug plans about 13 percent annual increases in their costs and will cost consumers considerably, as well as the jobs here in Manitoba that are affected in a negative way. I would like to ask the Acting Premier or the Acting Minister of Health, Madam Speaker, whether in fact any other platforms here in the province of Manitoba--are there any other national parties campaigning on the repeal of C-91 which, of course, is in the best interests of Manitobans and the best interests, we believe, in terms of Canadian consumers on drug costs and keeping those drug costs down for all consumers.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition puts his finger on what has been one of the most frustrating budgetary problems that this government and people across the country have been facing in terms of Pharmacare and being able to manage the Pharmacare costs. It is well documented that we saw uncontrollable increases in the costs of Pharmacare directly driven by the cost of drugs, not just the usage of the drugs but the direct increases in the costs and, unless we are able to start controlling those costs and delivering cost-effective drug therapy and drug treatment to the patients in this country, we are going to continue to see severe problems in financing health care.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister. In fact, our side agrees totally with the minister. Can the minister explain why there is only one party in Canada proposing to repeal C-91 and why his national party is not going along with his provincial party after they have endorsed each other to repeal C-91 on behalf of consumers in Canada and on behalf of Manitoba jobs? Can he explain that to the people of Manitoba?

Hon. James McCrae (Acting Minister of Health): The honourable Leader of the Opposition is wise indeed to raise this topic at this particular time in the history of Canada. As a former Health minister, I, along with many other Manitobans, suffered under a regime that allowed patent protection beyond that which would be needed to keep an industry going in Canada. What is interesting--I have been made aware of some internal Liberal documents that show that Liberals are bragging in Montreal about all of the job creation under that Bill C-91 and in other places pretending to speak out for protecting senior citizens.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition is right to bring this forward. I remind him and honourable members about the red book promise for a review of that particular legislation. This government asked repeatedly the federal Liberal government to carry out that red book promise, and they turned their backs on that one too.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, a new question, a very serious question to the Acting Minister of Health: The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) have been copied on letters indicating that the Health Services Commission is recommending to the provincial government an introduction of a 25 percent user fee for orthotics and prosthetics here in the province of Manitoba. I would like to hear from the government whether they have rejected this horrible, horrible recommendation that has been made to the government, which is totally inconsistent with the principles of a good universal health care system here in Manitoba.

Hon. James McCrae (Acting Minister of Health): Again, Madam Speaker, the honourable Leader of the Opposition raises a classic case of the federal Liberal approach, which is to cut provincial governments off at the knees when it comes to funding and then go out and tell people they are the ones that are out there protecting medicare. Certainly, as to the specifics of the question, I would pass that on to the Minister of Health so that he can get back to the Leader of the Opposition, but I have no doubt that the Minister of Health would not fail to call attention to the fact that some $220 million is being removed from our social spending here in Manitoba by the federal Liberal government, and it needs to be brought out now. This is an important time for it to be made known.

Mr. Doer: I would like to table a number of letters for the attention of the House that have been sent to the Premier and the Minister of Health on previous dates, including dates as early as April 10, 1997, wherein they indicate in the letters--and this is from the Manitoba Orthotics/Prosthetics Association--that a young person with spina bifida that is required to pay this 25 percent user fee would in fact for $4,000 worth of equipment be required to pay well over $1,000 for this policy.

Will the government today, will the Acting Premier today reject this recommendation, this policy introduction that is being proposed in the provincial government health service? Will they say today totally that they are opposed to this and they reject it and will not accept it as a recommendation in our health care system?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, without accepting the preamble and the authenticity of the concerns that the member raises, let me reiterate that we intend to do everything we can to make affordable and quality health care available to all Manitobans.

Mr. Doer: The letter tabled, copied to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), of April 10, 1997, from the Manitoba association, as I indicated, states clearly that people involved with the most difficult of disabilities will face the most elaborate costs and the most expensive types of equipment. They will be encumbered, and I quote, "with the greatest financial hardship."

