4th-36th Vol. 41-Oral Questions

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Holiday Haven inquest report into the death of Mr. Molnar was released last Friday afternoon.

Madam Speaker, one would recall that four years ago today, May 4, 1994, the former Minister of Health said that the government of the day, the Filmon government of the day, would not delay in addressing the issues of safety for residents of personal care homes here in Manitoba. Regrettably, four years later, the report again raises a number of issues of safety, standards, accreditation and inspections in the personal care homes. In fact, in the death of Mr. Molnar, they say the Holiday Haven Home was not accredited, and accreditation could assist in preventing a similar tragedy in the future. They go on to recommend that sanctions be put in place and enforced to ensure that our standards are met.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): when are we going to act on having standards for our personal care homes and accreditations that can prevent deaths like Mr. Molnar's?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. First of all, Madam Speaker, many of our personal care homes in Manitoba--they always have been encouraged to meet the accreditation standards. With respect to Holiday Haven, they are under new ownership, and the new owners I understand will be applying after they have owned the facility for one year, which is the prerequisite time in which to make an application.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that we discovered in the course of this particular matter was that the legislative authority available to have a licensing scheme with sanctions and other things was very much lacking, and that is why we took some steps legislatively last year. This year we now have a bill before the House which will provide the Ministry of Health with the necessary authorities to put that kind of extensive licensing process in place. We have discussed this with his critic in Estimates rather extensively.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I cannot believe that the government did not know in 1994, following the report of 1993 of personal care home problems, and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did not know that legislative authority was necessary to fulfill the commitments that the government made. We believe that it was the lack of political will to put in the legislative authority and other resources for our personal care homes.

Madam Speaker, the report goes on to recommend another commitment that the government made five years ago or four years ago that we have in our personal care homes unscheduled inspections of all personal care homes. In light of the fact that I believe that there were only 30 visits of 120 homes last year, four years after the government committed itself to inspections, will the Premier order that his Minister of Health fulfill the commitment he made four years ago and have regular unscheduled inspections of all personal care homes in Manitoba to ensure standards are met and residents are being treated with the proper care and the proper safety in our personal care homes?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): As we discussed extensively in Estimates, one of the problems with the old legislative scheme was that there was a licensing scheme but a very inadequate one, because the only option available to ministers of Health or governments was in fact to withdraw the licence, which meant you may have some problem in a particular facility. If you withdrew the licence, you might have a hundred and fifty residents that you would have to be moving out in January, so there were not the intermediary steps. That is why we made changes to The Regional Health Authority Act last year and are bringing in some additional changes this year.

I am pleased to indicate that we have put in place the unannounced inspection process. Thirty have been done to date, and within this year all 120 personal care homes will have an unannounced inspection.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, with a new question to the Premier. We put out a press release in December of 1997, and we quoted the fact that Krever in his report talked about the moral responsibility that we all had as citizens across Canada for hepatitis C victims.

Madam Speaker, today Mike Harris, the Premier of Ontario, pledged his government's share to deal with the victims of hepatitis C or people that have contracted hepatitis C through the blood transfusion system prior to 1996. He said these people need our help, and we agree with the Premier of Ontario. Will the Premier of Manitoba be taking similar action to provide support and compassion for people prior to 1986?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as the member well knows, there are many, many people from right across the country who are working on this particular issue. As recently as Friday, there was a lengthy conference call amongst all the provincial Health ministers in the country, and the Health minister from Saskatchewan, the New Democratic government of Saskatchewan, Mr. Serby, reported on behalf of all the ministers at that time.

There have also been a variety of different discussions taking place amongst Premiers. I certainly have spoken to some of my colleagues on the issue. I spoke with Premier Harris on Friday, and there have been different positions taken. I know that a news bulletin has come out suggesting that Ontario is prepared to co-operate and be involved in a solution. At the time that I spoke with Premier Harris, his intended solution or the solution that he was examining was the fact that the provinces are responsible for $1.6 billion of costs to serve the needs, the medical and health needs, of the victims of hepatitis C across our country, and that none of that was given credit for in the negotiated settlement for the victims who are being compensated or intended to be compensated between '86 and '90. It was, I believe, Ontario's position that until the federal government matches that by virtue of their additional compensation offers that Ontario would not be putting additional money on the table.

