LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
March 5, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member. It conforms with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it
conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House
with copies for all members and a copy of a working group report on breast
cancer screening.
When I became Minister of Health, I made a
commitment that the most fundamental concern of my ministry would be to improve
the health status of Manitobans and that I would see that resources were
appropriately targeted to those Manitobans who were most at risk of ill
health. In that context, I recognized
that women's health would be one of the highest priorities for my ministry. That is why we created the Women's Health
Directorate and why we gave women's health a high profile in the healthy public
policy programs division of the ministry.
I made another commitment that we would
not simply keep doing things in the same old way. We would not continue along the all too
familiar pattern where planning for health care is distracted by emotion, by
inaccurate information and by inadequate research.
I am pleased to provide you with the
Report of the Working Group on Breast Cancer Screening. The work done by the Working Group on Breast
Cancer Screening challenges the old approach and is based on sound scientific
data, analysis and research. This
scientific data may make some people uncomfortable, but I have a responsibility
to respond to the valid conclusions of scientific research.
I made the commitment that the new
initiatives and programs of the ministry would receive priority on the basis of
the evidence for their effectiveness in terms of improving the health status of
Manitobans. I have attempted to ensure
that I have received the best and most expert evidence‑based advice as
the basis for reforming the health care system.
For example, that is why I established the Manitoba Centre for Health
Policy and Evaluation and why I called together the high‑profile
professionals to advise me on one of the most critical women's health issues,
breast cancer screening.
Every year, in
One year ago, in January 1991, the
ministry convened a working group to address the issue of breast cancer
screening and to provide a report and recommendations to me on the advisability
of instituting mass mammography screening in Manitoba. The report of the working group is based on
work conducted by an ad hoc technical committee struck in 1989 in response to
events in other jurisdictions and in response to changing patterns of practice
in
It should be emphasized that a mixture of
clinical mammographies and screening mammographies is already occurring in
*
(1335)
The membership of the working group was
carefully chosen to represent the best available expertise on breast cancer
screening in
The rest of the working group consisted of
13 representatives from medical oncology, surgery, radiology, pathology, the
Manitoba Medical Association, the
I will not read the list of membership of
the committee, but I am sure all members of the Chamber would like to thank the
dedicated professionals for their advice and the many hours of work spent on
researching to present the report that I am tabling today, Mr. Speaker.
This group has spent the last year
intensively reviewing the current research on the benefits, risks and
limitations of mass screening with mammography.
It has also looked carefully at mammography programs that have been
established in Europe, the
Women themselves have been asking for
clarification of the breast screening issues, and measures are currently
underway to provide them with up‑to‑date balanced information about
the risks, benefits and limitations of mammography screening. The Women's Health Branch will work with
women's health agencies and others in educating women about breast screening.
Access to women who, in conjunction with
their health care providers, choose periodic screening will be in no way
affected by this report, and diagnostic services will remain available as
usual. We will place special emphasis to
ensure that women who are in high‑risk categories will continue to have
access to screening and diagnostic services.
What this working group has found is that many questions remain to be
answered about the effects of mammography screening.
*
(1340)
The earlier optimism and hoped‑for
benefits are not convincingly supported by the evidence at this time. Women under age 50 do not appear to benefit
from periodic screening with mammography in terms of reduced mortality, and the
benefits to women over age 50 are still being determined. The extent of problems that may result from
mammography, such as false negative results and false positive results are just
beginning to be understood. We also do
not know the risk from additional exposure to X‑rays posed by the
screening.
The working group has recommended that no
program be established this year until there is further evidence of benefit to
women from mass screening. Studies such
as the Canadian National Breast Screening Study in which
I would like to announce action the
ministry is taking in response to the report of the working group. First, by summer, we will launch an
educational campaign to educate women about breast cancer and to educate health
professionals on the risks and benefits of the options available for breast
cancer screening.
Secondly, in addition, in conjunction with
the Centre for Evaluative Clinical Sciences in
I will shortly announce the establishment
of a breast cancer screening advisory group with appropriate membership to
monitor evidence regarding breast cancer screening. In particular, one of the first tasks of the
group will be to review the results of the Canadian National Breast Screening
Study which are expected to be released this spring. The group will also continue to monitor and
reassess the appropriate options for breast cancer screening and prevention so
that we can take immediate action as new evidence becomes available.
