LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, June 14, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Committee of Supply

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, the 1994‑95 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Manitoba Housing. As well, I am tabling the Annual Report 1992‑93 for Housing, the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation and the Manitoba Housing Authority. I am pleased to table both of those at this time.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Estimates for Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Fitness and Sport Directorates.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 215‑‑The Private Vocational Schools Amendment Act

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that leave be given to introduce Bill 215, The Private Vocational Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles professionnelles privées, and that the same now be received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, we are aware that The Private Vocational Schools Act regulates private vocational schools, but we also know that individual contracts between the schools and government departments and agencies are not monitored.

This amendment act would require that schools which provide training have a better accounting to the Department of Education for the fees that they charge in the provision of their training. This will ensure that training which is offered to all Manitobans is of course valuable and cost‑effective.

I would recommend this piece of legislation to all members of the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

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 the Souris School forty‑five Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Glen Wallman and Ms. Theresa O'Brien. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).

From the Rapid City School, we have twenty‑two Grades 7 and 8 students under the direction of Mr. John Warkentin. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

* (1335)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Winnipeg Development Agreement

Economic Indicators

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey).

The planning document which I will table for the renewed Winnipeg Development Agreement has a number of very, very dramatic economic statements to it. I will quote: Given the slow economic growth of the Manitoba and Winnipeg economies, job prospects have been bleak for many newcomers, and the city has especially had many difficulties in terms of getting the necessary job skills.

It talks about the slow employment growth in Winnipeg as reflected in the high rates of out‑migration. As many as 41,000 people have been part of out‑migration from the province of Manitoba in the last five years in terms of when this government has been in office. Yet, when the government sent out their public relations document, there was very little mention of the economic realities. It is a very antiseptic document dealing with the challenges for the Winnipeg economy and the Manitoba economy.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, why have they omitted key economic data and the key economic factors that would be part of the public consultation process for the renewal of a new Core Area or Winnipeg Development Agreement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I think everybody recognizes that over the last several years all of Canada has been struggling with job creation and struggling with unemployment rates and so on. The important point for the Leader of the Opposition to recognize is that in a relative sense Manitoba is doing quite well when we look at last year's job creation numbers, having the third highest job creation growth in all of Canada, and when we look at the number of full‑time jobs created in Manitoba since April and May of last year, approximately 16,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, that document that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is the basis of public consultations that the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) will be co‑chairing with the federal and municipal governments, and it is a part of preparing the discussions.

There are many, many economic indicators, many pieces of economic information that can be provided and certainly upon request will be provided. We are more than prepared to always talk about the traditional economic indicators and how Manitoba is faring because, in a relative sense, we are faring very well in Manitoba when it comes to job creation, unemployment rates, the limited number of bankruptcies and on and on.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, there are less people working today than when the government was sworn in in 1988. Those are the facts.

The document talks about the erosion of Manitoba's economy and erosion of Winnipeg's economy. It goes on to talk about the very, very high unemployment rate for aboriginal people. It talks about the job prospects, which have been bleak for many newcomers in this city of Winnipeg, and it talks about the fact that the overall unemployment rate in 1991 for Winnipeg was 8.7 percent. It is well over 10 percent now. This unemployment rate among aboriginal people was an alarming 30.3 percent. Yet, the document released by the three levels of government has as an assumption that we will have a program that will be city‑wide. Now, we know the majority of aboriginal people in the city of Winnipeg live in the so‑called inner city of the city of Winnipeg.

Why has this government dictated to the public that it will be a city‑wide mandate? Why have they excluded key economic factors and key social factors in terms of the public consultation process, so that all of us can be involved in meeting the challenge that obviously is not being met by this government?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly debate economic indicators with the Leader of the Opposition on any occasion in terms of how Manitoba is faring and particularly how we are faring within Canada. I suggest to him that when he makes suggestions about the job levels in April of 1988 to the job levels in 1994 that he check his facts and be very careful with what he is saying in terms of how jobs are today in Manitoba relative to that particular month.

