4th-36th Vol. 64-Oral Questions

Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon ninety Grade 5 students from Edward Schreyer School under the direction of Ms. Lorraine Kozussek. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik).

We also have twenty-five Grade 5 students from Landmark Elementary School under the direction of Mr. Russ Dirks and Mr. Tom Koop. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, a former deputy minister under a couple of different political parties stated that one of the few avenues that citizens have access to citizen participation in the decision making of their community, that is the community committees, is given the death knell by the Filmon government. The City of Winnipeg Act eliminates these community committees in terms of citizens' rights of participation.

I would like to ask the Acting Premier: why is this government eliminating a guaranteed right of citizen participation in community committees with their initiatives to go backwards in The City of Winnipeg Act?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Firstly, I would like to commend City Council for coming forth with some new directions, new visions as to the scope and the direction that they want to take the civic administration. It was with that in mind that the Cuff report was initiated, and with that in mind it was a decision by council to forward their recommendations to the province for legislative change.

The member for Concordia is right when he says that one of the conditions is the elimination of what they called the RAGs or the Residential Advisory Group committees, but at the same time what it does is it gives the power and the authority back to City Council and the councillors themselves to set up a system of public participation. It does not take away the right for people to participate in civic administration at the city level. What it does is it gives the council the ability to set up their own structure and the procedure that they feel is the best way to have public participation, and it also takes away the prescriptive nature that The City of Winnipeg Act now has in regard to interpretation by the province.

* (1335)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this government is taking away and eliminating a guaranteed right of citizen participation in the community committees. This Legislature is being asked to eliminate that citizen right and allow that citizen right to be at the whim of City Council, which, ironically, did not even have citizen meetings to deal with the Cuff report itself.

Mr. Kubi from the East Kildonan Transcona Residents Advisory Council says that removal of citizen participation and citizen participation at community committees is not more democratic; it will affect the long-term quality of life in our communities. Why is this government working in an antidemocratic way to eliminate the guaranteed right of citizen participation? What kind of leadership are we getting from this government when it takes away the right of citizens to participate?

Mr. Reimer: One of the fundamentals of a democratic system is public participation and electing people to make decisions. The structure that is put forth for consideration with the amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act goes even further than the community committees. Community committees were structured in a sense that there was a dictatorial and a prescriptive nature from the provincial government to the civic administration of the City of Winnipeg saying that they shall have public participation. We are saying that, in areas where the City of Winnipeg can make the decision as to what type of form and what type of direction they want to go with public meetings, they have that ability to make that decision. They are elected to make those types of decisions. The provincial government should not be prescriptive in nature in trying to dictate exactly how and where they should have public meetings.

If City Council wants to have more public meetings, they have the ability to do that. I should point out, too, that City Council has forwarded me a motion that they are going to keep the status quo regarding the community committees until after a review of The City of Winnipeg Act, and also The City of Winnipeg Act now gives them the ability to form community committees in any way that they feel.

Mr. Doer: Well, that should be some consolation for the citizens' rights here in Manitoba. This minister is telling us in this House that the City of Winnipeg's present council is the organ grinder and he is the monkey in terms of enacting whatever they want. It is a serious issue because delegating the right of how the city is going to treat our boulevards in terms of cutting the lawns is one thing; eliminating the rights of citizens to participate in community committees is an act and responsibility of this Legislature.

I would like to ask the Acting Premier: why is he eliminating the democratic rights that are guaranteed by this Legislature in The City of Winnipeg Act? Why is he delegating that to the whim of City Council, rather than having those rights guaranteed under the act of the Legislature in The City of Winnipeg Act? Surely there is no greater right in The City of Winnipeg Act than the right to citizen participation, which this government is trying to expunge in terms of these amendments.