Fourth, the ministry will continue to
support and encourage national and
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): I appreciate the opportunity to put some
comments on record in response to the Minister of Health's statement on breast
cancer, and I begin on behalf of our caucus by thanking the minister, this
government, and the working group who have devoted considerable time delving
into a most critical issue for women, that of breast cancer. We appreciate the focus that this minister
and this government have given to this issue, and we appreciate this update
report.
As the minister has said, this is a very
scary issue for over half the population of our province and our country. By the minister's own statistics, in 1989, there
were 157 deaths and 655 diagnosed cases of breast cancer. That is a very scary thought for all of us,
Mr. Speaker, for all the women in this House, in this province, in this
country. By the minister's other
statistics in our Estimates debates, he has indicated that one in 11 women in
this country are struck with breast cancer.
That means one of us in this House can face that prospect at any
time. It is scary, and it needs urgent
attention.
*
(1345)
The minister has indicated that he recognizes
the urgency of the problem. It is urgent
because we are getting so many different mixed messages about how to detect,
how to treat and how to deal with breast cancer. The minister has appropriately addressed the
mixed message we are getting.
I, for one, was very concerned and took a
very adamant position in Estimates that this government was breaking its
promise reiterated in a couple of Speeches from the Throne about the need to
have a breast screening mammogram. I
remember yelling from the rooftops and going after the minister like crazy
about the lack of action on this issue.
He pointed out to me some of the studies that were coming in indicating
that this technology may not be as foolproof and as sound a piece of technology
as we had originally thought.
However, there are still mixed messages
out there, as the minister knows, and women like us do not know what to do in
terms of getting tested. Some reports
have indicated that the breast screening mammogram has increased the chances of
cancer among women by a considerable percentage. Other studies show that the mammogram has, in
certain age categories, improved or reduced deaths among women from breast
cancer by 20 percent. There is confusion
and uncertainty, and a need to deal with it urgently.
I trust that this minister's statement
today will be backed up by resources allocated in next week's budget. I trust there will be staff and resources
pulled together to ensure this wide‑sweeping, massive education campaign
to tell women about the need to get involved in self‑examination, to get
good physical examinations on a regular basis and to study the relationship to
diet, stress and physical environment. I
am concerned that this be done on an urgent basis, and I am concerned about a
number of other women and health issues.
The minister has addressed in the past the
question of Depo‑Provera, an injectable contraceptive for which there are
rumours that it will be imminently approved by the federal drug protection
agency. The minister has indicated he is
prepared to fight that kind of approval, but we are asking him today if he will
fight the use of that injectable contraceptive among vulnerable target groups
in our population, right now in the
We know that only about 3 percent of all
medical research funds goes toward dealing with women's health issues. That is a very small percentage for over half
the population. We have had the
discussions before about what would be an appropriate allocation, and I would
like today to use this opportunity to suggest that, for too long, the health of
women has been treated as a very secondary second‑class issue, that in
fact, many times, women have been treated as guinea pigs for the purposes of
trying out and advancing certain products when it comes to contraception or
breast implants.
Everyone in this House knows full well the
horror stories around the Meme breast implant and contraceptives like Depo‑Provera,
where women have been used as guinea pigs.
We have a saying on this side of the House that, if men could get
pregnant, perhaps a lot more money would be devoted to research into
contraceptives.
I would conclude by saying, once again,
commendations and congratulations to this minister, and particularly to the
members of his working group, who have put long hours into this very important
issue of breast cancer screening. We
look forward to being updated with respect to this study, these inquiries and
reviews. We look forward to this issue
being treated on an urgent basis. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the
government for this step. In 1988, in
our campaign, and 1990 campaign, that was one of the issues. During the discussion between 1988 and 1990,
in all the Health Estimates, that was one of the major issues that all the
parties discussed, and we asked the minister to look at the issue very
carefully.
I think we should learn from this very
good example, that the data which has been given to us today‑‑and
we do not have the time to review the whole process, but it is a good example
that we should look at the data very carefully in terms of developing a major
policy which is going to have a long‑term impact, and not just follow one
example in one part of the world or the other part of the world and just jump
on the policy conclusions. This is a
very important issue and is one of the examples where we can develop a long‑term
policy.
*
(1350)
Also, how the health policy centre has
been helpful in this issue, that again emphasizes the point that we must be
very careful in health policies to develop a policy which will save us money in
the long run. This is one example which
will not only save money, but most importantly, it will help more than 50
percent of our population. I think it is
a very serious matter that this cancer in women is one of the leading causes of
death in this country. For an industrialized
nation to be worried about such a major issue and not do analysis, I think, is
very sad, but now the governments are realizing, and Manitoba has taken the
lead.