Given the statement of the Acting Premier today, it seems to us to be quite logical that those who would have the greatest hardship would not be penalized by this government. Can he say today that they will not accept this recommendation of the 25 percent, and they will refuse to put this tremendous hardship on Manitoba citizens that require these very, very necessary health care services in this province?

Mr. Cummings: Again, I am not going to accept the authenticity or the preamble that the member puts forward, but I am sure that he appreciates the desire to deliver a quality and effective health care service. Something that strikes me as being relevant to this debate in terms of dealing with the costs and the volumes, certainly not related to the prosthesis situation but related to the volumes, that government, and through the health care services, is attempting to increase service availability. Contrary to what has been raised as concerns from time to time recently, we have seen an example over the last six years where cardiac service has grown by 50 percent, cataract surgeries by 44 percent, hip replacements by 24 percent. Madam Speaker, service needs to be provided and it will be.

* (1345)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Justice: For the third time this week alone, Manitobans are hearing about more serious foul-ups in the Justice department. This time Mark Zoldy, a victim of an alleged death threat, an act of hate, who waited over one year for justice, found out the accused was acquitted because the prosecutor did not show up for trial.

My question to the minister is: Can the minister, who avoided our questions two days ago about understaffing and overwork in our courts following the flip-flop opinion on the Nancy Friday book, Robert Guiboche's mistaken release from the Remand Centre and Lisa Drover's case that went to trial with no witnesses, now admit there is a problem, there is a real problem, or is this a new standard?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, again we have the member of the opposition criticizing prosecutors in the department. In fact, the member specifically indicated that the prosecutor did not show up, and that is not correct. He is simply again casting aspersions on a member of the public service, and that is not called for.

What I want to indicate is that the officials in the department in fact have reviewed the circumstances surrounding provincial Judge Kopstein's decision to dismiss this charge, and departmental officials have concluded that the judge erred in law in dismissing that charge.

In this type of circumstance, Section 485.1 of the Criminal Code indicates and authorizes the Deputy Attorney General to consent to the re-laying of charges. After reviewing the situation, the Deputy Attorney General has provided his consent so that the charge will be relaid shortly, and the case can be heard before the Provincial Court on its merits. This member should apologize to the prosecutor.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who misconstrues my question as one reflecting on the prosecutor when I am reflecting on this government's priorities, Madam Speaker--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for St. Johns that no preamble or postamble is required prior to a supplementary question.

Mr. Mackintosh: My question to the minister is: Is it policy in his department that, when such a tragedy and a travesty occurs, the victim is not told of the mistake and the acquittal for six days later? Why was the victim not called when the prosecutor was summoned to the trial so he could come down and testify?

Mr. Toews: This matter is being relaid and will be heard on the merits before the courts.

You know, this is not unusual coming from the Leader or the member for St. Johns. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) stood up the other day and said a fair trial is simply a legal nicety. That is what they consider the law to be.

I have a higher duty than those kinds of words to the integrity of the system, and this member ought to realize that this matter will be proceeding before the courts and that the matter will be heard on its merits.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister, who neglects to tell Manitobans that Mr. Zoldy will probably have to wait at least one more year for justice, admit or agree to this: Would the government order an operational review of Prosecutions and the courts, given this whole pattern of foul-ups, like they have done in Saskatchewan, to find out if resources and organizations have kept pace with the number of cases and their complexity, or will the government just continue to actually cut Prosecutions as it did this year?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member opposite and I had a long discussion yesterday about reorganization that is occurring within the department in order to assist prosecutors with their cases. We understand that there are often very difficult legal challenges. I can indicate that this department and the administrators in the department are doing everything to ensure that prosecutors deal with the merits of cases.

This is an unfortunate case, and fortunately there is an expeditious remedy that is provided in law. The departmental officials, the Deputy Attorney General have in fact indicated that this would be the appropriate way to proceed in view of the trial judge error in law.

