LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, February 20, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Dave
Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I
beg to present the petition of Ronald Santos, Karen Jensen, Sharon Provak and
others, requesting the government to show its strong commitment to dealing with
child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse
campaign.
Ms. Judy
Wasylycia‑Leis (
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The
Communities Economic Development Fund Act, and responsible for A. E. McKenzie
Co. Ltd.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Communities Economic Development Fund Annual Report for the year 1990‑91,
and also the A. E. McKenzie Co. Ltd. for the year ended October 31, 1991.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Third Quarterly Report, nine
months ending December 31, 1991, The
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): I would like to table
the 1990‑91 Annual Report of the Department of Labour.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 46‑The Jury Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House,
I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
that Bill 46, The Jury Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jures), be
introduced and the same be now received and read a first time.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) have leave?
No. Leave is denied.
*
(1335)
Mr.
McCrae: Perhaps if I try again, Mr.
Speaker, honourable members of the New Democratic Party will come to their
senses.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Bill 47‑The Petty Trespasses Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): With the leave of the
House, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 47, The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la
Loi sur l'intrusion), be introduced and the same be now received and read a
first time.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) have leave?
Leave is denied.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of all honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Recommendation Implementation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this Chamber and all parties have
discussed the creation, the workings and the action of the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry in the
This inquiry was, by all accounts, one of
the most thorough investigations and consultations with aboriginal people
across
The report was really a condemnation of
governments past, whether they be federal, provincial, in the administration of
our justice system when it concluded, and it started its report that justice
system has failed
Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue that over
125 years of history is the responsibility, accountability of government
opposite, nor is it the responsibility of this side. It is our collective responsibility in terms
of the aboriginal justice system, the aboriginal economic and social conditions
that are within our province.
I would ask the government then, why did
the government take such a weak‑kneed approach to the aboriginal justice
system? Why did it not endorse many of
the principal recommendations in that report?
Why did it in fact just give us four technical committees and three
subcommittees rather than a principled stand on fundamentally changing the
justice system in our province as recommended in the report?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable
Leader of the Opposition has asked an extremely lengthy question but suggests
in his question that the government of
If the honourable Leader of the Opposition
had been paying attention on the day that the government responded to the
report, late in January, he would have seen that we indeed are endorsing many
meaningful recommendations made by the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. We propose to move on those recommendations,
which we have accepted.
*
(1340)
We want to do that with the help and co‑operation
of the aboriginal organizations that we have referred to. We have put forward that invitation, and we
propose to move forward. We propose not
to get bogged down with the eternal rhetoric that seems to form the aboriginal
justice policy of the honourable Leader of the Opposition and his
colleagues. For example, the honourable
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) suggests that each and every single
recommendation in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report ought to be followed
just as it is laid out. We do not accept
that approach. That is the approach of
the New Democratic Party, which is quite inconsistent with their position taken
with respect to the task force on the Constitution.
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Recommendation Implementation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General, when he released the report in August of last year, said, and
I quote, after explaining that we have done too many things for aboriginal
people he now intends to work with aboriginal people. Those were the comments of the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General in August.
Yet at the press conference in January, the
committee chaired by the Deputy Premier, the government rejected a joint
partnership strategy to implement the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry, the recommendations for an aboriginal justice committee that would
work in joint partnership with the
I would ask the Deputy Premier, why did you
reject the opportunity and the recommendation to have a partnership with
aboriginal people, as recommended by commissioners Sinclair and
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs, responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say to the
Leader of the Opposition that we have enjoyed over the past three to four years
a good working relationship with the aboriginal community as it relates to not
only the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, which was mandated to do two specific
things, and that was to look into the J.J. Harper and the Helen Betty Osborne
incidents, which were both very unfortunate situations.
What we have offered is in principle not
unlike a justice commission. The working
groups are an invitation for the different representatives from the aboriginal
community to join with our departments and move forward on those
recommendations that are in fact accomplishable. That is the path and the process which we
have established. We are waiting for the
aboriginal people to bring forward the names of the individuals whom they want
to sit on those working committees.
