LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, June 28, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

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.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Annual Report of Manitoba Energy and Mines 1993‑94.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister responsible for Sport): I would like to table, Mr. Speaker, the Supplementary Estimates for the Manitoba Community Sport Programs.

Contaminated Sites Discussion Paper

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Contaminated Sites Discussion Paper, and I have a statement I would like to make to the House. I have copies.

Mr. Speaker, in 1992, this government made interim amendments to The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act to provide a more effective resolution to the problems associated with allocating responsibility for remediation of contaminated sites.

Responsibility for remediation of contaminated sites until that time, like most in Canada, placed the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the existing landowner, regardless of their level of involvement and the actual contamination.

In May 1992, I appointed a minister's advisory committee to review this emerging issue and provide recommendations for legislative changes to address the matter in a fair and effective manner and over the longer term.

Representation on that committee was from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Manitoba Eco‑Network, the Manitoba Bar Association, the Manitoba Real Estate Association, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Manitoba Mining Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Credit Union Central of Manitoba and Canadian Petroleum Products Institute.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we approached the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment with the recommendation that contaminated site liability be addressed from a national perspective so that issues of concern from coast to coast could be dealt with in a consistent manner across this country. Staff of the Department of Environment chaired a national multistakeholder task group on this issue and after a year of extensive negotiations the task group submitted a report and recommendations to the council of ministers, which included 13 principles, developed to form the basis of provincial territorial legislation on this issue. The ministers unanimously endorsed those principles.

The Manitoba advisory council had a strong voice in the national debate because they had been set up in advance of the CCME task group and had already worked through many of the issues. Since the adoption of the principles by the Canadian Council of Ministers the Manitoba advisory committee has been busy drafting legislation that would reflect the CCME principles.

The committee is now in a position to take its ideas out for more public discussion prior to finalizing the ideas for legislation. In large measure, the legislation will deal with the designation of contaminated sites, how to allocate costs for the remediation, and the remediation requirements. The legislation will establish an allocation process that is designed to utilize alternative dispute resolution principles to the degree possible in trying to avoid the extensive and expensive litigation that has characterized the experience that we have had in this field and with the U.S. Super Fund.

* (1335)

I am pleased to table this discussion document that we are proposing to circulate widely across the province. The stakeholders will have an opportunity for discussion. We will provide time for review and written comment and we will host in conjunction with the committee a number of regional meetings this fall. The comments and discussion will be reviewed by the committee and a final draft of the legislation will be prepared for tabling as a bill at the next session of this Legislature.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for their work and innovative thinking that went into this discussion paper. They each came to the table with an idea of solving a problem and although their backgrounds and perspective were widely divergent, they worked towards consensus on a very difficult and complex issue. I look forward to their continuing efforts as we finalize this legislative package.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I am pleased to rise and respond on behalf of our party to this initiative in the area of contaminated sites liability.

I am somewhat disappointed, though, and concerned by what the minister is saying. On the one hand, it is good they have struck the advisory committee and it seems like there is a good cross‑section of representation on the advisory committee, and this is something that is new for this government. Historically, they have brought in legislation after piece of legislation, where it sort of comes in in the dark of night, and we see that the legislation is changed without any consultation.

Then we have this discussion paper where, if I am not mistaken, if we look back in the throne speech, there was a commitment that we were going to have a bill to deal with contaminated sites and liability in this session. I am somewhat concerned that we have had a year of extension of negotiations as the minister has said, and we now are having a discussion paper.

We fully support that there be a polluter‑pay system. We support that we need to have, as I understand that this bill is intended to do, a mechanism for decision making so there can be a fair way to assign the costs for liability when there is a contaminated site.

So we are fully in support of that concept, and I welcome the chance to have a discussion, a wider discussion, with the public, but we just find it ironic or interesting or somewhat unusual that on this particular issue, the government is going to such a long, drawn‑out consultation when they had not done this, Mr. Speaker, on a number of other very serious environmental matters that have been addressed through legislation by this government.

