ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Headingley Correctional Institution
Temporary Absences
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, last week we were asking some very direct questions dealing with an unfortunate murder, an alleged murder of an individual in Inwood, Manitoba, by a person who is alleged to be on a temporary absence from the correctional system here in Manitoba.
When I asked the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) last week whether in fact the riot at Headingley played any part in the temporary absences, the Minister of Justice said in the House that there were no special criteria applied to the release of inmates, and further went out into the hallway with the media and answered the question that the Headingley riot played no part in the release of this individual or any other individual who was released with the temporary absence programs.
The next day we read, and it is certainly consistent with what we have heard, that many people in the correctional system stated that in fact the riot did precipitate the release of some inmates. Between 62 and 70 inmates were released.
I would like to ask the Premier, why can we not have in Manitoba a Minister of Justice who will just tell us the truth straight up on these straight questions, and will the Premier give us a Minister of Justice who will tell Manitobans the truth when tough questions are posed in this Chamber?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the Minister of Justice did provide the information accurately and that the releases were made within the existing criteria.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister refuted the fact that the riot played any part and was contradicted later on by line correctional officers that we talked to and by senior correctional staff. It is regrettable today that the Premier has not taken action on a Minister of Justice who, to a large degree, is not being straight with the people of Manitoba.
Can the Premier explain to Manitobans how the government could release an individual on a temporary absence policy who had two previous convictions of assault causing bodily harm within the last 12 months? Where under the Filmon government criteria does this temporary absence policy fit, and how can this person get released if it was not for the fact that the government accelerated the releases due to the riot?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I think that the member opposite is being manipulative with the facts, but I believe that the person to whom the member refers is the person who is charged with an offence that will be before the courts and so I am unable to provide him with a response to that matter.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: I asked the minister and the Premier the question not only about the discrepancy between what she said, that the riot played no part on the releases--in Hansard--and the answer we received the next day from senior correctional officials, not only the discrepancy on the facts that were posed in this Chamber, I am also asking a policy question to the government that is responsible for the policy of temporary absences.
I would like to ask the Premier, how does the policy of releasing an individual after seven weeks of a 16-week sentence who has had two previous convictions of assault causing bodily harm, how is that consistent with the Premier slamming the cell door? He should have told the public he was slamming it open rather than slamming it closed on behalf of Manitobans. How does that fit? [interjection]
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, the member opposite says, sit down--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Vodrey: Do they want the answer or not?
Madam Speaker, I, too, am referring to Hansard and the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition, not the questions that he posed. The question was: “Were there any changes in government policies based on the riot?”
That was the question asked.
Madam Speaker, my answers were clear then and are clear now. To my knowledge, there was not any change in our policies. As a matter of fact, I made it very clear that our policies are among the strictest across Canada. Individuals who were assessed, having met the time frame for temporary absences which is stricter than in most other provinces, and also the criteria, those individuals assessed by professional correctional officers were those inmates who were considered for release.
Had it been under the NDP when they were in government, those individuals would have been released long before that.
Headingley Correctional Institution
Temporary Absences
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Thursday it was our information from the Provincial Court that Mr. Rouire was serving on weekends. It has now come to our attention that indeed he was serving consecutive days at the time of the riot.
My question to the minister is if-- and I quote her words--there were not any special criteria given for temporary passes because of the riot, would she possibly explain how she could authorize the release of an inmate like Mr. Rouire given our information that he was convicted February 6, '95, driver impaired, failing to comply with probation; April 10, '95, assault with intent to resist arrest, three counts of theft under a thousand; May 24 last year, assault, caused bodily harm, resist arrest; August 8, '95, assault, caused bodily harm, failure to comply with recognizance; March 4, break and enter, failure to comply with recognizance?
How could he be released if there were not special criteria? How could they release him, having served less than half of his time? How could she do that?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member well knows that I am just not able to speak about an individual who is accused, what their past record is, what they are currently in the institution for. I am just not able to do that. As the Attorney General, the information which I have to speak about an individual does come forward in court when there has been a charge laid.