It is time for action, not further study,
as my colleague the Minister of Justice has said many times.
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Recommendation Implementation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government totally misses the
partnership recommendation of the commission's report from Sinclair and
Hamilton, totally misses the idea of a difference between a partnership in our
justice system and advisory groups that the government will establish and
disestablish as they so choose when they so choose.
I have a final supplementary question to
the Deputy Premier. The report fairly thoroughly criticized the police
investigation dealing with the J.J. Harper shooting and came out with some very
strong recommendations to have an independent‑‑an independent‑‑process
dealing with shootings of citizens and any of the police forces of
Again, and I ask this to the Deputy
Premier: Why did the government, in
light of the statements that they wanted to proceed with action, not proceed
with an independent decision and an independent process for police
shootings? They have had the report for
eight months. The report is very
thorough on this issue. Why are we again
just consulting on this issue? Why is
the government not taking decisive action in this very, very crucial area?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): We have taken decisive action and, in fact,
the intent of that particular recommendation has been in effect since the
shooting incident in
Aboriginal Justice System
Government Position
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission of
There are already other systems in
operation, such as the Quebec Civil Code, the American tribal court systems,
the Canadian military systems operating in
Will this minister tell this House: After he endorsed the
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable
member again surprises me as a member of the task force, an all‑party
task force which came out with‑‑
Mr.
Lathlin: You endorsed the inherent
right to self‑government.
Mr.
McCrae: Well, I cannot quite hear
myself when the honourable member for The Pas wants to continue asking his
question from his seat, but I think he is finished now, and maybe I can
proceed.
*
(1345)
I have trouble with the NDP policy of
advocating separate societies and separate systems when we have taken an all‑party
unanimous task force position that the inherent right to the self‑government
of aboriginal people ought to be exercised within the Canadian Constitution and
that all Canadians are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When the honourable member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes) suggests that aboriginal people ought to have their own charters,
that means 61 charters in the
Point of Order
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): On a point of order, if the minister is
referring to my comments to the aboriginal appointed Members of Parliament, no
wonder he does not know how to deal with‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
Child Abuse Allegations
Justice Department Investigation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, on Monday night, during debate,
I very clearly overheard the Minister of Justice‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, kindly put your
question now, please.
Mr.
Lathlin: I ask the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General, because he has accused band chiefs of a coverup,
will he now agree to conduct an inquiry into allegations of a coverup of child
abuse and spousal abuse on the reserves, as has been repeated in a request by
the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable
member is totally wrong. I have never
accused him or anyone else of a coverup.
If the honourable member is referring to an exchange across the floor,
then maybe we could discuss that exchange.
I would be pleased to do that. I
certainly did not accuse anybody of a coverup.
There were recently serious allegations,
though, involving potential obstruction in the case of some child abuse cases
in
Judicial System
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker is: Will the Attorney General, the Minister of
Justice, order the court to start having hearings in
I ask the minister today: Will he order the courts to be held in
*
(1350)
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable
member raises a matter that has been raised with me by the leadership of the
community of
Conawapa Dam Project
Renegotiation
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of mines and energy.
Evidence continues to mount that the
Ontario Hydro sale on Conawapa is not in the best interest of
Earlier this month Ontario Hydro cancelled
or deferred 53 new power stations that were going to be built in conjunction with
the private sector. Mr. Speaker, the
$260,000‑a‑year chairperson, Marc Eliesen, indicated at that time
that
My question for the minister of mines and
energy is: Can he tell the House whether
the
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): A couple of things, Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the member to refer to the ministry as the ministry as it is, that is the
ministry of Energy and Mines.
As far as the business community is
concerned, I would like to refer to a letter which I received yesterday from
the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I will
just quote one brief paragraph: I would
like to apologize for the impression left that the Winnipeg Chamber does not
support Conawapa. We have never taken
that position, signed by the president of the
I would as well like to say, Mr. Speaker,
that I have not received any direct contact from Ontario Hydro since I have
been in the ministry of Energy and Mines. I have not been in direct contact. However, I will check with Hydro as to
whether or not there has been a meeting requested with Manitoba Hydro. To this date, I have no knowledge of them
wanting to back out of the deal that was signed between the Premier of Manitoba
and the Premier of
Mr.
