Headingley Correctional Institution
Inquiry
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, as noted by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) and the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), the situation on Friday is indeed tragic. All of us, I am sure, have received numerous calls over the weekend. I have received a number of calls from correctional staff who have been absolutely traumatized by the injuries received by their co-workers and are absolutely traumatized about conditions that they feel have been developing in the Headingley Institution and remain in the Headingley Institution.
I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the minister's statement today that we are going to have an independent review, and in light of the fact that many of the correctional staff that we have talked to and listened to feel it is very important that we have a public inquiry so that their stories and their concerns and their issues can be heard by all of the public, would the Premier allow the staff to speak out and would the Premier allow the public to hear through an independent public inquiry which we feel is necessary to get answers to questions and get solutions to the safety that is so paramount in our correctional system?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I just want to make sure that the member and all Manitobans know the process that has to take place.
First of all, there is currently a police investigation underway. That police investigation may lead to criminal charges. We, at the same time, will be conducting our internal review within the Department of Justice. That internal review will be supported by federal corrections, who will come in to provide an assessment to make sure procedures were followed.
But we also want to get to the bottom of this. We also want to make sure that this will never happen again, and that is why we have committed to an independent review, which may take place at the same time. If we were to wait for a public inquiry, that public inquiry could not take place until the completion of the criminal cases. That is why we have decided to proceed this way and to not wait.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I would encourage the Minister of Justice and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to review the precedent established with the Westray public inquiry, where charges are pending and being investigated but a public inquiry is being conducted.
Madam Speaker, we have had reviews before, the 1989 review. There have been reviews in the past. There have been internal reviews that have talked about the safety of this institution, the physical limitations of the corridors, the bars, the situation with the ability to deal with the locking system in that jail.
Madam Speaker, I would encourage the Premier to take charge of an independent public inquiry, and I would like to ask the Premier a further question. Correctional staff have been informing us that three or four years ago--and they think it is four years ago--the staffing levels in the evening shift at the Headingley Correctional Institution were 25. When the incident took place last weekend, the staffing levels were 19, and sometimes they feel the staffing levels are even below that.
We believe that the correctional officers should be able to speak out at a public inquiry about these discrepancies of statistics between the minister and the staff. I would like to ask the Premier, will he allow the staff at the line level, at the range level, at the security level, to speak out in a public inquiry and deal with what they perceive to be a reduction of security at that institution?
Mrs. Vodrey: I would like to remind the member about his own colleague the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), when he was minister of corrections. I have a newspaper article, September 29, 1983, in which the criticism is that with the Garson Report, completed before the riot that took place when that member was minister, they could not even get at the report at all, and that the member right across was saying the public has a right to know, strategies should not be cooked in the bowels of the institution. A secret, Madam Speaker.
This government has made it clear, there will be what is required and that is the independent investigation. We do not want to interfere, however, with the criminal case.
Let me deal with the staffing level as well, Madam Speaker. Earlier, before this government built the Remand Centre, this government dealt with Milner Ridge, populations were higher at Headingley. In fact, I look over information from when the member for Brandon East was in charge of the situation and the population was significantly higher by almost 100. Therefore, there was staff available to assist, but as that population moved from Headingley Institution to the new Remand Centre to Milner Ridge, then staff went with them. But the ratio of staff-to-inmate population, I can tell you, is as good or better than other institutions in this country.
Mr. Doer: I am again disappointed that the minister will not call for a public independent inquiry.
* (1355)
Security Measures
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the minutes of meetings that we have reviewed and other documents that we have reviewed have indicated a concern that has been raised by correctional officer staff for the last three or four years about the level of staffing at the Headingley Correctional Institution.
They also raise the fact that the new psychologist at the Correctional Institution has condemned the ways of staff and said we need new ways to deal in the institution. The corrections system, in terms of security, was not acceptable.
Further, the correctional staff have been fighting a recommendation of this minister and this government to remove range bars. I will table today a memo confirming the decision to remove the range bars in Headingley Institution. They were reinstated in '87, Madam Speaker, and now in 1995-96 they are in the process of being removed. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to overrule his Minister of Justice and stop the removal of those range bars, which the staff feel are absolutely essential to the security of themselves and the safety of their inmates.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): First of all, let me say the range bars were not removed. The range bars have not been removed and the range bars are not going to be removed. However, the member across the way seems to be dealing with information that he is getting--and some of that information can be very dangerous, such as the information which was put on Friday afternoon by the leader of the union. That information was just plain wrong, and that information jeopardized more people than any other event, that information by the leader of the union for correctional officers who came out and gave totally false information about death and about castration.