We have had two previous agreements with two other levels of government, with the City of Winnipeg and with the federal government, that have dealt with a series of initiatives in certain physical parts of the city of Winnipeg. This one, in many elements, is broadening that to create opportunities throughout the city of Winnipeg for economic opportunities, for community opportunities and so on, and I gather from the Leader of the Opposition that he opposes that. He opposes seeing other regions within Winnipeg benefit as well from this agreement, which is something I would think that most Manitobans, most Winnipeggers would want to see.

That is not to suggest that good and worthwhile programs that benefit the core area in Winnipeg, that benefit the aboriginal community‑‑they will be part of any ultimate agreement. We are offering opportunities for all Winnipeggers to participate in this agreement along with two other levels of government.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will care to look at the May statistics that were out last Friday, he will find that we are correct and he is wrong.

Winnipeg Development Agreement

Public Consultations

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We have asked, on three or four previous occasions, through 1991, 1992, 1993 about the issue of public consultations. The government has said repeatedly that those public consultations are just around the corner. Finally, last week, we found that the public will be consulted for a day and a half, and they will get two weeks notice to be involved in this consultation process, unlike the consultations that went on with the initial Forks agreement, that went on for four months and numbers of public presentations. This is a very limited type of public consultation, with very limited time for the public to get ready.

Why has the government waited so long to get ready for public consultations and given the public so little time to get ready to present their positions to the government?

* (1340)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this is a three‑level exercise we are going through. There are three levels of government. At the same time, the three levels of government have also been working very hard and very co‑operatively on the infrastructure program. The infrastructure program is now up, announced and underway.

Our attention is now turned to the Winnipeg Development Agreement. Public hearings will be held this month, and contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, there will not just be a day and a half. There are also going to be special invitational‑‑

An Honourable Member: That is what I said.

Mrs. McIntosh: You are talking about one aspect of the public consultation, one aspect only. You should do your homework. You know, you should never get up and ask a question unless you know the answer. [interjection]

If they would like to hear the answer, I would be pleased to provide it. There is one aspect of the public consultation process which will be the hearing the Leader of the Opposition has referred to. There will also be three special groups of people invited in by the three levels of government in different sectors of the city to discuss ideas and options that should be done in terms of community development, labour force development and economic development for the city.

CN Rail/CP Rail Merger

Communication Strategy

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands a copy of the Canadian National Railway Strategic Communications Plan dated May 24, 1994. In this plan, and I will read from the plan, this communications plan has been prepared at CN's request. It is intended to promote the company's projects for renewal and neutralize the campaign launched against the possibility of a merger of the activities between CN and CP Rail.

My question is for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Is this minister aware of this document which recommends limiting public debate on the merger and for CN to avoid meeting with various community groups, including the media?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, we well know that CN and CP are in some kind of negotiation process. I have told the member that we are doing an analysis of the three prairie provinces to determine the impact. What CN is saying in terms of how they are going to conduct the process is information that the member obviously has that I have not seen yet.

Headquarters

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Since the proposed merger would include assets from Winnipeg east, including to Chicago, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Highways and Transportation aware that NewCo, the name of the new company proposed, could possibly have its headquarters in the United States?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, if CN and CP have any plan that they want to have accepted in Canada, they have to go before the competition bureau in Ottawa, and they have to go before the National Transportation Agency which will hold public hearings, so they have a long process before there are any approvals in Canada. It is a process that will not be easy and will give the opportunity for significant public input by provincial governments and citizens at large and anybody who is interested in the issue. That process cannot be avoided.

Government Position

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, this issue is very important to the citizens of Manitoba, not only those who are employed but those who utilize the services.

My final question is for the same minister or for his Premier (Mr. Filmon). Why has the minister or the Premier not spoken up or spoken out on the issue of the merger between CN and CP, considering the CN communications plan which also states that a great many communities which owe the basis of their quality of life to the railway activity will probably be hard hit by CN's measures to cut costs?

* (1345)

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I think the member has not had his hearing aid on because we have been speaking out in this House and other forums on the issue that is in front of us. The federal government has said the national dream is dead. The federal government has said they are going to eliminate subsidies every which way you look, and the provincial Liberals are supporting them it seems. They seem to be answering for them.