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I find it passing strange that the member there from the other side would say that we are taking back the democratic rights of public participation. It is that type of attitude on that side of the House that says that government should be the only way that dictates how people present themselves in public committees. I am saying and this government is saying that the people that are elected within City Council have the right and the responsibility of holding public participation meetings. It is part of The City of Winnipeg Act. We are expanding that to give them that type of ability, not like the people on the other side who feel that it should be a government fiat and government dictate as to how and where and how many meetings should be done. It is totally against the democratic process.

We are giving the people of Winnipeg and the councillors of the City of Winnipeg more ability to make those public changes and the public participation that they want to have. That side of the government wants it dictated by them and them alone. That is not a go, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, speaker after speaker this morning in public hearings on Bill 36 spoke of the lack of community input into the process on the Cuff report and Bill 36, the decrease in democracy that will be as a result of Bill 36, the decrease in accountability and the decrease in citizen participation if Bill 36 goes ahead. While no city councillor, no mayoralty candidate in 1995 spoke out on this issue at all, it is very clear that this will be a campaign issue on both sides of the pros and cons of Bill 36 this fall in the election campaign.

* (1340)

I would like to ask the minister and the government today, in light of the fact that this will be a campaign issue, that people are starting to talk about it, and we need to elect people on the basis of how they feel about this bill and the removal of democracy that it entails, if he will please remove this dreadfully flawed piece of legislation until after the City of Winnipeg elections this fall so we can have the people speak on this issue.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I, too, was at that committee meeting this morning. It was also mentioned by some of the committee members, and in particular one of the city councillors who supported the idea, that this was brought forth by a decision of council and that council had endorsed the approach that was taken by the Cuff report. In fact, the councillor said that he felt it was proper that it go through the process that we are now before and that the implementation proceed.

The interpretation, though, by the members on the other side is that government should have some sort of magical say and control over everything and anything that happens on Broadway. We are saying, no, municipal government has a responsibility as elected officials to make decisions, to be involved with their constituents and to manage in a way that is most appropriate that they are elected for. We are saying that is the way the municipal government should be handled on Main Street.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I would like to ask the minister, who talks about democracy being guaranteed and preserved in Bill 36, how there is a guarantee of democracy when the mayor's powers under Bill 36 will be larger and bigger and broader than any mayor in any city in Canada and most likely any city in North America. How does that guarantee democracy?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): The interpretation and the definition of democracy, I guess, takes on a different meaning when it is interpreted either by the New Democratic opposition or the government in office right now. We are of the opinion that democracy, in its way of decision making and the powers that should be, should be delegated to the people who make the decisions. This is one of the reasons why the Cuff report and a lot of the other recommendations are acted upon.

We do this on a yearly basis. We talk to the City of Winnipeg. They send forth amendments that they feel are adequate in dealing with some of the concerns with City Hall. Madam Speaker, this is the normal process of trying to accommodate the city in their ability to make decisions.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister how he believes representative democracy, which is what we are talking about here, is strengthened when up to half of the city councillors or more may not have any input into the real decision-making powers of the City of Winnipeg because they are not appointed to the Executive Policy Committee, because they do not have to be appointed to a standing committee, and on the other side, without the requirement for community committees, they do not have the opportunity necessarily or do not take advantage of listening to the citizens. How is representative democracy strengthened under this bill?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): The member is hypotheticalizing situations, you know, that a lot of these things are going to happen because of a perceived change in the City Hall.

Madam Speaker, the council themselves still have the ability to make those choices as to--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1345)

Ms. Barrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I am far from hypotheticalizing; I am carrying the elements of Bill 36 to their logical conclusion, which is the reduction if not the elimination of democracy in the city of Winnipeg.

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. In spite of the circumloquacious effort by the honourable member to accuse the Minister of Urban Affairs of hyp--whatever that was--we will leave that to you to look it up in your Oxford dictionary--there certainly was no point of order.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, it is fortunate that there is nothing in Beauchesne about abuse of the English language. Certainly the minister may have been guilty of that. I have never heard that word before used, and I do not want to even pronounce it because it certainly is not part of any language that I am aware of.

