LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
May 5, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the petition of J.L. Meyer, Dale Julius, Darryl
Julius and others urging the government of
* * *
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Nadine Claeys, Shannon Francey, Claudette Gagnon and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Plohman). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the
cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been
in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, 1993‑1994
Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Department of Environment.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
this afternoon the Honourable Bob Mitchell, the Saskatchewan Minister of
Justice, and the Honourable Eldon Laudermilk, the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
Also present with us this afternoon, we have
from the Westwood Collegiate, fifty Grade 11 students, under the direction of
Mr. Richard Ford. This school is located
in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson).
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Net Family
Income
Provincial
Comparisons
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the First Minister.
Yesterday, Stats Canada confirmed what many
Canadians were feeling, that their real family income had declined, and it
declined in fact in 1991 by some 2.6 percent.
We noted that in the 1990 budget, the Premier and his ministers had said
that
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we see that the
family income declines in
I
would like to ask the Premier why his economic policies have led to a decline
in family income in 1991 based on the stats that were released yesterday, more
than double that of the national average of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I know the member may not recall
this so I will refresh him, that 1991 was the year the government froze public
sector wages for some 45,000 public servants which, obviously, is a very high
percentage of the workforce. Along the
way, as well, because of our strong intent to get inflation down and to keep
the burden off the taxpayers of
I
might say, of course, the news that flows from that, which is positive news, is
the news we had from Statistics Canada that indicated that in 1992 and '93, the
net after‑tax income of Manitobans would be increasing by $600 million in
their pockets to spend as a result of this government not raising taxes, not
raising the tax rates on personal taxes and in fact lowering personal taxes by
2 percent in its 1989 budget‑‑$600 million more for
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has obviously not
been briefed on the statistics, as many other provinces also had wage freezes
in the public sector in the same year, in 1991.
The family income decline in
Why
were we in eighth place in 1989? Why
were we in ninth place in terms of family income in 1990? Why are we now going down to last place, dead
last, in 1991, under the Filmon economic policies that are killing this
province, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Filmon: The member does not understand that you can do
what New Democrats do and that is to increase the incomes‑‑I do not
mean Saskatchewan New Democrats, who are doing a good job. They are doing an excellent job; they
understand economic reality. They are responsible, Mr. Speaker‑‑totally
different from the irresponsibilities of the Leader of the Opposition and his
people, who would raise public sector wages and then tax more from all the
taxpayers and leave the net disposable income at the lowest levels in
That is why, as I say, Stats Canada, a month
or so ago, put out the figures that said because we have frozen tax rates and
in fact reduced personal income tax rates in this province, that $600 million
more of disposal after‑tax income will be in the hands of taxpayers in
this province in 1993, the largest per capita increase of any province in
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, if we took all the forecasts from
this Premier, his selective forecasts‑‑next year we will be first
in the country; the year after we will first in the country; we will be, we
might be, perhaps we will be.
I
am talking about bottom‑line results, last‑place results, dead last
in terms of the private sector investment in 1991, dead last in manufacturing
investment in 1991, dead last in construction starts in 1991. Now we see the results‑‑dead last
in family income, last place.
My
question to the Premier is: Why are we
going from eighth place to ninth place to 10th place? Why are we behind every other province? Why are we way behind any other western
Canadian province? Why are we below the
national average? Why are you performing
in last place in all these major economic indicators?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat, we took the
difficult choices in 1991 to freeze public sector wages, despite the fact‑‑[interjection]
No, they did not. You do not even
understand that. The member opposite
does not understand.
The
fact of the matter is, we took the difficult choices so that we would protect
all of the taxpayers of
The
proof of the pudding is what Stats Canada put out a month ago, which says there
will be $600 million more after‑tax net income in the hands of all
Manitobans to spend, the highest increase of any province in the country. That is what Manitobans want, Mr. Speaker,
and that is what they are getting under this administration.
Child and
Family Services Agencies
Impact Funding
Reduction
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, last year this government cut
funding to the Fight Back Against Child Abuse Campaign. The government did this even though the
organization had dedicated volunteers who raised thousands of dollars fighting
child abuse. Despite petitions signed by
thousands of Manitobans, including workers in the field, the Minister of Family
Services repeatedly refused to budge on this issue. Now, over 180 Child and Family Services staff
have written to the minister telling him that the cuts in service are going to
put more children at risk.