Madam Speaker, the member across the way, as he says even today, gave out information last week which was incorrect. He admits that today. He gave out and he continues to give out information. He has, over the process of more than a week, continued to try and put out information which he has had to later go back and correct, which is what he has done today.
Madam Speaker, I am not able to speak about--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, our rules are quite clear. A very specific question was asked about the policies of this government, and this minister of all people should not lecture our critic about misinformation. I would like to ask you to not only call her to order but ask her to withdraw the comment she made about our Justice critic who is trying to get some straight answers from this Minister of Justice.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
* (1350)
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to quickly complete her response.
Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much. It was the member for St. Johns who admitted that he was wrong last week and has attempted to correct on the record this week. Madam Speaker, he may feel the freedom within this Chamber to say whatever it is he likes about a particular individual who is currently charged before the court. I am not in a position to say that; however, I have answered in the broad sense that there were not changes to the criteria which are among the strictest in this country.
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is, would the minister who should recognize that we are not dealing with a case before the courts but rather her temporary pass policy and her truthfulness, will she tell Manitobans who made the decision to release Mr. Rouire?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, again, as in the case of all inmates who receive temporary absences or who were released at the end of the sentence, the decision was made, to my knowledge, as I am informed by my department, by professional correctional officers.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister who is responsible for this department, for this decision and who said last week, and I quote, that some inmates have been released within approximately two weeks of their sentence completion, now admit that the word “some” actually meant at least 63 and that “within two weeks” was wrong, that some had months left to serve, that she misled Manitobans? Will she admit that and just get out of the way of justice in this province?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, as I explained last week, last week there were questions regarding temporary absences. I am attempting to give the information as it is available to me. Some inmates, also, as I explained further Friday, were released at end of sentence time. So we are dealing with two separate opportunities in which inmates would be released. One is on a temporary absence, one at end of sentence, decisions as always made according to our criterion in Manitoba which was made stricter with our rigorous-confinement criterion in February 1995.
However, Madam Speaker, as I said, I have been informed that there was no change in criteria either for temporary absences or in the criteria applied against those eligible. However, members across the way have indicated some public debate. There is public interest in this area and so, in the interests of that public interest, I think it is important to have a third party review this because we believe that people should in fact know, and though I have explained the situation, I am prepared to very specifically add this to Ted Hughes's review. Though he is able to review anything which is a concern to him, I will very specifically add the administration of temporary absences during and after the riot, whether or not correctional officials acted unlawfully, whether they acted unreasonably or whether they changed the criteria for release to increase eligibility.
Headingley Correctional Institution
Early Release--Sexual Offenders
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Justice.
After the Headingley riot several sexual offenders were prematurely released into the community though some had refused to take the counselling which facilitates understanding, assists in preventing recidivism and is supposed to be necessary for early release. Furthermore, I understand that not one was referred to the community notifications advisory committee, although one offender was serving 18 months, which suggests he posed a danger to the community.
My question to the minister: I want to ask the minister if she now is usurping the workings of the community notification advisory committee and personally deciding when it is in the public interest to alert citizens about the presence of a sex offender in the community.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, let me explain to the member that at the end of sentence there is a review and that in the past at approximately two-thirds of the sentence, inmates were in fact released. Though it was called earned remission when the other side was in government, there really was not anything earned about it at all. When we moved to rigorous confinement, we changed the regulations and at two-thirds we have now said to people, you must earn your remission. In earning your remission, you should participate in programs; yes, you should in fact show that you have made some steps towards your rehabilitation. That was this government's rigorous confinement, so do not let them ever suggest that there was anything rigorous about what they did.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, they can laugh, but they certainly did not support it even when it came forward to be more rigorous.
However, Madam Speaker, there were in fact three inmates who were injured at the time of the riot and these three inmates were, to my knowledge, considered close to the end of sentence, and though they did not participate, they were in fact assessed by correctional officers. Their release was not on a specific authority or any paper that I signed. They were released under the direction of professional correctional officers.