I am not sure whether that position has changed, and certainly I would agree with him on that position as we discussed it on Friday, but as I say, the positions are changing rapidly. Various different governments are attempting to find solutions. All of us want to be as fair and as reasonable as we possibly can in this whole matter. It is an issue of concern to all Canadians and certainly to all Manitobans, and so I can assure the member opposite that we will continue to be in touch with our colleague counterparts across Canada and continue to try and find a way in which we can all work co-operatively.

I think the one thing we do not want to do is have different provinces with different fiscal capacities making different offers because people are mobile. I overheard last Friday or Thursday on the radio a victim in Winnipeg who was the victim of a transfusion in Regina. You could not have people moving to the province in which there was a so-called better offer of compensation. So I do not think you would want that kind of two-tier solution. I think it is important that we all continue to discuss with our counterparts a collective solution, Madam Speaker.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we too would not want someone in Ontario or Kenora, for that matter, having potentially one set of rights in this area versus somebody in Winnipeg.

Madam Speaker, we were hoping last week that the free vote would have resolved this issue or moved it along. We have put similar resolutions before the Chamber, and we had tried to push this along with the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) here in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, the Ontario government is saying that the federal government needs leadership from the provinces. Victims need leadership from the provincial governments, as the Premier points out, who have to deal with this issue. The Ontario government, in a press release, not a news bulletin--and I have a copy of it--are exploring legal avenues to require the federal government to meet their responsibility. They are saying that these people need help and we are prepared to do our part to give it to them. I call on Ottawa to do the right thing, to join them. We certainly agree that Ottawa is wrong to limit the package to post-1986, and we certainly believe that the leadership now must come from the provinces, and I agree. The leadership should come from all provinces together.

I would like to ask the Premier: what position will he take to provide the leadership for Ottawa to stop their stubbornness and be fair to the hepatitis C victims that are not covered by the package after 1986?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we will continue to take the position that our Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has taken, and that is that we will seek a co-operative solution that is one that characterizes our response as being fair, just and reasonable under the circumstances. I emphasize that we would want to be a positive part of the solution, but we would want to find a consistent common solution so that we do not create a two-tier approach to compensation.

Madam Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), with the indulgence of the House, I would like to introduce some special guests both in the loge to my right and in the Speaker's Gallery who have joined us this afternoon. In the loge to my right, I would like to introduce Mr. Kevin O'Brien, MLA for Arviat and Baker Lake in the Northwest Territories. In the Speaker's Gallery, we have this afternoon His Excellency Robert Sabga, High Commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago to Canada.

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

* (1350)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, Premier Harris may have said one thing to the Premier on Friday, but later today the Premier will table a resolution in his Legislature calling for a second compensation package which will provide compensation for all hepatitis victims, at least those infected through the blood before 1986. Today the Premier of Ontario has said Ontario will not stand idly by while the federal government ignores the plight of these victims, and then he says: I call on Ottawa to do the right thing and join us.

Today I would like to call on this Premier to do the right thing and join Ontario and pledge its share, that is, our share of compensation to those victims infected before 1986.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I thought that I had dealt with that matter very thoroughly in my response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer). If the member for Osborne is disagreeing with the position and suggesting that we go off on an ad hoc basis and that we just simply offer different levels of compensation depending on our different fiscal capacities in the country, then I would think that is not the right solution. I will go back to my position of saying that we will play a positive role in attempting to work out a national approach to this, that we will be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the Premier, since he is very willing to play a positive role and since I believe last week on talk radio he said that approval for Quebec's National Assembly resolution would be unanimous and easy to get, I would like to ask the Premier then if his government will be supporting our resolution which is currently before the committee on the National Assembly's motion on hepatitis C.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, you see, this leads to the confusion and the raw attempts for people to get involved for political purposes in this thing. I say that what she asked in her first question is different from what she has asked in her second question, because in her second question she is talking about the Quebec resolution. The Quebec resolution calls for all the money to come from Ottawa, whereas in her first question she asked about the Ontario solution, which is to put provincial money on the table, and there we have to be sure that we have a national consensus on it so that we do not create a two-tier approach to this. Now we cannot just go rushing headlong into this because it is good politics. We have to do it on the basis of trying to find a fair and reasonable solution that is agreed to by all the provinces and jurisdictions in Canada. We cannot just go running around and tilting at every possible new avenue in hopes that it will bring some positive political benefit to us.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Beauchesne is very clear in terms of imputation of motives, and on such a serious issue as compensation for hepatitis C victims, I would like to ask you to direct the Premier to withdraw those comments. I think everybody in this House is trying to do the right thing, and we in our party make no apologies for saying we want justice for victims of hepatitis C. That is not a question of politics; it is a question of humanity.