I welcome the chance to review the document. I know that there are a number of people on the advisory committee that have expressed concerns with the direction that the government was going. Perhaps the discussion paper is a chance to open the debate up to a wider audience and get input from where I am sure they will get a number of good recommendations with a number of people in the community who have good expertise in this area.

I am disappointed that this is taking a long time, but Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious area, and I hope that the government will be open to listen to recommendations from all sectors of the community, and that we will, in fact, at some point get some legislation to deal with this. Thank you.

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to respond to the minister's statement.

In fact, I have had some long‑term interest and familiarity with this, having sat on the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce task group on environment and sustainable development, which raised some issues of concern which are now showing up in the ministerial statement.

Particularly of interest to me is the statement that the process is designed to utilize alternative dispute resolution principles to avoid expensive and costly litigation. This was something that was of genuine concern to us. For the process now to come out pointing us in the direction of trying to keep these things out of court for assigning liability is indeed quite a good step.

I look forward to seeing the full discussion paper. We are somewhat constrained in being able to comment on the brief statement we have before us, but I will commit us to giving it thorough review and to supporting any initiatives which move us in the direction of getting this matter resolved.

* (1340)

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 219‑‑The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that leave be given to introduce Bill 219, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location à usage d'habitation), and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Hickes: I am pleased to introduce this bill today. I feel it is a bill which benefits all Manitobans, as it is a bill that ensures that tenants are treated fairly should they become ill and unable to fulfill the terms of their lease.

The purpose of the bill is to close a loophole which presently exists within The Residential Tenancies Act, Section 93(1). This section of The Residential Tenancies Act lays out the guidelines for the termination of a lease for individuals who have been accepted into a personal care home.

As background, under the existing act, if a tenant has been accepted into a personal care home, the tenant may terminate the lease without penalty by giving the landlord a notice of termination that is not less than one rental payment period. The problem with the present act is that it fails to deal with people who are unable to return to their homes for medical and other reasons and have not yet taken up residence in a personal care home due to extended waiting lists for spaces in personal care homes.

Many Manitobans are unable to give notice on their leases because they have not yet taken up a residence in a personal care home. In one particular case, a woman was unable to return to her home due to the severity of her medical condition and allowed to stay in a hospital while paying the regular daily rate she would be paying in a personal care home until a space in a care home became available. Yet, under the present act, she was not allowed to terminate her lease until she had actually entered a personal care home.

Similarly, under the present act, there are no provisions for the termination of a lease for individuals who have become ill and enter the hospital and are unlikely to be able to return to their home due to their illness.

This proposed private members' bill seeks to remedy these situations in two ways. Firstly, once an individual has been paneled and assessed to be‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member is allowed to make a brief statement as to the purport of the bill. Now, I would ask the honourable to just kindly‑‑[interjection] Order, please. I would ask the honourable member to kindly sum up his argument, now.

Mr. Hickes: It is a very complicated bill, and it needs explaining.

This assessment would be sufficient evidence of acceptance into a personal care home. Once it has been determined that an individual has been paneled and is waiting for a space in a personal care home, at this point they will be able to give notice of their intention to terminate their lease.

In conclusion, I feel this bill is a necessary addition to the existing act, and I hope that it will be supported by all members of this Legislature.

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 Applied Linguistics Centre 16 adult students under the direction of Mr. Dave Chaddock. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards).

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

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Kenaston Underpass

Justification

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have been asking questions of the provincial government about the Kenaston underpass and the $30‑million investment that is proposed by the three levels of government for this project, the largest amount of money proposed for any project in the province of Manitoba under the federal‑provincial municipal infrastructure program.

Today we have been made aware of an article in the summer 1994 Manitoba Trucking report from the MTA general manager where he makes a number of statements about this project. He first of all states that they were never consulted about the project. He feels this project, the $30‑million project, will in fact mean the yards will never be moved, and he makes the further point that: Why is this project proceeding when the whole thrust of the airport development plan is to have a multimodal transportation centre in the northwest section of the city where truck transportation and air transportation is available?

I would like to ask the Premier whether he has considered the points raised by the Manitoba Trucking Association as contained in the summer 1994 issue concerning the $30‑million expenditure on this project.

