Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members firstly to the loge to my right where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Sid Green, the former member for Inkster, and Mr. Gerry Ducharme, the former member for Riel. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Additionally, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon--I think they are still here--twenty-six Grades 9 to 12 students from Sandy Bay School under the direction of Mr. John Paramor and Mrs. Barb Woolford. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings).

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

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I want to start by reading the words from the mission statement of the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba. In the mission statement it says: to provide superior compensation service to Manitoba workers and employers in a manner that is sensitive, responsive, and effective in order to minimize the impact of workplace injuries.

This month, after 12 years and at least 11 cancer-related deaths, some measures of justice occurred when the families of two deceased workers received survivor WCB benefits. The ordeal has been a nightmare for the widows of these two deceased workers, and one of these widows now struggles from personal injuries sustained from having to find work to support her family after her husband died of occupational cancer caused by the workplace. The nightmare started when the WCB medical staff, without the benefit of research, encouraged WCB adjudication staff to reject the deceased workers' claims on numerous occasions. Over 138 deaths may be linked to the involvement with mineral oil and other workplace chemicals.

I want to ask the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board: why did WCB staff, without the basis of any medical research, reject the claims of the families of the deceased workers, leaving the families to their own devices to find a doctor and that the doctor would then have to agree to take on the case and would have to apply for a research grant and that this doctor would then have to, after receiving approval for the grant, conduct the necessary research to arrive at a conclusion that there was a link between workplace chemical exposure and the cancer deaths? Why did the claimants' families have to go through so many hoops to prove these cases?

* (1410)

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): Madam Speaker, certainly distressing circumstances, as the member indicates. Occupational disease is an area where there is still a lot of academic dispute and contrary information. The cases that the member references date back to 1984, 1985, 1986 and that period, and under a different board and different circumstances those cases were rejected, primarily because there was some thought that these were related to PCBs.

It was only in 1996 that it was determined by the board and by a medical review panel that probably the use of mineral oil, which occurred in that plant up until 1975, was really the cause of the cancer-related deaths related to pancreatic cancer. So in 1996, when that was determined, a medical review panel was called, and shortly after that they made a decision, and those decisions have been accepted by the board.

Mr. Reid: Then I want to ask the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board, because he says that there was only a recent study, when the Anna-Lee Yassi study that was done referenced back to a 1968 study, a 1976 study, and a 1980 study, so the minister knows that there is information that was available by way of research and yet the board decided to reject.

I want to ask this minister: why did the Workers Compensation Board medical staff in a 1996 briefing to the then chairperson and chief executive officer who should have been aware, these medical people should have been aware of the studies that I just referenced here, why did those medical people reject the claims of these deceased workers' families by indicating that the threshold was too low? Why was that advice given to the then CEO of the Compensation Board when these medical people on the compensation staff should have been aware of these studies relating back to 1968, '76, and '80, and including the one by Anna-Lee Yassi in 1996? Why was your medical staff not provided that information to the CEO as part of your advice?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, the member is correct. There have been many studies. There has been conflicting information from scientists in the United States and across Canada on this particular issue, and for the many years--and I cannot speak for the decisions made in 1985 and 1986 by the administrators and the board and possibly the government of the day why these were not accepted at that time.

I am saying to the member that in 1996 it became evident that probably the cause was the use of mineral oil, which was quite liberally used in that plant and many other plants. As a result of that, a medical review panel was called. As a result, the appropriate actions have been taken.

Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the same minister, and this minister knows full well that claimants have to develop a mountain of evidence to support their case before it is accepted by the Compensation Board.

I want to ask this minister--because he says now that it was old case history here and that there was not enough evidence. He had the ability, with his government, on the legislation that they brought in in 1992. Will this Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), included along with this Minister of Labour, confirm and explain why they refused to implement Recommendation No. 50 from the King commission report that indicated that you could and should establish an occupational disease panel here in the province of Manitoba that would set standards so that the claimants of these families of these diseased workers would not have to jump through all of these hoops in trying to receive fair and just treatment here in the province of Manitoba? Why did you not establish that occupational disease panel that could have helped these families?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, I know the member already knows this, but I would remind him that the outcomes of these cases are determined on the basis of the legislation which existed at the time of the initial claim. So these claims are being adjudicated and evaluated based on the legislation that was in place in 1985 and 1986 and not current legislation.

