4th-36th Vol. 61-Oral Questions

Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon thirty-one Grade 5 students from J.R. Walkof Elementary School under the direction of Miss Linda Bergen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on May 27 of this year, we raised questions to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), in fact to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), about the stress, the workload and the vacancies of the Crown attorneys office. These concerns were confirmed by comments made publicly by Mr. Hannon, the head of the Crown attorneys association. Yet on May 28, in this very same Chamber, the minister stated that he had talked to Mr. Hannon, and the article did not indicate what, in fact, the position was.

Madam Speaker, today Mr. Hannon is again quoted as saying that he stood by his article and quotes in the original article.

I would like to ask the minister: who is telling the truth, Mr. Hannon in his first and second statements or the minister on May 28 when he denied those comments?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The question that was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition on that date was whether there was--in the context of an outside operational review to be done, he indicated one position. I indicated that I had had a conversation with Mr. Hannon, and that was not my understanding of Mr. Hannon's position.

In fact, Mr. Hannon has, along with the Crown attorneys association, put out a press release today indicating that they have developed a strong working relationship with the management team in Manitoba Justice, including the Minister of Justice, and he indicates that we believe that MACA, that is, the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys, and Manitoba Justice share the same common objective of ensuring an efficient and responsive criminal justice system that meets the needs of the community.

In respect to any specific review, Mr. Hannon's comments are that there may be many ways to do this.

* (1335)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this is a repeated pattern of this minister. There are public concerns that are raised; the minister denies it. He misleads the House and then he tries to patch it up later with his word in absolute tatters in terms of his integrity in this House.

On May 28, the minister stated in Hansard: "The only direct vacancies that I am aware of today are the two vacancies that were created as a result of the appointments last week."

Mr. Hannon had said that there were an unprecedented number of vacancies, and on June 6, the government itself bulletined seven Crown attorney positions in terms of the vacancies that exist in his department. Why did the minister deny that there were so many vacancies, and why did he not tell us the truth when he said there were only two vacancies when we raised the question on May 28?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable Leader of the official Opposition that "to tell the truth" has been ruled out of order on several occasions.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, on the same day that the member indicated that there were 15 vacancies--[interjection] And his member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) indicated--well, I am sorry. The Leader of the Opposition indicated eight and the member for St. Johns indicated 15, one or the other. There was a discrepancy of seven positions there. In fact, there are today three vacancies in the Department of Justice, two of them arising out of that appointment process. I have indicated before that there are a number of shifts going on in the department as a result of the Lavoie--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: There have been in fact, Madam Speaker, an addition of seven Crown attorneys. Some Crown attorneys are moving into those positions, creating vacancies, and so those vacancies have not yet been created and we are obligated to fill those vacancies.

So when the member says there are eight or there are 15, he is wrong. Today there are three vacancies, and my department is taking very active steps to ensure that those vacancies are filled. I think that the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys has indicated in their press release today that they are very pleased to work in partnership with Manitoba Justice in addressing these issues.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Again, Madam Speaker, Mr. Hannon said there is an unprecedented number of vacancies in the Crown attorneys office when we asked the question. He has seven vacancies that are bulletined today. Again, his word is not worth very much in this Chamber when it comes to dealing with our side of the House.

Over the last year we have talked about the regrettable increase in violent crime here in Manitoba. We have talked about the underresources of Crown attorneys in the Crown attorneys office. The minister has denied that there are any resource problems. In fact, he said on May 28, we have appropriate resources in the Crown attorneys office.

Today the Crown attorneys have stated that they have between 50 and 100 cases on the docket court. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): will he get control of his minister who denies there is any difficulty in the Crown attorneys office? In terms of the public interest, will we have the operational review, as they have had in other provinces, so that we can be sure that public safety is paramount in the Crown attorneys office here in Manitoba?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, this is again a member who consistently misrepresents figures in order to make a point that is not correct. What the Crown attorneys had said: it is common in docket courts for there to be 50 to a hundred cases. The impression that the member leaves consistently is that there are 70 or 80 contested cases in these matters; when he talks about bail hearings, that there are contested cases.

You know, Madam Speaker, I went through those bail courts, and on no day on a bail court in the month of December were there more than five hours in court. On the day that the member specifically said there were 70 cases, court--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete his response.

Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, this is a member who leaves a misleading impression on the record. You know, I went through the docket where he indicated that there were 70 cases, in fact, 70 bail hearings, which he has repeated over and over again. I would ask him to go back to that docket, because that is a member who never checks his facts. In fact, when I went to the actual court records, court sat on that day from ten o'clock to twelve o'clock, from 1:30 to 3:30--four hours.

* (1340)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, just over the last several weeks alone the minister has said, and I quote from May 5: "whenever there has been an issue of resources or an issue in terms of addressing process, we have addressed that."

He said on the same day: "the government has consistently provided the Crowns with the resources that they require." But yet today we have the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys saying that the resource requirements have not been addressed, and say in fact that they are very concerned about the resources and supports available to assist them to do their jobs.

So my question now to the minister is: would he apologize and retract his drivel when he has consistently said to overworked and under-resourced Crowns and to Manitobans, who are increasingly concerned about their safety, don't worry, be happy?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, we know exactly the kind of drivel that the member for St. Johns brings here on a consistent daily basis. The other day he stands up and says that a Crown attorney--and he accused the Crown attorney of letting a case sit for 18 months when in fact the true facts, which he knew, were that--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mackintosh: I understand why the minister is rightly exercised today about the situation in his department, but I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. He just made an accusation that I knew facts that of course I did not know. What I knew was what the victim knew. He has put on the record wrong information. It was his department that not only left the victim in the dark but led her on. I ask the minister to correct the record, withdraw those statements and deal with the issues facing Manitobans rather than some personal and wrongful accusations.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. In raising his point of order, the honourable member for St. Johns has made his confession that he did not know what he was talking about. We will accept that, that he does not know what he is talking about. But on the point of order, we appear to have a difference of opinion between the honourable member and the minister--a very rare occurrence.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe the difficulty that we are placed in this time is that this minister repeatedly in his answers makes these kinds of comments and statements, refuses on many occasions to answer questions, and this is the situation we ran into here.

In fact, the whole dispute is over the fact that our critic was basing his questions based on feedback from the victims, and I wish the Minister of Justice would understand that we speak on behalf of Manitobans, including victims, and we make no apologies for that in Question Period.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, it is a rule in this House that it is up to the individual who brings the information to the House to ascertain the veracity of it. Basing it on the plea of victims without checking the facts, which he has now acknowledged, is now a plea of ignorance on the part of the member opposite for which he is responsible. It is up to him to check the facts before he brings them to the House on the record.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for St. Johns, the honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. But I would request that the honourable minister keep his response specific to the question asked and not provoke debate.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete his response.

Mr. Toews: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In fact, I accept that the member was speaking in ignorance rather than out of knowledge, but in fact what the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys has said is they have developed a strong working relationship with the management team in Manitoba Justice, including the Minister of Justice. We believe that the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys and Manitoba Justice share the same common objective of ensuring an efficient and responsive criminal justice system that meets the needs of the community. Indeed, that is what I have indicated the commitment of this government is, working with that particular union in order to ensure that these needs are met.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My supplementary to the minister is: since he said that he has been conducting and his department has been conducting an ongoing review of the Prosecutions branch, and yet the issues of public safety still have not been fully addressed, my question is why should Manitobans trust the management of the Prosecutions branch, including the minister, to review the Prosecutions branch? Why should we trust people, including the minister, who have been instrumental in a policy of underresourcing the Prosecutions branch. They are just looking at themselves.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, when the Lavoie report came out from Mr. Justice Schulman, this government acted in a responsible manner. Both the Family Services department and the Department of Justice asked for and received an extra, on an annual basis, $1.9 million, which meant seven more Crown attorneys for the entire system.

Mr. Mackintosh: I would like the minister to answer one of my questions--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question.

The honourable member for St. Johns, with a final supplementary question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Since the minister appears to have negotiated of management an internal review of Prosecutions, would he not recognize that this is not just a labour-management issue? It is a matter of public confidence and public safety that cannot be negotiated behind closed doors. Would he order an outside, objective review to restore confidence? He did it for Headingley. He did it for the Law Enforcement Review Agency, and our safety demands no less for this Prosecutions branch.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I made the position of the department and the government well known. If this matter can be resolved between the Crown attorneys and management in terms of ensuring that the appropriate resources are there, are not the Crown attorneys, is not the association, are not the managers who work in the courts on a day-to-day basis the people who are best in the position of determining what their needs are? Who has a greater interest, other than the people of Manitoba, other than the Crown attorneys, to ensure that there are appropriate resources so that the people of Manitoba are safe?