* (1355)
Early Release--Domestic Abusers
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, given the minister's frequent commitment to end violence against women, both sexual and domestic violence, I want to ask the minister if any domestic abusers were released early and, if so, had they completed their counselling and anger management work?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the members across the way seem to be trying to put forward again further information to confuse the public. They are using the term “63.” Sixty-three is not the number of people who were released at the end of sentence time period. That is the number that you are using and I do not believe that number is correct. However, in terms of the numbers of individuals who were considered at the end of sentence--now, be very clear about what we are talking about--I am aware of the three of whom I have spoken to you about today, three who were injured within the riot, who had met the more than two-thirds criterion of serving their sentence, who were injured in the riots and were released on medical and humanitarian grounds.
Further than that, I will have to check with my department about anyone released at end of sentence, which was what the question was.
Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, the question was, were any domestic abusers released early and, if so, had they completed their counselling and anger management work?
I want to ask the minister, if this is the case, how early release of these kinds of offenders against women and children help in ending violence and protecting community.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, well, as I said, we have a process of earned remission in which individuals are to take part in programs to assist in their anger management and to provide rehabilitation in the area of domestic violence. I have explained that there were three, to my knowledge, who at end of sentence were released because they had met the two-thirds serving requirement, somewhat more, and also were released. Their release was on medical and humanitarian grounds.
In terms of other information, I have said to the member I will have to check with my department and find out any details and provide her with that information.
Coalition to Save Home Care
Report Recommendations
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, this morning we saw the release of a report on public hearings conducted by Manitobans. The report is superior to anything ever done by the government and strongly recommends against privatization. The report raises concerns about privatization such as private operators skimming money from the system, the confidentiality of information that the clients hold and private operators being given a private monopoly. The report calls for specific responses from the minister.
I would like to ask the minister today, will he commit to provide specific public responses to every single one of the issues raised by Manitobans who took the time and energy to produce this outstanding document, Madam Speaker?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to tell the honourable member that, as a result of the ratification of the tentative agreement, we will have full restoration of home care services. I would expect that by tomorrow we should have everybody who was admitted to hospital returned to their homes where they ought to be. The honourable member is looking for commitments; I commit my efforts to carrying out the spirit and the intent of that collective agreement arrived at by negotiation.
* (1400)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Health, who has avoided public hearings, who has avoided public scrutiny, at least commit in the House today that he will respond to the excellent suggestions and the excellent recommendations made by this group of Manitobans who on their own shamed the government into reversing their stand on privatization? Will he at least take the time to respond specifically to every one of these recommendations?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the only avoidance is the avoidance of the honourable member. He avoids the fact that we live in the real world. The honourable member was there at the Holiday Inn when I was there with about 500 or so home care workers and we were addressing the issues that evening. I was not avoiding any issues when I was on the picket line in Brandon with the strikers and talking about home care and health care.
The only way we are going to all get through the changes that are being imposed on us by the federal government with their cutbacks is together, working together, locking arms and working together to see that we can bring about the best outcomes that we can for the clients of our home care system. That is what I have been doing and will continue to do.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Nursing Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Health work with the overwhelming majority of Manitobans who have said they do not want privatization in the health care system, and will he tell us today, now that his plan to reduce privatization has gone from 100 percent to 20 percent, will he outline for us what the plans are for the nursing component of home care and the home support workers who are not part of the collective agreement? Will he tell us what the plans are for the nursing component privatization and the home support worker privatization that are not part of the collective agreement?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member has just proved what I have been saying about he and his colleagues all along: when you do not have the evidence, make something up. He just finished saying that we moved from 100 percent to 20 percent. He knows full well that what was on the table initially was a 25 percent competition in the city of Winnipeg only and through negotiation we worked that to 20 percent. That seemed to me an honourable kind of compromise to be making. The union agreed with the competition in the home care marketplace to the extent of 20 percent. The honourable member cannot have it both ways. His own union friends have, by way of negotiation, come up with an agreement that we are prepared to live with, that they are prepared to live with, so the honourable member cannot come here and call it something that it is not.
