ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Mining Industry

Workplace Safety Orders

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have raised questions before about the four tragic mining deaths in Manitoba, and a number of issues have arisen from answers given or taken as notice by the government.

Subsequent to our questions and the questions from the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) on the deaths that took place and particularly orders that were issued by the company, the minister took as notice the notification given by his department to mining companies in Manitoba. The Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company is stating that they never received any stop-work orders or work orders at all on safety from the government after the death in January and prior to the death in May of 1994.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), has he reviewed the answers given to this House by his Minister of Labour, and were orders issued by the government to mining companies after the first death that could have prevented future fatalities in our mines?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that on a regular basis, there are orders issued with respect to that particular mine and that in the case in question, discussions took place, and there is on file a letter from the mine superintendent after a particular incident in the mine where the last death took place undertaking to do certain things to ensure that that would not happen again.

It is the view of our department that those things were not undertaken and a second death occurred.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

Can the Premier advise this House what information went from the Ministry of Labour and the Mines Branch dealing with the first fatality and what safety instructions were issued? Can the minister and the government table today the notifications and the distribution of notifications to the mining industry? Were all mines notified of this problem, this fatality and orders that were put in place?

Can the minister, today, table his instructions, his distribution, because he took this question as notice a week and a half ago. We are concerned that there was no distribution beyond the local mine site dealing with this fatality.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, I can tell the honourable member that the mines regulation requires on any open facility that the employer has a responsibility to ensure that proper steps are taken to ensure the safety of people working in that particular area.

That information, the place where there was, in fact, a problem was with HBM&S. There are regular orders issued there. I can tell the honourable member that following the first death and another particular incident in which a death or injury did not occur, there was an exchange of discussions and a letter, which I can share with this House that I have seen and am not in a position to table to the member today.

That particular letter clearly indicated that the superintendent--I believe it was a superintendent of the mine--undertook to take safety precautions that make sense within the regulation that stands. Those did not occur in the second death, and that is why the matter is now before the Attorney General's department with respect to the laying of charges.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: The company is saying that they did not receive the notification, Mr. Speaker.

There was a death on January 6, 1994, and, Mr. Speaker, the government has said in its document on May 16, 1994, the company agreed to certain safety procedures after the first fatality but had not implemented them to avoid a second fatality.

My question to the minister is, did the Department of Labour, the minister's department, distribute the safety instructions after the first death to the total mining industry, Mr. Speaker, because this kind of action takes place in all mines, and will the minister table the follow-up after the first death to the mining industry, in general, and to Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, in particular, so that we may know what the government's department did to prevent a second death under similar circumstances, tragically, in this province?

Mr. Praznik: Yes, I can tell the honourable member that the Department of Labour is regularly in those mines, that that particular mine had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 inspections in the course of that year.

I can tell the member--in fact, in my first two answers, I have told the member that the company, after discussions with the department, committed in writing, the superintendent, as to what would be undertaken by the mine in which the second death occurred. They were suitable safety guidelines or safety precautions to ensure that a tragedy would not occur, and they were not followed, which resulted in the second death.

I would be pleased to provide that letter. I do not have a copy with me at this time but I would be pleased to provide it to the member, and that is a letter from HBM&S to the Department of Labour.

Environmental Protection Legislation

Beverage Containers

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Environment.

The government announced some time ago a goal to reduce waste going to Manitoba landfills by 50 percent by the year 2000. As an important way to reach that goal, the beverage industry was given minimum standards setting out the percentage of containers sold which had to be recovered to avoid facing a fine.

Mr. Speaker, last year, in year one, over $500,000 was collected in fines. In this year, year two, the beverage industry failed to reach its targets, especially for aluminum and plastic containers. There is now almost $1 million in outstanding fines.

My question for the minister: Would the minister announce to Manitobans that he is now waiving these polluter fines, which total almost $1 million, $862,931.68 to be exact.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we did, in fact, collect fines over the course of the year.

