4th-36th Vol. 27--Oral Questions

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on December 4 in this House and subsequent to that in the hallway of the Legislature and in the public statements quoted on December 4 and 5, the Minister of Health stated in what was termed a dramatic reversal that the privatized home care contract would be returned to the public sector and it would be returned to the public sector within four months. I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether he was telling the truth to the people of Manitoba when he made that statement in this House and in the hallway of this Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I know this has been quite a subject of discussion. I know there was a flurry of media activity last December when I repeated the statements that I had made in this House, I believe it was in April or the spring, and at the same time my statements in this House did not muster the attention of the media that they did in December.

Madam Speaker, my comments were simply this: that when we tested our home care program by going to tender, we had five companies that met the quality requirements and only one out of the tender process that resulted in a lower cost than the estimates of what it would cost us to run it in the public system and that that was somewhat disappointing from the expectation of where we started, and that we will complete the review. We had a one-year trial, and that review will be completed. But, you know, it is obvious the we did not get the expected savings that were there, and that was proven in the tender process. I said that in this House last April.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister is making so many statements, no wonder he is confusing himself and is confusing the public and confusing the clients with contradictory statements one day to the next. On December 4 you stated that we would be out of the privatized home care contract. You did so when we asked questions about Dr. Shapiro's report on the privatized Home Care program. You were given credit for reversing a Filmon government policy as you preened around the hallways with your statement.

I want to table minutes in this Chamber today dated March 27, 1998, wherein the Olsten contract that you had promised to cancel or not extend on April 1, 1998, has been secretly extended for six months.

How does the minister justify saying one thing on December 4, that the experiment would be over in four months, and then secretly we find out that he has in fact broken his word to the clients and people of Manitoba by extending this privatized contract and extending the foolhardy plan of the Filmon government to privatize home care here in Manitoba?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I cannot help the way or when the media chooses to report a comment or the matter--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, again, we as a government made a decision to test the quality and the cost of our home care system. That was much debated in this Legislature. We went through a process, and as a result of that, we had a tendering process that produced only one provider of care who could do it for less than the estimated cost. That process provided for a year and an evaluation.

We are also now in the process of turning over home care to the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority. There are periods of transition, so two things are happening. We are doing the evaluation, and we are in the process of transition. Is the member suggesting that we should end that contract today exactly when we may not be in a position to provide that care to others? Surely to goodness, patient care and the care of home care people must come first. If we have to complete the evaluation and continue to move forward, and there is a transition, is that really such a big problem? I think not.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: Yesterday in the Estimates of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) we learned that no evaluation has gone to cabinet, no evaluation has gone to Treasury Board. The Premier has confirmed that he has looked at no numbers from the Department of Health that contradict his original statement of the so-called savings of $10 million in the new privatized home care proposal, totally contradicts what his Minister of Health said to the public. Does this Premier think it is fair to the clients, the disabled people, the aged people, other clients in home care that fought this government on the privatized home care system--does the Premier think it is fair for his Minister of Health to state that they would be out of the privatized home care contract on April 1, 1998, when secretly he assigned a contract to extend that privatized home care contract? Does the Premier think it is fair for the Minister of Health to say one thing to the public, one thing to the clients and do something secretly that is quite contrary to what he said to the people of this province?

Mr. Praznik: I have not signed a contract, Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition attempts to imply.

Mr. Doer: On a point of order, I just tabled minutes in the House that said the contract has been extended for six months. That is clearly a fact on the record. That is what home care staff have been stated. For once, can you ask this Minister of Health to answer the questions? Maybe he would have a chance of telling the truth for a change, Madam Speaker.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On its very face, the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is a dispute over facts and not a point of order under any circumstances.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the official opposition, the honourable Leader did not have a point of order.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I come back to this whole process because I think the fundamental issue here is getting the best service in an economical way for the patients of Manitoba. [interjection] Well, the contract, if it has been extended, it has been extended because we have a transition period. [interjection] I am not challenging the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. My point is simply this--and I am not trying to avoid that--we are in a transition. We are just completing the transfer of our home care staff to the Winnipeg long term community facility. The evaluation will be completed. I think if you go back to my statements of the spring of last year when the contract was awarded, what surprised me about the December press release was I was repeating what I had said in the spring but nobody covered. When you go through a process and you have expectation of savings and you put it to the test, the real test of a tender, and as a result you do not get those expected savings, yes, it is disappointing, and out of the tender it indicated that our own Home Care program was fairly economical. I have always said that; I have never denied that.