Community Health Centres
Home Care Services
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question too is for the Minister of Health. The Coalition to Save Home Care did something which this government should have done and that is to have some form of public hearing to allow for clients, home care workers and other interested Manitobans to make presentations to the government. One of the recommendations is No. 6 and it states: examine other alternatives to the existing system, notably the Quebec model, which are also not-for-profit publicly funded.
We have, in the Liberal Party, been encouraging this government and this Minister of Health to look into the possibility of community health centres as providing home care services.
My question to the Minister of Health is, what is this minister prepared to do to ensure that community health centres will have a prominent role to play in the delivery of home care services?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): We will certainly take the honourable member's suggestion, Madam Speaker. If the community health centres want to make some proposals, if they want to get involved in the process that we are about to embark upon, that would be welcomed as well.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what is the Minister of Health prepared to do in order to facilitate community health centres to be able to participate in the process in terms of a workshop that would allow them to be better able to put in a bid through the whole process of the tender?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, we are extending to all interested parties as much assistance as is necessary for them properly to put their bids before that part of the organization that would be evaluating the bids, so that if a community health centre or some other agency out there has an interest in putting forward a bid on these contracts, let them be in touch with us.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would concur with the remarks set forth by the community health centres, which was sponsored by the Manitoba Nurses' Union, in which it states, 30 years worth of studies in Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan have demonstrated that community health clinics are a better way to deliver health care.
Does the minister concur with that and, if so, what is he prepared to do?
Mr. McCrae: In their more recent reports, the Manitoba Nurses' Union has indeed made some helpful observations and even some recommendations which, if carried forward, might indeed improve the outcomes in health care in Manitoba. We have said that we appreciate those types of recommendations coming from the Manitoba Nurses' Union. I think we have been working--and our budgets demonstrate, I believe, that we have been working closely with the community health centres to ensure that the work they do in our communities is relevant to what the communities require, and there is lots and lots of evidence that is happening, Madam Speaker.
Hughes Inquiry
Temporary Absences Examination
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
Given the minister's reporting that she has asked Mr. Hughes to include the matter of the T.A. policy in his review, would the minister possibly explain to Manitobans that if in fact there has been no change in the temporary pass policy, why is Mr. Hughes asked to examine no change in policy?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the reason that I will be asking Mr. Hughes, as I will be very specifically now asking him to examine this issue, is because this has become a matter of public debate, because it has become a matter of public interest and because I think it is very important that then a third party review the process and be able to report to Manitobans. That is why I will be asking him specifically, though I did say earlier, on the areas which he is free to examine he could examine that on his own. I believe it is important to specifically ask him to do that in the interests of the public.
Minister of Justice Examination
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question to the minister is, would she explain, given that the issue before the public of Manitoba is her truthfulness and her lack of responsibility, accountability for what has happened here--would she agree to allow Mr. Hughes to examine her under oath so Manitobans can understand what this minister is saying to them?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I think it is very important to make sure that Manitobans know that I have been truthful to the best of my knowledge at all times in the answering of all questions. To suggest anything less is just plain wrong. I have in fact been truthful to the best of my information, the best of my knowledge at all times, the information that has come to me from professional correctional officers. Of course, I and others will be happy to co-operate with Mr. Hughes in anything that Mr. Hughes asks.
Manitoba Hydro
Customer List Availability
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
With today's announcement of an agreement in principle to undertake a joint venture between the two major power utilities here in this province, Manitoba Hydro and Centra Gas, we have seen another step in the eventual road to the privatization of our Hydro utility.
My question to the minister is, will the minister tell us if Hydro's customer list and other account information will be made available to its largest power competitor in Manitoba?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Madam Speaker, first of all, I must take issue with the premise of the member's question. This is a step that I think creates great efficiencies for these two utilities. They are allowed to service their clients in a more efficient manner and as the Public Utilities Board has indicated, in fact demanded, that Manitoba Hydro just do that to ensure that rates are sufficiently low cost.
