4th-36th Vol. 42-Oral Questions

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, we have been hearing all last week and again yesterday from Tory ministers, including the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), and from Tory backbenchers that the extension of compensation for victims of hepatitis C would bankrupt our health care system and plunge the entire country into a state of chaos. Tories voted against our motion last December; they voted against our motion calling for a free vote and are currently filibustering our second motion, our third motion I should say.

Madam Speaker, in light of the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) apparent change of heart yesterday--and I ask that we both put partisanship aside--I want to ask him what his position is. Will his Minister of Health return to the bargaining table assigned with the task of negotiating the extension of hepatitis C to include all victims who acquired this illness through contaminated blood or contaminated blood products?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I just cannot believe the preamble to the question from the member for Osborne. She came to the committee last week and moved a resolution that required the federal government to pay the entire share of the compensation package. Then we asked her to clarify what the New Democratic Party's position was. She refused to answer. Then, after being challenged again, she said, well, that really is not our position; maybe the province should pay something.

So, Madam Speaker, now she comes in here while this matter is being debated in the committee where many members of this Legislature are participating in a very thorough discussion on hepatitis C, one that it is our responsibility as legislators to have, and the member now wants to cut off that debate. That is totally a misrepresentation of what is happening in committee, and we on this side would like to know what the New Democrats really think. Should the feds pay? Should the provinces pay? They put two positions on the record last week.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, in response to the question of extending compensation, yesterday the Premier said I am not ruling it out. The Premier says one thing in the hallway, one thing here, one thing one day, one thing the next day. We are trying to find out the position of this government in relationship to compensation, to extending the package for compensation for hepatitis C. Would somebody, please, the Premier--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Point of order, Madam Speaker. We have had a second question, a follow-up question, and we have had a very extended preamble that has been going on for, as the House leader for the official opposition said in reference to the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) yesterday, about three minutes while you were standing. An exaggeration, I agree, but probably 30 seconds of extended preamble. I would appreciate it if you would bring the member to order.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Point of order, Madam Speaker. There is usually more leeway in terms of lead questions, and certainly that was extended to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) with his rather extensive nonanswer which tended into debate. He was continuing debate from yesterday.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that we follow the normal process. I think there is some greater flexibility in lead-off questions, and certainly the member for Osborne is our lead-off questioner today on this very important issue. We ask that courtesy be extended to her.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. First, for clarification for all members of the House, the latitude is allowed only to the Leaders, not to anyone else taking the first question. That has been Manitoba practice and tradition in terms of allowing latitude relative to the time lines and other guidelines.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Riel (Mr. Newman), the government deputy House leader indeed did have a point of order. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question to which no preamble is required.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, in view of the remarks he made outside the House yesterday, if he would please tell us if his position with regard to extending compensation has modified.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the position which I put forward yesterday and which has been widely quoted, I believe in the media, is the position that we continue to take.

I have had the opportunity even in the last 24 hours to speak to several First Ministers about the issue, and I have urged that the only way to resolve the many outstanding and confusing aspects of this issue is to have further meetings of federal and provincial ministers of Health. That, I believe, is something that will be taking place. It is my understanding that those arrangements and discussions are currently underway, and I think that it does not benefit anybody to pursue it beyond that point.

If our objective is to have all of the ministers of Health in Canada get together and arrive at a consensus solution, then that is what we should be working toward. We should not be attempting to find some way of putting somebody off balance or trying to embarrass somebody here in this Legislature. What we ought to be doing is working towards that conclusion because, as the member's Leader confirmed yesterday, none of us want to have a two-tiered solution to this where each province gives an offer depending on its own fiscal capacity. That would be a very, very wrong situation to incur here in this country, and I think it would lead towards a very destructive force towards medicare in Canada. I do not think that any of us should want that, so what we will do is continue to work with our colleagues across Canada to get everybody to the table to try and find a consensus solution to the matter.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I thank the Premier for his answer.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I would like to ask the Premier--and it appears that he has agreed to renegotiate--if the Premier and his minister will undertake to ensure that representatives from all affected consumer groups have representation at the table and that, as well, these groups are consulted here in Manitoba.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): This is a very complex issue. Even in some of my discussions with colleagues across the country yesterday, matters were brought forward such as the fact that some people who have been infected with or received tainted blood with hepatitis C have not yet even been identified because there are no symptoms or no consequences to them in a health circumstance. Others are people who may be not in need of any particular financial support. There is one very prominent Canadian who has been identified who would be in very, very strong financial circumstances, would not need that.