* (1345)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. In any other jurisdiction in this country, if a minister was caught misstating the facts like this Minister of Health has and where the truth has not come out, there would be no choice but to ask for the minister's resignation in a matter of this.

If the Premier is not prepared to accept that, can the Premier explain to me why--and we know the minister was not telling us the truth, that Sue Hicks, the associate deputy minister, said the contract--and I am quoting her from March 10--with the American firm ends this month and will not be renewed. It simply could not provide the services for less money than the government can.

Madam Speaker, we are tired of this deception. When is the Premier going to take action? This is wrong.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I think what is becoming very clear here is what--you know, and I appreciate the New Democrat's sensitivity on this issue. We had quite a debate in this Legislature. [interjection] If the member would just listen, because what is apparent here is we are in a transition. If we have to extend a contract for a number of months to assure service, why would we not do that? Are the members opposite suggesting to us that on a particular day we should deny service to people? That is just simply unfair to the clients who are on home care, and we will not endanger their care.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, this goes deeper than simply the deception of the minister and the government.

Madam Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Chomiak: My question for the Premier--

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I think, on a point of order, that the honourable member should choose his words a little better than that. He knows words like that are not appropriate in a parliamentary discussion.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, a perusal of Beauchesne shows that the word "deception" does not appear as being unparliamentary, and I can assure the government House leader that the member chose the word very, very carefully to describe the situation we see here.

Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, the honourable member has argued that Beauchesne Citation--I refer you to Beauchesne Citation 491. Context is very important when we are looking at these lists; 491 says "The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary."

I raised the point of order in the context that the words were intended, and they were not intended in a very parliamentary way.

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

Mr. Ashton: Since you are entertaining supplementary advice from the government House leader, I would point out that, for the information of the government House leader, the member could have used terms such as "not telling the truth, phoney, subterfuge." There is a whole list of parliamentary expressions, Madam Speaker. There is no reflection of "deception" anywhere on the list. The closest one gets is "deceive."

It is clear that our Health critic used a word that is very appropriate to the statements made by the minister--"deception"--and that is not only parliamentary, it is an accurate description of his conduct in this House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I have checked both Beauchesne and our provincial listing of what words have been ruled parliamentary and unparliamentary, and the word "deceive" has been ruled both unparliamentary in Beauchesne and also in Manitoba by former Speaker Rocan.

But I would caution all honourable members. There has been an awful lot of latitude allowed in the last couple of weeks with phrases such as "to tell the truth, will he tell the truth, will she tell the truth," which have indeed been ruled unparliamentary in Manitoba from 1988 and onward. We all know that the tone and the usage of some words does indeed cause a disruption, and that is the premise and the basis on which words can and are ruled unparliamentary.

I would request that all honourable members pick and choose their words most carefully.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, to pose his question now.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I would like the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to explain to the people of Manitoba why he allowed his Health minister to say one thing and his government did something entirely the opposite, and why in a letter--and I will table this letter--from the vice-president of Olsten services, Vice-President Anne Becker writes: we believe we will continue to serve Manitoba clients past the May expiration date--which was before this matter became public, which shows it was done secretly.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if in the course of the transition to the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority and the evaluation of the contract--and I think it is safe to say when you have a tendering process that does not produce the desired results--and my comments to the media in this House going back to April or May of last year when we awarded the contract, I said very clearly the results were disappointing. The expected results were not achieved, and that pointed very strongly in the direction of continuing on with our public home care system. But in returning that quadrant or those quadrants of Winnipeg back to that system, there has to be a transition and combine on top of that the fact that home care is being transferred to the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority, it makes sense under the circumstances. Our staff who deal with that recognize that there had to be a transition in order to ensure service.