I would remind my honourable friend that when we were in committee in April of last year, and I quote from Hansard, the member says "I have trust and confidence in the members of the board and in Mr. Fox-Decent." I know that he still has that trust and confidence today, and I am sure that he knows that the right thing will be done.

I might point out that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) I think reflects on the way the Workers Compensation Board was run while you were in government. It was run by ministers and by government. I am only responsible for the act. We have the administration of the Workers Compensation Board done by professionals at the board.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, Manitobans are learning the lesson of some of the costs of having governments, whether it be city governments with garbage pickup contracts or provincial governments with privatizations in terms of MTS and home care, the cost to Manitobans of moving ahead with ideological decisions that do not make sense in terms of public services. Today, there is a devastating report, an analysis of this issue by Evelyn Shapiro, eminent professor of community health policy in this province who, and I quote, states in this report that this suggests--and this is the analysis--that the decision to privatize was made on ideological grounds and in response to political pressure from the business sector.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health: in light of the increasing evidence of the fact that privatization does not work in terms of health care, will he now admit he was wrong to proceed, and his predecessor was wrong to proceed with even the partial privatization of home care and make a commitment to public home care by withdrawing that portion, the privatized portion of home care?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the ideological position in this House is with members opposite who from time to time are not prepared to look at alternative means of delivering services. We are very pragmatic on this side of the House, whether it be public or private. The best way to deliver a service is the way--it certainly should be considered and looked at.

Now I have to also wonder where the member for Thompson has been, because last spring when we discussed the home care initiative in this House, when we went through a tendering process to check our own system, we discovered that we had--I believe it was five companies that met the quality requirements, and only one was able to deliver the service more cost effectively than our own public service. We are in that one year to see what we can learn from it, but I think it was very clear at that time, as I indicated, that we learned from that process. We learned some things we can do better in our public system, but certainly the public system was demonstrated to be highly cost effective, given the alternatives were there, and that is certainly where we are. I wonder where the member was.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I was talking to many Manitobans who do not agree with the privatization of home care.

As a supplementary, I want to ask the minister--and in light of, for example, the experience of the City of Winnipeg. Who can forget the 89 percent increase that happened to them for the garbage pickup contract which, by the way, was somewhat lower in the first bid but has now increased dramatically? I want to ask the minister: given the fact that he has already reduced the 20 percent experiment down to 10 percent--because only one of the contractors had even a lower bid--will he now recognize that there is a real danger when you privatize, that the next step is, if they get that kind of contract and that kind of monopoly, they will not only give poorer service, they will jack up the price to Manitobans as well?

* (1420)

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am not going to discuss the city issue. I heard recently that their cost was still less, even with that increase, than before, but that is for them to defend. As I indicated very clearly in this House last spring, what we did learn from that process of testing our own services was that by and large our public home care system was a very cost-effective means of delivering the service compared to alternatives. That is what we learned in the system. We may learn a few other things out of this year-test about how we can deliver the service better.

But I said last spring--and the member has indicated he was out talking to Manitobans--in discussion with the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in Estimates in here that if we have learned one thing is we have learned how to make a few improvements to our public system, but generally speaking, it was doing the job. So to imply that we are moving to privatization, I think the member is six months out of date.

Mr. Ashton: Well, Madam Speaker, when will this minister stop rewriting history? We had a five-week strike of home care workers that stopped the government from a wholesale privatization. It was only their courage that did that.

I want to ask why the minister will not recognize what is in this report, the Shapiro report, and I quote, the government has failed to produce evidence to support its privatization initiative. Why do they not recognize their ideology is not working? Why do they not just table it and commit to a public home care system like Manitobans want?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if I were a physician, I would recommend the member have a hearing test because that is what I said last April. That is what I am saying here today. That is what I said then. I do not know where the member for Thompson has been.