Does the minister now acknowledge that these
cuts are counterproductive and do indeed put more children at risk?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as I have indicated to the member before and in Estimates in the last
few days, I had the opportunity to meet with the presidents of the agencies and
the executive directors of the agencies.
They recognized that in society at this time
there was less money available and that the government would be making a
slightly smaller contribution to the agencies.
They accepted that challenge, and the basic services provided by the
agencies will be continued.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, it is true, I did ask questions
of this minister in Family Services Estimates, and his responses were totally
inadequate. Today's newspaper story
verifies‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Burrows, with your
question, please.
Mr. Martindale: Does this minister agree, since once again,
the director of the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency has said that his
staff will not be able to provide the services to children they are mandated to
provide and he shares the concern of the staff‑‑does the minister
now agree with that statement?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the contradiction
the member is putting forward. The other
day he was complimenting the minister and the department on being able to
provide those services for Manitobans.
The
board and the staff of the agency obviously have decisions to make. The primary function of the agency is the
protection of children, and there are no children at risk due to these funding
cuts.
Mr. Martindale: Will the minister agree that with 3,000 fewer
hours of staff to provide service and with cuts to preventative programs, the
elimination of a grant for volunteer co‑ordinators, that fewer staff
resources are being provided, particularly for prevention, and this is going to
mean more costly costs at the other end of the system when more children are
apprehended and taken into care?
Will the minister agree that this is the long‑term
outcome and that more children are at risk?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, in our
meetings with the board members and the staff of the agencies, they recognize
that there are changing times out there.
They are aware that some of the funding will be reduced, but the basic
services of the agency will be proceeded with.
* (1345)
Chemical
Warehouse‑Fisher Branch
Public Hearings
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Environment.
Yesterday, I raised concerns about the
government's desire to fast‑track the
The
proposal for a chemical warehouse and fertilizer storage facility in Fisher
Branch was spoken about by an expert in the Water Resources branch of this
government, and the quote is as follows:
That is the statement from the Water Resources
expert in this government's Natural Resources branch.
My
question for the minister: Why would
that type of opinion be expressed by the government's own experts? Is this government fast‑tracking this
process and refusing to hold any public hearings on this issue?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is
very seldom that the environmental process is accused of being very fast, but I
want to assure you and assure the member that is certainly not the case.
The
fact is, we are still waiting for some information from
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the process is fast when you
ignore most of it with the complicity of the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister, again, supplementary question:
What evidence is he relying on that supports the siting of this facility
when no environmental assessment has been done by the proponent, and the
proponent, Mr. Arason, admitted on February 4, 1993, that the company had made
some mistakes in getting approvals from provincial and municipal governments
and that they probably in the final analysis did not go as far as they should
have?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not implying
that the Department of Environment should also take over the responsibility for
planning, because one of the first mistakes that was made in this project was
that the planning process was not fully completed in terms of their desire to
get on the site and do some work.
I
remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this is, as I recall, an elevator building, and
with it potentially would be associated fertilizer storage and potentially
chemical storage. The company can well
not proceed with all aspects of that and there may well be some separation of
that, and that may in the end be the deciding factor in what process this
project goes through.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this government has approved
without any public hearings the chemical warehouse and the fertilizer storage,
so let not this minister try to distinguish those aspects of the point.
My
final question for the minister, Mr. Speaker:
Why, when this has been such a divisive issue in that community, will
the minister not do what is sensible and prudent and hold public hearings,
clear the air, hear all of the facts and hear the people who have a direct
interest in this project and in living in that community?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the potential Leader of
the Liberal Party has been out ferreting out whatever environmental issues he
can on his rural tours.
I
have been dealing with the member from the official opposition who represents
that area in terms of exchange of information, and, frankly, the assumption
that conclusions have been reached on this project seems to me to be
overstating his position.
I
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are requests for additional information
that have not yet been answered that will drive the decision.