There is presently an implementation program as of January 1 where the beverage industry alone will be contributing upwards of $5 million annually towards the removal of waste products across this province, not only aluminum, but also glass and plastics.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should acknowledge that while the industry has been fined significant amounts, they have, in fact, now voluntarily--and I stress, in the context of the province of Manitoba, industries have now voluntarily come to the table to be part of our multimaterial products stewardship program.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, is there a target? Is there a law or is there not a law?

My question to the minister is, what message is the government giving now to those who pollute our environment and who fail to meet even this government's own requirements?

Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Speaker, going back to the previous government of which the member, I am sure, holds high regard, they, in fact, had a letter of agreement from the beverage container industry that they would maintain reusable bottles within this province to a very high percentage. That was never implemented, and it was never carried through either.

Mr. Mackintosh: In light of this waiver, Mr. Speaker, would the minister now confirm that this means the government has rejected the polluter-pay principle, that it is, once again, taxpayer pay, and how can Manitobans afford this as a priority?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to play word games, but I do not think I have very often been accused of wavering. It seems to me that the member might want to look at the contribution that we are about to receive towards multimaterial recycling in this province.

I think the issue of starting with the beverage container industry is probably one of the best thought-out and is, in fact, being watched very closely by other jurisdictions in terms of beginning the multimaterial collection program in this province, because it will be followed immediately by newsprint and by other recyclable plastics and by any other material that we can bring the industry to the table for.

I must emphasize, the member used the words "taxpayer pays." That is not at all true. The material will have enough money attached to the price of it that it will pay for its own removal from the waste stream, and the taxpayer will be protected, so I ask him to withdraw that statement.

* (1350)

Fire Prevention

Childproof Lighters

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the last year in this province, five children have died, eight civilians and a further five firefighters have been all injured as a result of fires caused by children having access to and misusing lighters. That is indeed a tragic record which I am sure all of us would want to do everything possible to stop.

When the Premier (Mr. Filmon) stood up last week and gave his response to the Speech from the Throne, he mocked the proposal by the Liberal caucus to bring in amendments to The Fires Prevention Act. He stated, and I quote from page 448: "Now childproof lighters in Manitoba, I do not want to say that in a perfect world we would not try to do everything possible to ensure that we created a safer environment, but this is one of his two pages of top priorities for Manitobans, childproof lighters."

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier to take seriously this issue, and I want to table a copy of a letter that I have received now from Chief Lough, the fire chief for the City of Winnipeg, who has written and states in part in his letter: "The Winnipeg Fire Department appreciates your concern"--this is to me--"and will gladly support legislation restricting the sale or distribution of nonchildproof lighters. Recent Winnipeg fires in October and November took the lives of five children and teenagers. These fires also seriously injured three firefighters. Both of the fires were started by children playing with the fire, specifically lighters."

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier now reconsider his mocking tone of this issue and do something to ensure that 1995 is not the tragic year 1994 has been?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, no one on this side of the House or anywhere else in this Legislature wants to have tragedies occur in this province.

I realize that the member opposite has to make political gain where he finds it, but we on this side of the House will examine every opportunity to make this a safer and a better province for all of our people.

Government Strategy

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): The Premier could start by not playing partisan politics with these issues when they come forward. Mr. Speaker, we do not have to live in a perfect world to make improvements. The Premier suggested that we did in his mocking tone last week.

My question for the Premier is, given that all fire prevention experts in this province agree that this is indeed a very serious issue and has caused numerous deaths, not to mention injuries of other civilians as well as fire prevention workers in this province, will the province and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) take a close look at the Fire Code in this province, because I propose legislative changes, but as Chief Lough points out--[interjection] Well, the request went to Legislative Council November 21, and if the member would like, I am prepared to table that letter as well.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier: Will the government, even if they are not willing to deal will legislative changes, take a look at the Manitoba Fire Code to ensure that we are doing everything possible we can, as Chief Lough suggests?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we will examine every opportunity to make sure that we are doing whatever is possible and reasonable to do in order to create a safer society.

Mr. Edwards: I have a final question for the Premier. He keeps saying, doing everything possible. I have yet to hear from him that, in fact, they are going to consider the legislative changes or the changes to the Manitoba Fire Code.