This is a member who continually misrepresents the position of the Crown attorney and criticizes the Crown attorney, as he did yesterday in respect of the case where he said a Crown attorney left a case sitting for 18 months when that, in fact, was not the case. The RCMP brought the file to the Crown attorney, completed in March of 1998, and yet he continues to make those kinds of accusations.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we are seeing increasingly that this Minister of Justice is losing confidence of people in our legal system. We are seeing it when he purported to speak for Mr. Hannon, and we see now today that Mr. Hannon has indicated clearly on the record that his comments, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, were accurate. We saw the same kind of process with the Chief Judge.

I would like to table a copy of the Order-in-Council, Madam Speaker, which indicates clearly that the Chief Judge is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, an Order-in-Council appointment, and I would like to--

An Honourable Member: Three copies.

* (1350)

Mr. Ashton: This is on file; this is not a new document. This is for courtesy of the members opposite.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will now recognize that, first of all, he has very little, if any, credibility in speaking for others, and that, because of his comments in the ministerial statement reporting on the comments of the Chief Judge, many people are saying in the legal community that either the Chief Judge speaks directly on what happens or the Chief Judge should resign--this because of his action.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We were reminded recently by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that documents filed in this House are supposed to be filed in triplicate. I remember the comments I made at the time. Notwithstanding, it is a practice that you have encouraged us to follow, that when we are tabling documents, we should do it in triplicate. [interjection]

Now I hear the honourable member for Thompson say, well, this is something that is on record. Well, most documents are on record somewhere. I suggest that this tabling ought not to be accepted unless it is done in triplicate, as insisted upon by the Leader of the Opposition.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, on the same point of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On the same point of order. Madam Speaker, I think some common sense has to prevail on this issue. I think quite often when a document is tabled, if it is in a spontaneous nature, you cannot expect the MLA to run to the appropriate caucus room and run and get three copies of it, come back in and then table the document. Common sense has to prevail.

I think, under certain circumstances where it can be accommodated by tabling three documents, that that is preferred. But when you have something that is being tabled where it is more of a spontaneous nature, you should not have to have duplicates in order to do that. I think it would be bad in terms of precedent setting if we started to insist on that.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I would agree, indeed, that the honourable House leader did have a point of order. All members are required to table three copies of all documents when tabling.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, again, Madam Speaker, the member relies on anonymous sources saying that the Chief Judge should resign and indicates that there is some connection between the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointing a judge. Well, I can tell you that every province appoints provincial judges through the Lieutenant Governor in Council. One thing that needs to be made clear is that the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed, not through any statute, but the Canadian Charter of Rights. That guarantees the independence, and every judge in this province understands that independence, which independence was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a very recent decision.

Mr. Ashton: Well, Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether this minister will recognize that the only province we have seen a minister so desperate to save his political hide that he actually came up with an agreement with the Chief Judge and then spoke for the Chief Judge is Manitoba. When will he recognize that he has seriously jeopardized the position of the Chief Judge in this province, a position that he appoints through Order-in-Council, and when will he do the appropriate thing and allow the Chief Judge either to speak or, as increasingly people are saying in the legal community, have that Chief Judge replaced because she is clearly in jeopardy because of his actions as the minister?

Mr. Toews: You know, Madam Speaker, first of all, they say that I have an inordinate amount of influence over the Chief Judge. Now they are saying I have an inordinate amount of influence over the Crown attorneys' union. They seem to think that I have the authority or somehow the power to make people say what I want them to say. Perhaps what is being done is being done with the consent of the parties involved, and I would indicate that is exactly what has occurred.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a final supplementary: will the minister acknowledge that indeed our point is exactly that, that he is purporting to speak, whether it be for the Crown attorneys when he was wrong, as is proven by the statements by Mr. Hannon, and increasingly people are asking if he was wrong in the Chief Judge? Will the minister do the right thing and either allow the Chief Judge to speak or replace the Chief Judge, which is what is clearly being talked about by more and more people in the legal community in this province?

* (1355)

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the member knows, and again misrepresents what the facts are or my abilities are, that I have absolutely no ability to replace the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge's independence and her actions are guaranteed by the Constitution of this country. This is a member who now wants us to ignore the Constitution.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: Finally, this is a member who said that the issue being dealt with as the Chief Judge on the nominating committee had nothing to do with the judiciary. Now he says, today, that it does have something to do with the judiciary.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, we have a real problem in Manitoba with respect to the administration of justice and the way the Justice portfolio is being handled by the present Justice minister. The Crown attorneys are forced to speak out. The minister contradicts the Crown attorneys. In an article today, the Crown attorney again repeats his statement, and the minister contradicts the Crown attorney. Several weeks ago the minister contradicted the Chief Justice; the Chief Justice contradicted the minister. We have a pattern here.

