Health Care System
Emergency Services
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.
We have asserted all along that the Department of Health has made the unilateral decision to close the community hospital emergency wards after ten o'clock at night.
The minister has repeatedly in the House answered that this decision was made as the product of consensus between the facilities. Of course we know that Concordia and Victoria for a period of time still remained open until the Department of Health intervened a couple of weeks ago again. We also know that the government has received other information from other facilities.
Madam Speaker, John McFarlane, the director of the Grace Hospital has indicated that it is only a matter of time before lives are endangered by the closing of the overnight situation at the emergency wards.
I would like to ask the minister, did the Grace Hospital agree with the so-called consensus that the minister has indicated here lately in the House?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I would like to check on the time or the day at which Captain McFarlane is reported to have made the comments that he made. Grace Hospital was part of the consensus. I have met with the CEO there and the members of the board, and as far as I am aware, Grace Hospital remains part of the consensus.
Mr. Doer: Captain McFarlane made this statement on October 13, a couple of days after the minister said everything was okay, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I want to table a letter in the House that was dated October 3 from the Grace Hospital's Captain McFarlane that puts forward an alternative plan to the government. It puts forward an alternative plan to keep the emergency wards at the community hospitals open for red and amber ambulance patients in their community, a community plan that takes some of the staffing in the daytime hours and redistributes that staffing into the afternoon and evening hours.
I would like to know why the minister has rejected the plan that was submitted to his department on two occasions.
Mr. McCrae: As I suspected, Madam Speaker, the information the honourable Leader of the Opposition is bringing forward is somewhat--it is from some time ago, and I have since met with Captain McFarlane and representatives of the board of the Grace General Hospital.
The honourable member is incorrect in some of the things he says, but that is not new. That, unfortunately, is reality in this place.
Mr. Doer: The minister has said repeatedly in this Chamber that he had a so-called consensus on the decision that was being made. We have just tabled an alternative proposal from one of our hospitals that gives the government a saving of some $372,000 and also has doctors in emergency wards available for red and amber situations and for neonatal Code 11's, Madam Speaker, which they feel is essential for patient care in this area.
Why has the government rejected a good, common-sense plan, and why has it proceeded contrary to the consensus and contrary to the good ideas coming from community hospitals that are being provided to the Department of Health, Madam Speaker?
Mr. McCrae: I do not like to repeat myself, Madam Speaker, but the honourable Leader of the Opposition is way behind the times.
* (1350)
Lynn Lake, Manitoba
Physician Resources
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My questions are for the Minister of Health.
On May 24, I asked the minister about sufficient medical staff for Lynn Lake, and the minister said: "We are making every resource possible available to resolve those issues before they become critical."
The hospital is considering closing one day a week when it is left with only one doctor next week. I table a document to underscore the urgency of the situation, and I ask the minister will he explain why after five months he was unable to ensure adequate medical staff for Lynn Lake.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, it is our intention to make every effort, working with the community and members of the medical profession, to provide services in underserviced areas. I would be happy to talk further with the honourable member about any further impending problems. There have been problems in the past, and, no doubt, there will be problems in the future right across this country in underserviced areas. So working with department staff and others, we will be happy to direct our attention to any further problems that exist.
Mr. Jennissen: My supplementary question to the minister is, given the urgency of the situation in Lynn Lake, is the minister prepared to establish a higher differential payment to attract doctors to Lynn Lake as has occurred elsewhere?
Mr. McCrae: I would take what the honourable member says as a representation; however, I believe it is only the New Democrats that have come up with the option of placing a whole lot more money on the table. No one that I know of has come up with that suggestion other than the members of the New Democratic Party.
There are other issues involved. If there are monetary issues that are truly part of this issue, that is something that we can look at as well, Madam Speaker.
Mathias Colomb First Nation
Health Concerns
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My final supplementary to the same minister, this time relating to Pukatawagan: What action has the minister taken on Dr. Greg Hammond's report on health issues related to overcrowded housing at the Mathias Colomb First Nation at Pukatawagan?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, in response to concerns raised by the honourable member and others with respect to the situation at Pukatawagan, our department personnel, the Medical Officer of Health's office investigated, reported to me and urged me to urge the federal government to take its responsibility in the area, and that is what we are doing.