* (1345)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would turn that article over, I would be happy to consider it.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I will table the article today. It is very consistent with the questions we have raised before to the First Minister.

We have asked this question about how this $30 million can be expended when the Winnipeg transportation study and the Winnipeg Transport 2000 study is not scheduled to be completed until December of 1994. We believe this project should not proceed and the $30 million should not be expended until we look at the macro issues of transportation, such as the issues raised by the head of the trucking association today.

Would the Premier please inform the House and the people of Manitoba, why are we proceeding with this specific transport project prior to the transport study being completed for the City of Winnipeg in December of 1994?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week, the grade separation at Wilkes of the CN main line was the No. 1 priority for the City of Winnipeg as grade separation in their transportation plans. It was a program that obviously had the support of the federal partner in the agreement, and the city and the province assumed that there was a need to have some balance of the various different programmings and various different projects, and it was one that the trilevel committee saw fit to approve.

Costs to Date

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I guess the question is, if further evidence comes forward to the three levels of government that raises questions about the merit of a project, that raises questions about the long‑term viability of this project versus the whole area of locating trucking in the vicinity close to the airport.

If there are other factors from the community coming forward, are they to be considered by the three levels of government in terms of the merit of spending $30 million, the largest amount of money?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier, given that the decision‑making date according to the project schedule, the project description forum, is for December 31, 1994, notwithstanding the fast‑tracking of a number of the decision‑makings, including the MTA approval, the federal URP approval, the provincial EIA approval, the approval of the CNR, et cetera, can the Premier indicate today how much money has been allocated in terms of what has been approved by tender to any companies?

How much money has been spent of the $30 million in terms of this Kenaston underpass project, which is receiving considerable public debate and considerable public scrutiny in terms of its overall merit for the city of Winnipeg?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize that my information is that this particular project is consistent with the trucking centre plan proposed for northwest of the airport, that it is part of the overall requirement to have Route 90 maintained as a very strong and viable access for trucking.

I will take as notice the question of how much money has been expended to this point.

* (1350)

Rural Development Video

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Rural Development.

We have criticized this government on a number of occasions for their continuing expenditure of taxpayers' dollars on propaganda. The Minister of Rural Development is responsible for a film on rural development which features the Premier quite prominently extolling some of the virtues of the province of Manitoba.

The video also features a number of rural Manitobans who have been involved in small business. One of those companies, a company called Kitemandu, principal Ron Bell, is featured on the video.

My question to the Minister of Rural Development is: How many more days is it before that particular business closes its doors and heads to Ontario?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question and the specifics of that question as notice and get back to the member.

However, I must say that the video that was produced by the Department of Rural Development, which features many successful businesses throughout rural Manitoba, indeed was to give other Manitobans a flavour of the kinds of businesses that have located in rural Manitoba which have achieved some success in operating in rural Manitoba. There are many. [interjection]

It is unfortunate that the rural member who represents Dauphin scoffs at the whole idea of successful businesses in rural Manitoba. There are many successful rural businesses in this province, businesses that have located in rural Manitoba and are doing a tremendous amount not only to create jobs but indeed to add to the economy of rural Manitoba.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear. What I am scoffing at is this government's propaganda approach to small business in the province, rather than practical help.

Production Cost

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Can the minister explain why, when this particular individual business person told the department that he would be leaving the province, the department insisted that he continue with this promotional activity, despite the fact that one of the principals on this video indicated to the department that he would be leaving the province?

Why this charade, and how much did it cost the taxpayers of Manitoba?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, let me first of all indicate that I have no knowledge about whether this individual is or is not leaving the province as of today. I will get back to the member with the specifics to that question.

However, let me say that there will be many businesses that will locate in rural Manitoba and locate from other places in this country into rural Manitoba. Rural Manitoba has proven that it is a place where people enjoy a lifestyle; they enjoy investing. I can only cite the example of a small community that has attracted many people, not only from outside of its own little village, but indeed from the province of Ontario, who have located in rural Manitoba, found it a place where they can do business, and indeed a successful business.