We have a lot of questions in front of us. It is not an issue of just saying everything has to stand still. We want to be in a process of negotiation and consultation with the federal government. At this point in time, the federal government has laid out no plan of how they are going to handle the transportation issues in the future. They are just making statements to the press with no plan, no substance to it, and the provincial Liberals seem to be supporting it at this time. That is very unfortunate.

Manitoba Health Services Commission

Bond Policy

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we were pleased with the decision of the Immigrant and Refugee Appeal Board in regard to the fact that Roxana Gretchen can be reunited with her family here in Canada. What has come to light through the issue is that, in fact, some of the regulations of the Department of Health are definitely out of sync with what goes on in some of the rest of Canada.

My question is for the Minister of Health, if he could possibly answer. When this case first came to light in the department, was the minister's office given a briefing as to the reasons behind the department's decision to insist that there be a bond issue for this family?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I join with the honourable member and others in expressing our pleasure on behalf of the Gretchen family for the outcome that was arrived at before the federal Immigration Appeal Board. If you understand the commitment of that family, as I do, and the compassion of that family for the situation it found itself in, as I do, then you will understand why I say that.

The decision was the federal government's decision to make about the medical admissibility of Roxana, and the decision was made on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. I have not yet seen the reasons for the decision given by the Immigration Appeal Board.

The question, however, of the Gretchen family and their chance now to be united and to be together, placed to one side, does raise issues as the honourable member suggests, raises issues of how the federal government proposes to proceed from this point forward in terms of other children and families who might find themselves in similar circumstances.

Last fall, for my part, I met repeatedly with the Gretchens and with their lawyer and it was never a question with them. They accepted then their responsibility with respect to costs. It was a question of what everybody felt would be necessary for Roxana's treatment‑‑and I am sorry to be a little bit lengthier with my response, but the federal government is now faced, I suggest, with the question of what will be its policy in the future with respect to this matter, because I dare say in this world of ours, there may be millions of children in similar circumstances and compassionate grounds and humanitarian grounds I am sure exist for those people too.

So our policy is not unlike the policy followed in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or Ontario‑‑I am sorry, it is unlike the policy followed in those provinces, but it is similar to the policies in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Health. My question is related to policy of this provincial government and this Department of Health.

Is the minister‑‑because I seem to get from his comments that he is supportive of his department's policy‑‑prepared to look at the policy established through the old Manitoba Health Services Commission which is some 20‑years‑old and have that policy reviewed to ensure that future families do not go through the trauma, the stress and the financial hardship that this particular family has gone through? Is he prepared to undertake that review?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, the decision made by the Immigration Appeal Board technically and virtually renders Roxana Gretchen medically admissible now. Now, that is a whole different situation. Once a person is medically admissible and so deemed by the federal government, our province picks up 100 percent of the costs of the care of that person. That is the same as in other provinces except for Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or Ontario where they still charge various levels of cost to the families involved in those particular provinces.

So there is basically a different scenario existing in each and every province. I am not averse at all to looking at policies that have the wrong kind of impact, but as I said last fall when I was discussing this with the Gretchens on a repeated basis, Mr. Speaker, my job in this situation is extremely difficult, because there is a balance to be drawn here between a humanitarian and compassionate approach which I think I want to take at every opportunity I can. On the other hand, Manitobans want to ensure that health care services are preserved for the people who are resident here as well.

Ms. Gray: I have a final supplementary to the Minister of Health.

I think the Minister of Health's role in this case is very clear, and as the Minister of Health, he has a responsibility to ensure that policies and regulations within his department are in fact current, up to date, and serve the needs of Manitobans.

I would again ask the Minister of Health, is he prepared to immediately undertake a review of this particular policy within his department and some of the other regulations within the old MHSC to ensure that we are reflecting the needs of Manitobans and that we are current with our policy and that the needs of Manitobans are met as in this particular situation?

* (1350)

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the process I was in last fall when dealing so closely with the Gretchen family and their lawyer, reviewing very, very carefully the policy in existence in Manitoba.

It becomes an extremely hypothetical situation. The federal government on the one hand says this child is medically inadmissible, but if we were to find otherwise, what would you do in Manitoba? It becomes that kind of a hypothetical situation, Mr. Speaker.