The effect of that was twofold: the effect was to endanger the inmates inside and to incite them to take further action; and then the human factor, the human factor which then every time that was commented upon, every time caused the phones to ring on the family lines while people worried about their loved ones.
Madam Speaker, the security instituted by this government has been continuous security improvement. Any changes to the range bars, the member clearly knows--Headingley Institution is the only institution across this country that has range bars, so in order to look at whether or not they would remain, work was being done with Workplace Safety and Health and with the institution and with the correctional officers.
There has not been the removal of range bars. During the disturbance on Friday, the range bars were in place. The range bars will remain in place.
Headingley Correctional Institution
Inquiry
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
In 1989, the Justice department reported that Headingley has, and I quote from the report: marginal capabilities in terms of inmate movement control or group containment--and went on to say--there is a general recognition and frustration that the existing facility militates against safety security.
Given that the government has apparently rejected the essence of the recommendations of this 1989 report and given evidence that correctional officers have been cut by a third, and there is a lack of training, protocol and adherence to procedure at a time of an increasingly violent inmate population with gang activity, would the minister now agree to call a commission of inquiry under The Evidence Act that is public, and will the lack of response by this government be one of the terms of reference?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the people of Manitoba that over the past approximately six years, there has been in the range of $700,000, $750,000 improvements done to Headingley. Those improvements were to look at issues such as security, to close down certain living areas and to make sure that there were facilities that were appropriate.
Madam Speaker, we have a continuous plan to deal with the physical facilities at Headingley and particularly to deal with safety. However, members across the way have often wanted to make sure that Headingley was in fact an easy place to go. In fact, the one letter I got on corrections was from the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) who said, at Portage, there were not enough toys.
Madam Speaker, really, I look at the priorities of the members across the way and say that they, frankly, have not prioritized.
* (1400)
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker. Beauchesne's 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.”
Madam Speaker, on an issue as serious as the riot that took place at Headingley and on a question as serious as the one put by our member asking for an independent public inquiry, I would like to ask that you call the Minister of Justice to order and ask her to answer the question.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Security Measures
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the minister: When did the minister, who wants to get to the bottom of this riot apparently, become aware of allegations of problems with their closed-circuit TVs, including the monitoring of those, inaccessible antiquated equipment, one key that opens all cell blocks, widespread endemic drug use, procedures not followed, complaints about understaffing? Why was apparently nothing done and will that be one of the terms of reference of the inquiry?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member again is behaving today very much the way he behaved on Friday. He is continuing to spread his ideas, some views which are unsubstantiated, and Friday, while lives hung in the balance, the head of the RCMP for Manitoba met with the member for St. Johns, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and myself, to make it very clear that public comment was very unhelpful at that time while lives were in the balance.
I have to take a moment to commend the member for The Maples who, as a police officer, has clearly understood not to speak. The member across the way--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. If the minister wishes to get off into petty matters, I am sure she does not want to leave on the record of this House the misrepresentation that the RCMP in any way made some advice to me that comment was not appropriate. That is not true, and the minister knows that. I ask that she withdraw that comment on the record.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Inquiry
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My final supplementary, just a simple question: Will the minister undertake to ensure that there is accountability for what happened this weekend at Headingley jail, appoint a commission of inquiry under The Evidence Act immediately to begin the process of looking into this matter to ensure that it does not happen again? Will she simply answer that simple question?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, we certainly are moving immediately into accountability. That accountability will start where the people who caused the destruction of that institution will be the ones required to go in and clean it up. That is the start of accountability for the events on Friday.
Madam Speaker, in addition to that, I have made it clear that we will be launching an independent review into the circumstances surrounding this event at Headingley while there is a police investigation, possible criminal charges, possible court cases and our own internal review.
Madam Speaker, just to clarify, also, a question the member asked about correctional officers' concerns. I would just like to say that on reviewing the grievances available, there are in fact no outstanding grievances at all that deal with staffing levels, that deal with safety, that deal with security. They deal with matters such as sick benefits.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Independent Commission
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, when the Premier addressed the Legislative Assembly of the northwest province of the Republic of South Africa, just this year, he stated, and I quote: Canadians have always valued consensus over conflict and co-operation over confrontation.