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. There is no question. We can all agree that all of us want justice for all of those involved in this issue, and we want fairness and equity to be the solution to this. But it is the confusion that I point out of having two different questions pose two different solutions, and then asking us do we agree or disagree. How can we, when there are two different proposals from the member opposite? Now that is confusing.

I know New Democrats are usually confused, but we have to deal with rationality.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I will take the matter under advisement so I can very carefully research the exact comments and context of the words spoken by the Premier.

* (1355)

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, with a final supplementary question.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I want to ask this Premier--and explain to him we need to ask many questions because we get no answers. I want to ask this Premier if he is going to maintain the cold and heartless position taken by his Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), or is he going to do something to compensate these victims, those infected before 1986. What is he going to do? Simple question.

Mr. Filmon: Well, you know, Madam Speaker, this is a member whose colleagues and she regularly tell us that we ought to be doing what Saskatchewan does, their colleagues, the New Democratic government in Saskatchewan. Now she is calling the Minister of Health in Saskatchewan cold and heartless, because this is his solution that is collectively arrived at by all of the ministers of Health in Canada. That is the kind of two-faced approach that we have consistently from members opposite.

I pointed out that she has asked in one question about the Quebec solution, which involves only money from Ottawa. Then she has asked in the second question about the Ontario solution, which involves money coming from Ontario as well as Canada. There is no consistency over there. There is total confusion, and that is why we prefer to deal collectively with this so we do not set up a two-tier system of compensation and so that we deal fairly with the people who are involved.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Government Services and concerns this government's top-secret computer agreement with SHL. Last Wednesday the minister misrepresented the total cost of the new desktop computer program, when he knows that the real cost is 10 times the amount he claims it to be.

I would like to ask the minister: would the minister now admit his mistake and confirm that the true cost of the computer replacement will be in the neighbourhood of $150 million?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, I would just like to clarify for the member opposite that when I mentioned the figure of $15 million the last time he asked a question, that was the ongoing cost the government was incurring each and every year. That is expected to actually increase over the time of the contract to as much as $20 million if we did nothing.

I would like to assure the member, though, that the incremental cost that is estimated for the desktop management project is in the neighbourhood of $25 million to $30 million.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to thank the minister for confirming our figures, that the contract will be $150 million.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, why does this minister refuse to release a copy of the agreement, which we know contains financial rewards for the company if equipment does not break down and penalties if service levels are not met? What are the big secrets in this agreement that the minister is trying to keep from the public?

* (1400)

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, when the provincial government decided to go to the desktop management project and our request for proposal was placed and responses to this request for proposal, under that request with a committee that was assigned to look at the request, the offers, that desktop management contract was awarded to Systemhouse.

I would also like to take the opportunity now to explain that, within the provincial government up until now, each individual department in government was basically going in its own direction within the information technology era. What is happening, and I compare it to several different kinds of railroads with different gauges, what we are attempting to do with the desktop management project is to ensure that there is a consistent highway that is developed within all the government structure so that the transfer of data and information can be uniform right across the entire government.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Since the minister refuses to release a copy of this agreement, I would like to ask the minister to at least explain the point system that was used to select the successful hardware bidders. Will he reconsider and provide us with a copy of the agreement and the point system used to select the bidders?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, throughout the entire government when purchases are made or requests for proposals are taken into account, there are evaluation criteria that are established. Of course, depending on the project, the criteria change with that particular project. In the case of the evaluation criteria with the selection of hardware, we were looking at product quality, general qualifications, the technical specifications, the current cost requirements and the ongoing cost requirements as part of the evaluation criteria.