Madam Speaker, I think there was a disagreement of opinion, rather than anything else, on the part of the two members.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wellington, the honourable member did not have a point. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I believe what I was trying to answer was a question from the member regarding the powers of council. Council will still have the ability to make the number of committees and who is going to be serving on them. The chairperson of those committees will have the ability to appoint councillors. Now who is appointed is not within our purview. It will happen at City Council, and they will be the decision makers.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, quite rightly and appropriately, many of the supporters of Misericordia Hospital are quite concerned about government plans to close Misericordia Hospital. One of the concerns raised is that, while Misericordia is being closed and the surgical programs are being decanted--which is the new buzzword--the government has introduced a bill to allow surgical services to take place in private clinics.

My question to the Minister of Health is: will he indicate whether in fact surgical programs that are moving from Misericordia Hospital will not be going to private clinics?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, the member's proposal is correct in that we are not intending for surgical procedures being decanted from the Misericordia Hospital to go to private clinics. That was explained very clearly by the Winnipeg Hospital Authority when they made their presentation, and the member was there in the room at that particular time.

I find it somewhat disagreeable when the member would propose, as we are attempting through this bill to comply with the Canada Health Act--is the member proposing to us as a government that we should just eliminate those procedures today that are being done in those private clinics so that we increase waiting lists and put more strain on the system?

Madam Speaker, obviously we have indicated, in the process of complying with the Canada Health Act, we would negotiate with those clinics to continue a certain volume of service to ensure that we do not see anything added to waiting lists.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I take it from the minister's response that it was a negative and a no to that response. My question to the minister is therefore: can he explain, since there is a lack of anesthesiologists at Grace Hospital and since there is a lack of beds at Grace Hospital, where are those programs going to go insofar as we are eliminating beds and programs from Misericordia Hospital, and some programs were scheduled to go to Grace?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, of the medical beds in the Winnipeg system, we have had as high, I believe, as 280 or 300 of those beds being used by people waiting for personal care home placements. So the addition of 550 additional long-term care beds within Winnipeg and the province will allow for the freeing up of many of those beds for other purposes.

Dr. Brian Postl also talked about a proposal to make better use of beds with the swing surgical/medical beds, depending on seasonal use, which we know are there. Madam Speaker, that was discussed in the presentation that I know the member for Kildonan attended.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, will the minister, since he has guaranteed today that none of those surgical programs will be going to private, for-profit clinics and since the minister has said the reason that they are having trouble with employees is because they want to take the opportunity to transfer employees from Misericordia to other centres, guarantee today that all the employees who are presently employed in those programs will have a job that will go with them to another hospital or institution, together with that program, and that they will not lose their jobs as a result of the closure of Misericordia Hospital?

* (1350)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, that is fully our intention, and that is the mandate that we have given to the Winnipeg Hospital Authority. That is why we have made the issue of common employer or the ability to move people in the system a top priority. It is regrettable that we have not had support from the New Democratic Party openly on that issue. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Doer) comments, in supporting a variety of positions by the volunteer boards like St. Boniface, would work absolutely counter to achieving that kind of labour stability, but that is our intention.

The only caveat that I put on this, Madam Speaker, is that if one procedure or two are done somewhere, and the member gets up and then accuses us of lying and not telling the truth, I would not accept that. Our intention with the private clinics is to maintain that status quo while we are building our system so we do not lose that capacity today, so that we put patients first and ensure that they are able to get procedures on a timely basis.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I have some questions for the Minister of Northern Affairs. Last week we raised some issues about problems they were having in the North with respect to building materials that were stuck in Thompson. I would like to ask the minister today as to the status of negotiations with the federal government for the shipment of these goods to Tadoule Lake and other northern communities, including Lac Brochet.

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, the cost of transporting those materials has been determined, through our investigations, to be approximately $400,000 to $500,000 if done by air now. The cost to truck this material over winter roads is estimated at $25,000 to $50,000. I am further advised that the price is firm on the housing material, and that housing material could be shipped up within the next nine months if the winter road were permitted to be constructed by the forces of nature before the end of the freeze-up next year, and that would then permit the low costs of transportation to be utilized. This involves, of course, then, a delay within that nine months and chances that natural forces might not prevail in favour.