It may well be that the kinds of discussions that have to take place have to do with dealing with people who have been traumatically affected in terms of their health circumstance and who also are in very difficult financial circumstances. It may well be that the solution that was arrived at for the package that was made available for the '86 to '90 victims, because of the fact that in that case there was evidence of negligence or an argument to be made for negligence because of the fact that Canada did not utilize the test that was available and in use in the United States, United Kingdom and elsewhere, there are different circumstances. It is not something that I think we can negotiate here or we can decide here. I think it is the expert advice that is required, and I think it is all of the circumstances and advice that people are listening to right now that will hopefully result in an agreement or at least a consensus among the provinces, and that is what we have to hope for.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I want to ask some questions to the Premier, in terms of hepatitis C, and would note that there certainly seems to be a significant shift from last week. I do not just think here but I think across the country. People are asking governments, both provincial and federal, to do the right thing. I think many people in this province feel the right thing to do is to extend compensation to victims who are affected by blood that they received prior to 1986. I appreciate that the minister said yesterday he is not ruling out that extension, and I appreciate the fact that he is, in essence, saying that they will be there at any federal-provincial conference that may be called to deal with this matter.

I think rather than ask the Premier to negotiate on the floor of the Legislature, all I am asking on behalf of the victims and all our caucus is asking for is: will this minister go to any such meeting or send his Health minister, directing that Health minister to come up with a solution that does extend the coverage to victims who received the blood prior to 1986?

* (1345)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have indicated that we will be represented at these ongoing meetings and discussions. We will ensure that we go there with a sense of fairness and a commitment to all of the things that are important to us, preserving the medicare system in Canada, ensuring that people are treated fairly in all of those matters. We will go there with an open mind, and that is I think the best commitment I can make to this Legislature and to the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Ashton: As a follow-up, Madam Speaker: will the Health minister of the Province of Manitoba, at that meeting, be going in there with a position that appears to have been taken in other provinces, that they should not only discuss this matter, but they should extend the coverage to victims who received the blood prior to 1986? Is that going to be the position of the government at that meeting?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat my previous answer.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, we do not know what position the government will take. I will ask the First Minister again, because I think it is very important in this House to take that position, to indicate to victims. I want to know: what can we say to victims in this province of blood that was received prior to 1986?

Is the province going to be going to federal-provincial meetings on this matter and taking a position similar to other provinces, such as Ontario, which is going to be pushing for the extension of the coverage? Will the Premier take that position at that meeting?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the member opposite that we will seek to find a resolution to the issue that is one that is made in the interests of fairness, in the interests of being compassionate, in the interests of ensuring that we treat people as well as we possibly can given the circumstances that they face and we face in our collective responsibilities in all of these matters.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Justice: Fabian Torres, found guilty in the killing of Beeper Spence, was given a one-year sentence to be served in the community one year ago, which this government is finally arguing on appeal today, across the street.

My question to the minister is: if the government thought this particular offender was a danger to the community, as it is arguing today, why did it not have the supports and the protocol in place to fast-track this appeal, to have the hearing within weeks, as we understand was available? Why did it take four and a half months to obtain the transcript to get the process started, when we understand from the Court of Appeal the transcript could have been available within seven days?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, generally speaking, the member is misleading the House. The Crown attorneys in this particular case were very diligent about bringing that matter to the court. There were a number of complicating factors, including the fact that it is not the Crown attorneys who determine dates, and it is not the Crown attorneys who are the only lawyers appearing. There were some very strong arguments made against the matter proceeding any quicker than it did. The Crown attorneys throughout the process, I think, had displayed an appropriate sense of urgency and conveyed that to the court on a timely basis.

* (1350)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister acknowledge that indeed it was not just the Crown attorneys; it is the protocol, the lack of protocol, the lack of support for his Crown attorneys? Would he not agree that the lack of fast-tracking of violent offender cases like this give the defence ample opportunity to make motions on the basis of changing circumstances, and indeed here such a motion was presented seven months after the appeal process initially began?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the Crown attorneys in this particular case moved it along as quickly as possible. The member seems to think that it is the Crown attorney's position that wins the day in every case. Well, I can indicate to him that the defence lawyers in that particular case consistently opposed certain dates, and in fact those delays resulted in the matter being set down for today. I do not think that anything in the process or otherwise would in any way indicate that the Crowns were less than diligent of their pursuit of this particular appeal.