Then they were weighed in accordance with--from low to critical, and in terms of those scores, it would be one to four, one for low, four for critical. Then the evaluation process also encountered or took a look at the degree of satisfaction and awarded points as to whether the proposal did not meet the requirements or sections of it did not meet the requirements, partially meets the requirements or exceeds the requirements.

So these are, in a way, the evaluation criteria.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, if you were operated on in December of 1985 and were infected with hepatitis C, there would have been no compensation. If you were operated on in January of '86, one month later, you would have received full compensation. That is the reason why we are asking the provincial government to take some sort of responsibility for those who were infected prior to 1986.

My question specific to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province is: listening to his response, will he give Manitobans, in particular the sufferers of hepatitis C prior to 1986, the commitment today that there will be some form of compensation? Will he get on the record today of making that commitment?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we have discussed with the member for Inkster in committee the rationale behind that particular time frame which, by the way, was developed by his federal Liberal colleagues in the preparatory work for this particular case. The principle on which the package was advanced was one of in that particular time frame it is very arguable that the Canadian blood system run by the Red Cross, regulated by the national government could, may have been able to do something to prevent the spread of hepatitis C. Prior to that particular time--and one always knows, you are picking time frames, you pick it around the facts, what is happening in the medical community. The argument goes very strongly that the test was not one that had been part of the standard of care, was in the developmental process, and it was only in the early part of 1986 that the test came to be accepted and began that process of acceptance when it was finally used everywhere by 1990.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the minister did not even come close to answering the question. The question specific is: will this government make a commitment to those individuals who were infected by hepatitis C prior to 1986? That is the question. Is the government prepared to answer that question straightforward? The people deserve that.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the issue that we have discussed on many occasions and one that Ontario--I am looking forward to hearing Premier Harris's comments on it, et cetera, over the next number of days. The fundamental question here: do we as a health care system have a responsibility to provide a package above the Canadian social safety net, because let us remember no one is being left with nothing anywhere. If you become ill with cancer, if you become ill today with heart disease and are unable to work, your health care is provided for, Pharmacare in Manitoba, home care and the Canada Pension Plan with a disability plan provides income support. It may not be as adequate as we would all like it but it is there. So the question is: do we provide above that social safety net? If we extend it beyond the areas where there is a negligence by the system, the question that we all have to answer: will we provide that same for individuals who have an allergic reaction to drugs, who have an injury in the normal risk of health care and how are we going to finance that? I would be interested to hear what the member for Inkster is proposing in that realm.

Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Premier (Mr. Filmon) make a commitment to compensate those individuals who were infected prior to 1986 with hepatitis C? Will the Premier stand in his place today and make that commitment?

Mr. Praznik: You know, Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue, and it is one in which there are many complexities. It is not a simple issue because it has a lot of ramifications. What I find so untenable in the question from the member for Inkster is in the debate on the New Democratic Party resolution, he moved to take Ottawa and the House of Commons out of that resolution. Never once in his question has he called upon the federal government to do anything. In fact, I think he has become a great apologist for Ottawa.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau) himself heckled across to me that the Minister of Health is in fact imputing motives, and that is in fact why I would be standing up. The Deputy Speaker is correct. The Minister of Health is imputing motives. The Minister of Health is trying to say that I am not holding Ottawa responsible, and I am not about to hold Ottawa responsible; I want to hold this government responsible. So, if the minister wants to impute motives, he should be imputing my motives in wanting to hold this government accountable for its lack of actions in dealing with hepatitis C of those that were infected prior to 1986.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I enjoy the debate as much as anyone on any given topic, but I think this is a very serious matter. We know the political parties from all different stripes have agreed to a federal-provincial package. We on this side believe there were mistakes made and we said so in December. We know the provincial government is working with other provincial counterparts and the federal government. I really think it is important on this issue--we wanted a free vote last week; we thought that would have been very helpful for us to vote in a free way. It is a very, very important issue--that we maintain decorum in the House, Madam Speaker, on an issue like this, and we remember who is most at risk: the people that are not covered pre-1986. I really think it is important for us to try to find a solution to this. It is very important in our questions and our debate we try to find a solution to this. There is political responsibility everywhere and provincial leadership required everywhere.

Let us take leadership here in Manitoba. Let us find leadership here with the Premier (Mr. Filmon). We will support that to deal with the Krever report and then really support victims. I think, Madam Speaker, you should rule accordingly.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.