Will he take Chief Lough's advice and sit down with the City of Winnipeg Fire Department, who are asking in this letter and are suggesting that they may pursue their independent routes as best they can within the city of Winnipeg, but are looking for a co-operative effort from the province?

Is he prepared to sit down with Chief Lough and the Winnipeg Fire Department to determine what can be done, not next year, but immediately, Mr. Speaker?

* (1355)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Liberal Party, who may have one particular issue on fire--and I do not mean to, in any way, take away from that issue, because any safety matter is an important one.

I can tell the member that we have a regular process of dealing with the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs of which Chief Lough is a member, and we are continually looking at particular issues that arise in safety.

I can tell the honourable member that one of the greatest numbers of losses of children's lives from fire, and I say this as well as Minister of Northern Affairs, has been of children who have died in houses that are wood heated and have been left unattended. That is a major concern to many of us.

I also say that although it may sound easy to stand up and say, act upon today, one has to ensure that you have the power to do what, in fact, they want to do. The member referenced the Manitoba Fire Code which, to be honest with you, has a very limited application to the issue about which he talks. So I would suggest that perhaps he should do a little bit more research on the matter, as we are currently doing.

I can tell him that I have had meetings with Chief Barry Lough on a regular basis. This has come up recently. We have asked for the opinions of the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs, as well, who represent more than just the city of Winnipeg, and we are always continually looking at ways at improving safety in this province. If we can do it, it will be a proposal that I will bring forward to my colleagues.

Home Care Program

Bornstein Contract

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, it was several years ago, approximately the same time of year, that the government denied that they were getting involved with and had a consulting contract with Connie Curran.

Last week, we learned the government is entering into a $100-million contract with the Royal Bank.

My question to the minister is, can the minister confirm that his department is involved with yet another consulting contract with Mr. Joe Bornstein, yet another consultant, to do studies and do consulting in the Home Care department?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I can tell the honourable member that contrary to what I understand he was saying earlier today, there is no contract with Dr. Bornstein, a consultant.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should advise the honourable member that what we have been trying to do and what I have been trying to do ever since taking this position is to make our Home Care program and all of the programs delivered out of the Department of Health more client-focused.

I think that the honourable member should want to share that goal with me. He knows that the Home Care program has grown very, very quickly and very, very large in the last number of years. Indeed in the last seven years, funding for the program has increased by about 93 percent.

As part of our efforts to make this a more client-focused service, we have put in place the Home Care Advisory Panel, as well as the Home Care Appeal Panel, and discussions between the advisory committee and the deputy minister have been ongoing with respect to increasing the effectiveness of Home Care staff in order to provide a more client-focused service.

This came about as a result of the observations of the advisory committee and the appeal panel, the fundamental issue being making our program more client-focused.

Curran Contract

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, as usual, the answer is not very clear, but what I gather from the answer is they have not yet entered into the contract, but, as usual, they intend to improve the system by entering into another consulting contract. That is clearly the gist of the answer.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic. Can the minister then explain, or at least table, the Connie Curran contract on home care, so we can have the previous home care consulting contract to discuss in this Chamber, and so we can know why there is another consultant, yet again, in home care being hired by this government?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member, unfortunately, has not made himself very clear today.

We know that in the past, he has been in direct opposition to a program in Home Care which was of direct benefit to clients, to patients. We know that patients very, very much like that program. It was a Home Care program associated with Seven Oaks Hospital. The clients of that program were very, very positive in their response to that program.

The honourable member, putting his union-boss friends ahead of people who need quality home care services--his loyalty goes with the union boss friends he has, not with the clients of the home care system.

Closure Dates

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister can explain to this House why he has so much money for consultants, and that the Continuing Care Home Care Branch will be closed from December 23 to January 3, offering all of these wide range of services, according to the minister, and why a meeting is being held today to confirm whether all the hospital Home Care branches will be closed from noon the 23rd to the 26th in all of the hospitals and the 3rd, despite the fact that during the holiday season more people get discharged.