Hog Industry
Marketing System
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, hog producers across this province are absolutely shocked and devastated that the Minister of Agriculture has made an arbitrary decision to make the move towards dual marketing when producers and processors have stated very clearly that they want single-desk selling. In fact, the minister has been so arrogant that he has told Manitoba Pork that they can rally, they can protest, they can do whatever they want, but he is going to push this through.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture which corporate agenda is he following. Who is being rewarded by this move by the Manitoba government? Whom is he speaking for, because he is certainly not speaking for the producers and the processors of hogs in this province?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that all Manitobans will be rewarded with the increased level of economic activity that this decision will bring to Manitoba, that it will help the major issues that are being asked every day in this House about health and the necessary funding, that will require the necessary economic support for our universities and for our educational facilities. That is whom I am responding to.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since Schneider's has said they prefer orderly marketing and they are quite happy to buy from Manitoba Pork--they came to Manitoba under an orderly marketing system--will the minister admit that this has nothing to do with jobs, this has nothing to do with rural people and rural communities, but all this is about is the minister pushing forward the right-wing corporate agenda, and we are going to see a further dismantling of marketing boards under this government who said nothing about this in the election?
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, by coincidence, as it happens, I was present and speaking to 500 Manitoba hog producers in the middle of the election at their annual convention in Brandon, and I was asked the specific question that the member for Swan River is asking me now.
I had the integrity, speaking on behalf of this government, that I would not speak out of both sides of my mouth and tell them that this would not happen. I told them that this decision was under consideration. We had a major report authored by Professor Clay Gilson from the Faculty of Agriculture that recommended that we make this step, and I did not choose the political expediency of trying to garner a few votes by telling them what they, in the midst of an election campaign, wished to hear. I am very proud of that, Madam Speaker, and I am proud of my Premier (Mr. Filmon) and I am proud of my government.
I know that some honourable members received the same request during that election. We indicated that this issue was under review. It has been under review, and I had the courtesy of bringing in Manitoba Pork last Monday and telling them directly, not secondhand or thirdhand, that this was the intention of government, and I am proud of that decision.
* (1355)
Ms. Wowchuk: Manitoba Pork has told the minister--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Swan River that there is to be no postamble immediately preceding a final supplementary question. Would the honourable member please pose her question now.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since under trade agreements which this government supported, decisions made on marketing boards will be irreversible, will the minister allow producers to have a vote on the future of marketing boards rather than dictating to them that the marketing board is going to go to a dual system?
Mr. Enns: Firstly, let me take this occasion to genuinely thank all members who contributed in a very lively debate on an agricultural issue yesterday afternoon in this Chamber. We do not too often have the opportunity to debate the most important economic issue that drives the economies of this province.
Madam Speaker, the question of whether or not a referendum or a vote should be held, ample precedent has been set by the New Democratic Party when they were in government, when they, without referendum, without vote, forced 70 percent of the producers who did not want a single-selling desk into a monopoly single-selling desk. I am simply following that precedent.
In the final analysis--and let me make this abundantly clear through you, Madam Speaker, and to the hog producers of Manitoba--I am not dismantling the Manitoba Hog Board. If the Manitoba Hog Board continues to provide service, I encourage every hog producer to continue using it. Quite frankly, I am sure many, many of them will. They will in fact vote with every truckload of hogs that they deliver to the facility of their choice.
Immigration Agreement
Negotiations
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, on October 11 in Question Period, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) stated in the House that immigration, and I quote, "is a serious issue. It is an issue that should be an enormous benefit to the province but, obviously, is a problem because we are not able to obtain the co-operation from the federal government to assist us in solving the problem."
I would like to ask the government today how it can justify the Premier's easily spoken words with their lack of commitment, shown by the fact that at a rally last Saturday sponsored by almost 50 groups representing thousands of Manitobans, not one member of the government benches, neither a minister nor a backbencher, was there to speak out on this issue which the Premier said was of prime importance, and that is the federal government's immigration policies. Where was the government?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, clearly, an immigration agreement with the federal government has been a high priority with our government. There is only one gatekeeper as far as immigration is concerned and that is the federal government in Canada.