Emergency
Room Physicians
Mediation
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the
government on reversing its position of yesterday and appointing a mediator to
deal with the doctors' emergency room situation.
Because this is such an important issue
dealing with public safety, I would like to ask the minister today to advise us
when the mediation process is going to commence and whether or not the
government as well will be at the bargaining table or only the hospitals
negotiating at arm's length of the government.
* (1350)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I realize my honourable friend
wants to attempt to take some credit. My
honourable friend made the suggestion but I think clearly the engagement of
Wally Fox‑Decent yesterday when negotiations were ongoing would have been
improper, but given that statements made indicate an indefinite period of time
for resolution, government decided that we would attempt to facilitate the
process and have Mr. Fox‑Decent help.
Mr.
Speaker, I would hope that we can commence the process today. That depends on agreement by the MMA to accept
the services of Mr. Fox‑Decent, and I believe if he is available,
certainly we are. In the event that
later today that does not occur, then certainly tomorrow is a very, very
definite possibility.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister for answering the first
part of my question.
The
second part is: Who is at the
negotiating table on behalf of the government?
Is it the hospitals or is it the government together with the hospitals
that will be at the negotiating table with respect to this mediation process?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, let us not advance one issue before
another. First of all, now, maybe a
decision or maybe acceptance of Mr. Wally Fox‑Decent has been made by the
MMA, but as of approximately 1:30 that was not the case.
Should agreement be made, then we will have to
make the decision as to whether we wish to be actively at the table or whether
we would simply have the parties resume with the advantage of having Mr. Fox‑Decent,
who has, I think, a fairly substantial track record, was instrumental in
resolving the last strike by doctors in the province and achieved a resolution
at that time with the MMA.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, given that evasive answer, there
is no wonder that there is a strike going on.
My
final supplementary to the minister is:
Can the government outline what their position is specifically
concerning the agreement the doctors thought they had reached with the
government last December, what the government position is with respect to that
agreement?
The
Premier said they were close; the minister has not taken a position; the
doctors were convinced there was an agreement. Where are they at with respect
to that agreement? What is outstanding?
Mr. Orchard: Again, I want to caution my honourable friend
that neither he, as an MLA of a union‑supported party should, nor should
I, engage in negotiations, which my honourable friend is trying to do. But I will reiterate for my honourable friend
the three points that I made earlier today.
Firstly, contrary to some stated allegations,
the financial commitment by government has not changed, despite the fact that
in many areas over the last number of months we have reduced financial
commitments in a number of areas reflective of the serious financial situation
this province, this nation, finds itself in.
We have not reduced our financial commitment. It remains the same.
Secondly, Sir, I hope that there is agreement
to Wally Fox‑Decent to act in the capacity he did in 1990 to end the
strike, and, thirdly, I would hope that the MMA asks the striking emergency
room doctors to return to work in anticipation of a resolution with Mr. Wally
Fox‑Decent's able assistance.
PostSecondary
Education
Student
Financial Assistance
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at three o'clock, in
what is becoming known as the Tory bad news hour, the Minister of Education
announced that she is cutting funding to students by a further $2.3 million and
eliminating student bursaries.
Would the minister tell us whom she consulted
with before making such a significant change and would she tell us where it
fits with Duff Roblin's university review and, frankly, is there any point in
having a review if she is making these weekly ad hoc cuts to post‑secondary
education?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the question shows how very little my colleague the critic knows about
the announcement yesterday.
She
seems to feel that the only post‑secondary students are those students
who are university students, and I would like to tell her, for her information,
that post‑secondary students include university students, college
students, students in training programs and vocational programs.
Ms. Friesen: I am flabbergasted by the reply when my
question was‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1355)
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister tell us the impact of these
changes on rural
Could she table the report that I presume her
department has done?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, we have maintained access for the
supplementary assistance through Manitoba Student Financial Assistance but we have
now made that into a guaranteed loans program.
However, Mr. Speaker, we have also maintained
for those most needy students a Study Assistance portion, which would be the
third supplementary level for students.
Students would first apply for the first supplementary level, being the
Canada Student Loan; the second supplementary being Manitoba Student Financial
Assistance; and the third supplementary level being the issue of Study
Assistance.