I do want to say as well that whenever there has been an issue of resources or an issue in terms of addressing process, we have addressed that process and we are committed to doing that. We have an interest, in terms of public safety, to ensure that these matters are dealt with as quickly as possible. But it is no secret that every delay favours an accused, and some defence lawyers in fact use that. I am not suggesting in this case that was the case, but that in fact does happen.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister who says the Crowns are diligent--and we agree. They are hard-working, terribly hard-working, professional and dedicated, but will he not admit that these prosecutors need supports from this government, from this minister? Will he admit that he cannot leave his prosecutors handling up to 70 files a day, 10 files an hour, as is reported today in the papers and as Judge Garfinkel recently said, taking shortcuts because of these volumes?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, as a former prosecutor I understand the difficulties that may arise from time to time. But I can indicate that this government has consistently provided the Crowns with the resources that they require, and if there is a particular issue in a bail court--and one has to understand. I know the member for St. Johns does not understand that there is a difference between a trial and a bail hearing, but there is a significant difference. If my Crowns come to me and indicate that there is an issue with resourcing, in each and every time we have addressed that. If there is any indication that is an issue, we will address that.

Now I know the member is now trying to apologize for all the mean-spirited things he has said about Crown attorneys, and I appreciate that in fact he is now finally recognizing what a tremendous job our Crown attorneys are doing.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Natural Resources. Last year we raised concerns about camping reservations going to the San Diego firm Destinet. The minister assured us that not only did we get improved services for our campsites, we get improved accessibility and we get more campsites listed. The service was so bad that campers signed petitions against the company that doubled reservation rates, demanded credit card payments, limited stays and double-charged campers. In a letter to camper Irene Bernard, the minister said that there were many problems with the company but that he was confident that the reservation system will be an important part of trip planning.

Can the minister explain why, when Ms. Bernard phoned to reserve a site, she was told that there were no reservation systems in place for this May long weekend?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, the reservation system is continuing in the hands of a Manitoba company that has bought the assets of Destinet. They are in the process of establishing a system that will allow for the continued implementation of a parks reservation system. I would suggest to the member for Dauphin that if he thinks that the inability of people to reserve ahead of time when they are making their travel plans is not important when they are coming to this province to visit, then he does not understand tourism.

Mr. Struthers: Can the minister explain, then, why he told Ms. Bernard that Destinet would establish a Winnipeg call centre by January 1998 that would not require credit cards, but yesterday she was told she has to pay all her camping fees up front by credit card for a camping trip she is not taking until July? Nothing has changed, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, a cheque will work just as well. The fact is that if someone wishes to have a reservation in place immediately, it does take a little while for the cheque to arrive in the mail. Some people would wonder why is there a deposit required. There is a significant demand at a large number of sites, and at the same time we had a significant number of people who were cancelling or not showing up to accept their reservations where they made no deposit. This guarantees those who sincerely want to be in the park and take the opportunity to access our parks are guaranteed a site when they get there or that the sites are being used fully, which is one of the objectives that is obvious to the people who want to tour in this province.

* (1355)

Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, the minister has to get his system together. Will he finally abandon all his crazy reservation schemes and re-establish a Manitoba campsite reservation system staffed by Manitobans which will be fair to all campers?

Mr. Cummings: This system is eminently fair. We have 12 Manitobans employed doing the job right now with a backup of another dozen to support it during the busy call-in period.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Cummings: Again, the member ignores the reality of people who want to travel any kind of a distance who want to be assured that there will in fact be a site when they arrive at the end of the trail, No. 1; No. 2, that we do not have people tying up sites and then not showing up to access them; No. 3, when we look at the present system versus the previous one, this system will access all of our parks, Madam Speaker, and further to that we will have an opportunity to make the reservations guaranteed, and that is an important aspect. When the person makes a call today, the system pays for all of the costs. Previously, the person making the call had to make a long-distance call to each of the sites. That is now absorbed in the system.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): My question is for the Minister of Justice. In the 1997 report of the Winnipeg Police Service, it showed that overall in Winnipeg there was a 5 percent drop in crime, but in the north end of the city, District 3, there was in fact a 12 percent increase in violent crime. Will the Minister of Justice acknowledge the needs for greater resources in his Community and Youth Correctional branch, the north end of Winnipeg, and commit to putting those resources there?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much for the question. I know the member is concerned about this community, as every good MLA should be. I know that we as a provincial Department of Justice have been working very, very closely with the police, not only in terms of providing resources such as police officers but in fact ensuring that there is a co-ordination of activities between the various agencies. This also includes the area of community youth corrections.