Why do they have money for consultants and they do not have money to put into an expanded Home Care program?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member was so concerned about the clients of the home care system, he would have raised this question probably a week or more ago, but knowing that the holiday season is coming and that there is a reduction in demand on the system at around that time, I am surprised that he--

* (1400)

Point of Order

Mr. Chomiak: Just for clarification, I think the minister ought to be reminded I did raise this question, but I had so many questions--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. McCrae: Well, if the honourable member can show me when it was that he raised this question, I would be happy to--[interjection] If he did that, then I would be happy to withdraw what I said.

Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the festive season and of the needs that exist out there, I made inquiries of the department to ensure that home care services will be available to people who need them and that they will be available on an appropriate basis.

So those arrangements are in place, and the honourable member need not use this Chamber as a place where he can scare people in Manitoba about a program that has grown by some 93 percent in the last seven years.

Sugar Industry

Export Restrictions

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, when the U.S. implements its GATT schedule on January 1, our already restricted export access on sugar to the U.S. will be further threatened. Our sugar industry in Manitoba is very threatened.

Instead of free access to the U.S. market because of free trade and GATT, supported by both these parties, we are seeing more restrictions.

The federal Minister of Agriculture is not standing up for the sugar producers in this country. I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) if he has discussed this very important issue with the federal government and what he is proposing we should do to ensure that our sugar industry is protected in this province and in this country.

Hon. James Downey (Acting Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the question is, has the government contacted the federal government, and the answer is yes.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and I, last Friday, were on a conference call with the federal Minister of Agriculture, expressing how concerned we were about the lack of support for the Manitoba sugar industry. I believe, as we speak, the Ministers of Agriculture are possibly dealing with that subject in Toronto.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, given that instead of using dispute settlement mechanisms, the federal Minister of Agriculture has already backed down to the U.S. by accepting caps, I want to ask whether the government has considered lobbying with other provinces and looked at what possible steps could be taken so that the industry is saved.

What other options are there for us to save the sugar beet industry in our country?

Mr. Downey: The question was, if I understood her correctly, are the provinces working together to make sure that the federal government clearly understands how important an issue it is.

Yes, particularly the western provinces, Alberta and Manitoba and British Columbia, which have a very direct interest in the exporting of sugar--particularly Manitoba that produces, processes and puts that sugar into the U.S. market--are working closely together to try to resolve this issue in a positive way, which will, in fact, save an industry which is today threatened.

Ms. Wowchuk: Will the minister admit that the main objective of the Americans was clearly that they wanted unlimited access to our markets because of the changes in NAFTA and the sliding tariffs, but we have had a block of our access, and free trade and NAFTA have failed Canadian sugar producers in this country, and we are going to lose because of an agreement that this government supports?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, without getting into a lot of detail, I believe it was probably in the best interests of the producers in the industry to use the mechanisms that were provided under the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA to put the case before, so that, in fact, it could be adjudicated.

We won on the hog issue. We won on the soft lumber issue. There is no reason why we could not have won on the durum issue and also the sugar issue. There is a mechanism that is provided to resolve these disputes.

Department of Labour

Conciliator's Report Release

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I want to table a series of letters here dealing with the dispute of the Teamsters and Building Products.

Mr. Speaker, these cover a period between 1991 and 1994 when the Teamsters were on strike, and, in particular, they deal with an application brought before the Labour Board by a Mr. David Newman on behalf of the Independent Contractors and Employees' Association for certification as a bargaining unit.

Mr. Speaker, what appears to have happened here is that David Newman was clearly able to write to the Minister of Labour and trigger within 30 days a final report on the Teamsters' dispute from a conciliator who had been on the job for more than a year, enabling Mr. Newman to remove an obstacle for his clients before the Labour Board.

I would like to ask the minister to explain why it took a letter from Mr. Newman for his department to produce that report.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the request was made for a copy of the report. I received a copy of the report from the conciliation officer which basically said--and I would be more than pleased to table it in the House at some future occasion; I do not have a copy with me.

The opinion of the conciliation officer, if my memory serves me correctly, was that this was a dispute that was not resolvable, that he was not able to seek resolution.

Mr. Newman, representing a group of employees, has applied for, I believe, the certification of another bargaining unit. That is an issue to be decided by the Labour Board. They will make a decision based on the facts.