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

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the point that I make to the member for Inkster is that the Canadian blood system was operated by the Red Cross and regulated by the national government, that provinces by and large were the funders or purchasers of that product, and for him today to come to the House and ask the provinces to come up with all the solutions after we have had withdrawal of federal funding after withdrawal of federal funding--even in this particular package the federal government has not borne its fair share of the cost here. We have to look to those who bear the prime responsibility. Even Mr. Justice Krever identified that as the national government.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice. This is the government that has messed up the Law Enforcement Review Agency, and indeed in January KPMG concluded that LERA is not seen by any of its participants as being effective and efficient.

My question to the minister is: could the minister now explain why LERA refuses to even accept a complaint from an aboriginal woman who alleges an assault by an officer of the Dakota Ojibway Police Service, contrary, Madam Speaker, to the words of this government in its reports that suggest that LERA is there for all Manitobans?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, I know that LERA is an independent office, makes decisions on the basis of the legislation that it has before it, and while I cannot comment on that particular case, I trust that the legislation was followed and that the appropriate considerations were made. If in fact the member has any indication that there was something improper in the way that any complaint was dealt with, I would certainly appreciate hearing from the member so that I can refer that to the appropriate officials in my department.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister--who was made aware of this complaint by the individual involved, by the potential complainant, Madam Speaker, and passed it on--explain to all Manitobans, particularly aboriginal Manitobans, why despite an agreement that has been in place since 1994 which requires that complaints against Dakota Ojibway Police Service personnel shall be considered under LERA, would he explain what has gone wrong here and why this government is now involved in further incompetence when it comes to law enforcement review in this province?

Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, again the member for St. Johns avoids imputing any impropriety on what the LERA officials did. If there is something that they did wrong, tell me, because I will take that to the appropriate officials and I will ask them to review it, but the member does not want to deal in specifics. The member continually deals in vague generalities and character assassinations. That is not the type of thing that I am involved in. I want to ensure that problems are dealt with.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would this minister who received a letter dated January 20--and, by the way, a response was not sent back until March from an official in his department. Surely he had time to look at this. Would he now explain to Manitobans, this complainant and aboriginal Manitobans why it is that they are suffering this discriminatory effect and why LERA does not accept complaints from aboriginal Manitobans? Would he explain that?

Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, if in fact there is a problem with the legislation that the New Democrats brought in, I would be more than happy to look at it to ensure that if there is any situation where people are being improperly discriminated against, I will deal with that. Our government is committed to ensuring that justice is accessible to people of every race in this province.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. As he very well knows, the problem of the lack of pediatric services, adequate pediatric services at Brandon has been around for many, many months. Now the College of Physicians and Surgeons, because of the current pediatric crisis, has downgraded the hospital to Level 1--in effect, comparable to that of a small rural hospital--saying that BGH should not offer high-risk obstetrical services except in emergencies at this time.

I wonder now whether the minister is prepared to take some action. Can he tell this House exactly what does he propose to do to resolve this serious situation which is causing a lot of anxiety and concern in the community?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, a lot of action has been taken and is working through its course in recruitment.

But let us understand how this developed. We had two pediatricians in Brandon. They indicated to the old--I believe it was the Brandon Hospital board--some time ago, before the RHA came into effect, that they were overworked, had too large a call schedule with only two and would not perform call for the whole week. The Brandon Hospital, at that time, recruited physicians to fill in during that period for which there was a premium, I understand, paid in order to get them to come to Brandon for those periods. The two existing physicians indicated that they would be prepared to work if they were paid the premium, but of course if the issue is overwork, more money is not the answer.

We have authorized funding to the new Brandon Hospital authority in a range of $185,000 to $205,000 a year to recruit pediatricians, and I am told from my last update as of Friday evening that there are negotiations going on now with two physicians to come to the Brandon community.

Mr. L. Evans: I thank the minister for that information.

A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Can the minister tell us what action he plans to take to deal with the plan of the local doctors who have now stated that as of this Friday they will not deliver babies at the Brandon General Hospital? This is very regrettable and very serious, and the minister has to address this problem immediately. We have to get a solution now.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, we have authorized the Brandon Regional Health Authority for contracts between, I believe, a range, depending on the experience of the physician, of $185,000 to $205,000 per year. There are two that they are negotiating with. I am hoping that they will be successful in concluding those contracts.