Madam Speaker, given the Premier's comments, I wonder why the Premier would not accept our proposal that a committee of eminent Manitobans from all political backgrounds, people like Sid Spivak or Ed Schreyer, study the home care issue for a year. It could end the strike; it would allow for the matter to be resolved, and it would allow for public input by the public of Manitoba.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I have said before, our objective is to ensure that at all times we can provide for the needs of those who depend upon home care in this province. The fact of the matter is that this withdrawal of services unilaterally by the union demonstrates exactly the concern that we have, the valid concern, that with one monopoly provider in the system you can have people irresponsibly withdraw services from those who need them most, and we cannot tolerate that happening again in future. We will not have that in future because we will bring competition into the system, alternatives and flexibility into the system for the needs of those who depend upon home care, and that is the answer that all Manitobans want.
Mr. Chomiak: My supplementary to the Premier: If the government position on privatization is as strong as the Premier suggests, why would they not permit a nonpartisan group of eminent Manitobans to study the situation for a year, to come back with recommendations, to allow Manitobans to have input and to end the strike? What is the Premier afraid of?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the problem with members opposite is they do not like the decision. They are not interested in process. They are not interested in studies or reviews because they go back all the way to the time when New Democrats were in office. Price Waterhouse, in '87-88, brought forward a study that was commissioned by New Democrats. It said that there should be user fees. It said that many people should be cut off the system. It said it should be income tested. It said all sorts of things.
There have been studies after studies. Governments are elected to make decisions and we are making a decision on behalf of those who are most vulnerable in society, those who depend upon home care. That is why we are doing what we are doing, which is to bring in an element of competition, an element of flexibility and assurance that we can provide home care in future and that the people who are most vulnerable will not be held up for ransom for political reasons by New Democrats or anybody else.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I take it that is a no.
My final supplementary to the Premier: If the government's plan and their contingency is working as well as the Premier suggests, why is the government introducing a program to start paying family members and untrained third parties directly from government to do home care? Their contingency plan is in serious trouble; they do not have the capacity. Why would they not want to end the strike now by having a commission study it for a year?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, when the union leadership, supported by the New Democratic Party, wants to close down the Home Care program, we are left in a position where we have to look at all options to make sure that the clients of this program get the proper care. The honourable member is now fighting the battles for the union leadership here and he would have far more credibility with the public if he would fight the battles of the clients of the home care system.
* (1410)
Society for Manitobans with Disabilities
Funding Reductions
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, this government continues to cut those who are the most vulnerable in our society. We have been informed that the handicapped children who receive adaptive skills and language programs in the preschool at the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities will have their programs cut by this government. This $500,000 cut amounts to 31.8 percent reduction in overall funding with the loss of 11 highly skilled professionals who work with the children.
My question to the Minister of Family Services is, why did this minister decide to take such vicious and drastic cuts to these very needy and vulnerable children?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does allow me the opportunity to tell all Manitobans that we care about providing service for all of those who are challenged within our society, and especially children.
The changes that are happening are as a result of a collaborative process where the nursery at the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities will no longer be an in-house service, but the dollars that were being spent on bricks and mortar are going to go into services for children. There will be a co-ordinated approach. There will be outreach, and there will be more children with disabilities served as a result of the co-ordination and the collaboration that has taken place.
Resources
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, given that the personnel, the money is not available to provide services, as stated by the society, can the minister tell the families affected by these cuts what resources will be available for their children so their futures are not being thrown away?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, again, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does give me the opportunity to present to all Manitobans the work that has been going on with the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities, with the Rehabilitation Centre for Children, with the Children's Hospital and with St. Amant Centre, so that the outreach program for children and integration of children into the community will be of paramount importance. The nursery school, the bricks and mortar at the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities, in fact, was not providing the same kind of integration and outreach and opportunity for children with disabilities, and we want to see that kind of service provided in an integrated fashion in the best way possible so as many children as possible can receive the service they need.
Ms. Mihychuk: Will the minister guarantee to these families they will receive the respite services they need, the specialized education supports that they received and the specialized health care aid which these children need in their homes? Will the families receive that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, again, I thank my honourable friend for that question because more Manitobans and more children with disabilities will be able to receive services as a result of the amalgamation, the co-ordination and the working together of those in the community who are very concerned about providing the supports for children with disabilities. We know that we will be able to ensure that more children are served through that collaborative process than have been served in the past, and I think that is good for Manitoba's children who have disabilities and are in need.
Headingley Correctional Institution
Inquiry
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
I would like to thank the minister for her all-party briefing Friday in response to the Headingley riot where we put the personal safety of those called to respond to ride above political rhetoric. This type of tactic should be supported by all members of this House.