* (1350)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Archives building at 200 Vaughan Street is a public building and until recently included a public space where artists and arts groups could display their work, where members of the public could view Manitoba art and where public events could be held. Public space in public buildings is traditional in Manitoba, but soon this public space will house Elections Manitoba. People like the president of the Winnipeg Sketch Club, Mr. Ross Brown, say: There is no place for us to display our work.

Consequently, I want to ask the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship to tell this House what alternative public site she has arranged for those artists and groups who formerly exhibited in the Archives and, if no arrangements have been made--

An Honourable Member: Question.

Ms. McGifford: I am trying to ask the question--and if no arrangements have been made, will she make a commitment to find an alternative public site?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, that space was, as the member said, in fact used previously to display some work. However, there are a number of other sites which are available. I understand most groups have been advised of this, areas such as areas in the Legislature. The Pool of the Black Star is also an area which is available.

If the member knows of any groups or artists who need further specific information, I will be more than happy to see that they get it. There are alternative sites, and I think the names and places have been made available.

Ms. McGifford: I thank the minister for her response, and I will certainly take her advice.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services if his department consulted with his government's heritage building specialists before the construction of the Elections Manitoba offices in the Archives building and, if this was done, what advice was given?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, one of the objectives of the Department of Government Services in terms of dealing with office space for government departments is to be able to--and those associated with government--to take a look at the efficient use of space that we have under the authority of the department and, as such, utilizing space efficiently is one of the objectives of the department.

In response to the specifics of the question that the member asks with regard to the heritage of the building, I would have to take that as notice, and I will get back to the member on that.

Ms. McGifford: I look forward to hearing from the minister.

I want to ask the Minister of Government Services, who must know that the Archives building was established as a public building during the 1930s, why he has chosen to move Elections Manitoba into this space rather than into already empty government space, for example, in the Norquay Building. What is the reason for this?

Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, Elections Manitoba is a group that is apart and has to be arm's length from government to be able to carry out the duties assigned to them. Therefore, it is imperative that they be allocated space where they can carry out these functions in an arm's length way, and the Archives building was the most suitable space identified for that use.

* (1355)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The other day I talked to a constituent who lives in Meadows West, and we talked about the school portion of property tax. In 1988 she paid $1,080 on her property tax; today she pays $1,516. That is a $436 increase on property tax, because this government has chosen to neglect the financing of public education in the province of Manitoba.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: Why does this government continuously abuse the need for resources in public education in this province?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Really, Madam Speaker, that question does not have much credibility coming from the member for Inkster when he stands up day in and day out and supports the reduction in funding from the federal Liberal government to Manitoba of some $240 million over the last three years, funding very directly for health, post-secondary education and support to families.

Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Beauchesne's is fairly clear in the sense that the minister has an obligation to answer the questions. We have seen all sorts of fed bashing for the day. Maybe the minister can ultimately try to answer the specific question about abuse from this government as opposed to trying to pass the buck onto what is happening in Ottawa. Take responsibility.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker, it is incredible the lengths this honourable member will go to try to protect his federal cousins from their own past and their own behaviour. The honourable member clearly has no point of order whatsoever. It was simply a matter of dispute between he and the Minister of Finance.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, indeed, does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, when you look--and the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) has said it on many occasions--at our increase in funding to public schools since 1988, it is in excess of a hundred million dollars. If you look at our support for municipalities, almost each and every year municipalities have received additional support from our provincial government, because we are the only government in all of Canada that actually shares our personal and corporate income with our municipalities. I believe we are still the only government in Canada that shares some of the revenues of VLTs. So we are treating both school divisions and municipalities very fairly in Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister of Education can tell this House--while his party was in opposition, they advocated that 80 percent of the financing of education should be coming from general revenues. Now that they are in government, things have changed. What has changed?

An Honourable Member: The federal government has changed.

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, as is being pointed out to the member for Inkster, one thing that has certainly changed is the federal government, and as a result of that change, I remind him again--and I have certainly offered to share with him the numbers because he seemed to call them into question yesterday--today, three years from 1994, we have $240 million less in support from the federal government for areas like health and education and so on.