I am sure the other provinces can learn
from us, because we have data, we have individuals who have worked very hard,
and they will continue to develop a policy which will help in the long run.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce
again that the other aspect which is very important in our health care policy
is the education of the public and the education of this particular group, to
teach them that we have this health risk problem. Then each and every person knows the risk
factors, and that can be dealt with in terms of health care professionals as
well as through the Department of Health.
The minister should take a positive
stand. They have taken in fact one part,
to have a video developed explaining to the women of
Finally, I would like to pay our special
thanks to the group in this particular section which has worked very hard. They are very knowledgeable people, and they
have no political bias, another good example of how the people of
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from St. John's‑Ravenscourt, thirty‑five Grade 9
students, and they are under the direction of Mr. Einarson. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Clean
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the
Minister of Environment.
The new Environment Act passed in 1988 or
proclaimed in 1988 provided for a public process and an open process for
licensing for all new proposed forest management plans in the province of
Manitoba. The government has followed
through on the legislation with the Clean Environment Commission hearings and
report that is now in the hands of the government and now before the public.
There are a number of key recommendations in that report that have a great deal
of significance for the people of
I would ask the Minister of Environment,
dealing with specific recommendations in the report, dealing with Nopiming Park
and the recommendation asking the government to cancel all commercial forestry
activity in all provincial parks in terms of a phased‑out way, whether
the government is going to support that recommendation before the ministry, or
is it going to act in a contrary way to the recommendations?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the
member is correct in stating that this report identifies an issue that has been
in front of the public for a number of years in this province, going back to
the time when he and his colleagues were the government of this province as
well, an issue that is one that frankly this government welcomes a further
debate on, and we look forward to an open discussion and a process that will
allow public input on the policy issues that are raised around this particular
recommendation.
There were a number of recommendations
regarding the future use of park lands.
Mr. Speaker, it is not an issue from which we intend to shy away from.
I would remind the member of the process
under which these recommendations are dealt with. The director within the Department of
Environment will deal with those portions of the recommendations that are the
responsibility of the department. In the broader policy issues, we look forward
to an open and public process of discussion and in fact, following very much
along the lines that were recommended in the report.
*
(1355)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have had the open public
process with the licensing process. I
would remind the minister that the Premier even got involved, Premier Pawley,
in 1985, in the Atikaki Park, in stopping the logging that was granted by a
licence in 1979, stopping the logging in that wilderness park and negotiating
with the company for alternative wood supply outside of that wilderness park.
The question is, Mr. Speaker, what is the
government going to do on those major recommendations? I recognize that they are broad policy
issues, as the minister has indicated, but he has not told us today in the
House where the government stands.
I would ask the minister another specific
question. In 1989, I wrote the minister
recommending a process of stakeholders' involvement in many of these licensing
and monitoring processes. A similar recommendation has been provided to the
minister in this Clean Environment Commission report, calling on the government
to establish a stakeholders' advisory committee to not only advise the
government and stakeholders on the various resources and issues at stake, but
also to monitor the conformity of the company and the province to the terms of
the licensing agreement.
I would ask the minister, will he follow
through on that recommendation, a recommendation, quite frankly, that has been
before the minister for a number of years on dealing with forest management
plans?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the
Opposition raising that question because, as a matter of fact, that is a
process that has been written into and used in a number of situations already
in this province. We have involved
advisory committees in the Oak Hammock licence.
We have had advisory committees in relationship to operations with Repap,
a number of examples where that type of process is used. The member knows the process probably as well
or better than I do. I would think that
he should recognize that to ask me to respond definitively to certain
conditions that may or may not be in the licence as written by the director, a
licence which, by the way, I am the appeal to.
It would probably be inappropriate for me to comment much further than
that.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is using the
model of Oak Hammock Marsh and Ducks Unlimited, and the Repap project where
they had chlorine bleach proposed, the last jurisdiction in the world to go
ahead with a project like that, then we are in a lot of trouble in this
province in terms of where we are going.
Clean
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): A final question to the minister responsible
for the divestiture of Repap corporation.
Last week, the minister released terms of reference in this House, terms
of reference quite a bit altered from the original terms of reference that the
minister had incorporated in the contract he had negotiated.