I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and my colleagues in cabinet have approved more money for intensive bail supervision of people released on bail when judges decide that is an appropriate thing to do. I also know that there is, when people are released from the Manitoba Youth Centre, a very successful program carried out by probation officers to ensure adequate supervision. So we are committed to those types of safety issues, and I want to continue to work with all members in this Legislature to ensure that the problems that we face in any particular area are addressed.

Mr. Kowalski: Will the minister commit to putting additional probation officers in the north end of Winnipeg to work on preventative programs to prevent youth crime before it happens instead of supervising young offenders after they become involved?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, there are, in our position of our department, essentially three aspects. We want to deal with the suppression issue, which I thought I dealt with adequately and appropriately. The other issue is the one of prevention and also partnership. Both the issues of partnership and prevention are very important in terms of not just looking at professional social workers or probation officers in our department who are doing a good job and whom we are giving extra resources to, but to establish community partners, groups that do not go home after their shift is over but groups that live in the community, groups that are part of the community and want to resolve these types of issues and help the youth. I know our urban sports camp has been very successful. We are looking to the introduction of more of those sports camps. As well, we are looking at other proposals, one of which is coming from the police to deal with that issue.

* (1400)

Mr. Kowalski: My final supplementary is for the Premier. Will he now listen more carefully to opposition members, as he has no members in the north end of Winnipeg, about what is needed in the north end of Winnipeg?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think that my colleague from River East and my colleague from Rossmere would both argue that they are in the north end of Winnipeg. I think he is speaking particularly of the northwest end of Winnipeg. In fact, he may be talking about the northwest corner of Winnipeg, because I used to think that the area in which I was born and raised was the north end. Having said all of that, I thank him for his suggestions, and I assure him that I will at all times listen to his views about issues that are important to his part of the province. I think that as a government we will certainly be mindful of those needs when we address policies to address those issues in government.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, in 1990 the Filmon government changed a popular and common-sense policy established by the NDP government to put daycares in every new school constructed. I would like to table a newsletter, and I quote: Mike Radcliffe's involvement was instrumental. His efforts made all the difference.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James, to pose her question.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I did not quite finish my introduction. Many schools have been built in that time since this government has taken office, and that policy has changed. In fact, one of the schools includes the one in my constituency that was opened just last year, Greenway School. This was built with no daycare even though the need is just as intense. The local daycare reports a waiting list of over one year.

Can the Minister of Education explain why a school in the constituency of a cabinet minister gets a daycare while other schools in this province are rejected?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the answer is quite simple of course, and the member knows the answer. The answer is that, as we rebuild schools, schools that are being demolished and rebuilt, we try to rebuild them to the standards they had before. Montrose School in River Heights had a daycare in it; we rebuilt it with the daycare in it. Greenway School, we rebuilt with the things that were in Greenway. That is our policy and we--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In both the instances that the member has referenced--and there have been other schools rebuilt--where a school is being demolished because it has become in such a state that to renovate would cost more than rebuilding, then the Public Schools Finance Board, which makes these decisions, will make a determination as to a rebuilding, and the rebuilding will be redone to try to meet the needs that it met prior to the demolition and reconstruction.

So, Madam Speaker, if a school has a daycare in it and it is demolished, it will be rebuilt with accommodation for a daycare so that the community still has the same services but in a new building. The Greenway School, I might add, is a beautiful new school that she should be very happy to see in her constituency. It is beautifully done.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to explain how the government can justify building a daycare in Montrose School, which did not have a daycare previously, and refused numerous schools that they have just built when demographics and logic says the need is there, and they said no.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I think the many parents who use the daycare at Montrose School would be very surprised to learn they were sending their children to something that did not exist, because they have been sending their children to daycare at Montrose for many, many years. It was a major concern when the school was slated for demolition, that there was no place for daycare in the area other than that school. That school was rebuilt according to the needs that were there when the existing school was there; similarly Greenway School, which is a beautiful, beautiful building, redone in such a way that it gives greater opportunity to the people in the area. I think the member might be well advised to tour Greenway School and see the improved accommodation for the students in that area that they now have because the building was demolished and reconstructed.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, will the minister just plain--that the whole policy is a farce, because there was no room in Greenway School for a daycare because it was overcrowded. The fact is that this policy is based on who you know and the riding, rather than on need and common sense.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas.