What we learned through that process is we learned that, generally speaking, our public home care system was a very cost-effective method of delivering home care in this province, and that is what we are committed to, an efficient, effective means of delivering home care. We have also learned a few other things about how to improve our system, and that is the course we are embarked on. The whole issue of privatization, I think, was very much a theoretical debate. We wanted to test our system. We did have the opportunity to test it, and as I said last spring in this House, the public home care system is one that appears to work very fine for Manitobans, and that is the course that we are on.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health ought to know that there is a two-year waiting for audiology services, two years. It is a long wait, Mr. Minister.

When the Minister of Health announced the giving of the home care contract to Olsten health care services, he assured Manitobans that this was a Canadian company, but in fact he knew he was misleading Manitobans. Olsten is an American multinational corporation with over 500 subsidiary corporations, one of which is based in Ontario and works out of here. This company is now facing numerous counts of fraud and abuse of patients in several states, has already paid back to the American government over $30 million in fraudulent billings.

Is the minister aware that the President of the United States has put a six-month hold on further developments of private home care because of the prevalence of charges of fraud, overbilling and unethical upselling of services? Is he aware of that?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, I know the preponderance of members opposite that any company that has any relationship to anything American, they oppose, except if it is a union. If a union has American affiliates, then they are okay.

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any case. If the members opposite can bring to my attention any circumstance where the current contract holder in Manitoba on this one-year trial has committed any problems or abused any patients, please bring it forward. We will investigate it.

I have indicated in this House we have learned through this experience about how well our own public system works. We have learned some things to improve it, and I see the course we are on is for a public home care system.

So the question the member really raises, once this experimental year is over and we have done the assessment, I think may just be totally redundant.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, a supplementary: will the minister, who appears to trivialize the vulnerability of older people who are receiving home care at the hands of fraudulent operators, confirm that one of the charges that Olsten is facing in the United States is that they manipulated the bid process in Florida in order to enter a market and are now recovering their losses through artificially high administration and other fees and that high-ranking American officials have said that as much as 40 percent of the billing of home care services in the United States is fraudulent?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, we put out a tender process. That company, as to my knowledge, is meeting the requirements of their contract. My assessment today, although that year is not over yet and we have not completed the assessment, but my sense of it today very much is that with some of the changes and improvements, particularly with information systems, we are making in our own public home care system, that that is where the future is going to be in Manitoba. We have learned some things that we can apply to our own system. So, really, at the end of this year, this is really, I think, a debate of the past and not one of the future. If there is some concern about how in fact our current contracts are being administered, I will check with our staff to ensure that our contract is being lived up to to the full letter.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister, in the light of all of the evidence from the United States of America, from Dr. Shapiro, from the Centre for Policy Alternatives, finally accept that this was a misguided experiment in the first place, that it can only lead to bad practice, to more expensive services? Will he announce that it does not matter, it is not a good idea to deliver home care through private, for-profit companies and go back to the system that made Manitoba a leader and give patients the security of knowing that they are going to get high-quality services from public sector and not-for-profit agencies?

Mr. Praznik: You know, Madam Speaker, sometimes one wonders if we are in the same room as the honourable member, because what he is asking for I think I have basically said that what we have learned from this process is that our public home care system is the best choice for Manitobans. It delivers service in an efficient manner, and our course is to carry on on that basis.

I said that last April as well in this House. I have discussed it with the member for Kildonan in Estimates, so I am not quite sure where the member is coming from. I will say this to him, Madam Speaker: this government has embarked on its course in looking at different ways and different models of delivering services, and many of the things that we have done, like special operating agencies in a variety of areas, have worked tremendously better, deliver better service at a much better cost to the taxpayer, and every time you look at a new model and you test it out, you learn what is good, you learn what is bad. That is what we did. We learned a lot about our public home care system, and that is the course we are on. I am not quite sure if the member has heard me. I hope he has.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, in the past several years, one of the few positive things the former Minister of Health could say that the government had done in home care, and the minister did it many times, including May 7 in this Chamber, April 17 in this Chamber, was that the government had set up an advisory committee on continuing care, represented by consumers and other people that could obtain home care, to provide advice to the government, and I quote, on delivery issues, concerns of recipients of the program, advice on emerging trends and new models of service, delivery options, et cetera.

