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.