We have been trying to work with them over a long-term period to establish an immigration agreement that would allow Manitoba to have more control and more say in the levels and the numbers of immigrants that come to this province. Until very recently, we were not getting a great deal of co-operation from the federal government. In recent meetings there has been some progress. We are being patient with the federal government hoping that they are going to move on this issue in the near future.
I note that later today the federal government will be coming down with their forecast for next year. I am disappointed that their forecast last year was lower than previous years and they have not met that commitment.
* (1400)
Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, given that it has been five and a half years since the Premier's promise in the election of 1990 to have a federal-provincial agreement on immigration, when is this government actually going to stop shifting the blame and responsibility--at which they are past masters, I might add--and take responsibility for effectively speaking out on behalf of Manitobans on this essential issue, particularly in light of no matter how many numbers the federal government comes up with today, there is a likelihood that there is going to be a decreasing number of people coming to Manitoba because of the increasing difficulties that they are facing?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, I suspect that perhaps the honourable member maybe knows that it takes two people to come to an agreement. We have put before the federal government a number of proposals which we think reflect the wishes of Manitobans. We have put before them ideas which would increase the immigration to this province. We have put forward ideas that would help to resolve some of the labour market shortages that we have in Manitoba. All of these have been rejected.
I would remind the honourable member that the federal government, again, is that sole gatekeeper. They are the only government that can make rules and regulations which determine the numbers of immigrants that come into our country. The policy changes that they have made in recent times certainly do nothing to enhance the numbers coming to Manitoba or to Canada.
Manitoba Public Insurance Corp.
Rate Increase
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the minister responsible for MPIC.
Back on February 12 of 1988 the Premier (Mr. Filmon) made allegations that the then NDP government was politically manipulating MPIC in the setting of rates.
My question to the current minister of MPIC is: This year it is 6 percent; the year of the election it was zero percent. I am wondering if the minister can tell us why going into an election it is a zero percent increase and now, right after the election, we are facing a 6 percent increase.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, it is very simple and very obvious for those who wish to look closely at it. There in fact were a series of years when the rates of the corporation were level and contained. More recently the ability to contain those costs was very clearly sought out by this government when we moved forward with no-fault insurance.
Board Membership--MLA for Emerson
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I really could not hear what the minister was saying, so I am going to proceed with the supplementary question, asking the minister: What role does the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) have in being on the MPIC Board? Why does the Conservative government need to have a Conservative MLA sitting on a board that has an impact on decision of what rates are going to be?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): There are two parts to that question. Number one, the member for Emerson has a great deal to contribute given his background, his knowledge and his capabilities, but, secondly, the member knows darn well that the rates are set by the Public Utilities Board. Wake up.
Standing Committee Review
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): The minister is right in his assertion in the sense that the Public Utilities Board sets the rates, but it is MPIC that requests the rates. MPIC requested zero percent in the year leading into the election and now it has requested 6 percent.
Can the minister responsible for MPIC indicate to this Chamber that he is prepared to do what he did when he was critic and ask for the actuaries to come before a standing committee so members of the opposition can question them directly, because we do not have the faith in this government keeping MPIC apolitical?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, all of the actuarial information was made available to the Public Utilities Board. I suspect that the member is trying to avoid the question that when the NDP was in government, they would not allow the rates to go before the Public Utilities Board. We deliberately chose that forum to make sure there was no political interference.
Aboriginal Veterans Day
Government Recognition
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): My question is to the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs.
On Monday, the minister said that he had not had any requests from aboriginal organizations concerning Aboriginal Veterans Day.
Madam Speaker, I would like to table a letter from the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg to him last January, which the minister responded to negatively more than a month later. Why has this minister failed to work with them to once again commemorate Aboriginal Veterans Day?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, I did not say I had had no discussion. What I said to the member, if he would check Hansard, was I had indicated--he was asking me a question about a very specific request about whether or not I had received one for this November 11, and to my recollection I had not, but I am pleased to inform the member for Point Douglas, he perhaps has not been invited or was not aware, but I understand that there are a number of aboriginal veterans celebrations going on during this period.