An Honourable Member: No answer.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker--

An Honourable Member: No answer. Oh, now she wants to answer.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1410)

Mrs. McIntosh: The members opposite are complaining that I did not answer a question, but there was no question. The member used her opportunity for a question to make a statement. There was no question put.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Minister of Education does not want to answer questions, she does not have to. But when you start the third question with a phrase "can the minister explain," you know that is a question. If the minister chooses not to answer it, let her state that on the record. Maybe she is afraid to try and justify what she has done in terms of this patronage for the River Heights constituency at the expense of other constituencies in this province.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Education, in all honesty, I did not hear a question. But I will take the matter under advisement to research Hansard and to ascertain, indeed, if a question was posed.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, our people who have traditionally made their living from fishing have over the years seen their means of making a living deteriorate to the point where they are no longer finding it feasible to fish and instead going on welfare. Fishing in the North is in a crisis situation.

My question to the Minister of Natural Resources is this. Given the serious decline of fish stocks--which I know he is aware of--over the past decade in places like Easterville and Grand Rapids, where fishing has virtually been wiped out, I want to ask the minister why his government has failed to protect those fish stocks during that period of time.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I believe that action is underway with the support of the community to protect the fish during the brief spawning period as we speak.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he would consider going to some northern communities, places like Grand Rapids, The Pas, Moose Lake and Pukatawagan and meet with fishermen over there, so that he can see first-hand just how serious the situation has become.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Well, Madam Speaker, I am quite interested to work with the communities in those areas and others to deal with the issue of whether or not we have appropriate protection, particularly during the spawning period. We have had some, I think, significant representation and some changes in thinking on the part of everyone about how we can best manage the stocks for the benefit of the communities. I would be more than willing to co-operate and work with the communities because, in fact, no matter what regulations we bring forward, in the end we have to work with the local communities to make sure that we manage the stocks appropriately.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My last question to the same minister, Madam Speaker, is to ask him why his government has not gone after the federal government for a federal-provincial program that would assist fishers in the North in much the same way as the tag program in the Maritimes and on the West Coast is helping and assisting fishermen when their industry is on a downturn.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Well, there are two parts to the answer. First of all, we have on many occasions, not necessarily for the community that the member is asking about--we have however on numerous occasions talked to the federal authorities about whether or not they feel they have some responsibility to assist in the reduction of a number of commercial quotas that are available in the various areas.

The reason there was still some uncertainty about how to deal with the fishery that the member mentions specifically is that I am getting conflicting comments from the fishermen in the area as to the worth and the efficacy of eliminating the fishery or whether we should expend our efforts in revitalizing it and use that as a method of bringing some economic improvement to the area. At the present, we are using the latter approach.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, together with the members for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), Flin Flon (Mr. Jennessen), The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and myself, we had an opportunity to sit in on hearings that were conducted by the Standing Committee on Oceans and Fisheries, and we heard a wide variety of problems by the fishers in northern Manitoba, the inland fishery problems. I would like to pursue the question that was raised by my colleague the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) with respect to meeting with these communities to hear first-hand on the part of this government the problems that these fishers are experiencing on northern Manitoba waters. One of the issues that was raised was the CEDF, and it appears that this is turning into a collection agency.

I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he can give us a time frame as to when he will meet fishers in Grand Rapids, Berens River, Poplar River, Bloodvein and other northern communities.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I did not directly answer the question when it was raised by the member for The Pas because the last time I responded in the positive to meet with a group, the member for Dauphin asked if that was possible within 24 hours. My doors are always open. I will, in fact, meet with any of these groups who would make a proposal for a discussion.

When I came to this office, I met with a significant number of fishermen representatives all around Lake Winnipeg and beyond, and I am certainly still open to further discussion. The concerns of the efficacy and the profitability of some of the fishing areas is going to be an ongoing problem, and we need to work together to solve it.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, included among the problems that we were told yesterday were reduced catches, higher transportation costs and a crippling debt to CEDF. Perhaps the minister did not hear me correctly. We do not simply want the fishermen to come to the Manitoba Legislature. We would like to have the minister and perhaps the Minister responsible for Hydro go to these communities that have been affected by different circumstances with the fishery. I would like to ask the minister again if he can give us a time frame as to when he will take that opportunity to meet with these fishers in their own communities.

Mr. Cummings: Certainly. Whenever we can arrange a meeting. I saw some of these areas last summer, Madam Speaker, and I am quite prepared to meet with the groups. I think there are some ongoing issues that, with all parties at the table, we can probably do a lot. We have a tremendous sports fishery that has developed in a number of lakes across the North, and if we apply some of the same thinking to some of our other areas that are under pressure right now, Manitoba will be able to maintain its standard as one of the best fishing areas in Canada.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.