My question to the minister
responsible: Will he incorporate in the
terms of reference and amend the terms of reference that he now has with the
Repap corporation to include some of the recommendations in the Clean
Environment Commission report that do impact on the Repap situation,
specifically dealing with provincial parks and also dealing with stakeholders'
committees, stakeholders' committees that include the inclusion of aboriginal
people who are directly affected in the areas that are very, very crucial to
this set of discussions with the minister and very much outside of the
government's discussions right now?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister responsible for the administration of The Crown Corporations Public
Review and Accountability Act): Mr. Speaker, what we will not do after the
public dialogue leading to the government ultimately making a decision is, we
will not forcibly expel cutters from one region and put them into another park
like the former government did in 1985.
Mr. Speaker, page 113 of Article 9 of the
Purchaser's Covenant Agreement between Repap and the province spelled out that,
and I will quote: Manitoba reserves the
right to withdraw certain areas within the forest managed licensed area.
It stipulates a number of reasons why, or
other uses, which
*
(1400)
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, in July of 1991, this government
set down six conditions which the government said must be met before they would
approve the entering into of a free trade agreement with the United States and
Mexico. On February 17, when I asked the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) what the government
would be doing if these six conditions were not met, he did not answer.
Mr. Speaker, it has today become very
evident that the six conditions outlined by the provincial government will not
be met in the free trade discussions, that in fact Canada is prepared to give
up, and the United States continues to ask for concessions that would open the
free trade agreement and establish other conditions which would violate the
principles set out by the minister.
My specific question to the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism is: What
specific action is this government going to take when it becomes evident that
the free trade agreement will cost
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I would like to
correct the honourable member for Flin Flon that I did answer his question when
asked in terms of what our position is, was and will continue to be. We have said on many occasions that, if those
six conditions are not met, we do not support the agreement. That is what was tabled here at the House
back in July of 1991, that we do not support a North American free trade
agreement unless those six conditions are met.
In terms of the one specific condition
that he has referred to today in terms of the reopening of the Canada‑U.S.
Free Trade Agreement, that is one of our six conditions. It has been a condition to date of the
federal government, if you listened to the Honourable Michael Wilson, that they
do not support the opening of the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade Agreement
because of concerns relative to particular industries like our cultural
industry. That is our position. We have stated it on many occasions, and we
will continue to state that, Mr. Speaker.
Impact on
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not
answer the question. The question
was: What specific steps is the minister
going to take if he opposes it? Is it
going to be a muted opposition‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question please.
Mr. Storie: ‑‑Mr. Speaker, or are they
actually going to do something to protect our interests?
Mr. Speaker, my follow‑up question
is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Can the minister tell this House what he is
going to do to protect the vegetable producers, in particular, who will be
devastated by a free trade agreement with
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): First of all, Mr. Speaker, in terms of
the Manitoba position, it has been outlined in writing to the federal minister,
Mr. Wilson; it has been put on the record on at least two occasions at federal‑provincial
trade ministers' meeting, and probably, as a province, we have more often
stated our position than any other province within Canada, and I want to make
that clear.
In terms of any trade agreement, there are
some winners, there are some losers in terms of the adjustments that would
happen to any economy. Clearly, a major
part of it is also one of our conditions, Mr. Speaker, whereby under any free
trade agreement, there have to be the necessary adjustment provisions, and that
would relate to any industry that is in any way negatively affected by a North
American free trade agreement.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about
justice. A Canadian study‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, my specific question was: Can the minister tell the House how many jobs
are going to be jeopardized by
Mr. Stefanson: As the honourable member should know, and I
would hope he realizes that, under any of these types of negotiations, there
are a series of reviews that have been done by all different sectors, by all
different industries. Unfortunately, it
is not a science; many of them point to different statistics. Some indicate
that
We do have concerns. We do not support a North American free trade
agreement unless six fundamental conditions are met. I have outlined those for the benefit of the
honourable member on many occasions when we debated this under private members'
resolutions, on two different occasions.
I outlined them for this House and for the honourable member, and I
would encourage him to read Hansard so he gets them perfectly clear.
Forestry
Industry
Sustainable
Development
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, this government has been long on rhetoric on a policy of sustainable
development. The Clean Environment
Commission's recommendations yesterday clearly are a blueprint for providing
for sustainable development, particularly in the forestry industry.
We have already heard earlier in this
session that, despite this blueprint, the government will not commit itself to
phasing out commercial forestry, it will not commit itself to ending commercial
forestry in the park lands covered by the Repap agreement.