Madam Speaker, if I am being criticized here today because I am ensuring service for people during this period, then I will accept that criticism.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, with a final supplementary question.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I will try again to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

Will the Premier, in light of the contradictory statements of his Minister of Health, the change in policy, the fact that Manitobans had to go through a home care strike to get you to listen, will he not do the right thing--and I am sorry to have to ask this, but in light of this complete debacle and the fact that Olsten knew ahead of us--ask for the Minister of Health's resignation as a result of this debacle, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, let us just analyze the relevant facts here. We went through a process. It did not produce the desired results. We completed the year as we intended. It is evident where the direction is going. I think only common sense applies. We are returning to our public home care system. There is a period of transition, and the real debacle here would be if we did not ensure a continuity of service during this period to our home care clients; then that would be criticism, if people were not getting the service. So surely to goodness common sense must prevail and service will be provided. I think it was a good exercise. We have learned a lot of things through it, and we are back on course, and if there has to be--[interjection] There is. The member says there are people's lives. Absolutely, and I want to ensure that they have service during this particular period.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, we saw it with home care when the Minister of Health said he would make it happen, and we saw it with Betaseron when the Minister of Health would say he would make it happen, and it did not, and now we are seeing the very self-same thing with the cervical screening and central registry program.

I would like to ask this Minister of Health: is he more interested in a good headline than the health of Manitoba women? I want to ask him how many Manitoba women must die before this government gets its act together and establishes the cervical screening and central registry program that he promised us 10 months ago. When will he keep his word?

* (1355)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): First of all, on home care, that is on track. We continue to put more money in home care and expand our services in the public sector, as members have argued for. That is moving. On Betaseron, we approved the project. We have been working with the MS clinic. I understand in some provinces it took seven or eight months, if I recall, to get their program running, and in others it was somewhat shorter. We have spoken to those provinces to find out how you can bring the process on faster, and the MS clinic is now gearing up. It is very much in their hands as they do the work, as should happen. So that is on track to be in place.

Madam Speaker, with respect to this issue that arose in the Free Press today with respect to cervical cancer, I can tell the member that the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation who deals with this particular matter advises me that the pap smears are available; doctors are aware they are available. Manitoba women have access to the testing that they need. The question is getting in place a tracking system across the province that will enable, have people come in regularly, and that requires an information system that the New Democrats have opposed.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask for the co-operation of all members to stop debating across the aisles. A member is standing and wanting to be recognized to pose a question.

The honourable member for Osborne, with her supplementary question.

Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the same minister: since the Associate Deputy Minister of Health said that it could take another year or so to get this central tracking program working, I would like to ask the minister if he will tell Manitoba women today exactly and specifically when he will open a cervical cancer registry and screening program. When? It has been promised for two years or more.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to emphasize that the necessary tests for Manitoba women are available. Their physicians are aware of that, so there is nothing stopping any Manitoba woman from getting the test that she requires on a regular basis. The results do come back to the physicians. They read them and they make their decisions.

The tracking system, much like breast screening, would give the ability to put a reminder in place on a regular basis, and I agree that is very important. Part of the infrastructure that has to be built for that rests around our whole health care information system, and the last time--I remember every time this matter comes up, the New Democrats oppose it.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, with a final supplementary question.

Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Since the tracking system saves lives and since 20 Manitoba women die of cervical cancer a year, will the minister answer the question and tell us when this tracking program will be in service? When?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to table a letter today from Dr. Brent Schachter discussing this particular matter, and I think the point is referenced to the necessary infrastructure being in place. The key element is a health information system which we are in the process of building.

What I find so frustrating about it--and I wish we had it in place today, but it takes a great deal to build. But every time the matter comes up, members opposite tell us we should not be building it. They oppose it, and ultimately it is that information technology that will save lives in Manitoba. I would appreciate their support on that issue.