So let not the member cast aspersions on rural Manitobans to indicate that it is not a place where people should invest.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the aspersions are the integrity of this government to tell people the truth. This individual told the government of Manitoba he would be leaving. He is featured on the video. He spoke to me personally and told me that this was information he passed on to the government.

My question is: Where is this Rural Development video going to be filed, under fiction or nonfiction?

Mr. Derkach: Let me tell the member that I was not personally involved in creating the video. The individual featured in the film has never spoken to me, and I have never spoken to him.

I do not know who the individual is, but I will certainly investigate the matter and get back to the member with an appropriate response.

Provincial Judges

Reassignments

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Earlier this month, Judge Meyers was reassigned by Chief Judge Judith Webster of the Provincial Court.

There have been questions in this House to the Minister of Justice, and she has consistently indicated that her department did not play a role, and she has rested. It has been a matter of privilege here, the distinction between this building and the Law Courts, which is obvious to all members.

However, my question for the Minister of Justice today is: What notice did she have from Judge Webster of the reassignment, and what reasons, if any, were given for that reassignment to her or to her officials? It is now clear that Judge Meyers has not just been reassigned to a rural circuit, but that he has been specifically barred from hearing family violence cases.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear again that the assignment of judges is completely within the jurisdiction of the chief judge. This decision was made by the chief judge alone.

Notice was given to the Deputy Attorney General after this had occurred, I am not sure how many days following, but I can check the number of days following at which the Deputy Attorney General was advised that this judge had been reassigned again, which is completely within the jurisdiction of the chief judge to do.

* (1355)

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the details of that and of that conversation.

In fact, as well, we are advised that after the May 22, 1994, interview with the Winnipeg Free Press in which Judge Meyers did offer criticism of this government's policies and did talk about his own personal experiences with family violence, there was a meeting May 24, two days later between Judge Webster and Deputy Minister Bruce MacFarlane, and it was only the day after that there was a meeting at which Judge Meyers was told of his reassignment, and he was in fact reassigned on the 25th.

Mr. Speaker, in order to clear up any confusion, I would ask the minister as well to please furnish to members of this House any and all details of the discussions between Chief Judge Judith Webster and her deputy minister two days before his reassignment.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say again I certainly hope the member is not in any way inferring that the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General had any part in the chief judge's decision to move Judge Meyers, because that is entirely wrong and should not be left in any way in the minds of Manitobans.

The meeting between the deputy minister and the chief judge, I frankly have no knowledge of. The deputy minister keeps his calendar and would meet on a regular basis with many individuals, members of the judiciary and members of the profession. I cannot tell the member what the purpose of that meeting was, but he does meet regularly.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry, I missed the minister's last comments. I assume that she is going to, however, furnish members of this House with the details of that discussion, because it did happen the day before Judge Meyers was reassigned. I am asking only in the context of involvement between the court and her office and Mr. MacFarlane.

Mr. Speaker, my final question for the minister: Given that it is now clear, based as early as this last Wednesday when Judge Meyers had been scheduled to sit in Portage la Prairie but when it became evident that there were family violence cases on the docket, he was reassigned and not allowed to sit, that clearly it is not just a reassignment to the rural courts, clearly it is a taking away of his ability to sit on those family violence cases. That has now been clear.

I would ask the minister to investigate that herself to ensure that there are at least some reasons given and that she understands completely her own department's involvement in this and brings that to the attention of this House.

In particular, if any reasons were given other than simply reassignment, which appears now clearly not to be the only case, the members of this House deserve to have the benefit of that advice that was given to her.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member makes an allegation in his question. He says something about reasons, perhaps not the ones given, such as reassignment. If he has any indication of that, I say put it on the table. Put the evidence forward, because my department and I as minister have nothing‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

* (1400)

Point of Order

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Justice is listening. I have specifically stated that this was more than a reassignment to a rural court.