Surely, the member cannot be suggesting in any way that that report should not have been available to anyone who wanted it. It is a very simple report. It is very clear, and I fail to see how giving that information out to anyone, somehow it would be not proper or improper in any way.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure, as the minister is aware, the issue here is the influence of Mr. David Newman within the Department of Labour.

I would like to ask the minister to explain why he wrote to Mr. Newman on November 23 to let him know that the mediator's report was complete and thus the obstacle for Mr. Newman's clients was removed before the Labour Board, and yet the Teamsters Union were not informed until November 29 that the mediator's report on their dispute was complete.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member for Wolseley portrays the scenario events or her reference--I think she does a little bit of ad lib on the letters. Mr. Newman requested a copy of the report. I had received the report. This was a long dispute that was, in the view of our conciliation and mediation services, irreconcilable.

Much effort was put into it on the part of our staff in that department to resolve it. It was not resolvable, and any group of workers--surely the member opposite cannot be implying that a group of workers on that site do not have the right to apply to the Labour Board for certification of another bargaining unit.

If I had had a similar request from another body, we would have provided it, as well. It has always been available upon request, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, again, the issue is the influence of Mr. David Newman within the Labour department. That man received the report before the Teamsters Union who had been in mediation and conciliation for over three years. The minister surely must understand the nature of this question.

I would like to give the minister a final opportunity to reassure the House that there is no special connection between Mr. David Newman and his Department of Labour that would enable Mr. David Newman to have a greater influence than any other Manitoban.

* (1410)

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I very much resent the question from the member opposite.

First of all, let me say that she implies that there is some void of information. Our conciliation and mediation people have spoken regularly to people on both sides. It would surprise me greatly if members of the Teamsters Union did not know verbally what was in that report. It would surprise me greatly if people did not know what the outcome of that report was going to be, that it was an irreconcilable situation. I think anyone involved in it would clearly know that.

The flow of paper, Mr. Speaker--certainly the request came. We complied with the request, and our staff then provided it to both sides. Maybe it took a little longer than perhaps the member would have wanted, but the Teamsters Union was clearly aware of what the content of that particular report was.

I can assure this member that while I have been minister of this department and I believe while this government has been in power, this department has made an extra special effort to be an even hand between both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite that, from time to time, I have had representatives of that same union meet with me who want to discuss matters with me, as well. So I do not particularly accept, in any way, her accusations.

Environmental Protection Legislation

Beverage Containers

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment.

I, too, have learned that the minister intends to use the power as set out in Section 6.2 of the beverage container regulation of The WRAP Act to waive the additional assessment on the manufacturers and distributors of contained beverages for failure to meet the recovery targets.

My question for the minister is, can the minister confirm that over $860,000 was assessed against this industry and explain to the House why this amount is to be forfeited?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the information that the member is referring to is that our multimaterial recycling program was to have been implemented in September, which would have meant that we were part way through the year of implementation.

As the member and the public is well aware, we have encountered a number of obstacles along the way, but the net result is that we are now getting a $5-million contribution from the industry to be topped up from additional levies against newspapers and other products, so I think the end result is quite satisfactory.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Speaker, in response to my question, the minister gives the impression that the beverage industry alone will be contributing $5 million to the new Product Stewardship program.

My question to the minister is, how can he conclude that this two-cent levy is against the industry, when, in fact, it is against the consumer who is also the taxpayer?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone would be so naive as to, in any way, imply that costs do not get passed through. Of course, costs are passed through, whether it is an industry donating to a nonprofit organization or whether it is an industry that has a cost of production.

When we look at the cost of energy, the cost of labour, all of those things are passed through. This is a cost that an industry is paying towards the removal of its waste from the waste cycle in this province.

Whether the industry intends to, for competitive purposes, eat that or whether they will pass it through to the consumer will ultimately be a decision of the industry, but no one should for one minute imply that ultimately the user of a product that creates waste does not end up contributing towards the removal of that waste.