With respect to the member's question about lists, obviously part of this is for this joint venture to share services such as meter reading and billing, and that involves exchange of information with respect to customer lists and where we have joint customers.
Manitoba Hydro-Centra Gas
Joint Venture
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, will the minister guarantee that the ownership of this new joint venture will be controlled by Manitobans?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Madam Speaker, this is a joint venture between two utilities. The part of the joint venture that is Manitoba Hydro's is owned by Manitobans. We are the trustees of that investment.
You know, members opposite want it both ways. When Manitoba Hydro went to the Public Utilities Board and asked for a rate increase, the Public Utilities Board in giving them a less-than-requested rate increase challenged them, in fact demanded of them to find ways to deliver services more efficiently. I ask honourable members opposite, should we have two people going to the same house to read meters when one can do it? Should we be charging the ratepayers of two utilities double postage to send out two bills when one would do? Surely not.
What they are asking is that Manitoba Hydro take money out of their customers' pockets to pay for inefficiencies and that need not be the case.
* (1410)
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, my final question to the minister: Will he confirm that the newly reorganized Manitoba customer services business unit, which this minister and his Hydro executives just announced over a month ago, is now a prime target for elimination as a result of this joint venture?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, absolutely not. If members opposite would take the time to get out of Jurassic Park for awhile and look at the future, they would realize that in the energy business today it is absolutely critical that our customers for energy are able to find competitive sources for that energy. Manitoba Hydro and the gas utility working together to find new ways to be efficient and to provide new services between the two utilities that meet the needs of our common customer base is the future. Quite frankly, if we took the advice of the members opposite, we would ensure that Manitoba Hydro would have no future and would become an inefficient company and have to be privatized.
This is the future to ensure a strong, competitive utility that is on a very strong financial footing.
Linnet Geomatics International Inc.
Contract Cancellation
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I want to table a document entitled Towards Developing a Vision and Action Plan for the Advancement of Manitoba's Geomatics Sector.
The seven-year agreement with Linnet Geomatics has been an absolute failure in terms of its own directions. We have less than a third of the jobs of Canadian average in this sector. We do not have a base map in Manitoba that comes up to national standards. We are 10th out of 10 in terms of the quality of the base mapping information we have in Manitoba.
I want to ask the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) whether he accepts now that on the basis of this study we are way behind the rest of Canada. Will he cancel this contract, end the monopoly and let Manitoba's industry begin to develop in a rational way?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to see this study, but I do not accept very much of the analysis that is normally provided by the member for Crescentwood.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that virtually all other players in the geomatics industry are prepared to go on record now saying that this has been a failure as a strategy, will the minister responsible for this agreement announce now that the monopoly will end on schedule, December 1996?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I have to express a little bit of disappointment at the approach that the member is taking because I have always been very open with information to the members opposite whether it is to do with flooding, whether it has to do with a European fur union and the same thing with Linnet.
A few months ago, I had a two-hour briefing for members opposite trying to bring them up to speed of the complexities of the Linnet operation. At that time--[interjection] Madam Speaker, it is a complex matter. At that time, I offered, after two hours of briefing, to any member interested, that the CEO from Linnet would open his doors and give them all the information basically that anybody would want. Nobody has taken up that offer.
I will tell you something. The disappointment I have is that the information based in the news release that the member for Crescentwood has just put out today does not have all factual information. In fact, there is a lot of the information that is not right.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister responsible for Linnet and the Linnet contract not agree that the information in his own study by the Nordicity group in Toronto is in fact factual and correct, represents the truth in regard to the development of this industry in Manitoba, points out that many of the things that this government said had to be done seven years ago have not been done yet and that the jobs target is only at one-quarter of what it should be in terms of Linnet's own promises to the government?
Mr. Driedger: What I would like to confirm is the fact that Manitoba and Linnet are known as leaders in terms of data information. We are known as leaders, and that is an accepted fact out there as well.
Madam Speaker, the member is making reference to the 320 jobs and the $80-million investment that was required to bring it to that point. That was part of the projection at that time. I have to tell you that Manitoba has invested $5 million over the last years and we have 65 jobs that are involved right now, and that $5 million that Manitoba put in has basically been work in kind. So the record is good.