I have put evidence on the paper of a docket that he was scheduled to sit on, that he has now been barred from sitting on family violence cases. That is the allegation I am making, and I have also put the evidence.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Attorney General, to finish with her response.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, let me say again to reassure Manitobans, because I believe that this is the important reassurance, that my office and that I as a minister of this government had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the placement of Judge Meyers. That is entirely the responsibility of the chief judge, and the chief judge is the one who properly will answer the questions regarding the assignment and regarding her decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make it very clear, the government does not have a role in saying where judges will sit. That would be interference. That would be stepping over the bounds of judicial independence. It would suggest that if we did not like something, we could ask that changes be made.

Let me make it absolutely clear that is not the case, that government does not step in to where judges are assigned. That is entirely and absolutely the responsibility of the chief judge, and that was what was done in this case.

Health Care System

Staffing Proposals

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we know from public comments from the presidents of the two hospitals that levels one and two staff cuts are on hold from St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre and are sitting on the desk of the minister. We also know that every time this government tries to implement health reform, be it Bill 22, be it home care or be it Connie Curran, they make a mess of it.

Mr. Speaker, my question: Will the minister, for once, do the right thing and bring these recommendations to this House and bring these recommendations to the public of Manitoba, so the public and the patients and the members of this Chamber can have some idea of what changes the minister is proposing in additional cuts prior to the minister implementing these things?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the honourable member who referred to Bill 22 that many proposals have come forward. A number of initiatives or proposals have been accepted. A number have been rejected in the interest of patient care. Even so, we will still achieve a significant saving through the auspices of Bill 22 and also a significant saving in jobs. The honourable member keeps insisting we move forward with laying people off, and we are trying our best to avoid doing that because of the impact that has.

The member referred to Connie Curran, who is a close associate of a close associate of honourable members opposite, Mr. Michael Decter. I suggest if the honourable member wants any advice on Connie Curran, he need only speak to his soulmate, Michael Decter, the $140,000‑a‑year deputy minister from Ontario who closed, without any concern for the consequences, 5,000 hospital beds in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be moving forward with changes that would have a negative impact on patient care. I will repeat that every time the honourable member asks questions.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister does a disservice to this Chamber and the people and the patients of Manitoba by refusing to answer the questions.

I will attempt to ask another question of the minister. Will he assure this House that he will bring to this Chamber the VSIP package, that is, the employee benefits package they are working on presently that has been delayed by the minister and the deputy minister?

Will he bring it to this House prior to it being implemented and prior to the changes occurring at St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre?

Mr. McCrae: I will go back to the first question which the honourable member alleges I did not finish answering, Mr. Speaker. He asked about recommendations that have been made. Well, many, many of them were published in the Winnipeg Free Press. I can find the date for him if he is interested. There were hundreds and hundreds of people, our fellow Manitobans, involved in the creation of all these ideas, suggestions and recommendations. There is certainly no secret about what they are, because virtually hundreds of fellow Manitobans have been involved in the creation of those.

So the honourable member need not feel that anything is being held back from him, because I am sure nothing is.

St. Boniface Hospital

Swing Beds

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the hundreds of Manitobans and patients could sure use that $4 million that they have wasted on Connie Curran.

My final supplementary to the minister: Will the minister, since he has said in this House that the five swing beds put in place for the psychiatric wing at St. Boniface Hospital have not been used, approve the extension of those beds in conjunction with the recommendations of the president of St. Boniface Hospital, who has recommended, because of the changes and the dislocation in the government's health reform, that those five swing beds are required?

Will the minister approve the continuation of those five swing beds for St. Boniface Hospital, something the minister says‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I am going by recollection, Mr. Speaker, which is not always 100 percent in my case, but I think we are talking about seven beds that were made available, should they be required, if there was a peak or an excess amount of traffic in the emergency room at St. Boniface Hospital, and it was those beds that I reminded the honourable member had not been opened.

They may have been opened on an occasion since that time to deal with a peak day, but certainly at the time I said what I said, it was correct, Mr. Speaker.

I have frequent and close contact with the president and CEO of St. Boniface Hospital as we go through the annual process of ensuring that the hospital is appropriately funded for the valuable service that it provides to the people in this province, and I will continue to have a close working relationship with him.

Brandon General Hospital

User Fee‑‑Hernia Operations

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question also for the Minister of Health.