The federal government has indicated that they do not have any additional funds to cover the cost of flying in the material at this time.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to read the memorandum of understanding between the provincial government and the federal government on the emergency airlift. I would like to ask the minister whether or not he believes that the federal government has lived up to that memorandum of understanding. As well, I would like to ask the minister what he is prepared to do to assist these communities so that they are not penalized any further with higher costs for food, cutbacks and essential supplies for shelter by the federal government.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, the role of the provincial government in a situation where the federal government has 100 percent responsibility for funding this kind of thing, when it involves our aboriginal Manitoba citizens, is to use our resources, abilities, leadership and advocacy skills to try and persuade the federal government, through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, to invest as prudently as they can in this kind of situation. We are going to be, in fact, meeting with the federal representatives this afternoon, exercising that sort of role within our government. My hope is that we can come up with a solution, together with them, to empower the minister responsible, Minister Jane Stewart federally, to effectively persuade other government funding bodies and departments to come up with the money to make this possible.

Mr. Robinson: I would like to ask the minister a final question. We need the Province of Manitoba to be a lead player in dealing with our national government to address these many needed issues that have to be addressed for the good of aboriginal people in the North. I would like to ask this minister what role he sees this government playing in facilitating this meaningful role with our national government to meet the needs of aboriginal people and northerners in general.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, we indeed see a very important role for the Manitoba government to facilitate an effective working relationship with the federal government and the aboriginal peoples of Manitoba to accomplish not only overcoming the short-term challenges that are serious to our communities in Manitoba but also the long-term challenges. We have now a relationship which is based on a comprehensive approach and hopefully a lot more rational and long-term thinking directed at solutions in holistic ways for our aboriginal people of Manitoba. This is the first step that we have to climb over, and we are going to work at it diligently this afternoon and see what creative solution we can come up with. We will be doing that on a case-by-case basis, and hopefully we will get enough success stories that everyone knows that it works and it pays to work hard at it.

* (1355)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister responsible for Urban Affairs. As the government tries to legislate a very powerful mayor by giving more authorities, my question to the minister is: does he not recognize that, whether it was Steve Juba or others that followed Mr. Juba, it is the personalities and the abilities of the individual that will dictate whether or not we have a strong mayor with a strong vision, that in fact the legislation might not necessarily be necessary, that you cannot legislate a powerful mayor? Would the Minister of Urban Affairs acknowledge that you cannot, government cannot legislate a powerful mayor?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I believe the member for Inkster is asking me whether I agree with him that you cannot legislate leadership, and I agree with him.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate to the House why the government believes it is necessary not only to allow the mayor to cause a tie in a vote but also then to break the tie, in essence, Madam Speaker, giving the mayor two votes? Why is that necessary?

Mr. Reimer: The member is right. This was one of the recommendations that was brought forth by the Cuff report regarding the powers given to the mayor. It is something that mayors did have before, and this was brought in in earlier times when I believe it was Bill Norrie, and I think it was three mayors prior to that also had that power. At that time, the structure of the council and the administrative authorities were different, and this was one of the reasons why the tie-breaking vote was allowed to the mayor. It is brought forth for consideration at this time during the consideration of the bill, and one of the recommendations that came forth from the Cuff report was the tie-breaking vote.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am asking the minister whether or not he or this government supports the fact that the mayor should be allowed to have two votes. Would that then equate to the Premier of the province? Does he get two votes inside cabinet? Does the Prime Minister get two votes inside cabinet?

Mr. Reimer: I must say the member for Inkster is speculating as to what may or may not happen in cabinet, so it is speculation on his part whether there is a vote type of scenario taken in the cabinet chamber. [interjection] Sometimes you get heckled more from your own side than you do from the opposition here.