One is a special powwow, which I understand will be taking place on November 11, I believe at the Aboriginal Centre, and I am sure he is invited to attend, as are all members of the Legislature.
Mr. Hickes: In Monday's Hansard, the Minister of Northern Affairs said, "and to my knowledge, I have not seen a similar request" of any kind.
So I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services, when the Manitoba chapter of the National Aboriginal Veterans' Association requested use of the rotunda area of the Legislature, did he not inform the Minister of Native Affairs of this request, of which they have not received a yes or no yet?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I will take that question as notice.
Mr. Hickes: My next question is to the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs.
Given that the Aboriginal Veterans' Association is proceeding with the commemoration of Aboriginal Veterans Day on November 8 despite the reluctance of the province and this minister, is this minister prepared to reconsider his position and have the province participate in this event, which will now be held at the Aboriginal Centre?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member for Point Douglas tables a letter in the House, he fails to read the first paragraph of this letter which is from Chief Jim Bear and it said: I would like to first thank you for assisting the aboriginal veterans in establishing their own Remembrance Day.
Madam Speaker, despite bringing only half the information to this House half of the time--we worked with the organization in establishing the day. Last year, that particular organization undertook to carry on with the celebrations in the same way. We have been most supportive of that, just as we are with all veterans association. I think, quite frankly, the member for Point Douglas is trying to make an issue where none exists.
* (1410)
Post-Secondary Institutions
Grants in Lieu of Taxes
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, it is clear that this government intends to create its legislated surplus for Bill 2 at the expense of public services which affect every Manitoban. In the case of colleges and universities, the ground has been prepared for an offload of $22 million of grants in lieu of taxes.
I want to ask the Minister of Rural Development, will the minister table his correspondence with colleges and universities outlining the proposed change in policy and its impact on their budgets, or did he choose not to notify them of his plans?
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, as the member knows very well, this bill was tabled in the House in June. I believe at that point in time, I even addressed the bill which indicated this government's position with regard to the intended legislation, but might I add that this is an approach that many taxpayers in this province believe is appropriate. Indeed, universities have always had their grants in lieu paid directly by government to municipalities.
All that we are doing with this bill is ensuring that universities and colleges in our province are accountable for the taxes that are paid on their behalf by the province in terms of grants in lieu to the municipalities.
As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, yesterday, in the bill, the member for Wolseley did acknowledge that she did not know what the grants in lieu were for colleges and had a difficult time finding them. Indeed, through this process, not only will universities and colleges be able to annually review these types of payments on their behalf, but it will be much more clear to members of this Legislature what the grants in lieu for these facilities are.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, it takes one line in the annual report of this department--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Wolseley please pose her supplementary question now.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Rural Development prepared to give a guarantee to this House and to Manitoba families that this offload will not affect the grants and budgets of community colleges and universities already under severe strain and that his government will provide support now and in the future to cover those costs?
Mr. Derkach: Madam Speaker, the member asked the question yesterday in committee with regard to this being an offload, and it is not an offload. Indeed, it is a way of ensuring that universities and our colleges can be accountable for those kinds of expenditures that are made on their behalf and that they can be reviewed on an annual basis, as should be done and as is done by all departments of government.
In addition to that, it allows for the taxpayers to understand also what the true costs of the grants in lieu of taxes on behalf of universities and colleges are in our province.
Madam Speaker, that is simply opening up the process so that indeed all Manitobans will understand where their tax dollars are going to those scarce resources that we have within our province. I do not understand how the opposition could be against anything of that nature.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, will the minister now repeat what he just said, and will he confirm for this House that this is not, will not be and is not intended to be ever, now or in the future, an offload of $22 million onto every community college and every university in this province?
Mr. Derkach: The position of the member for Wolseley is simply irresponsible in terms of the accounting of monies that are paid on behalf of universities in terms of grants in lieu of taxes.
Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing wrong, to ask our universities and our colleges to be accountable for the expenditures that are made on their behalf. Manitoba taxpayers expect that. They expect no less.
Freedom of Information
Spirit of the Act
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is for the Deputy Premier.
We have just received the annual reports of The Freedom of Information Act from the Ombudsman which states, "It was a tough year for our office in carrying out the responsibilities . . . under The . . . Act. In some cases investigations were unnecessarily prolonged, informal resolution of complaints was difficult and misunderstandings about responsibilities under the Act were evident." To conclude, "Our experiences raised questions about the spirit of openness as envisioned by the Act and about the level of commitment to the right of an individual to access government records."
My question for the Deputy Premier is, given this damnation of the government, what plan does the government have to change the spirit of contempt for the people of Manitoba?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that a member of the New Democratic Party which sat on this legislation for I do not know how many years--and it took the election of a Conservative government to bring the legislation in and proclaim it, so that it could be brought into force.
They sat on it for three and a half years, Madam Speaker. It took this government to proclaim it. We have nothing to hide, and we will live up to the spirit of the act as it was introduced.
Review
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question then is to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
In light of that answer, would he then explain why his staff, as directed by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, has failed to report by March 31, 1994, as required by law, on their comprehensive review of The Freedom of Information Act? What is taking so long if you are serious?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I can assure you and the members of the House that the review of the committee that was held on that particular issue is still continuing its work.
Office of the Ombudsman
Position Vacancy
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My final supplementary: Given that there is no ongoing work, at least would the Deputy or the Acting Premier take some leadership and ensure that the Office of the Ombudsman, which has been vacant since January of 1994, almost two years, would he take some leadership and ensure that there is advertising for that position?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take the question as notice.
Louisiana-Pacific
Forest Management Plan
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): My question is for the Minister of Environment.
Together, the oriented strand board plants at Hudson Bay and Minitonas will cause the removal of 1.7 million cubic metres of trees every year in eastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba. The environmental process in Manitoba has been circumvented; therefore, government has no idea of what the impact on the area's ecosystem will be nor the transboundary effects of those projects.
Madam Speaker, I would like to table in the House comments by Environment Canada in regards to Louisiana-Pacific's management plan and environmental impact assessment, and I would like to ask, given the federal government's criticism of L-P's forest management plan, will this minister request a federal environmental review of the transboundary effects of the plants on this ecosystem in eastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba, including the ill effects on migratory birds?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): First of all, Madam Speaker, I reject the member's allegations that the environmental assessment work has been circumvented in this province.
In fact, we have the most rigid environmental assessment and licensing process in Canada because both a forest licensing requirement and an Environment Act licensing requirement are brought to bear on the proponents.
Madam Speaker, I have a high level of confidence in the thoroughness with which the Clean Environment Commission will enter into their work with Louisiana-Pacific as they go through their forest management licence.
Environmental Review
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Will the minister, given Louisiana-Pacific's failure to provide information in its annual operating plan concerning possible fish habitat damage, request the federal Environment minister to conduct a review on the impacts of these OSB plants? If there are no problems, there should be no problem with the review either.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, the member seems to imply that the only legitimate review of programs that have an impact on natural resources is conducted by the federal authorities. Is that the basis of his presentation? Because if that is the basis upon which he wants to have environmental licensing carried out in this province, then he is seriously mistaken.
* (1420)
Forest Management Plan
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): My next question, Madam Speaker, is to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Can the minister explain why Louisiana-Pacific's forest management plan did not include lands selected by First Nations under negotiation, not yet set aside by this government? Why does the minister and this government not use this as one of the five triggers to request a federal review?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I do not know where the member is coming from in terms of asking the federal government to get involved. There is a process, a very adequate process, in place here between my colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) with my department which basically works out a 10-year management plan, a 20-year management plan, where we deal with wildlife, we deal with fisheries, we deal with clear cut, we deal with the whole issue.
This is in the public domain right now. Anybody can go and look at it, and it can be challenged and hearings take place. This is the most effective system that anybody can devise in this country, and we are very proud of it.