My question is to the Minister of Natural
Resources. Will this government commit
to a comprehensive, provincial forest policy consistent with the principles of
sustainable development before any other forest management licences are
renewed, including Repap's?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister
of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, for the
sake of some 10,000 Manitobans whose livelihoods depend on commercial forestry,
we would want to be very cautious about disrupting their lives in an economy
that is already in some difficulty. If I
understand the honourable member's question correctly, my department is very
much interested in looking at sustainable forestry in the
My department, and more importantly,
interested parties such as the Naturalists Society, The Wilderness Society‑‑Mr.
Roger Turenne just a few weeks ago was in my office‑‑are well aware
of the fact that senior officials in the department have been working towards
putting together the necessary documentation and mechanics for extensive public
hearings that will, I suspect, take place later on this spring, extend into the
summer and perhaps the fall, that will address some of the very issues that the
Clean Environment Commission report draws our attention to.
I welcome that opportunity because there
are a number of issues that need to be addressed, not least of them, one that I
know that is near and dear to the heart of my Premier (Mr. Filmon) and to which
this government is fully committed, our commitment to the Endangered Spaces
Program here in Manitoba.
Wilderness
Status
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): If the
minister and if this government are truly committed to a sustainable forestry
policy, then they will come up with a policy.
They will not commit in this House today to, in fact, establishing that
policy.
In light of his response to me, will this
government commit itself to designating the northeast corner of Nopiming for
wilderness status, given its commitment, he says, to the Endangered Spaces
Program?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): I have
just had the privilege of returning from
It was, by the way, a very encouraging
ceremony, with all provincial forestry ministers present, federal government,
Canada forestry present, a large number of‑‑I always have trouble
with this bureaucratic term for it, I believe they call them NGOs, but it means
nongovernment agencies or something like that‑‑other people there
that were not directly affected. A
number of them, including representatives of the Canadian Wildlife Federation
and others, affixed their signature to that.
Mr. Speaker, these kinds of policies are
ongoing commitments. They began not just
with forestry. In fact, we began, and my
predecessor, with water and soil, with my colleague with agriculture. We are doing it with forestry. This government is committed; this government
leads the nation in taking the round table discussions seriously. This province leads the nation in taking‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
(1410)
Forestry
Industry
Sustainable
Development
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): One has
to wonder how many trees were destroyed for all the paper that moved all around
those tables during the signing procedures.
The problem is we wanted just a little commitment to a northeast corner
of a wilderness park to get a designation so it would not be used for
commercial logging, and we cannot get that.
Well, perhaps we can get another
commitment from the Minster of Natural Resources. Will the government at least commit today to
develop a comprehensive provincial forest policy consistent with the principles
of sustainable development?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, it has been my experience, having been resource minister of this
province on several occasions‑‑you know the one thing, the general
public and particularly those who are, if you like, watchers of the
environment, that concerns them the most is if governments do things without
consultation. I cannot talk about a
cottage development in a park without being criticized if I do not take in the
broadest consultation.
Mr. Speaker, surely nobody on that side
suggests that a fundamental alteration, a fundamental change in policy and in
management should take place without consultation. These consultations are going to take place,
and what is important to know is that it is just not myself reacting to today's
question. Mr. Roger Turenne of the Wilderness Society knows that to be a fact;
Ms. Alison Elliot of the Manitoba Naturalists Society knows that to be a
fact. They have in fact been working
with some of my officials since fall in developing the process that will lead
to that broad public discussion that the Clean Environment Commission calls
for.
That will be the first order of
business. That will commence, I suspect,
on or about May or June and no doubt will lead into the fall.
CareerStart
Funding
Restoration
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
According to Statistics Canada, the youth
unemployment rate in
In view of the fact that this government
cut youth employment programs in half last year, is the government now prepared
to reinstate these programs to at least the 1990‑91 level? Specifically,
will last year's $3‑million cut in CareerStart program be continued, or
can we expect CareerStart to be increased to the $6‑million level of the
previous year?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker,
budgetary decisions have been made, even before the question being put by the
member today. They will be announced in
their complete fullness, Wednesday next.
Mr. Leonard Evans: The 17,000 unemployed young people will be
anxiously awaiting the minister's announcement, I am sure.
Northern
Youth Corps Job Program
Funding
Restoration
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Will this government reinstate the Northern
Youth Corps job program that was killed last year in spite of the fact that
unemployment levels in northern
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, one of
my colleagues has helped me in my response to the member. He will know that fully in six more sleeps.