This agency did yeoman service during the home care strike, advocating against the privatization of home care, I might add. Can the current Minister of Health indicate precisely what the status is of the advisory committee on continuing care?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I understand that the current advisory committee felt that a good deal of their work was over. The individuals who were on that, I understand, have tendered their resignations, and so I will be appointing new members to a home care advisory panel.

* (1430)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the minister: can the minister perhaps indicate to this House whether or not in fact this group tendered their resignations because their work was done or in fact tendered their resignations because this minister was trying to get this body to do something that was inappropriate, take away their ability to advocate on behalf of consumers and trying to make them a branch and agency of this government? Is that not in fact the reason that this body has tendered their resignations to this minister?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): They were a committee, and there will be a committee to advise on matters related to home care, and if the member is implying that somehow we were going to do away with the advisory committee, that we were going to blend it into another branch, that is absolutely news to me, because that is not my intention as minister.

Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister explain to me why two weeks and one day after the resignations of these committee members went to the minister, the committee was not contacted? Do we have to call a press conference to get the minister to meet with them, like we did with the MS patients, like we did with the kidney patients, because both of those organizations could not get meetings until we called press conferences, and then the minister met with those groups? Is that how people get to talk to this government and receive information?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, I have had several meetings with the home care committee. I have had several meetings with the chair of the home care advisory committee. I would like to meet with them to hear their thoughts. I have not been able to arrange that meeting with them at the current time, but it is interesting the member references meetings and coming down with television cameras. I notice he is very apt at organizing that, and that is fine, that is part of the political process, but every time that happens and we try to have decisions made solely on what publicity can be garnered, that is not a way to make good, sound decisions.

If there is one thing that I cannot be accused of, that is not making decisions. I have made lots of decisions on policy issues in the last 11 months of my tenure. The member for Kildonan well knows the multiplicity of issues in health care that are there, and my time and effort have been spent on some very fundamental ones in the last while, and it is not always possible to meet with every group or organization when they particularly would like to meet. There are just not enough hours in the days or days in the week.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

It was just a few days ago when I asked the Minister of Finance about the whole issue of lotteries and the VLT machines. Then this morning, Madam Speaker, I read in one of our daily newspapers that in fact there is recommendation for yet another five casinos in the province of Manitoba. I am wondering if the Minister of Finance can indicate: is he aware of how many more casinos are being recommended, how many casinos are being considered in the province of Manitoba today?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, the other day we discussed the issue of VLTs, and I outlined for the member the Lottery Policy Review, a group report, chaired by one Mr. Larry Desjardins. It dealt with most of the issues related to gaming, but one area that it did not deal with was the whole issue of gaming for First Nations.

If he goes back to the press release at the time of dealing with the Desjardins committee report in June of 1996, he will see there is an element that deals with First Nations gaming suggesting that a working group will be established with representation from the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, from First Nations communities, and so on. That group was established. That group just recently has provided their report within the last several weeks, and that report has now been referred to the independent Gaming Control Commission for further analysis and further consultation on that report, Madam Speaker.

The member for Inkster, if he has not seen the report, is certainly welcome to get a copy and to look at it in some detail.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I seek confirmation then from the minister, and that is that we will, in fact, be getting more additional gambling casinos in the province of Manitoba. Are there any others that are currently being considered or that the minister is aware of that are being talked about?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would not jump to any conclusions. This is a report from a working group that has now been submitted to government, and all along it was outlined that that report would then go to the Gaming Commission for further review and for further more comprehensive, meaningful consultation. So I think we should wait for that process to unfold.