We are governed by the decisions made by the Immigration department. If someone is found to be medically admissible, the Manitoba plan registers and looks after all of the costs involved. That will be the case for Roxana, and we are pleased for the family.

There are extremely important national issues at stake here, too. We think the federal government needs to be cognizant of that. In light of shrinking contributions from the federal government over the years, any decision, any review that we would do would have to be done in lock step with the federal government. We have been doing that with our own immigration department, Citizenship department, our Family Services department, my department and the federal government, too, Mr. Speaker.

Manitoba Health Services Commission

Bond Policy

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we are also very pleased about the decision regarding the Gretchen family.

When we asked this question five times last session, and in the two letters that I wrote to the minister on this particular issue, the minister did, in some of his responses, and the former minister, what the minister is doing today‑‑federal government responsibility and trying to offload it and go back and forth.

At issue was a situation where the provincial government was imposing a policy and then throwing it and saying it is not our responsibility. This child and this family had to go through a year of turmoil trying to resolve it, and they had to go to court to try to resolve the issue. That is not the best way to resolve these issues.

My question for the minister is: Why could the minister not resolve the issue without the family having to spend a year, go to court and all the legal costs when there were alternatives that could have been imposed in this situation?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when this matter was so very current last fall, indeed I made it very clear that I was not sloughing this off to the federal government. Neither am I doing that today. I accepted my responsibility as a provincial Minister of Health working with the federal government and working with the Gretchen family.

So it is not a question of offloading responsibility. I refuse to do that. The question at the time, given the family's acceptance of the principle that it was their responsibility to pay for the costs, given that acceptance on their part, the issue became what is the right thing to do in these circumstances.

The child had been ruled medically inadmissible by the federal Immigration department. Now the federal Immigration Appeal Board has ruled otherwise. That is their ruling to make, Mr. Speaker. Our government will respond in appropriate fashion to that ruling and respect it.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to go back to his department and examine every single process and every step of the way, because there were mistakes made, in my opinion, by the Department of Health?

Will he undertake to use this as a case example to review it and investigate it, as he did on Bill 22 when there were mistakes regarding Bill 22? Will he review completely all of the actions in order to ensure that this kind of dilemma and problem does not occur again?

* (1355)

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming both honourable members have the permission of the family to discuss these matters in the Legislature. On the basis of that assumption that I have been discussing this matter today, the honourable member wants a review done. I can tell the honourable member I have reviewed this very carefully, and I am quite willing to do it again if my review has not been complete.

But you see there are two adoption desks in this country, too. There is an adoption desk at the provincial level and an adoption desk at the federal level. I do not know all of the considerations that went into the Immigration Appeal Board's ruling, but perhaps on the basis that this child has been a legally adopted child, that came into the equation.

That is one area that needs to be reviewed, and I certainly accept that. I will be very happy to take that up with the federal government and with the department here. I have already done that to some extent, but it may be that with a new federal government, there is an opportunity to address this.

It seems to me that at some point there should have been better co‑ordination between the federal and provincial adoption desks. If Roxana was indeed medically inadmissible, as the federal government has taken that position which is now only changed by the Immigration Appeal Board, if indeed that was the case, then the question arises, how come the two adoption desks were not co‑ordinated on that point?

I have asked those questions, and I would like to see‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Chomiak: We asked that precise question on June 21 last year. We asked the minister to look at that very point, so I am pleased the minister will take a look at it.

My final supplementary to the minister is: Will he tell us now what the government's policy is presently in Manitoba with respect to the issuance of bonds?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, if a person is medically inadmissible, then the only way by which they can be registered in Manitoba is through, I forget the proper name for it, but the bond we are talking about here, and that was the situation that existed, and now that Roxana has technically been found to be medically admissible, then those rules do not apply.

It is for people who are not admissible medically speaking that the bond exists. In other provinces, Mr. Speaker, if they are medically inadmissible, there is no coverage whatsoever. They are not accepted; they are not registered.

In this case, we looked at that issue several times. It had been the medical opinion that the bond ought to be at the level of about $300,000, and after review and after urging by myself and my predecessor, that matter was looked at repeatedly, and the bond level was reduced. So the need for a bond is there for those who are medically inadmissible, not for those who are medically admissible, because those who are medically admissible have coverage like every other Manitoban.