Will this Minister of Justice, this embattled Minister of Justice, this Minister of Justice who chooses to fight word games across the House not realize that the office of the Department of Justice is in jeopardy because of his statements and his handling of these affairs? Will he not recognize that what is needed in the case of the Crown attorneys is an independent review of the office of the Crown attorneys in order to raise the issue above this political wordsmithing by the Minister of Justice?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, if one wants to go through the questions and answers given in Hansard or indeed in Estimates, I would say that we are not in disagreement with either the Crown attorneys or indeed the Chief Judge. I will leave that issue.

All I will say in respect of the particular issue with the Crown attorneys, that the Crown attorneys have recognized that management in the department is undertaking the review of the branch to determine what additional supports are required. What the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys says is that they are pleased to be participating in that process. This is something that the Crown attorneys believe will assist in dealing with the problem. I want to ensure that any problems that are there are addressed, and I am committed to working with those Crown attorneys and with management to ensure that these problems are addressed.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, would the Justice minister not agree that if he wants to disregard everything we say in this House, does he not have a problem when his head of his Crown attorneys has to go to the media to talk about docket lists of 50 to 70 cases a day; attorneys indicate 50 to 100 cases on the docket, five or more trials per day, and that they have to have a press conference to try to get the minister and management to try to agree to address this problem when the minister stood up in this House day after day for a year denying there is a problem? Will the minister not objectively see that an outside review is required, at least to confirm the word of the minister?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I know that the Justice critic was in committee with me when we discussed the issue of the concerns of the Crown attorneys. One of the things I specifically said on Hansard is that I would welcome a public statement by the Crown attorneys association to set out exactly what their concerns are. Indeed, I view this document as a very positive document in terms of identifying the issues that the Crown attorneys see.

So this document is very positive, as opposed to the press releases that the Crown attorneys association have had to issue in the past when the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) continually misrepresents their position so that they have to get out a press release indicating that the member for St. Johns is misrepresenting their position.

* (1400)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, would the minister not agree that there is a problem when there is a contradiction between the Chief Justice and the minister, and the Chief Justice then meets with the minister and a statement issues? Now we have a contradiction between the Crown attorneys and the minister. The minister talks to the Crown attorneys obviously on the record. He spoke to the Crown attorneys, and now we have a statement that is issued by the Crown attorneys that the minister is relying on as his defence. Does he not see objectively that the public would be concerned about this minister, and will he again not recognize that an independent, objective review is required in order to clear not just the Crown attorneys in Justice but the minister's name?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, there are approximately 70 criminal Crown attorneys in this province, and for this member to suggest that I am now crafting a statement on behalf of those Crown attorneys is simply not correct.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is either for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Education. The need for change has been totally ignored in the whole area of school division boundary redistribution. For over 10 years, during elections, the government has implied that they want to be able to address this issue, but through the years they have totally ignored the issue. In fact, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a school division boundary review which that review currently sits on the shelf as nothing is being done.

My question for the government is: does the government have any intentions on bringing forward redistribution of school divisions in any sort of a tangible way? And I am not talking about the volunteered one or two school divisions, Madam Speaker, that we have seen over the years.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member is wrong if he says that the Norrie commission report is sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Mr. Norrie made many recommendations; we have accepted 26 of them, and they are currently either in place or being put in place. His recommendations on amalgamation had a lot of very good points, and we have been working in a very tangible way on voluntary amalgamation.

The member should not put down voluntary amalgamation. For amalgamation to work, it does require absolutely a positive buy-in from co-operating divisions. We know we have two amalgamations currently underway. We have many other divisions currently talking about amalgamation to the point that we have hired a full-time staffperson knowledgeable in this area. In fact, Mr. Roy Schellenberg has just come on staff to be a full-time facilitator to work with school divisions interested in amalgamation to take them through the things that can occur and the things that could occur and how they themselves can merge. School divisions are beginning to merge functions, share services, et cetera, leading to possible amalgamation discussions.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Education recognize the need to be fair? If you allow a school division in excess of over 30,000 students compared to another school division at less than 7,000, should not then school divisions of largeness be allowed to have the same sort of a smaller community-based school divisions? You should not be able to argue it for both ways.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am not quite sure that I follow the intricacies of the member's question, but if he is asking what I think he is asking, the Province of Manitoba has things such as small-school grants. It does not matter how large the school division is, the small-school grant is based on the size of the school regardless of whether it is a big division or a small one. We also have grants for isolated areas. We have transportation grants for people who are in remote areas, et cetera. There are many factors in the formula that take into account small, remote and isolated areas.