But I will try to attempt to answer the member's question. The tie-breaking vote has been brought up this morning in presentations. There were some excellent presenters brought forth concerns. One of the things that a number of the presenters brought forth was the fact that the mayor was given this tie-breaking vote, and it is something that, like with anything that is brought forth for consideration by the committee members, their input, their concerns are taken to note by this government. There is always room for consideration as the bill goes through committee stages.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): On May 30, we had a terrible accident near Birch River where three people were killed. When you have this kind of accident, you start to look for answers. What we find is that a highway stop sign was knocked down but never replaced.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier if they would change this policy and ensure that all stop signs that are knocked down are replaced along main market roads, so we do not have the kind of terrible situation we have had where four people lost their lives.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question, and I will certainly take it as notice for my colleague the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay). I want to assure her and all members of this House and the people of Manitoba that any tragedy like that hits each and every one of us because we can all relate to an incident or a situation of that kind. It is not acceptable, and I will ask for a review of the policy. I am sure that there will be favourable consideration to it.

* (1400)

Ms. Wowchuk: Will the Deputy Premier admit that it is because of cutbacks by his government that people's lives are being sacrificed, because, in fact, Madam Speaker, in rural areas we have skeleton Highways crews who do not have the budgets to replace stop signs when they are knocked down? It is this government who has brought in that policy.

Mr. Downey: With the greatest of respect, it was this government, Premier Gary Filmon's government and the Progressive Conservative Party that increased the budget to Highways from $80 million to a hundred million dollars. They were the ones who reduced it, not this government. The numbers speak for themselves in every record that this province has.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, given that this is a very serious issue, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier if he will ensure that local employees who work in the various regions have the ability to put up stop signs when they are knocked down, rather than having to go to the regional office to get approval before they can erect a stop sign, because that is what is happening. There is no power with the local workers to do their work.

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, first of all, I will make the point--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Deputy Premier was recognized to respond to the question asked.

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, first of all, it is my understanding that the support to the maintenance program also has increased, and if you check this year particularly over last year, you will find that there has been increased support for maintenance.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, I will also check as to how long this policy has been in place, whether it was a policy that was in place carried over from the previous administration or whether it was a new policy. [interjection] The members want information; I will find out about the basis of this policy and report back.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, it was this government that decentralized government but took government closer to the people so decisions could in fact be made closer to those communities.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. The member for Swan River asked a very serious question. These are questions being asked by the family of a constituent of mine. They are very serious, very specific questions aimed at trying to make sure this does not happen again. I would like to ask you to bring the Deputy Premier to order. The people of the family who were affected by these tragic deaths want a straight answer, Madam Speaker, not this kind of irrelevant rhetoric from the Deputy Premier.

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. Indeed Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear, and the honourable minister was dealing with the issues raised by the honourable member for Swan River, extremely serious issues. The minister's answers point out the seriousness with which this government views those types of circumstances and making comparison with the record of the previous NDP administration. There is nothing irrelevant about any of that. All of that was responsive to the questions put by the honourable member for Swan River, so, therefore, the honourable member for Thompson, in my humble opinion, does not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I believe the honourable Deputy Premier said he would bring the detailed, specific facts back to the Assembly in response to the question posed by the honourable member for Swan River. Therefore, there is no point of order.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. As the minister is quite aware, in northern Manitoba the crisis in the fishing industry is as severe as it is on the East Coast and the West Coast. The Chemawawin First Nation, for example, has had to close their fishery for three years.

I would like to ask the minister today what kind of representation or lobbying he has done with the federal government in order to enable the fisheries in this province to be eligible for assistance in the new TAGS proposal that is out there, or for any other federal support.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, last winter, last spring and last summer we made representation to the federal government if they were interested in working with us on perhaps a reduction of some of the quotas through a buy-out process, or whether there was assistance that they were prepared to provide, given that we were receiving and can verify that there have been some problems, some considerable problems in certain areas with the ability to earn a living from the fishing operations as has traditionally occurred.