If the member for Inkster is advocating that some of the taxes be removed from property taxes for education, then where is he advocating that that be made up? Is he suggesting that we increase provincial sales tax? Is he suggesting we increase personal income tax? Is he suggesting that we shift more responsibilities to municipalities? If that is the position that he is advocating, where is he suggesting that money come from? Either that money will come from tax increases or offloading other responsibilities onto municipalities.

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

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that it is a question of priorities? If you take a look at what this government has done, they have spent more, invested more on the standard exams for Grade 3s than they have invested in public education in the last two years. Will he acknowledge that as being factual?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I will acknowledge that budgets are about priorities, and today we are spending 53 percent of all of the money we spend in two areas, health and education, and that is certainly more as a percentage of our budget than when we formed government back in 1988. It clearly shows that the priorities of this government are quality health and educational services for all Manitobans.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

Today the Manitoba Housing Authority board is meeting, and one of the proposals and budgets that they are considering is from the Triplex Tenant Association on Robson and Plessis Road to erect a play structure in the constituency of Radisson.

I want to ask the minister to give his consideration to the fact that, in order for the tenants association to ensure they have access to the $29,000 that they fundraised in grants, they must have approval from the Manitoba Housing Authority for this agreement immediately. I want to ask him: Given that the board is meeting today, will he ensure that this is on the agenda, that they give it approval and consideration, and then could he tell me when it is that that approval would reach the community so that they do not have their grants jeopardized?

* (1400)

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that question because I think that, as she has indicated from time to time--and I am also a strong proponent of tenants associations and the endeavours that they bring forth for the betterment of their community and their complex. We will continue to work very closely with these tenants associations in the endeavours that they feel are proper for their complex, and if they have identified that a play structure is where they feel that the money should be going, I feel that is an endeavour they should be congratulated for. If they are fundraising toward that, I certainly do not think that my department would be adverse to them spending. I am not familiar whether that has gone on the agenda because, as she mentioned, the board is meeting this afternoon. I will make myself aware of what the decision is, and I will convey that to her as soon as possible.

Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for that. I would be willing to discuss that with him after Question Period.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I want to ask him: What is this government's and the Manitoba Housing Authority's policy with regard to insuring structures, like a play structure, which are erected by a tenants association or community group and all the funds are raised by a tenants association? What is the policy of the government for insuring those types of structures?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, with any type of endeavour on Manitoba Housing property, we would always ensure that there is a sense of supervision by our department for the installation or the modification of any type of structure, whether it be on the grounds or in the buildings, to our specifications and our codes. I would naturally assume and I would believe that our department would have some sort of monitoring involved with the installation of this structure to make sure that it is done to code and to safety satisfactions because of the fact that the children would be playing on this.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is: I am wondering if the minister would also tell us the government's policy with regard to tenant associations having access to the entirety of their per-unit grant and if he would consider having some consideration for the Robson-Plessis Triplex Tenant Association so that they would have access to the entire $2,352 of their grant for '96 and '97. It is a new association. I am hoping that he would meet with me to discuss this and ensure that they have access to all the funds that they were entitled to.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, one of the policies in giving grants to the homeowners' association in any type of public housing complex is the fact that it is monies for these associations to delegate in the manner that they feel fit for the betterment of their complex. I see no reason at all why we would restrict them in any way as to what they felt was the endeavour or the direction that that money could be used. We are naturally involved to the extent that we are made aware where the money is going, but the final decision as to the allocation as to what they feel is the best for their complex, I would trust that the association's decisions would be the ones that we would follow.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance now admit that his previous attempts to answer my question on the decline in real after-tax income since 1988 failed and that he did not properly answer the question, that indeed real disposable income in 1996 is 4 percent less than it was when this government took office in 1988? In other words, will he now admit that Manitobans have less money in their pockets today than in 1988?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I will admit no such thing, and I encourage the member for Brandon East to look at some of the recent information that has been provided. Certainly the most recent information is 1996 where Manitoba's personal after-tax income posted a 4.4 percent increase, more than four times Canada's increase. Canada's increase was 1 percent during that particular year. I encourage the member for Brandon East to look at all of the economic indicators, because if you look at all of the traditional economic indicators, he will find that Manitoba is consistently performing amongst the best in Canada. In fact, in the last week alone, we have had the Conference Board of Canada, we have had the Investment Dealers Association of Canada and we have had Statistics Canada all point to how well Manitoba is doing in all areas, whether it is growth in employment, growth in our economy, growth in our retail sales, and the list goes on.