Having said that, if there are economies of scale that can produce a cost savings and introduce more cost-effectiveness, then school divisions seeing the merit of that have the opportunity with encouragement from the province to become officially amalgamated, but that decision we feel absolutely has to come from the boards themselves and not be imposed by government.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am asking the minister to recognize--if you are allowing on a volunteer basis for school divisions to amalgamate, is it then safe to assume that the government is also allowing on a volunteer basis for those areas of communities that want to have their own school division? So this way, if you want to reduce a school division from 30,000 to 10,000, it in fact could be done.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, school boards are charged with the mandate to deal with things that would appear before the board of reference in terms of changing school division boundaries. Even with the amalgamations that have occurred so far, the one that is furthest down the road being St. Boniface and Norwood, the final determination of that has to go to the board of reference for determination. Of course, the case they present being valid is something that the board of reference will determine. If a school division wishes to downsize, if that is what I hear the member talking about, then something would have to be done with the portion of the division that is no longer going to be included, and that would be something the board of reference would have to take a very close look at, because you cannot leave a body of schools without having a governance jurisdiction.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when farmers buy a new tractor or combine, they pay a tremendous price. Many feel that this price is too high, and you would think that with this kind of price companies would be prepared to offer a reasonable warranty. Here in Manitoba we have a two-year warranty on this equipment, but not for long because the government is bringing forward changes that will reduce the warranty to one year.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he is bringing this change forward since it is not requested by the farmers. On whose behalf is he acting, because it does not appear he is acting on the farmers' behalf?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, we have a responsible group of people that advise the minister and the department on the functions of the farm machinery act. I point out to her quite correctly the high expense of farm machinery. Only in Manitoba added to that expense is a 2 percent surcharge for our insistence on a warranty that does not prevail in other parts of the country, Saskatchewan notably and Alberta. It is the advice of the Farm Machinery Board, which has farmer representative on it, has farm machinery representative on it, that this is a move that brings our practice of warranty in line and in harmony with neighbouring provinces that is certainly being requested, has been requested for some time by implement dealers in the western part of our province.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, we continue to level the playing field to the lowest common denominator.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River, with a supplementary question.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us what evidence he has that prices are higher on this side of the border, because all research that has been done for us shows that there is no difference in price on the Manitoba side to the Saskatchewan side. Will he admit he is just acting in the best interest of the farm machinery dealers, not the farmers?

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, the extra 2 percent is imprinted right on the invoice. I can show her that at any time.

The other issue is that times are changing. Not only for farm machinery but for other things, you can purchase a level of warranty that suits your operation, your business. Most of the farm machinery, particularly some of this big, expensive machinery, is not on a yearly basis anymore because it is not relevant; it is on hour use. They have hour meters on these big tractors and on these machines. The warranty extends for X number of hours. In purchasing machinery, if you feel that you want to buy some additional warranty, you do that. That seems to me the appropriate way of doing it rather than impose on everybody a level of warranty that is out of step generally in the industry and particularly out of step with other farmers in western Canada.

* (1410)

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I hope the minister would recognize that it is final purchase price that matters to farmers.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Swan River that she should pose her question without any preamble.

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why his government is reducing the length of time during the day when producers can order emergency repairs. It used to be from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. and now it is just normal working hours. The minister is a farmer; he understands the importance of emergency repairs. Why is he reducing this length of time?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I want to indicate to the honourable member for Swan River that it is precisely some of these questions that I asked a year ago. I was being asked a year ago by the same Farm Machinery Board to bring in the act that I did. I said, no, no, I need to ask a lot of people first whether or not all these amendments make sense. I allowed a year to take place. I discussed with KAP, among other people--by the way, the Keystone Agricultural Producers organization--with a number of other organizations, and have taken a whole year to satisfy myself that the amendments represent current industry norms and are in the best interests of agriculture here in Manitoba.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, in the city of Winnipeg school nursing services are at about half strength, and nursing duties are being offloaded onto teachers. I would like to ask the Minister of Education whether it is the government's policy to train teachers to search for head lice and to use teaching time for such examinations.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I indicated to the member, last week I believe it was, and perhaps she maybe does not recall my indicating that last year the Department of Health made available to school divisions some $450,000 for the purpose of being able to hire registered nurses for schools. From that pool of money, some quarter of a million dollars was utilized for the hiring of registered nurses in schools. So there should be no need for teachers to be assuming registered nurses' duties, given that funding for the hiring of nurses through Health was made available.