The minister is saying a full public inquiry will have to wait until the criminal investigations are completed, but let us not sit on our hands. Let us get personally involved. Will the minister consider an all-party fact-finding mission of MLAs which would cost the public nothing? As a 20-year veteran of the Winnipeg Police force, I would be willing to participate in an investigation of the underlying causes of this horrific incident and submit recommendations to the minister.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and also his personal professionalism which has not gone unnoticed by anyone. However, in our effort to make sure that we do not have to wait, that we do not lose time, it has been our government's commitment today to have an independent review take place. I look forward to being able to announce details on who will conduct that review in the very near future. We feel the same; we do not want to wait too long. We understand that police investigation and an internal review, and we have made the commitment today to an independent review so we do not lose any time.
Mr. Kowalski: Will the minister give her commitment that, unlike the 1983 report from the former NDP government and the 1989 report from the Conservative government, the recommendations that will come out of this inquiry will be acted upon?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, we certainly are always continuing to look for improvements, particularly in the area of the safety and security practices within our institutions. There are a number which are even scheduled for this year in 1996-97, and we can discuss some of those details in Estimates. A number of them are changes which are very enhancing in terms of, again, safety and security of prisoners. So I certainly can give the member my continued reassurance. That is exactly what we have been doing; that is what we expect to continue to do.
Report Recommendations
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Will the minister make a commitment to act immediately on the recommendations from the '83 NDP report and the 1989 Conservative report, to act immediately upon them instead of waiting? Can we have immediate action, act now instead of later?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, as I said in an earlier answer, there has been approximately somewhat over $700,000 spent on the institution since this government came to power, as well as the development of the Remand Centre to reduce inmate population and Milner Ridge to deal with inmate population. So there has been a continued effort to work on recommendations, and as I said, there are a number which will be taking place in this year which were approved during the Estimates process, which will continue, I believe, to add to the safety and security of those working in the institution.
Education System
Special Needs Review
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, Manitobans are well aware that the number of students with special needs in our schools is increasing rapidly and the parents of those children want, I think, most clearly, longer term plans for their children. I want to ask the Minister of Education if she could tell the House why her department's review of special needs education announced several years ago, contained in Estimates for the past three years, so far has no public presence. Could she tell us why there has been this extraordinary delay?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I have to indicate initially that the plans for the special needs review are well underway, and we have been talking with various groups, various parent groups, various school groups, various educator groups, on the types of things that we feel will need to be looked at and examined in that study.
I do find it somewhat ironic that the member is asking for a study at a time when she is criticizing us for bringing in so much change. That aside, I have to indicate it is very much a priority of ours, and we should be hearing some announcement on that within the next few weeks or months.
* (1420)
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell the House whether this long-awaited--and at my count it is over two years now--special needs review will in fact be nonpolitical in the same way that the minister claims her Enhancing Accountability review was a nonpolitical one? Will it have the opportunity for public input and will it indeed be an independent review?
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure of the exact definition of “political” that the member is using, because there is a school of thought that any decision made by people who are elected is a political decision, anything done by people who are elected edges the realm of political decision making or activity.
Having said that, the review that we are envisioning for special needs purposes in the province will be widely encompassing, will include those very groups that I talked to. I have already had some preliminary in-depth discussions with parents, educators, administrators of people who work in depth with special needs students of all types, and their input will be required on a review of this nature.
So in the sense that it involves stakeholder groups, the member will have to decide for her own self if she thinks those stakeholder groups, because they are advocacy groups and lobby groups, enter into the realm of political or nonpolitical. I cannot judge that for her.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister confirm that this wide-encompassing, wide-ranging review will specifically address the role and obligation of private schools in the education of special needs students in Manitoba?
Mrs. McIntosh: We have discussed this, as I say, with all of those who educate special needs students. As the member knows, the independent schools also, like the public schools, do receive the same per capita grant for the special needs students they educate. There are many special needs students who, attending independent schools, are faced not only with the need to educate but also with the user fee they must provide for their Christian education or their all-girls education or whatever the milieu is they are looking for.
Certainly, Madam Speaker, since the independent schools do educate special needs students and many parents of special needs students wish their children to have a faith education, they certainly are not going to be excluded from providing input into this very important study.
Child Daycare
Special Needs Funding
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Family Services, through the Child Day Care office, funds daycare centres and other facilities for children with special needs, including children with medical disabilities and/or hearing, speech or language problems.