* (1400)

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Finance minister stated that Mr. Sam Schellenberg was one of the government appointees to the board of MTS. Will the minister now acknowledge that Mr. Schellenberg, one of his appointees, was the chair of the compensation committee which put forward the stock option plan which was unanimously approved by that board and made his brother a millionaire?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, again, without accepting most of the comments from the member for Crescentwood, the issue of a stock option plan was approved by the shareholders of MTS back in May of 1997, ultimately by the approximately 70,000 shareholders of MTS, with a mandate that they could have a stock option plan with as many as 3.5 million shares allocated. It was referred to the human resources and compensation committee of the board of directors to work out the details and to bring back a specific recommendation. I believe that committee has four individuals on it. Mr. Sam Schellenberg, Jocelyn Côté-O'Hara, Arnold Morberg and Mr. Arthur Sawchuk are the members of that committee. Ultimately it went to the board of directors and was ratified by the board of directors. Obviously, like any private sector entity, the board of directors will be held accountable for all of their decisions by the shareholders when they participate in the next annual meeting.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, the minister's version is so far from reality that it really verges on misleading the House in a serious way.

Madam Speaker: Question.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm that in fact Mr. Schellenberg is the chair of the committee that was in existence before there ever was an annual shareholders meeting, before that first meeting took place in May of last year, that that committee brought forward a recommendation for a stock option plan, that that plan was approved by the board of directors and only subsequently went to the shareholders, that in fact his appointee to the board chaired the committee that made his brother eligible for that enrich--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I find the member for Crescentwood's comments particularly offensive based on his track record of bringing misinformation and the kinds of allegations that he makes about members--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. 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 Crescentwood asked a very specific question about the minister's role and the minister's appointments role in a stock option plan that could make his brother a millionaire. He has no reason not only not to answer the question but to take those kinds of personal shots at the member. He is the one who should be responding to this very serious question that is being asked by a lot of Manitobans right now.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the honourable member is right to raise Citation 417 about provoking debate. All you have to do is review the questions that are asked by honourable members of the New Democratic Party, the base nature of those questions, to know why debate sometimes gets provoked around here. The point of order ought to apply not to the answer given by the minister but to the questions being raised by the honourable member for Crescentwood.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed he did have a point of order, but I would also caution all members posing questions that we have rules that are also not adhered to always regularly, and that is: there should be no postamble, no preamble on a supplementary question. A specific one-sentence question is sufficient.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, to complete his response.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, responding very directly to the question, I already responded to the member that the committee that brought forward the recommendations on the compensation package for directors and for senior officers were the four individuals' names that I read, and I do believe that Mr. Schellenberg is the chair of that committee, and I am certainly prepared to undertake to confirm that. His name appears first on the list, and I do believe that he is the chair along with the other members of the committee being, as I have already said, Jocelyn Côté-O'Hara, Arnold Morberg and Arthur Sawchuk. All four are very reputable people who contribute in many fashions here in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance tell this House when he became aware that the committee headed by one of his appointees, Mr. Schellenberg, was in fact deciding on compensation for officers and directors and including, of course, his brother, the chair of the board? When he became aware of that, what did he do, what steps did he take--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, as I said yesterday, I, like many Manitobans and I am sure members opposite, became aware that there was going to be a stock option plan after the annual shareholders' meeting last year, in May of 1997. In terms of the details of the allocation, which were released last week as part of the notification of the annual meeting coming up at the end of April, that recommendation came from the committee that I have already outlined, the human resources committee with the four individuals whom I have named to the board of directors. I was made aware of the specific allocations within the last two weeks.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I will try and change the tone of Question Period. I will ask my question en français.

Ma question is pour le Ministre responsable des services en français. Maintenant que le Gouvernement a reçu le Rapport Chartier, est-ce que le ministre peut dire quand il prévoit déposer le Rapport Chartier dans cette Chambre afin que nous puissions tous voir les recommandations suggérées?