There have been a couple of pilot projects or one pilot project which I know the member is well aware that this minister has received some briefings on. There has been no positive response from the federal government, in any way, that they want to become involved in any kind of support program.

Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, my second question is to the same minister.

Will he table any correspondence that he has with the federal government that would indicate to the House that he has diligently tried to assist the northern fishermen with their fishing crisis and the high unemployment?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can. I do not have it with me at the moment, but I think we should be very clear that there was one community, in particular, that was looking to have the fishery closed, and there was some considerable disagreement within the community about whether or not a viable livelihood could be made fishing and whether or not the fishery was recovering. In that particular case, no action was proposed because the following season seemed to show that the fishery was beginning to recover.

Frankly, my preference is if we can encourage better habitat, we encourage the development of the fishery, and that is a better approach than buying out or eliminating the fishermen from what is their traditional opportunity for livelihood.

* (1410)

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he has received any indication at all as to when the House of Commons Fisheries Committee that was touring Manitoba about a month ago--has he received any word as to when they might put out a report and recommendations?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Probably the member's sources for that information are about as good as mine, but I am led to believe that we should be hearing very shortly from that committee.

I am not sure what some of the outcomes of that committee might be. There was some feeling among presenters that they did come with a fair bit of prehistory concerning the fishery in Manitoba, given that some of the members on that committee had been known to make some very strong statements previously about the future of the inland fishery. Nevertheless, we will be awaiting their report and treat it appropriately.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, CN continues to discontinue rail services in many parts of the province, but the lines that they put up for sale are not viable for short line operators to operate on. Given that CN has indicated that they are prepared to consider any proposal on their lines, a group has been formed in Swan River called the Man-Sask Short Line Initiative.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier if his government will stand behind this committee when they ask CN to put together a reasonable package consisting of the Irwood, Cowan, and the Preeceville subs so that a viable short line railway can operate in that area and continue to provide service to people in that region.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take the specifics of the question as notice, but I can assure her that we are prepared to hear from, take a presentation from, and consider any proposals that would come to help assist in the area of transportation throughout Manitoba.

One thing, however, that it is not up to the province to do and that is backfill a responsibility that the federal government has left to the people of western Canada in an irresponsible way.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, no one is asking the province to backfill. What we are asking this government is if they will work with this committee. In Saskatchewan, the provincial government has recognized the problem and is prepared to put resources and funds behind short line operators.

Is this government prepared to put financial resources to help the Man-Sask Short Line Initiative ensure that they can put a reasonable package together so that we can continue to have viable railway service in our region of the province?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, we have programs available under Rural Development and through the different economic branches of government to support feasibility studies to look at that particular capacity, but what we have not done is got into the business of running a railroad. So, as I said, we would be most interested in seeing what the proposal would be, to assist in what way we could to have that communication linkage there, but we are not in the business of running a railroad.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): It has been some time--November 1971--since Helen Betty Osborne was killed in The Pas by four white men, and in December 1996 Dwayne Archie Johnston--only one of the four who were convicted of her murder--was sentenced of course, and we all know that. In December of 1996, Mr. Johnston gave to the RCMP his version of events, and it has been several months now since the RCMP tabled their report to the Attorney General's department.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice at this time: what is the status of that report that was given by the RCMP to his department?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, I understand that is a very serious issue, and I certainly do not want to make any comments that might jeopardize any opinion or any other aspect of that particular case. I do recognize that it was a serious situation, and as soon as I am able to share any more information with the member, I will do so.

Mr. Robinson: The minister has to realize that it has been 27 years that the family has been waiting for justice to be done. I would like to ask the minister when he will be able to report to this Assembly the findings of his department with respect to further charges on the ones that were not charged with the murder in 1986-87.

Mr. Toews: Again, Madam Speaker, that is a decision that the Crown attorneys in conjunction with the police would make. It is always a very serious situation when murder charges are being contemplated in any case. I would hope that anyone who is involved in that kind of deliberation does so on the basis of the evidence and not for any other reason.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.