Mr. Leonard Evans: A supplementary--for the life of me I do not know why the minister does not want to acknowledge that we are comparing ourselves with 1988. What has happened since 1988? The minister is not answering that question.

Will the minister acknowledge that one reason for lower real after-tax income since 1988 is that we now have a higher percentage of workers in the low-wage, part-time wage sector today than in 1988? In other words, there has been a shift in the make-up of the workforce from higher-wage to lower-wage industries.

Mr. Stefanson: No, I will admit no such thing, but if the member for Brandon East wants to go back to the past, go back to the period 1981 to 1988 when Manitobans were faced day in and day out with tax increases from that administration, dozens and dozens of tax increases, increasing our provincial sales tax, increasing our personal income tax. If there was a tax in Manitoba, the NDP increased it from 1981 to 1988, unlike the last 10 years in Manitoba when there have been absolutely no increases in any major taxes in Manitoba. In fact, we actually have decreased our personal income tax, and today we have one of the lowest provincial sales tax rates in all of Canada. That is the kind of record that Manitobans are looking for.

Mr. Leonard Evans: My final supplementary--and we still have less money in our pockets today than when you were elected. We have less money. Do you not realize that?

Will the minister acknowledge--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am certain the honourable member for Brandon East has a final supplementary question.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Will the minister acknowledge that the increase of 31,000 jobs between 1988 and 1996, 28,000 or over 90 percent of them were in the low-wage personal service sector and that the higher-wage manufacturing sector has actually declined from its 1988 level, fewer people in manufacturing today, more in the low-wage, part-time personal service sector and, therefore, that helps to explain the drop in real disposable income?

Mr. Stefanson: I assume, Madam Speaker, that the "we" that the member for Brandon East was referring to were members of the NDP caucus when he was making those statements.

Again, I will admit no such thing, and I encourage the member to look at how Manitoba's economy is performing today, that in the last year, the year-to-date numbers for the first four months of 1997, there are 17,000 more jobs in Manitoba today than there were a year ago, 70 percent of those jobs are full-time jobs and every single one of those jobs is in the private sector, being created with private-sector investment.

But I also encourage him--if we want to look forward, Madam Speaker, like most Manitobans want to do--look at the recent Conference Board report that came out just last Friday that shows for 1997 the employment growth in Manitoba is projected to be 2.8 percent, the employment growth for Canada is 1.3. Manitoba is more than double the growth in Canada, but best of all, Manitoba's growth is projected to be No. 1 in all of Canada. Those are the facts, and that is what Manitobans are looking for.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Health has received the correspondence from the Manitoba league for the physically disabled, as well as the correspondence to the officials of his department, talking about the 25 percent user fee that the department has advised both users and the providers of orthotics, that it will have to be paid for this service effective May 1 of this year. I wonder how the ministry, in light of the comments of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) who talks about no tax increases, could possibly propose a tax on the sick for people who require much-needed medical devices.

* (1410)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, I think whenever you talk about the implementation of any fee for any service, it sets off a great deal of concern. I have had a chance very, very briefly to see the two letters that the member has tabled and referred to. I think one of them from the Manitoba league extends well beyond what the facts actually are, and I appreciate the concern that they may have had whenever you discussed this.