I extend the offer again to members opposite, anybody that wants to have more detailed information, the CEO from Linnet, Bruce Graham, has offered, come and have a look, come down and investigate instead of making stupid statements to the public.
Treaty Land Entitlements
Status Report
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs.
About a month ago the minister was indicating that the settlement of treaty land entitlement was imminent, and he made similar comments last week to the Manitoba Mining Association meeting. I would like to ask the minister what stage the negotiations are at with respect to TLE and Manitoba.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, a very timely question from the member for Rupertsland.
Over a month ago, we held a very top-level series of discussions with the treaty land entitlement chiefs and agreed to or arranged a method, I think, of settling the outstanding issues. The federal government was brought into that by the chiefs. There was an exchange of correspondence which I believe lays the basis for that arrangement. Currently, I understand, over the last month or so the treaty land entitlement chiefs have been working with their own members.
Going back, there have been a couple of particular issues that had to be dealt with internally by those chiefs, which I understand is now happening. There was also an outstanding issue between the Government of Canada and the treaty land chiefs with respect to legal costs for their solicitor which is in the process of being resolved.
So, from a provincial prospective, I think we have worked through, in principle at least, most of the detail and we are awaiting the treaty land chiefs and the federal government resolving their outstanding issues so that we can get on with pencilling or signing an agreement in principle.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, to the same minister: I would like to ask him about the status of negotiations with the Mathias Colomb First Nation as well.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, again, another very timely question. A key to our involvement on treaty land entitlement was the offer we as a province have made to the treaty land entitlement chiefs to get on with selecting specific land and getting agreement on specific land selections and flowing that land to specific communities as those selections are agreed to.
With respect to Mathias Colomb, we made that offer to them to get on with specific selections in the area which was under dispute with Repap in the cutting area. They have gone back. There has been some exchange of correspondence, and I think we are getting very close to actually sitting down and getting to specific land selections. One problem that has delayed this is the Mathias Colomb band, quite frankly, in that area had not made their own decisions yet as to which land they would request, and they have been undergoing a pretty extensive process to make those decisions before they came to the table with their requests.
* (1420)
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, my final question is a very brief one. Given the support of the town of The Pas, of Repap, the Manitoba Mining Association, amongst others, encouraging this government to settle TLE in this province, I would like to ask the minister whether or not this government is committed to making this issue a major priority.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, not only are we absolutely committed to settling this, part of the discussions we had with the treaty land chiefs was that even if Ottawa would not conclude an agreement with them, we as a government were still prepared to get on moving specific agreed-to selections into a trust or some vehicle in which those communities could then use the land while they were waiting to finish their negotiations with the federal government. So we in the Filmon administration are fully prepared to move land, as we get an agreement, without an agreement with Ottawa. So we have been prepared to do that.
With respect to Mathias Colomb, as I have indicated, as we get specific selection--some has been done to date--but in the area that was the subject of controversy, as they pick specific lands and we reach agreement on those specific lands, we are prepared to move them into whatever legal vehicle is necessary pending transfer to reserve status.
Elk Ranching
Disease Transmission
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, on December 21 of last year, the Minister of Agriculture announced that his government would be implementing elk ranching without any public input on what is a very controversial subject. Since then, there has been a case of what is equivalent to mad cow disease diagnosed in Saskatchewan in domestic elk.
Will the Minister of Agriculture agree that, in light of this diagnosis, this is not the time to start elk ranching in Manitoba, and will he put this plan on hold rather than putting at risk the domestic cattle herds in Manitoba?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, as a modest cattle producer myself, I certainly am more than aware of the current difficulties that the cattle producers are having not just in Manitoba but throughout the country, so let me assure her that I would be very concerned about putting at any risk that promising agricultural industry.
With respect to the question of elk ranching, I hope to be in a position to introduce for second reading into this House very shortly the principles of the bill, and I would invite the honourable member to take up the issue at that time.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.