[Translation]

My question is for the Minister responsible for French Language Services. Now that the government has received the Chartier report, can the minister tell us when he expects to table this report in the House so that we can all see the recommendations suggested?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for French Language Services): Madame la présidente, c'est très difficile pour moi de répondre en français parce que mon français, ce n'est pas bien.

[Translation]

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult for me to respond in French because my French is not good.

[English]

Madam Speaker, I would hope to be able to do that in the not too distant future. We are still in the process of reviewing his recommendations and speaking with colleagues about them, and I would like to, at the time that we table that report, be able to provide our response to it as well.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Je remercie le ministre pour sa réponse. Est-ce que le ministre pourrait nous indiquer à cette assemblée s'il a l'intention de mettre en vigueur toutes les recommandations du rapport?

[Translation]

I thank the minister for his answer. Can the minister indicate to this Assembly whether he intends to implement all the recommendations of the report?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for French Language Services): Madam Speaker, that is part of the process that we are now undergoing as we share it with departments and deputy ministers to ascertain our response to each request. I have had the opportunity along with colleagues to have a presentation on the report, and the general thrust of it is one that is, I think, very positive and can improve the delivery of services in the province.

Mr. Gaudry: Ma dernière question: est-ce que le ministre peut indiquer si le Gouvernement a déjà établi un échéancier de mise en oeuvre des recommandations? Si oui, quel est-il? Sinon, quand prévoit-il de le faire?

[Translation]

My last question: can the minister indicate whether the government has established a deadline yet for implementation of the recommendations? If so, what is it? If not, when does it expect to do so?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, that is part of what we are ascertaining now with departments because obviously, if we do set some deadlines, I would like to be able to be assured by those departments that they are in fact achievable.

* (1410)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, yesterday we saw the Premier in Question Period repeatedly deny the role of this Premier and this Minister of Finance in setting up the situation in which the Minister of Finance's brother--the Minister of Finance who was responsible for MTS--has the potential to gain over a million dollars because of direct actions by the government appointees. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he does not see a direct conflict of interest being the minister responsible for MTS when his brother, who was not only appointed by this government and this minister but this is the minister supposedly responsible for the government's special share of the golden share on the board--does the minister not understand the conflict of interest that is involved?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the short answer is no, there is absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever. By having the golden share--one of the reasons for having the golden share is because at the time of privatization Manitoba Telephone System owes the Province of Manitoba in excess of $426 million. Certainly my responsibility, along with my colleagues, is to ensure that money is repaid to the citizens of Manitoba, the taxpayers of Manitoba, and part of that is the company performing in an efficient, profitable fashion. Today I can tell members of this House that debt that was at $426 million on January 7, 1997, today is down to $239 million. So MTS has made significant progress in terms of eliminating that debt. At the same time, we have the lowest residential rates of any telephone company in all of Canada and that is, from my point of view, excellent performance from our telephone company compared to telecommunication companies across the rest of Canada.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, we are seeing the golden share refers to Tom Stefanson's shares--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Thompson that he is posing a supplementary question and no preamble or postamble is required. Would the honourable member please pose his question now.

Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will ask the Minister of Finance again: does this Minister of Finance not recognize the conflict of interest of being the minister responsible for MTS, the minister responsible for the government's share in MTS, the minister responsible for appointing his brother as a director of MTS? Does he not understand that is a conflict of interest when his brother now is going to be gaining a million dollars at the expense of the people of Manitoba?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson is the one who obviously does not understand the whole issue of conflict of interest. The board of directors of MTS, some 11 members of which my brother is one, are responsible to some 70,000 shareholders, many of them, thousands, tens of thousands of them individual Manitobans who have invested in MTS. They have an annual general meeting at least once a year, and at that annual meeting the board of directors is held accountable for all of their actions and all of their decisions, and the 11 current board members will be held accountable when the next annual meeting is held here in Manitoba within the next several weeks.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a final supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: On a supplementary, I want to ask the Minister of Finance: is he denying his role and responsibility both as minister responsible for MTS and as the minister responsible for appointments to MTS, including the appointment of his brother? Is he now, Madam Speaker, denying that responsibility? And if he will accept responsibility, will he understand that it is a conflict of interest for his brother now to be getting a million dollars out of the people of Manitoba?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever, and I remind the member for Thompson of who our four appointees out of the 11 directors are. Our four appointees are one Mr. Robert Chipman, I think a name familiar to members in this House; Miss Ashleigh Everett, Donald Penny, Sam Schellenberg, all four of them Manitobans, well known I think to most people in this Chamber, well known to most Manitobans for the significant contribution they make not only in business, in community activities, in all kinds of events here in our province; four very dedicated Manitobans who are dedicated in the best interests of our province, in the best interests of our citizens, along with all 11 board members. So those are the four board members that we have appointed as a government to the board of directors of MTS.

I have already indicated my responsibilities are to protect the debt, and I believe the debt is being well secured and repaid at a reasonable rate. It is also that there is the regulatory process to protect the consumers, and MTS whether it is private or public has to go through the CRTC. We saw evidence of that recently where they asked for a rate increase that was quite a bit larger than was ultimately granted and today, as a result, we have the lowest residential rates of any telephone company in all of Canada.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when this government announced the privatization of MTS, they told Manitobans that there would be no job losses, but they did not tell Manitobans that privatization would mean friends of government would have the opportunity to become millionaires. Well, what they said is not true because we do have job losses. In Swan River, the service centre is being closed and services are being reduced. Four jobs are being eliminated.

I would like to ask the Premier: how can this Premier accept the fact that services are being reduced, jobs are being lost, at the same time that his friends and brother of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) are becoming millionaires? How does he accept this?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I urge the member opposite not to misrepresent statements that have been made in the past in this House and outside. I took great pains during the debate to point out that, under public ownership, MTS had been downsizing by some 1,700 employees. In the previous five years, the corporation had downsized prior to privatization, a process that is underway and has been underway in every single telephone company in Canada, including in Saskatchewan under public ownership. Downsizing had to take place in order to be competitive or they would lose their entire existence. I said that no layoffs would take place under private ownership that would not take place under public ownership, and that is precisely what is happening everywhere in Canada.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, with a supplementary question.

Ms. Wowchuk: Saskatchewan is not closing down service centres.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River, with a supplementary question.

Ms. Wowchuk: How can this government accept MTS service centres being closed in rural Manitoba and the removal of central office technicians who play a very important role in delivering technological services to rural Manitoba being removed? Do they not care about rural Manitobans? Are they more interested in having their friends become millionaires?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, what the member I guess fails to recognize is that in fact services are still continuing to be provided right across our province. As has been pointed out to her, the kind of process that MTS goes through today, whether it is under private or public ownership, is exactly the same through the review of the CRTC. We saw evidence of that when the NDP were making a big deal about the last rate application, which was I believe in excess of some $3. CRTC granted a rate increase ultimately of some 84 cents here in the province of Manitoba.

As a result, today, as I have said on a couple of occasions today, we continue to have the lowest residential rates in all of Canada of the telcos. When you look at even under public ownership how MTS dealt with their whole issue of downsizing, at least they were able to keep the impact on individuals down to a minimum in terms of layoffs by having voluntary separation incentive plans and other initiatives to deal with employees in a very responsible fashion.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, with a supplementary question.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister how he could put forward such garbage when we know--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, that is not a question that is worthy of a response, but it shows the level of debate and rhetoric to which the New Democrats have sunk.

* (1420)

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. It was my understanding I heard a question from the honourable member for Swan River. It may not have been--[interjection] Order, please. I distinctly heard a question from the honourable member for Swan River. It may not have been the question she wanted to pose, but I suggest--[interjection] Order, please. [interjection] I will recognize the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) after I have completed making a ruling on the concern raised by the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

I have received confirmation from my table officers, whom I rely on exclusively, that indeed they were also of the opinion that a question had been asked. However, if the honourable member for Thompson wishes to raise a point of order as to whether a question was indeed asked, I will take it under advisement, check Hansard and report back to the Chamber.

Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Thompson, I would, however, remind all honourable members that we have Question Period guidelines, and they are very clearly outlined and a question must (d) consist of a single question. Then there is other information as well, and this was the member's third question or second and final supplementary question.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was trying to suggest that we usually do allow for some ability to bring these matters back to a reasonable course. I think it was pretty clear to anyone on this side that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) was halfway through her question--[interjection] Well, if the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) can stop giving instructions on the operation of this House from his seat, I was just going to suggest the appropriate thing, rather than creating a big procedure wrangle out of that, would be to have the member be able to ask her question in its fullest and ask that we then try and bring this back to order.

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, by his point of order, the honourable member for Thompson is simply asking for more latitude for his colleague from Swan River than he would ever allow you to give to us. Now there is a question of fairness about all of this, and the honourable member is simply asking you to stretch the rules too far.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) does not have a point of order; it was really a request to have the honourable member rephrase her question.

Madam Speaker: To resolve the issue, I will ask: is there unanimous consent of the House to permit the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) to quickly repeat her question? I would also remind--

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on a point of order.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Prior to the points of order that were exchanged in this House, you recognized the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), even though the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) was standing up; therefore, you still recognized that there was time for Question Period, which we then allowed to go to the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). You therefore should not have cut off Question Period. Clearly the points of order are not to be subtracted from Question Period. If you are to read Hansard, Madam Speaker, if you were to look at your original allowance of a question, even though it was a different member that stood up than what you had recognized, you would find that the member for Swan River does in fact have time, and you should allow her to continue asking the question.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I think under normal circumstances the point being raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) might be meritorious; however, there has been a fair amount of disorder in this House today. My understanding of the rules is that the clock stops when there is a point of order raised, but it does not stop while honourable members sitting from their seats create disorder in the House and you have to wait for that disorder to subside, and I suggest that accounts for the passage of the time about which the honourable Leader of the Opposition is now complaining.

First the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) wants special rules for the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk); now the Leader of the Opposition wants special rules for his whole caucus. Madam Speaker, there is an equality in this House for all honourable members, and the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) ought to recognize that.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. The government House leader had the nerve to stand up and talk about equality of rules in this House. It strikes us as being very strange that any time MTS is raised in this House, the equality only applies to one side of this House.

Madam Speaker, clearly we had a situation at the end of Question Period where there was some disorder and, I might add, a lot of it came from the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who seemed to be addressing instructions to the Chair rather vocally. The appropriate thing, however, would be to go back to Question Period--you had already recognized there was time left in Question Period--and allow one of our members to continue questions. That is our right as an opposition, a right that we are not going to have taken away by the government.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

* (1430)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would also ask for co-operation from both House leaders to speak to the point of order raised and not deviate to other matters. [interjection] I indicated all House leaders, by the way.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the official opposition, indeed I did recognize mistakenly the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), as opposed to the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).

Madam Speaker: I have been advised there was approximately 30 seconds remaining. So the honourable member for Wolseley will be recognized for a very short question. [interjection]

The honourable member for Swan River, with a new question.

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When this government announced the privatization of MTS, they promised us that there would be no job losses and there would be no reduction of service. They did not promise that their friends would become millionaires. When is this government going to start to stand up for rural Manitobans and keep their promises and ensure that we do have the services that are needed for growth in rural Manitoba, not friends of government becoming millionaires?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, this government has been standing up for rural Manitobans throughout its 10 years of office. I might say that that applies to things like Grow Bonds, that applies to things like REDI, that applies to Louisiana-Pacific going into her constituency, that applies to things like Maple Leaf Foods coming to this province, and to the tremendous expansion that is taking place in the value-added and diversification of agriculture, something she would know absolutely nothing about.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.