We have had some budget decisions made last year with respect to fees for orthotics, not with respect to prosthetic devices. We have entered into some discussions with the Manitoba Orthotics/Prosthetics Association. They have come back with an alternative plan for achieving our goal that makes eminently good sense, and we are going to be considering it.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how can the minister try to get out of a responsibility of saying to people who use devices to the amount of over $2.6 million a year that they are going to be charged 25 percent or some cost of the fee for devices that they have no choice but to utilize, and without these devices they will not be able to work and, in some cases, will not be able to live their lives? That is totally unacceptable in this province where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has talked about holding the line on taxes, and yet the line on taxes is not held for those who are sick and disabled.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the point that the member makes with respect to a 25 percent charge for certainly those people who would have a significant demand, certainly, that is a very, very valid point. In fact, the suggestion that has come back to the ministry only very recently is that we might want to consider a $100 deductible for all orthotic devices, which basically, in most cases, are foot lifts and that this quite possibly could meet our necessary budget requirements. We have received it, we are studying it now and certainly going to consider it.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how can any minister in a modern health care system talk about putting a deductible or a user fee--and the minister talks about foot raisers. It is far more orthotic devices than just foot raisers, and it deals with people's lives. How can a minister talk like that in our modern medical system when these individuals have no choice but to have those devices? I spoke with someone today who told me but for his back restraint he would be in bed all day long and would not be able to work.

Mr. Praznik: That is exactly my point. I am not disagreeing with the member that, on that particular proposal as it now stands, it does have the possibility, if you deal with a straight percentage, to cause the difficulties the member has outlined. But surely to goodness, in a system where virtually all medical care is free, to ask for a relatively small deductible--and you have to appreciate, for the large expenditure that the member is talking about, and I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) quoted some $4,000, yes, 25 percent would be a very excessive fee. The proposal that has come back from the association is for a $100 deductible, which certainly would not put people in the position that he has indicated, and I am certainly prepared to look at that and discuss that with my colleagues.

Mr. Chomiak: With a new question: Will the minister not indicate that the association that wrote to the minister said, we do not agree with any deterrent fee, any user fee, any cost on these much-needed devices? The minister is holding a gun to the head of these people and saying, you have no choice but to impose a cost on the sick and disabled. This is intolerable, and the minister ought not to misuse the facts or misuse these letters to indicate that they have come back with another proposal. They said no to this proposal, and the government ought to say no to this proposal, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, I would acknowledge that, like any group or any number of people who are facing any particular fee increase, their first position or issue is usually, please do not do this. But having said that, it is not unusual to make a recommendation as to how a particular issue can be dealt with in a more fair manner and less disruptive.

We are always flexible to give consideration to that, as we intend to do, but let us put some of these things into perspective. Manitobans with our Pharmacare program, our home care program, a whole host of services, have a far greater degree of free public health care than probably anyone else in most of the world and certainly in many parts of Canada.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how can the Minister of Health responsible for the province of Manitoba put in a category the disabled of this province as a special group and put the group or organization that put together a proposal and not recognize the fact, the very simple fact, that these people, because of their disability or illness, through no fault of their own, have no choice, unlike many of us in this Legislature, but to have these devices in order to live their lives? It is not a case of them having an option; they have no choice and they ought to be provided.

Mr. Praznik: Two points to be made here: First of all, that is why in fact the new proposal, the proposal that has come from the association talks about a deductible which in effect would probably eliminate the cost of most of the foot lifts, which are a big part of this particular program--and certainly are not individuals who I think that the member has characterized. We recognize the people you are talking about who require significant devices. Madam Speaker, this proposal makes very good sense, and that is why we want to consider it.

The second point is there are many people who require pharmaceuticals for their life through no fault of their own, and yet when the New Democrats brought in Pharmacare, under our Pharmacare program, there are deductibles. We still provide a significant contribution towards the costs of whether it be pharmaceuticals or orthotic or prosthetic devices to ensure that people have that care. I would love to live in a perfect world where there was money for absolutely everything but we do not.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The time for Oral Questions has expired.