Ms. Friesen: My supplementary is to the Minister of Health. Could I ask the minister to tell us how it is that school nursing services in the city of Winnipeg have deteriorated to such a serious extent when this government, this minister, the previous minister, possibly even the minister before that has made commitment after commitment to the Postl report and to community-based nursing services, beginning in the schools?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would reject the member's accusation that school nursing services provided through the Ministry of Health in any way or form have declined. There have obviously been increases in need in some areas, shifts in need, and those we are hoping to accommodate through our regional health authorities, but I do reject her comment that there has been some massive decline in service.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, the supplemental, also to the Minister of Health.

Would the minister make a commitment in the agreement that is being reached now between the City of Winnipeg Health Services and the Long Term Health Care Authority that public health nurses will be returned to the schools and that they will form the basis for medical services which will focus on the child?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, we would expect that, in an appropriate fashion, the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority, as well as rural regional health authorities, will use the schools, where appropriate, to provide for services. If the member is asking that there be in each school a public health nurse there full time, that may not be necessarily the most efficient way to deliver those services. So I cannot make that commitment to her today, but certainly, where it is appropriate, that is part of the expectation of delivery of service by regional health authorities.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Last month the minister refused to support the substantive parts of Resolution 30, the Sayisi Dene Relocation, stating that rather than asking the federal government to reopen negotiations, he is hopeful that the federal government will, on its own, agree to accept TLE within the territory of Nunavut.

My question is simply this: given that the federal government immediately, following the signing of the TLE agreement in principle on May 31, 1996, reversed its position and said that it would accept TLE lands outside Manitoba, why does this minister continue to argue the contrary?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Northern and Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, I, of course, cannot and will not defend the federal government's position on this. The federal government's position is, frankly, unacceptable.

The position that was taken in relation to the negotiating of the treaty resulting in Nunavut having terms in the agreement for their future which did not include the Dene people and their traditional hunting grounds has caused a dilemma, a dilemma which they can solve.

My understanding is that a process is underway between the Sayisi Dene and the Dene people in the existing Northwest Territories to try and come up with a solution co-operatively with the emerging leadership of Nunavut and the federal government, and hopefully this will bring about a success. We are certainly on their side.

Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, given that the Sayisi Dene will be voting on the TLE framework agreement next month, what efforts has this minister made to pressure the federal government to live up to its obligation, and could he table any such correspondence?

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I had a meeting face to face with the federal Minister responsible for Native and Northern Affairs, Jane Stewart, in my office and not only raised the issue but presented a document outlining our concern about this issue. That has been a matter which has been a responsibility of the federal government to address through her since that time and no doubt before I ever had that face-to-face meeting.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, last week Manitobans were angry over the revelations concerning how many children this government was warehousing in hotels due to cuts in foster care, cuts to welfare, amongst other cuts to supports for low-income parents and students. Apparently, in Saskatchewan they have kept their supports in place and just half the number of kids are in care, so it has no children living in hotels in that province.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services what the response of this government has been with respect to the 1993 report of the First Nations Child and Family Task Force entitled Children First: Our Responsibility.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question. That report was commissioned by our government, and the recommendations that were in the report, I believe, and other reports that have come forward have recommended that we should be looking at the issue of an aboriginal agency or some way to better serve aboriginal children within the city of Winnipeg.

Madam Speaker, I have had discussions with the federal minister because, in the absence of federal legislation around child welfare, I, as the minister in Manitoba responsible for The Child and Family Services Act, have responsibility for all children throughout the province, although we do mandate agencies. The agency that is mandated in the city of Winnipeg is the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency. But obviously we are seeing high numbers of aboriginal children within the city of Winnipeg's jurisdiction, and we are not doing a very good job of trying to deal with the issues of those children.

So, Madam Speaker, I have put in place a process where we have invited the AMC, the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Social Planning Council, the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg and the Winnipeg agency together to try to find ways of resolving the issues and provide better services to children.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

* (1420)