Mr. Leonard Evans: This is not a laughing matter with the 17,000
young people who do not have a job in this province. Talk to their families, to the thousands on
welfare in this province, and you are doing nothing about it.
Student
Temporary Employment Program
Funding
Restoration
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, is this government prepared to
increase funding of the Student Temporary Employment Program this year in view
of the fact that there has been a sharp increase in youth unemployment in this
province to 16.8 percent?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, this is
not a laughing matter. I say to the
member opposite, his questions will be answered fully. Also, it was no laughing matter indeed when
the former government applied a 2 percent tax against everybody that earned
$11,000 and more, destroyed jobs and sent the youth in this province outside,
and killed the business initiative in this province. That was no laughing matter.
I say to the member, if they want to look
at the reason for some of the problems we have today, all they have to do is
reflect on the decisions they made around the cabinet table from 1984 to 1987.
Domestic
Violence
Bail
Conditions
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice. Despite the Pedlar report,
despite the fact the Crown has now opposed bail in situations of abuse and
abuse victims and in spite of federal lack of action in this area, often
abusers get out on bail.
As a concrete suggestion, I would like to
ask the minister: Will he not ask his Crown prosecutors, in cases of bail, that
a bail condition be imposed on an abuser that requires daily reporting to
probation officers in order to ensure a check on the abuser and to provide some
comfort and security to the victim of an abuse?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, that is a suggestion that I
have raised and encouraged upon prosecutors so that they could ask for such
things in cases where judges feel that it is appropriate that accused abusers
be let out on bail. That kind of
submission is available to the Crown, and we are aware of it. We take that suggestion very positively and
thank the honourable member.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that
response.
Rehabilitation
Programs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): In conjunction with the Pedlar report, I am
wondering if the minister can advise us whether or not the Crown has instituted
any programs to deal with abusers in order to stem the tide of abuse in our
society.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
By the Crown, I take it the honourable member means the justice system
and the system that we have in general.
The Pedlar review does identify a need to deal with abusers while, at
the same time, deal as well as we can with people who are victims of
abusers. In that regard, we are pleased
with the performance of the Department of Family Services, under successive
ministers in the last four years, with regard to funding for the shelter
system, a very, very significant increase in funding over levels prior to our
government taking office.
Yes, indeed, the Pedlar report deals with
going eyeball to eyeball, as it were, with abusers and making them responsible
for their behaviour. That includes
things like sentences that include probation and counselling as a condition of
that probation.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister is along the same lines. I
wonder if the minister can advise me whether or not the working group has met
and whether we can expect concrete actions in the form of programs, as
recommended in the Pedlar report, in which there has been no action‑‑in
abeyance basically on most of those recommendations since the fall of last
year?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the honourable member
could say that there has been no appearance of action, but indeed a couple of
days ago the working group met, the community advisory group will be meeting
later this month, so we believe there is nothing stopping us from proceeding
along. There is progress which would
flow from the Pedlar report.
Just before I sit down, since the
honourable member for Kildonan has shown an interest in trying to curb
violence, I wonder if he could encourage his colleagues to take a stand with
respect to the deplorable language used by Daryl Bean in dealing with people
who choose to work during the week when‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
(1420)
Student
Food Bank
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, for four years now, we have been
warning the government about the inadequacy of the student aid provided to
university students in this province and other students in this province. The situation has gotten so bad at the
I would like to ask the Minister of
Education if it is her government's policy to use food banks as an alternative
to adequate financial aid for students?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the conditions that students are experiencing are of great concern to
this government and great concern to me as minister. I was a student until I was elected to this government
as well. I know many of those students,
both young people and also adult students who have come back to study. The issues are of great concern. I am raising the issue at a federal level as
well to press the federal government, through the Council of Ministers of
Education and individual meetings, to try and provide adequate assistance to
students in
Mr. Alcock: Raising the support might help, Mr. Speaker.
Department
of Education
Underspending
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the
House that the $6.6 million underspent in her department was not in part taken
from the Student Aid Program?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I am reviewing the results of that with my department now, but as the
member will know, that percentage within my department, which is an extremely
large budget, was an extremely small percentage. I am examining it at this point‑‑less
than 1 percent.
Budget
Student Aid
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 percent of $1 billion
would provide a lot of aid for students in this province. Will the minister ensure the House that the
budget will contain sufficient support for students so that the opening of this
food bank at the university will become unnecessary?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I can say again that I am very concerned with the need for a food bank
at the