But it is interesting to note that the average income for pediatricians in Winnipeg is at least $20,000-plus less. So Brandon is probably one of the places in the province that a pediatrician can earn a very good living, which raises the question: why are more pediatricians not interested in relocating from Winnipeg to Brandon? As the member knows his community, as does the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), there may be some other issues here that make it difficult to recruit.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Premier has had an opportunity to read the press release from the Province of Ontario, and we have been informed that Allan Rock has said that there may be a meeting or he is looking at a meeting of federal and provincial people to reopen the package.

Ontario, Madam Speaker, is proposing as their solution to this situation that its share for the hepatitis C victims be shared prior to 1986 on the same proportion as the package that is presently agreed to after 1986. I would like to ask the Premier: does the Premier feel that this proposal put forward by Ontario to deal with the prior to 1986 hepatitis C victims could lead to a possible federal-provincial settlement, and is it a possible solution that he could support?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have the news release that the member refers to. I am not sure that I am interpreting it correctly so I will not make comment until I have a full understanding of it. I do believe that, rather than us negotiating something here in the Legislature, we ought to be having the kind of approach to it that Mr. Rock is apparently suggesting, and that certainly was attempted last Friday, which is that all of the Health ministers across Canada ought to sit down and compare their figures, their notes and their understanding of the issue. I know that we are more than committed and more than prepared to do just that.

* (1420)

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, last week when we raised in the Legislature the students-at-risk project, it appeared that the minister was not familiar with the report and her response in the hallways was to blame the union and blame the teachers. The next day in Question Period she clearly had read the report and reported that all seven recommendations were being acted upon. I would like to ask the Minister of Education, given that, when she intends to follow Recommendation No. 7, which is the release of the executive summary of the report to all the superintendents and principals who took part.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I am puzzled by the member's preamble. Blaming the union, I do not recall ever having made any reference to that in any way, shape or form, so, Madam Speaker, I categorically deny that. I did indicate, which is absolutely accurate, that this perspective in this report came from workers in the workforce, some who may belong to unions and some who may not.

Madam Speaker, it is the perspective of workers in the field, and I do believe I said it was a valuable perspective. Where she gets this verbiage from is beyond me, I do not know. But I wish to state for the record that it is entirely inaccurate and a very wrong interpretation of my comments. If the member feels that any time I indicate something is the workers' perspective it implies a criticism, perhaps it is more about her understandings than mine.

I indicated to the member that we were working on all seven of these recommendations, and I think that is an answer to her question.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us when she is going to follow Recommendation No. 7, which is simply to release the report? It is step 1. When is she going to do it?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I absolutely disagree that it was step 1. It was the final addendum to all of these recommendations.

Madam Speaker, step 1 was that we have an integrated system which we have now developed through Children and Youth Secretariat. Step 2 was that we indicate that we show how best practices work, which we are doing with standard exams. Step 3 was that we take a look at the aboriginal youth perspective, which we have done with our aboriginal youth directorate. Step 4--every single one is underway. So she says it was step 1. I am indicating to her what the steps were. The member is going to say I am out of order. She said this was step 1. I am indicating what step 1 was, step 2, step 3 and step 4. She is talking about step 7.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order. My original point of order, Madam Speaker, was Beauchesne's Citation 417, answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.

Madam Speaker, if there is any doubt that the minister was violating that, her extensive comments after you stood up, I think she went on for another two or three minutes of rambling nonanswer. I would like to ask you for once to have this Minister of Education actually answer a question in this House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed I would remind the honourable Minister of Education and Training to respond to the question asked, to be as brief as possible and not provoke debate.

Ms. Friesen: Well, for the third time, I would like to ask the minister when she is going to release the report that Recommendation No. 7 says she should. When is she going to do it?

Mrs. McIntosh: We will be preparing for those 10 focus groups information as to how we are addressing the report, the recommendations that they gave us, and giving that to them. They know what they recommended; they are the ones who recommended it. What they are really wanting is a reply back from us as to how we are addressing those concerns. We are clearly addressing each and every one of them, and we will provide that information to them as soon as that answer is ready for them.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.