Mr. Speaker, the Used Tire Program is a perfect example where those who are the consumers of the tires which were filling up our landfills are now contributing towards the removal of that product.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Speaker, this is an indefensible position, given that last week the Department of Family Services was crowing about saving--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, with your question, please.

Ms. McCormick: How can the Minister of Environment defend this step when the amount of money that is potentially to be recovered for Manitobans exceeds the amount saved through the snitch line?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the member asks about the pass-through of costs. They have been passing through the costs of the fines that they paid before. I mean, she cannot have it both ways.

Betel Personal Care Home

Construction

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, on June 2 of this year, both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) attended the ground-breaking ceremony for the Betel personal care home on Erin Street. [interjection] I believe the crowing on the part of the government is slightly premature because while it was anticipated that the actual construction of the personal care home was going to be able to begin almost immediately, it is over six months later and not a shovelful of dirt has been taken from Erin Street.

I would like to ask either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health or any of the other members of the government who were so quick to applaud just moments ago, why the delay?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in applauding the support of this government for that sort of development.

I would be happy to look into the present status of the situation for the honourable member and report to her, but there is no question but that this project will be going ahead. I will be happy to make the honourable member aware of the present status.

I am only pleased that--I should not say I am pleased, because it is a little sad to see honourable members opposite who clearly support this sort of thing try to make some mileage out of it by raising it in a negative sort of a way.

We have a very popular and needed development going on here. The honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and members of the Scandinavian community in Manitoba, I think, will be very pleased to see that development.

As I said, I will bring the member up to date on the status of the project.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I agree. It is a popular and needed personal care home, 100-bed personal care home. The problem is that not a shovelful of dirt has been shovelled for that construction yet, over six months. So the ministers were prepared to take all of the--

Mr. Speaker: And the question is? Order, please. Question, please.

Ms. Barrett: The question is, since the Department of Health officials have been working with the Betel Home project since its beginning, what are the reasons for the over six-month delay?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I already told the honourable member I would let her know the status of the project, but while I am doing my research, I would like her to do her research and search her soul as to why it is she and her colleagues voted against this project when they had the opportunity.

Brandon General Hospital

Nursing Shortage

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Health.

On December 8, the Minister of Health stated during Question Period: "Our hospitals are getting better."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, I continue to get complaints respecting the shortage of nurses at the Brandon General Hospital.

Today, I have received a written complaint from a prominent Brandon businessman who was recently discharged from BGH after six days in that hospital, and he states categorically that patient care is suffering because of the shortage of nurses.

Will the minister look into this question at the Brandon General Hospital and ensure that that hospital receives sufficient revenues so that patient care will not continue to suffer?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I certainly hope the honourable member will be kind enough to share with me the detail of the complaint. I, too, receive, like the honourable member, comments about the Brandon General Hospital.

I am happy to report that most comments I get about Brandon General Hospital are about the quality of the care that is received there, the caring attitude of the staff at the Brandon General Hospital. That is the kind of message I get.

If the honourable member has something specific about the stay of a patient at Brandon General Hospital, I should be made aware of that, not necessarily in this House, Mr. Speaker, but if the member wants to do it that way, that is fine.

I guess I should research my files when he was on this side of the House and talk about all the complaints that I received in those days.

* (1420)

Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, this person says that he cannot praise--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are almost out of time. The honourable member for Brandon East, your question.

Mr. Leonard Evans: The nursing staff is terrific. Everyone praises the nurses--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. Order, please. Your mike is not on. Order, please. Hello, hello. There, now we have it. The honourable member for Brandon East, with your question.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Will the minister acknowledge that his government has cut $4 million from the budget of the Brandon General Hospital over the past few years and is now expecting the Brandon General Hospital to cut yet another $4 million, and therefore, it is not surprising that patients, because of the shortage of nurses--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, my office is open. My phone lines are open for people. My mailbox is open for people to let me know about concerns.

The one thing different about the approach that I am using is that back in 1987, when the honourable member closed 30 beds at Brandon General Hospital, the first closure, what happened to the honourable member? The honourable member went into hiding. He hid from his constituents when he and his colleagues closed the first beds at Brandon General Hospital.

Unlike them, I will be available for constituents anywhere in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.