Edwards: From
My question for the Minister of Energy and
Mines is: Has he or officials of
Manitoba Hydro considered the possibility that Ontario Hydro's failure, to his
knowledge, to contact himself or Manitoba Hydro about renegotiating this deal,
in view of the fact that they are cancelling 53 new power stations, is a clear
signal that Ontario Hydro knows full well the extent of the good deal, the
sweetheart deal it got from
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, first of all,
as far as Ontario Hydro workings are concerned and the decisions they make, it
is not the business of the
As we have said, it has to go through the
strictest of environmental process, and it will. The Public Utilities Board has said that it
is a good deal for the people of
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker, will the
minister now use the legal opinion which we placed on his table yesterday as
leverage, the only leverage he has at this point, to renegotiate this deal? Let
me just quote again the former minister's statement: Given‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, I am not a
lawyer, and I do not pretend to be a lawyer, like some individuals in this
Assembly who have just asked the question.
What I do want to say is that I have referred the letter, the so‑called
legal opinion, from the Liberal Party that was tabled yesterday, I have
forwarded that to
Point of Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, so‑called legal
opinion? Is the minister questioning
that it was a legal opinion? Is that
what he is saying‑‑
*
(1355)
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Downey: I have referred the
document that was tabled by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs)
yesterday to Manitoba Hydro for their response, as she and all members of this
House know that it is governed by a board of directors which is appointed by
government and managed by a competent group of managers. I am waiting for the response from those
individuals.
Department of Environment
Work Order Enforcement
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, recently we have learned of a
number of incidents where the Department of Environment seems to have trouble
enforcing work orders to deal with hazardous waste.
First, we have a family in Stonewall with
PCBs in their back yard that used to be part of a municipal golf course, and
the minister has reversed and retracted a work order ordering the municipality
to clean up the contamination.
I want to ask the Minister of
Environment: What is this family
supposed to do? Will his department take
responsibility for cleaning up the PCBs and protecting this family?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the approach of the department
has always been to make sure that the responsible parties look after the
cleanup, and we have been working with the community, the municipality and with
Manitoba Hydro. We have obtained a
considerable amount of storage for some of the contaminated soil, and I believe
that we will get that problem corrected.
Ms.
Cerilli: Can the minister clarify,
what were the specific reasons for retracting this work order?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, speaking to
the specifics of that order, I will have to get further information from the
department.
Prime Oil Company
Environmental Work Order Extension
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): For my final supplementary, I would like to
ask the minister similarly how the Prime Oil company in St. Boniface has been
stalling for two years on its work order.
Can the minister give some commitment that there will not be an
extension for this work order?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): The Prime Oil facility has been putting a
number of proposals before the Department of Environment. Obviously, the reason they received an order
recently is because we are starting to run out of patience. There is a meeting coming up very shortly and
I will not preclude what discussions will flow from that meeting.
Home Care Program
Reductions
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
A man in Winnipegosis had his three hours a
week cut completely. Other people had
their workload, their hours cut in half.
Home Care support workers and health care attendants have had much
reduction.
How can the Minister of Health say there
are no reductions to the Home Care in light of these serious cutbacks in hours
throughout the
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I would very much appreciate receiving some further detail
of these issues from my honourable friend.
As I pointed out to I think the official Health critic for the official
opposition, Tuesday of last week, I have to say that I erred in some of the
information I provided to my honourable friend.
It is not just a $6‑million increase in spending on Home Care this
year over last. In fact, it is $8
million more spending.
Alternative Services
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Will the Minister of Health tell this
House, if there are no cutbacks to Home Care, why the public health nurses and
Home Care co‑ordinators are providing clients with lists of people whom
they can hire after their Home Care hours have been cut?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
You know, I would be very much pleased if my honourable friend would
provide a little bit of detail. She
might even consider contacting my office and providing me‑‑if she
does not want to, or have the authority to share individual names. I can understand that in Question Period.