That is the only area of gaming that was basically not addressed by the Desjardins committee report, and I encourage the member to go back to the detailed information that was released at that time that outlined a series of recommendations reducing the other VLTs by some 650 machines and 15 percent, introducing and establishing the independent Gaming Commission and so on. The one element that was identified back then that was not addressed where there is still a moratorium in place is the whole area of First Nations gaming, and a commitment was made to address that issue. This working group has provided its report. The next step in the process is for the Gaming Commission to have consultation and to report back to government. So I would encourage the member for Inkster to let that process unfold and let us wait for those recommendations.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the minister responsible will give a guarantee to Manitobans that in fact there will not be any additional VLT machines--that you can reallocate--but there will not be any additional machines. From what I understand today, Manitoba has the highest per capita of VLT machines than any other province. Will we get that assurance from the Minister of Finance today?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I find this whole discussion very interesting coming from a member who was a strong supporter of additional casinos, growth in VLTs, growth in gaming, expansion of gaming just a matter of many months ago. Now all of a sudden he is finally expressing some concern on the issue.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to him that we have dealt with gaming probably in a most comprehensive fashion of any provincial government in Canada.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker, as I tried to listen to the Minister of Finance give his wishy-washy response, I hear from members opposite talking about additional casinos and something about my wanting to have additional casinos. Contrary to the government, I did actually have a program, and that program was being suggested based on tourism, not based on revenue generation. I would appreciate the minister answer the very specific question: will he give the guarantee that there will not be an increase in VLTs in the province of Manitoba?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. I would ask the honourable minister responsible to respond to the question asked.

Mr. Stefanson: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I am glad the member clarified the record in terms of his strong support for growth in casinos and gaming in Manitoba.

For all gaming activities in Manitoba outside of the First Nation issue, which was not addressed by the Desjardins report, when it comes to VLTs, there has been a reduction of 650 machines or 15 percent of VLTs in all commercial operations across the province. As was outlined when the Desjardins report was introduced, the issue of gaming on First Nations was not addressed. I think we all have a responsibility to address that issue. The First Nations communities are asking us to address it, and we are attempting to do that in a very comprehensive and responsible way.

There has been a working group with broad representation. Nine individuals have submitted a document that I encourage the member to read. The next part of the process is for the Gaming Commission to review that, to hold meaningful consultation and then to report back to the minister responsible for the Gaming Control Commission. So I think we should let that process unfold. I encourage the member to take an interest in it and to participate in that process.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, in January of 1992, the now Minister of Health, then Minister of Labour and his government changed The Workers Compensation Act so that workers developing occupational diseases like pancreatic cancer must prove that the workplace was the dominant cause. A quote from the Federal Pioneer employee medical review panel, which I will read here, that it is extremely difficult to divide a causation pie in a cancer case to attribute X percent to a certain cause and Y percent to another cause.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour or the former Minister of Labour, now Minister of Health, to explain why you raised the bar, the burden of proof, to such an unachievable level by changing the standard of WCB claim acceptance from probable cause to dominant cause. Why did you make that change, now making it impossible for workers to achieve that level?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): Madam Speaker, the change was made, as the member referenced, and I think he has to accept that the causes of cancer can be for many factoral reasons. It could be heredity, it could be diet, lifestyle, smoke--in the cases we referenced earlier--being around mineral oil. So these are very difficult cases.

I am sure, as I referenced earlier, the member's confidence in the chair of the board, and the CEO has confidence that these things will be dealt with. When this new evidence was brought forward in 1996 that mineral oil was the probable cause, the appropriate decisions were made.

* (1440)

Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, the old legislation indicated that there could be a division of causes and that would be taken into consideration, but now it must be dominant cause before there would be any acceptance of the claim.

I want to ask this Minister of Labour or the former Minister of Labour, now Minister of Health, to confirm that under your legislation Federal Pioneer employee survivors will now be denied benefits since the dominant cause is medically unobtainable, as indicated by the MRP doctors' report, which I just read, and since neither the WCB or Workplace Safety and Health conduct any research on occupational diseases, and in fact you do not even have an occupational diseases panel here in Manitoba.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, my honourable friend is factually incorrect. The cases that he referenced from Federal Pioneer will be adjudicated on the basis of the legislation that was in place during that period of time in the 1970s and 1980s.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Transcona, before posing his next question, that one is to ask the minister who is responsible for the current portfolio the question.