Norwood Bridge

Public Hearing

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I have been asking questions related to the Norwood bridge project, a hundred‑million‑dollar construction project of major importance to The Forks, to the areas of southeast Winnipeg and downtown. There are numerous issues related to this project in terms of traffic planning, green space, community development and safety.

I want to ask the Minister of Environment: Why are the at least nine letters sent to the civic and provincial governments on behalf of organizations representing well over 100 people not sufficient to warrant a public hearing for the community on this development?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not sure what letters the member is referring to. During the period when the director was soliciting public input into this project, he received one letter of communication that raised a concern and was interested in seeing further public input. He has not recommended a hearing. At this point, I believe I now have two letters of appeal in the process that are asking that I not accept that recommendation and call a hearing.

So, Mr. Speaker, if there are other letters that are on their way or perhaps have not been forwarded to me appropriately, I would be more than interested in seeing them. I simply indicate, as I have indicated a number of times, the director only received one letter of request that would indicate the need for a hearing. We are now in the appeal process until the end of the week, and I presume we may get some letters now that the issue has been raised in this forum.

* (1400)

Ms. Cerilli: Why was there a hearing held for the Charleswood bridge and not this bridge in the downtown area which affects The Forks, a community school, bike paths, the traffic flow to Osborne Street and the access to the riverbank?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that for the community this is a very important issue, but there is a significant difference between the process that occurred around the Charleswood bridge and around the Norwood bridge. First of all, the Charleswood bridge was deemed not to be captured within the requirement of The Environment Act and it was excluded from the process. The question was whether or not the department had received appropriate advice in that respect.

With the Norwood bridge, we have put it through the process. It is in the process. The only problem is there have not been any requests of any magnitude that, in the opinion of the director, were not answered within the process requesting a public hearing.

We are now in the appeal process and have been for three weeks. We wrote a letter to every organization that had expressed an interest in it, telling them what the director's decision was and inviting them to appeal. They may now appeal, and I would encourage those, if they feel motivated in that respect, to exercise that option.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, so will the local community now have a chance to respond and comment on this environmental impact assessment report? Will there be open public hearings likely on this project?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, this is an abuse. This is an abuse of the process. The bridge is in the environmental licensing process. It was advertised. For her to imply that in some way we are trying to circumvent the process is absolutely wrong. If there are concerned citizens who believe that there are good and valid reasons and if the City Council‑‑some councillors are on record as wanting a public airing. Perhaps they want that public airing so the province's process will help them with their decision making, but if the City Council believes that in their own best interests they would like this to go to a further public process, then I would encourage the council to write.

Manitoba Hydro

Water Levels‑‑Communication Strategy

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my questions are also directed to the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.

As the minister knows, there have been numerous problems over the past two years with Hydro dams increasing or lowering the water levels up north without notifying those communities that are nearby. Commercial fishermen at Poplar Point have contacted our office recently, Mr. Speaker, concerning the water level at the forebay.

I want to ask the minister: What is the official policy of Hydro on changing the water levels in terms of notifying the residents and the fishermen's organizations in the area?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, Hydro attempts to advise those communities affected to sudden change.

Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give the minister some work here.

My second question, Mr. Speaker, is again to the Minister responsible for Hydro.

Would he check with staff up north, the Hydro people, and make sure that all Hydro stations up there update their lists to ensure that all appropriate people are notified about changing those water levels?

Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, when my honourable friend speaks about giving people work, I think the member for The Pas might look forward to the next election where the people, the voters there maybe want to give him a real job again. [interjection] Three or four, maybe some more.

My honourable friend indicates that someone from Hydro should be contacting the appropriate people. To the best of my knowledge, Hydro has the list of bands and councils so that appropriate notification can take place.

If my honourable friend is saying that the list is not complete, the list is the one as provided by those affected communities. Should there be a requirement for additional individuals to be notified, the band would have that opportunity when they are so notified.

Mr. Lathlin: My last question, Mr. Speaker, is again to the Minister responsible for Hydro.

Would the minister be prepared to consider compensation for those fishermen whose equipment gets damaged when these water levels are changed without notifying the affected communities?

Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, in the past where damage to fishing equipment has occurred, there is a process of application. If the damage is mitigatable, those compensations are made. That process has been in place for a number of years now.

Drug Program Information Network

Systemhouse Proposal

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we are anxiously awaiting, as I am sure the minister is, the implementation of the Drug Program Information Network. We know that companies were asked to submit proposals to the minister so that they would be up and running for April 1, 1994.

Can the Minister of Health tell us, did the proposal from Systemhouse, which is the successful bidder in this tendering process, outline penalties that the company would have to pay if in fact they were not able to meet the government's deadline?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in arrangements like this, those are the kinds of things that find their way into contractual terms. The penalties or sanctions are acted on to the extent that it is deemed appropriate to do so, given the performance of the contract.

It is important for us‑‑and the honourable member has already agreed with this, I am glad to say‑‑to ensure that all of the pharmacists in the province are ready and on line before we, as they say, go live, with respect to this automated pharmaceutical system. So there is general agreement there, but I do not think we have to wait very many more days longer before we can give the honourable member an update as to where we are.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Health.

My question would be in regard to the proposals of Systemhouse. There are deadlines that have been missed. Have they actually been told that they are required to pay those penalties, or what is the status of that?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that deadlines missed are missed because of somebody's negligence, we would be acting on the terms of the contract as they are laid out. There are also some 247 pharmacists with whom we are working in a very co‑operative way, and they have specific needs. So I am not able to say whose fault this was or that was at this point to the extent that there is a problem or negligence. The contract allows for us to take action pursuant to that.

Start‑up Date

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary for the Minister of Health, can the minister indicate‑‑he talks about this system being up and running soon‑‑does he have a definitive date as to when we will see this system in place?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be very forthcoming about this. We have given definitive dates before and not met them. So if I give the honourable member another definitive date and do not meet it, one of these days she is going to come back and say you do not meet your commitments.

We are working very closely with all of the pharmacists, with the contractor, and it may be that within a short time I can be more definitive with the honourable member.

Francophone Schools Governance

Legal Opinion‑‑Notre Dame de Lourdes

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have again met with the parents from Notre Dame, parents for a fair education in Notre Dame who continue to be ignored by this minister and by this government.

The minister has refused to consider the needs of at least 108 students as a result of the implementation of Bill 34. The Francophone parents there who represent these 108 students desperately want a compromised resolution to the problem that is dividing the community of Notre Dame. The minister says that Bill 34 was so rigid that he cannot direct a compromise solution to the problems by way of a regulation or arbitration.

I want to ask the minister today whether he has sought legal opinion as to his ability to act under Section 21(43)(c)(f)(g) and (h) in the act which gives him sweeping powers, Mr. Speaker, to enact regulations on Bill 34, in order either to specify an arbitration process for the Notre Dame situation or provide more time for the settlement before a transfer would take place.

I want to ask the minister whether, in fact, he has sought legal opinion and whether he would table that legal opinion here today.

* (1410)

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is yes. I have sought legal opinion, and the opinion states in no uncertain terms that the government would be working outside the full intent of the bill were it to bring in an amendment in keeping with what the member for Dauphin indicates.

Mr. Speaker, the member asks that we make public that legal opinion. That is not usually the case. These are not often shared in a public sense, and the member well knows that.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether he has referenced those specific sections in his legal opinion, 21(43)(c)(f) and (g), as well as (h); (c) refers to the date of transfer of property, for example, set by regulation.

The minister answered in a blanket way that, yes, he sought legal opinion, and he cannot deal with this issue. I know for a fact he can, and I want to ask him to confirm that he can, in fact, deal with the issue of transfer of property.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I guess then what the NDP party is advocating is a policy that they supported from the beginning, indeed, that there be a cut‑off date, July 1, for transference of properties, particularly schools to the new school division, that that now be set aside. On some basis the provincial government is to choose as between which communities should see a transfer of properties and which should not. What then would happen in those communities, knowing now that they have a second chance? Would they then also approach the government to have their date changed alternatively?

Mr. Speaker, I know it is very easy when you are in opposition just to make a change in pure isolation and have the ability to ignore the impact or the implication of that on the whole issue. In reality, government does not have that licence. At times, I wish it did.