Since the Minister of Family Services said today earlier that she cares about all who are challenged, I wonder if the minister could tell us if she believes that the funding is adequate to provide for the needs of all these children in the existing system.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because I am not sure--and we have said many times before, the amount of money that goes into programs does not necessarily mean that the quality of service is any better or any worse than more or less money.
Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that we as a government have taken a very proactive approach to co-ordinate services so that through the Children and Youth Secretariat we are looking at how we can best spend the dollars we have available to us to provide support for those most in need. We are working very aggressively to try to ensure that the dollars that are there are used in the most appropriate fashion so that children can get the services they need.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a page from the minister's briefing book which shows that in the last fiscal year there was a waiting list of 46 children who could not get the services that they needed.
I would like to ask the minister how she can say that they care for all the children with disabilities when there is already a waiting list for these children. Why is the minister not providing the resources that they need?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that one area within my department that I have placed a very high priority on is on those with special needs, those with disabilities, and if ever there are more resources that come to the Department of Family Services, they go into those areas to provide that kind of support. We work to try to prioritize the most needy within the system and find the solutions to their needs. It continues to be an ongoing commitment by this government to ensure that as the resources become available we prioritize in the manner that will best address the needs of those who are most vulnerable.
Subsidized Spaces
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services how she can say that she is making a priority of all these needs when as recently as a year ago the child care community thought that the minister was funding 9,600 cases when in actual fact the utilization was at about 8,200, and now we have a freeze and daycare co-ordinators and family daycare homes are losing cases and the minister is trying to pretend that she is meeting all the needs. How can these needs be met when there is a freeze on, and the cases are being denied from children who need it?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for being at the Manitoba Child Care Association's annual meeting on Friday with me, and he heard first-hand the comments that I made to the child care community. The comments were indeed that the spaces that were utilized last year will be there for anyone who needs those spaces. If in fact there is a discrepancy between what the department has allocated and what the true needs are in those daycare centres, we are looking at those on an individual basis and we are making adjustments where they need to be made.
In the meantime, we are going to be working very closely with the child care community around review of the regulations and the programming to ensure that the flexibility, the accountability and the services are there for working families throughout the province as it is needed. What was necessarily appropriate 10 years ago is not appropriate today. The child care community has agreed to work with us in a very proactive way and I am looking forward to that process.
Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism
Employee Morale
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I want to table the Price Waterhouse December 1995 study of I, T and T. On page 13 of that study the following words are found. I quote: “. . . people recounted showing up for work one morning to find themselves in new areas, reporting to new bosses, with no accountable executive present to explain why. We found people today who . . . simply continue to do the same job they did before the 1992 reorganization even though it no longer matches their current job description or assigned area. In several cases, we found people who were demoted and had not received any feedback that their performance was not adequate.”
Madam Speaker, will the minister finally acknowledge that his department is obviously highly demoralized and in a state of complete chaos?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): No, I will not, Madam Speaker, but what I will tell the member is that the department had been involved and in charge, in part, of some $1.5 billion worth of investment in this province, some 9,000 to 10,000 new jobs, the second-lowest unemployment in all of the country is in this province, record export sales to the United States and internationally. That is the kind of department we have and the people have been working on those kinds of projects.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister take responsibility, and apologize to his staff, for politicizing his department where it says very clearly: “ . . . personal success within the organization is seen to be as much a function of personal contacts and informal relationships as performance and impact in economic development.”?
Mr. Downey: No, Madam Speaker, because I have to say that those individuals who work within my department are to be commended for the hard work and effort that they put forward without any influence politically, unlike a department that I had responsibility for when I was first elected. This government was first elected to government in 1988, where we had the former member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party for Selkirk working in the government, where we had the former MLA Mr. Eyler working who was a former NDP.
He does not need to give me a lesson, Madam Speaker, as to political involvement in departments.
* (1430)
Departmental Review
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm that, contrary to what he told this House on Thursday, another study by another consulting firm, KPMG, in 1994, also reviewed his department's function and found, among other things: that duplication exists in the delivery of economic development services; there is overlap in competition for clients; this lack of collaboration amongst government-funded organizations is inefficient?
Will he confirm that he should have told the House about this study on Thursday, Madam Speaker?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I did not say that there was not absolutely another study. I said I would take it under notice, and I do apologize. When making reference to former people working for the departments, I forgot that he himself was a political hack, but I am not just sure what party it was, whether he was a Liberal or NDP at that particular time.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.