The honourable member for Transcona, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Reid: Well, Madam Speaker, the minister should know that his own medical panel at the Compensation Board in a briefing note to the Compensation Board CEO did not use the current--[interjection] Yes, perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) can answer this.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: Will the Premier explain why his government changed the Workers Compensation legislation in this province so that workers now are part of a blacklist of employees that were affected in the workplace, and that the Compensation Board did not take any action to deal with the claims, the 10 outstanding claims that were there for people that have now died of pancreatic and stomach cancer--in fact you have denied some of those claims--and that we have several hundred other workers that are potentially impacted by these occupational diseases which have not been to this point in time adjudicated nor accepted by the Compensation Board and that fairness and justice have not prevailed in the treatment of these employees who have died as a result of their involvement with chemicals in the workplace and sustained workplace occupational diseases? Why have you not dealt fairly with these people?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, I would point out again that the causes of cancer can be very difficult to determine, and I indicated in an earlier answer that it could be because of heredity, it could be because of diet, of lifestyle, of other circumstances. I would point out that there is no statute of limitations on these cases and that they can be appealed to the Workers Compensation Board, and if there are individuals out there with concerns, I would advise them to do so.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. This minister has a sorry record in handing out grants under the Canada-Manitoba Communications Agreement. The minister lost more than $900,000 in Iris Systems, more than $500,000 in ManGlobe, but he really demonstrated his competence when he approved a $200,000 grant to TeleSend Gateway when, at the time of application, the controlling mind of the firm was serving 18 months in Milner Ridge on fraud charges.

I would like to ask the minister: what due diligence was done, and why did he approve this grant?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, the members opposite may take it lightly that a young woman entering into business was not able to succeed after the support of the government in a program under communications; they may take it lightly. It was a very sincere young woman who wanted to start a business that was not able to succeed. I do not take it lightly. I, quite frankly, feel badly that she was not able to make a go of it.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, the minister is hiding again, evading the question.

Given the individual, the controlling mind of TeleSend Gateway Incorporated, had criminal convictions for fraud and a previous conviction for perjury and has a long history of lawsuits, could the minister tell this House when he found out that John Ishmael was in jail and when he learned of the previous convictions? Could he tell us when he found out about this?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding what the member is referring to when he is referring to the "controlling mind." That is a new terminology to me. The individual that was dealt with under the communications program was a young businesswoman who received the support from the province.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why did he authorize the second and third cheques, particularly the final $90,000, when he knew about the outstanding lawsuits against Helen Ishmael, daughter Shalesa Charron, who he claims he was dealing with, and the fraud and perjury convictions and the bankruptcy and numerous lawsuits of John Ishmael. Why did he issue that final $90,000 cheque once he knew about all this?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, as I referred earlier, we were dealing with a young businesswoman of which I am disappointed that the project did not succeed. I am not aware of any charges or alleged charges against the individual who we were doing business with.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Does the minister accept that the water flowing from the Red River flood flowed north to Hudson Bay causing high water levels in the North?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, unless I am being failed by my memory, I believe the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman) answered this question yesterday.

Mr. Jennissen: I did not feel he did answer it, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Since the Water Commission believes that hearings in northern Manitoba are not part of their mandate, would the minister make the mandate flexible enough for a hearing in northern Manitoba?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I answered that question yesterday as well.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, my question is for either the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey).

I have been raising this issue for the last three days now regarding the death of Carol Hastings. We have been asking these questions on behalf of the Okimow family very patiently and requesting some answers from the government, patiently I might add, as well, one of the virtues of aboriginal people.

This morning, I received a letter from Thomas and Ethel Okimow at Oxford House, the parents of the late Carol Hastings, and I want to quote briefly from that letter, Madam Speaker. They state in that letter that it has come to their attention that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) stated in the Legislature that we the victims of this brutal and senseless murder were comfortable and receptive to the lenient sentence handed down by the court. This is totally false, and we resent the fact that anyone would use the word "comfortable" in describing their sorrow and pain, knowing they will never see their daughter again. The Crown attorney's office did not inform us nor consult us with any deal offered to our daughter's killer until one week before the sentencing date. Our question is: when was the deal made? They also resent the fact that anyone who would use the word "comfortable" and even think this vicious killer got what he deserved is just totally despicable and a slur against the memory of their daughter.

My question is simply this: I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to request the Minister of Justice to apologize publicly to the Okimow family and also appeal this decision.

* (1450)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Acting Minister of Justice): Madam Speaker, the member for Rupertsland raises a question today in this House which is obviously a very important one. On behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), I would take it as notice, and I would ask perhaps the information that he obtained directly from the family would be of interest to the Attorney General and perhaps could be forwarded to him.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will table that letter I received from the family.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.