Ms. Friesen: Well, now we have heard the parroting of the news
release again.
I
would like to ask the minister: Has she
made any effort to discuss the impact of these changes in northern
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I maintain, to the honourable
member, that this allows access to supplementary assistance for post‑secondary
students. Perhaps the other choices the
member would have preferred would have maintained the same amount of money, had
students apply for bursaries on a first‑come, first‑serve basis and
have a large number of students unable to have any supplementary access, or
perhaps, the other alternative the member would have liked would have been to
reduce the amount of money available.
Instead, in terms of fairness, we have
introduced a program which still allows access to that supplementary funding
for post‑secondary students.
Emergency
Room Physicians
Strike
Justification
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Health.
The
minister has said in reply to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) that the
government has not changed the financial position. Can the minister then tell us what is the major
cause of the strike today?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if I knew
that answer, there would not be a strike, and I am not trying to be
facetious. The financial commitment made
by government has not changed. There is
one issue which I am not going to divulge because it is a bargaining issue that
we are definitely opposed to that is being proposed by the MMA.
We
think that proposal will sound very reasonable to Manitobans in the resolution
of this dispute. Mr. Speaker, we have
maintained our commitment, and I say that was not the easiest task before
government, given significant reductions in transfer payments, EPF, adjustments
to the per capita formulas, et cetera.
So
we maintained that commitment because we recognized that this group of
physicians on salary was not adequately compensated in comparison to other
opportunities in the nation.
Negotiations
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, the patients are saying, well,
the minister has a commitment, the MMA has a commitment, so what is the problem
then.
Mr.
Speaker, they want to know whether they are going to get into another seven or
eight days of strike, and we want to know from the minister, what are the main
issues which are impending so that at least patients can know where to go.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with the
hoped‑for agreement of Mr. Fox‑Decent to undertake the role that he
did to achieve a resolution in 1990 of a strike, I would hope that with that
process in check, Manitobans, Winnipeggers would know where to go, and that is
to the emergency rooms with emergency physicians returned to their jobs in the
confidence that Wally Fox‑Decent, in his very skillful role, can achieve
a resolution which has seemed to have eluded the two parties to date, even
though the financial mandate and commitment by government has remained
consistent.
Patient
Safety
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us if, for
the last nine days, there has been any major disaster, any impending
disaster? If not, then if there is no
resolution of the problem, the weekend is coming, can the minister assure the
patients that the proper quality care will be provided? Then the Department of Health has to take
some responsibility, because it is already two weeks into the strike.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated earlier in the week, the circumstance in terms of the two teaching
hospitals, St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, they were able to
cope. Certainly there were circumstances
where there was delayed provision of medical attention. Compared to the normal circumstance,
certainly that is not a satisfactory circumstance.
That, of course, is always the difficulty you
have when there is a strike by any care professional. You certainly are not going to provide care
in the optimum way that you would expect. However, the system has been able to
cope to date. I reiterate, with the hope
for utilization of Wally Fox‑Decent, there is really no reason why
emergency room physicians would not return to work for the weekend.
* (1400)
Chemical
Warehouse–Fisher Branch
Public
Hearings
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the proposed
fertilizer chemical storage facility near Fisher Branch, I have letters from Manitoba
Cattle Producers' Association, Environment Canada weather station, the
government's own policy co‑ordination branch of the Department of Natural
Resources. There are also aboriginal
communities and farmers who are asking for a public hearing on this
development.
I
would ask the Minister of Environment, why is he and the department insistent
on not having a public hearing on this project?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the
answer that I gave a few minutes ago is precisely the answer. If you are talking about the Fisher Branch
project, I still have information on my desk that has been brought in some
cases subsequent to the original advertising of the proposal. We also have not received all of the final
information from the company. Decisions will be based on that when that
information arrives.
Ms. Cerilli: Is the minister then indicating that they are
still open to the possibility of having a public hearing on this project?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, there are certainly possibilities
of that, because, as a matter of fact, the Peguis band, among others, has asked
for reconsideration of the information that went into‑‑and added
additional information into the decision that was made regarding the licensing
process. The licence has not been
finalized. Certainly the information we
have asked for from the proponent is not all there. We will make a decision subsequent to that.