Tourism
Government Initiatives
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, today's tourist information data again shows that Manitoba continues to place second worst in Canada on the year to date. While Canada tourism overall has grown by 5.6 percent, Manitoba shrunk by 2.6 percent this year to date.
Will the minister responsible for Tourism describe to this House what he is doing to address this sad situation?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I am not about to accept any of the comments or the figures or the facts that the member for Elmwood continues to bring to the House. The last numbers he brought forward, he tried to leave the impression that the tourism industry was in terrible condition this year versus last year.
Last year, we saw a record increase of people from the United States overnight to Manitoba. This year, he indicated, in his last question on this issue, that our overnight visits were down. Well, our overnight visits were down, but our day visits were basically the same as last year, and it is 8 percent of the tourism activity in the province of Manitoba.
The majority of the tourism activity this year because of our Homecoming Manitoba came from other parts of Canada and from within Manitoba, Madam Speaker. Our tourism industry is very healthy, despite the attitude the member for Crescentwood has put on the record.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister can tell the House whether he has done anything at all to address the very, very negative article in the Canadian Automobile Association magazine of September 1995 by Mr. Phelan, Q.C. in which he criticizes our failure to deal with the Edgerton and other cases at the border, the friendly Manitoba failure.
Has the minister done anything to correct the perception of Canadians created by the Canadian Automobile Association magazine that is so negative and so damaging for our province's tourist industry, Madam Speaker?
Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, this government has done a lot as it relates to the encouragement of people to come to this province. We have frozen all the major taxes, including the sales tax of which we are in competition with the other provinces. We currently have the same sales tax we had when we were elected in 1988. We have removed the payroll tax off of 90 percent of the businesses in this province of which many of them are tourism operators.
Madam Speaker, we have also asked the federal government to make sure that individuals who are trying to come into Canada are fully aware of the rules and regulations that they have to live up to on the entry to Canada. We do not believe in the movement of drugs or prohibitive product coming into this province. We do not believe in breaking federal laws. In fact, we encourage proper information and the laws to be lived up to, as I think the majority of population want.
Workers Compensation
Collateral Benefits
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, in January of 1992, this government implemented Bill 59 and amended The Workers Compensation Act, penalizing injured workers and their families in several ways. One such penalty involved deducting collateral benefits such as Canada Pension Plan disability from WCB wage-loss payments that were going to injured workers.
I want to table a copy of the Canada Pension Plan, old age security act and Pension Benefits Act for the minister's information as it applies directly to the question.
Can the minister responsible for the WCB explain why the WCB is deducting from claimants' wage-loss cheque payments, Canada Pension Plan payments of a contributor's child benefit that is supposed to be paid to the child? Why is the minister deducting that child benefit from the payments going to the injured worker, Madam Speaker?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): Madam Speaker, once I figure out what the question is, I will ask the board for an explanation of that, and I will take it on notice.
Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Reid: When the minister figures out what he is in charge of here, Madam Speaker, will he undertake to investigate this matter and to make the necessary refunds for those monies that are being illegally deducted from the injured workers of the province of Manitoba, which the Compensation Board has been deducting from these people?
Mr. Toews: I have indicated to this House, Madam Speaker, that I would take notice of the question and make inquiries.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order with regard to timing of Question Period, throughout Question Period--and I realize it is the appropriate thing--you have not recognized members while there have been exchanges back and forth, but our caucus is quite concerned that disruptions by government members have resulted in us not being able to ask questions and that time not being added on to Question Period, and I would like to ask for a ruling on that.
We certainly feel it is appropriate that the House be called to order, but if government members are the members that continue to exchange comments across the floor, we do not feel that it is fair to deduct that from Question Period time.
I would like to ask perhaps if you could rule on that, Madam Speaker, and we certainly understand once again your role in Question Period in attempting to bring order, but we do not think that government members speaking from their seats should prevent us from asking questions.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I believe on several occasions I have reminded all members on both sides of the House when it is difficult to maintain order and members do not stop the constant bantering back and forth when the Speaker is on her feet that indeed the clock is running.
However, I will take the matter raised by the honourable member for Thompson under advisement, and I will report back to the House if necessary.