In the past, my honourable friend the
Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) used to send names of people into
my office with concerns about Home Care.
In investigating those individuals' circumstances, we found out that the
individual had no idea the New Democrats were going to be bringing their name
to any particular complaint, because they had none.
*
(1400)
I am not saying that is the case today,
because I am not dealing with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, I am
dealing with the member for Swan River.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend the member for Swan River
that the support services for seniors in Swan River, in Dauphin and in many
communities has been put in place to provide services to seniors to aid in
their independent living. We put in
support from this government to assure that is happening, and when those
services are available in the community, naturally we wish to have it known to
potential clients that those services are available.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would be
happy to provide the names of many workers and clients who have had their
workload reduced and their hours of service reduced.
Can the minister tell us what provisions
are being put in place to ensure that these people who are having their home
care reduced or taken away from them, who are living alone and cannot afford to
hire someone from the private sector, what assurances are put in place that
these people are going to be looked after, and they are not going to be at
risk?
Mr.
Orchard: The same kinds of
assurances that have existed in the policy of the Home Care program since its
inception circa 1973. An assessment is
made by professionals who are employed by the Department of Health in terms of
determining the needs of the individual to remain living independently. Those services are provided by the
department. It may be nursing services,
or it may be a range of services. They
are provided, will continue to be provided and are being provided all across
the province, including in my honourable friend's constituency.
Urban Hospital Council Report
Tabling Request
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): My question is for the Minister of Health.
The Urban Hospital Council has for months
been conducting a far‑reaching study of possible health care
reforms. Some of the proposals on the
table are deeply controversial, and some are quite dangerous. The proposals have been in the form of public
debate for some months now, yet the Minister of Health has refused many times
to support his own views and positions on that table.
Can he table the final seven reports of the
Urban Hospital Council so that at least we and the public can make a judgment?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): When I receive the final recommendations from
the Urban Hospital Council, as I have consistently said to my honourable
friend, I will make those available.
My honourable friend wants to know what the
policy is that I have as Minister of Health.
That policy is one of involving as much consultation, as much input by
the experts in the health care system, the professionals who administer, manage
and deliver services in our health care system in being partners and having the
opportunity for input of their knowledge and expertise in changing the way we
approach health care delivery in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend has
agreed with the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, that circumstance is
indeed unique in this province compared to all other provinces.
Health Care System Reform
Services to
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell
this House what this government's policy is on one of the very dangerous
recommendations by the Urban Hospital Council, which is chaired by his deputy
minister, as regards to Manitobans selling their tax paid health care system to
Americans for fee services so that our patients will not be getting
services? It is a very dangerous
proposal and must be rejected.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, if he was
listening to Mr. Jack Litvack, who is chairing that particular issue study
group, will know that the Urban Hospital Council itself has not received any
recommendations from the study group which is investigating that issue. Lest my honourable friend sort of fall off his
normal, reasonable approach to being critic of Health and join the official
opposition Health critic in sort of wild and woolly rhetoric, let me reiterate
for my honourable friend what I have said all along, that no Manitoban will be
compromised by any sale of health care if recommended by the Urban Hospital
Council. That is the assurance the Urban Hospital Council is operating under
and that is the assurance that I am giving my honourable friend, because I
would not accept any recommendation which would do otherwise.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell this House whether his refusal today to say yes or no to this
very dangerous proposal is not in agreement with his Premier (Mr. Filmon) who
said, on November 19 on CJOB radio, no to selling health care to
Americans? Can he tell whether he is in
charge of this proposal or his Premier?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I
could rhetorically ask the question of my honourable friend, did he develop the
policy articulated by his Leader in Minnedosa where they were going to kick 40
percent of the people out of the personal care homes or was that his Leader off
on her own?
Mr. Speaker, this government, when it
accepts a policy in health care and enunciates it, it is a policy of the
government of
Selkirk Mental Health Centre
Forensic Unit
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, last year
when I asked the Minister of Health what his government's long‑term plans
were for the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, he indicated that: the discussions are proceeding, I think,
reasonably well with the federal government and do involve the Selkirk Mental
Health Centre as a potential site for high‑security forensic beds. Mr. Speaker, I have received correspondence
that clearly indicates that the project is now in jeopardy, that the federal
government is reducing their involvement in the planning process and they are
not proceeding with a cost‑shared facility.