Environmental
Assessment
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us, other
than having a public hearing, how will an assessment deal with the issues
raised by the Department of Natural Resources for an alternative site because
it is a sensitive ground water area, or as raised by Environment Canada that
the building construction would inhibit a weather station from obtaining wind
information? How is another assessment
possibly‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, those
concerns are all part of any determination on this project. I have to tell you that there are a number of
answers to the very questions that the member raises. I am not in a position to recount all of
those answers by memory, but I can tell you that, in the review of the project,
while there were obviously concerns that were raised, there were also a number
of answers to those concerns that were presented as well to the regulators who
were involved.
Children's
Dental Health Program
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
On
a number of occasions over the past month, we on this side of the House have
been trying to get the government to reconsider the cuts to the Children's
Dental Program, a program which assists over 60,000 rural children in this
province. In Selkirk, in the Lord
Selkirk School Division, a minimum of 250 children will no longer be able to
get any dental care as their parents will not be able to pick up the associated
costs.
Does the Minister of Health have any studies
justifying these particular cuts, or does he expect school divisions in this
province to pick up the cost?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in answer to my honourable
friend's last question, no, that is not an expectation that government
has. I do not know whether that is an
expectation my honourable friend is expressing on behalf of the official
opposition, however. He may want to
clarify that.
Mr.
Speaker, I have indicated that the decision to reduce the treatment program was
not one easily taken. It was a $3‑million
reduction in budgetary requirements. I
think it is fair to say that the decision as made in
Mr. Dewar:
Mr. Speaker, earlier the Premier was praising
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the minister:
Why would he cut this program when dentists were charging less than the
fee guide price, and many have already stated that the program has resulted in
overall dental improvement in children and will eventually lead to the
prevention of many of these costly procedures?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we have
retained intact the education prevention part of the program. That is why, as I have indicated to my
honourable friend, this government has flowed substantial dollars into communities
in rural and northern
Mr.
Speaker, I am led to believe that in that area, Manitoba is probably the
leading province in
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the
minister: Rather than spend $4 million on an American health consultant, could
this minister keep this program since it benefits over 60,000 children in rural
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I recognize my honourable friend
is attempting to be a knowledgeable individual, but he is doomed to failure if
he does not recognize that the opportunities presented by the contract that St.
Boniface, Health Sciences Centre and this government have engaged in represent
a very significant opportunity to maintain level of service in our hospitals,
to maintain and enhance‑‑in fact, enhance‑‑the amount
of time caregivers spend with patients and present a significant opportunity
for budgetary savings in a very difficult time.
Alternatives such as other provinces have
expressed would be the mode of the day, were we not to engage‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Rural Gasification
Line Expansion
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
In
light of the fact that there is a desperate need for jobs in rural
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I am pleased that in the throne speech there was mention made
about the importance of at least doing a survey and a review of whether or not
it would be possible for us to expand natural gas services to many of the rural
communities that have expressed interest in receiving that service.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you that between the Department of Energy and Mines and my
department, we have indeed launched on that kind of a review. There have been some contacts made with
communities, with suppliers of natural gas, to see whether or not it is in fact
feasible and whether there is enough interest in many of our rural communities
to move ahead with natural gas services to those communities.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, it looks like we are just going to have
a review, because the minister knows there is a tremendous amount of interest
in the Interlake and in the
I
want to ask the minister, since the
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Mr.
Speaker, that work is ongoing at the present time, and as we reach decision
points, we will certainly be informing communities and getting their
participation in the projects.
* (1410)
Ms. Wowchuk: Will the minister admit that they are prepared
to drain money out of rural
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, about a week and a half ago we
hosted a forum on economic development in rural
Although from time to time we have questions
about rural
Mr.
Speaker, we are committed to natural gas in this province as the new lines . .
. and as we can afford it.