The Brandon General Hospital has recently decided to offer a new procedure called the laparoscopic hernia system repair procedure, which cuts the patient's recovery time from five or six weeks down to one week. However, the hospital cannot recover the cost from the government, which is $350 more than the traditional open hernia operation because it does not reduce the patient's length of stay at the hospital and, therefore, the patient has to pay a user fee of $350.

My question to the minister: Will the minister review this matter and change the system of payment to allow the Brandon General Hospital to be reimbursed for this new procedure and not to have to charge a user fee to the patient?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I understand this situation with respect to laparoscopic hernia repair at Brandon General Hospital, what is at issue is the right of Brandon General Hospital to charge a fee for supplies in this situation. We have grave concerns with the proposal being put forward by Brandon General Hospital and have not approved that.

So if anybody has gone through that process and been required to pay a fee, we want to follow that up because we have grave concerns and have not authorized that.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I thank the minister for that answer because I think, as he has said himself, patient care should be paramount. In this case, you are reducing the recovery time by about five weeks.

So I ask the minister, would he take into consideration the fact that Westman residents can go apparently to a Winnipeg hospital, I understand the Victoria Hospital, and receive the new procedure without a user fee because that hospital has achieved a shorter length of stay and, therefore, it can receive additional money from the government to cover the additional cost. There seems to be something wrong with the payment system here.

Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member is right. There does seem to be something wrong here. As I said in my previous answer, I have grave concerns about the proposed course of action here at Brandon General Hospital.

The people of Westman, as the honourable member very well knows, are very well served by Brandon General Hospital in spite of some of the degrading sorts of things he says about Brandon General Hospital from time to time. We plan to continue to provide the very best possible service out of Brandon General Hospital for many, many years to come. As I said, though, we will sort this situation out.

We do not support the charging of a $350 fee for people to have laparoscopic surgery at Brandon General Hospital.

* (1410)

Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I thank the minister for the answer. I would trust that in his consideration of the matter, he take into consideration the fact that patients can come to Winnipeg, get it at a hospital without an extra user fee, but that they, therefore, are required to pay additional costs of transportation, perhaps accommodation of the family and so on, so that there is really an additional cost for the particular patient.

In effect, Mr. Speaker, the present system does not encourage improved patient care. So I hope the minister would take that into consideration.

Mr. McCrae: I will hasten, Mr. Speaker, to repeat my answer, because I do not want the honourable member to go running off to the Brandon Sun to tell the people of Westman that they have to go to Victoria General Hospital for their surgery.

I already answered him that we do not support that fee; therefore, there would be no need. We will work out the appropriate arrangements with the Brandon General Hospital so that service can be provided to people in the Westman area.

I do not want the people of Westman to believe the honourable member for Brandon East when he goes out and tells them that they have to drive all the way to Victoria Hospital in Winnipeg, because that is not the case. We do not accept that proposal. We realize the Brandon General Hospital has an issue to sort out, and we are here to work with them to get this issue sorted out.

Abitibi‑Price‑‑Pine Falls

Emergency Response

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, we have had confirmed that there has been another chemical contamination from the Abitibi‑Price mill, this time a leak of 240 litres of a chemical called Nalkat, which is water soluble, but it raises some concerns with respect to the other problems at the mill and especially makes us wonder what is going on at this mill.

There seems to be some problem with emergency response at the mill.

I would like to ask the minister to tell the House how this spill was initially discovered and when the downstream communities were notified, particularly in light of the fact that this leak was ongoing for some 15 hours.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): First of all, Mr. Speaker, there does appear to be a much better response this time from the corporation in making sure that when it became known that they had a problem, they notified the appropriate authorities and the downstream residents.

This does emphasize what we have said all along. We want the mill to move quickly under the new management because almost all of the investment and certainly all of the up‑front investment is being made in the name of environmental improvement. Of course, putting in part of that is putting in place a much better management system so that they do not have situations occur of this nature, where they have something uncontrolled occur that can be seen to be detrimental to the water quality.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, given that the occupational health sheet on this chemical under the section, steps to be taken in the event of a spill or leak, it says: Stop the release and contain any absorbent material; or, by diking, prevent from entering water courses. For