Will the Minister of Health now come clean
to this House and to the people of Selkirk about the status of this promised
forensic facility?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend has at least
a partial knowledge of the issue. Indeed, this is a project which the
That is why I say, the federal government
must be partner of any solution. As I
stand today, I do not have a commitment from the federal government. I did not have that six months ago when my
honourable friend was informed that was the direction we were taking. We are still pursuing that with the federal
government. I cannot answer to my honourable friend today whether I will be
successful in persuading the federal government to commit resources to an
obligation they have in partnership with the
Mr.
Dewar: Mr. Speaker, since it is
clear from the correspondence that the minister was aware that the federal
government was pulling out of negotiations for the forensic unit at Selkirk,
will he tell this House why he misrepresented the status of those negotiations
when I raised this issue last December?
Point of Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask you to call the member to order in his question. He makes the fact or he tries to make the
point that, indeed, a member of this government has misrepresented other
members of this House. That is a very
serious allegation and charge, and I would ask the member to either prove it or
to withdraw it categorically and very quickly.
Indeed all members of this House are to treat the actions and the words
of other members in a very courteous fashion.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader does
not have a point of order. The word
quite clearly is ruled in Beauchesne as parliamentary. The honourable member did not say deliberate.
*
* *
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I simply want
to say to my honourable friend the member for Selkirk that he ought to be a
little more careful in his accusations in this House. It does not do his constituents very proud
when their member is not being exactly honest.
I would not say deliberately dishonest, because that would contravene
the rules. I simply want to tell my
honourable friend that this government is pursuing the federal government for a
commitment to high‑security forensic facilities in the
I will repeat my answer for my honourable
friend so he has it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that we have not received a
commitment from the federal government to participate, nor have we had the
federal government say to us, no, we will not participate.
I am not willing to give up, as my honourable
friend would appear to be, in pursuing the federal government, because I think
they will understand their obligation. I
believe we might have some success persuading them to be an investor in this
program that is in part mandated because of federal statute.
*
(1410)
Mr.
Dewar: I would like to table a
letter, Mr. Speaker, from M.J. Duggan which clearly states, and I quote‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mr.
Dewar: Will the minister tell us why
it took him over three months to respond to the federal government's letter,
which indicates that they will not participate in the cost‑shared
agreement?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
apologize for federal government tardiness in decision making, but we are going
right to the federal minister, because this may ultimately end up being a
federal cabinet decision.
That is why I say to my honourable friend,
I have not given up, as the New Democrats have, in achieving some participation
by the federal government. When I get a
definitive answer, not from a bureaucrat but from the minister responsible, I
will then come to this House and say, the federal government will not be a
partner. I am not able to say that,
because I believe that the federal cabinet may wish to be partners in this
arrangement.
Community Colleges
Student Appeal Process
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, due process is a cherished part of our freedoms, due process in our
courts. It would seem that it would be
equally appropriate that there should be due process in our community colleges.
Will the Minister of Education tell this
House why students who appeal before the student and faculty appeal board are
not allowed to be present when evidence presented against them is being given?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I take the question of the
member very seriously. I will look into
the process at the community colleges, the process of appeal. I will bring the information back to the
House.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I do
recognize that this is a very new and inexperienced minister. However, this case has been before her for 48
hours.
I want to know why, when at the
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Carstairs:
Mr. Speaker, we are speaking about a
young woman who has been denied access to the continuation of her academic
program. The minister has known about
this for 48 hours.
I want to know why this young woman cannot
hear the tapes of evidence presented against her in her appeals process.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, it is a very
serious matter. As I said to the member,
I will look into it and I will look into the time frame also. Anxieties of young people are of great
concern to me also.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, at the University of
Will I now get an agreement from the
minister that she will insist that the community colleges bring their appeal
processes into line with due process granted at our universities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the process
currently used at
Service Reduction
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).