Point of
Order
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to
correct the record when he says we did not attend the meeting. I would like to inform the House that we did
not know about the meeting until two days before. We were not invited.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
It
is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Bill 29
Enforcement
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, for three years this government
refused to proclaim antisniff legislation that we all agreed to in this
Chamber, and felt was good and would make a difference. The excuse by the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) was that the legislation was not enforceable, even though he never
provided any evidence of that.
Now
he has introduced a new bill and we hear from law enforcement agencies,
particularly Inspector Lou Spado of the
I
want to ask the Minister of Justice if he will now review his proposals to curb
the sale of solvents to minors and put some teeth back into antisniff
legislation.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, we have put teeth into this
legislation that was not there before. I
think that when people like the one referred to by the honourable member have a
chance to read their briefing materials before making their public statements,
we might find that there will be support from law enforcement agencies, because
our consultations with the City of
Review
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): I want to ask the Minister of Justice if he
is prepared to review his proposals to consult widely, as was the case with
Bill 91 during the process for which the Minister of Justice himself was
involved‑‑will he review that to ensure that this legislation has
enough teeth in it to be able to convict those who wrongfully sell solvents to
minors?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): That is the whole idea, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have tried to improve on the
bill brought forward by the honourable member. The honourable member has to
remember, I supported her bill. I hope
she supports this one, because it is not a question of credit. There is all‑party agreement that we
need to do something about this. So I do
not care about the credit.
I
want to help protect children. So does
the honourable member. So let us put
aside all of the politics about who gets all the credit and who gets all the
blame and work together to try to help children in this province.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am operating on the basis of
good faith. We do want to ensure
legislation.
Legal
Opinion
Tabling
Request
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, it is my hope to speak in a
few moments at second reading and introduce this bill. I will deal with the differences that exist
between the present bill and the one previously, and with all the good faith I
can muster. I am trying to tell the
honourable member that we have the genuine view that the bill that she had
brought forward, on looking at it subsequent to its passage, we found these
problems.
We agreed
with the honourable member's assurances beforehand. We believed her assurances. That was a mistake we made, and we have
acknowledged that.
The
honourable member wants tabled written legal opinions. What we have in the form
of a legal opinion is Bill 29 which is the result of three years of work in
putting together a bill that will adequately protect children.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Prior to getting to Orders of the Day, I
believe the honourable member for
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr.
Speaker, the profession of midwifery is about the oldest profession in our
society today. I quote from an
individual by the name of Violet McNaughton, who said in 1912: The practice of midwifery dates back to the
beginning of human life in the world. At
the supreme moment of motherhood it is probable that some assistance has always
been required and given. Its history
runs parallel to the history of the people and its functions antedate any
record we have of medicine as an applied science. To deny its right to exist as
a calling is to take issue with the external verities of life.
Mr.
Speaker, today is a time to acknowledge the work done in this area and to
indicate our support for those seeking to provide choice and to pledge our
commitment today to ensure recognition and respect for midwives in
Mr. Speaker: I believe the honourable Minister of Health
would like leave to make a nonpolitical statement. Is there leave? [agreed]
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is
always my pleasure to join with my honourable friend in a statement where we
offer similar sentiments. This day is an
important day.
Sir, this government and my ministry is
attempting, through the discussions‑‑oh, say, Mr. Speaker, I must
apologize. I was almost going on the
verge of politics and introducing an element of politics. I shall not do that.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it is fair to say that all members of this Legislature would
like to see the profession of midwifery formally recognized in this province
and formally part of our health care decision.
Certainly, I believe efforts are well underway to lead us to that end
goal, which would make this day one of indeed celebration in the future.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Crescentwood
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
am pleased, on behalf of my caucus, to join with other colleagues in the
Legislature to recognize International Midwifery Day. I noticed at lunch hour today that there was certainly
a lot of interest generated. They were
speaking to a number of individuals who were obviously there to support this
worthy cause.
I
think it is important to recognize that midwives certainly are a
profession. It is important that all of
us in this House and society certainly treat the midwifery profession as such.
They certainly provide a very valuable service to society.
Midwifery is somewhat newer here in
I
do join with my other colleagues in wishing midwives across this province very
well on the International Midwifery Day and also wishing well all of the
individuals who have received the service of midwives. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
* (1420)