LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, June 21, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Committee of Supply

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, I will have two separate reports from the Committee of Supply.

First, Mr. Speaker, in the section of the Committee of Supply sitting in Room 255 of the Legislative Building on June 20, considering the Estimates of the Status of Women, an alleged matter of privilege was raised by the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). The following motion moved by the honourable member for Radisson was adopted on a formal vote of the entire committee:

THAT the comments of the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard), of Monday, June 13, to myself in the Committee of Supply indicating "she needs a slap" that violated my privileges as a member of the Legislature be reported to the House and that, in accordance with the provisions of Beauchesne Citation 107, this committee recommend that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. Speaker: I believe a few words about process would be helpful to all members at this point.

In this particular case, the report from the Committee of Supply respecting the alleged matter of privilege takes the place of the more usual raising of the matter in the House by an honourable member. No motion that the report be received is required in this case, just as a report respecting grave disorder in a Committee of the Whole House does not require a motion that it be received.

The Chair believes that the matter has already been the subject of considerable debate and has therefore taken it under advisement at this time.

Mrs. Dacquay: Secondly, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions and directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Southwood School seventy‑five Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Rick Goerzen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger).

Also, from the Ramah Hebrew School, we have forty‑five Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Pat LeClair and Mrs. Alta Sigesmund. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

* (1335)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Bell‑Wade Report

Release

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, one of the major problems with the government's so‑called health care reform is the government has not included the public, patients and nurses in the process. The government brought in their $4‑million consultant, and that whole process was a disaster.

Mr. Speaker, the government has now commissioned 96 study groups to deal with health care, with very little public representation on those committees. The government is also keeping from the public a number of reports that have been commissioned at great taxpayer expense, such as the Emergency Task Force report. We know the government has spent $230,000, a quarter of a million dollars, on the so‑called Bell‑Wade Report which makes sweeping recommendations about the reorganization of St. Boniface Hospital and Health Sciences Centre.

My question to the minister today is, why is the minister refusing to make public this Bell‑Wade Report that has significant bearing on so much that is happening in our health care field and costs the taxpayers of this province one‑quarter of a million dollars?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, most of what the honourable member has said is wrong. The Bell‑Wade Report will be made public at an appropriate time when the partners in the project are in a state of readiness to release the report.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the management at Health Sciences Centre has just been restructured. The management at St. Boniface Hospital has been restructured. Bell‑Wade recommends another governance model, another structure be put in place between Health Sciences and St. Boniface.

Why will the minister not make public a quarter of a million dollar report that has a significant bearing on health care in this province? What is he afraid of, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. McCrae: The only thing that frightens me, Mr. Speaker, is misinformation. The true information does not frighten me because the true information tells me that we will build a sustainable health care system that will last us for many generations. What the honourable member offers is the death of the health care system.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister is engaging in that kind of debate.

Will the minister advise this House how long he has had the report? Will he tell us why he is refusing to make this report public? Why is he refusing to make public the recommendations about the restructuring of those facilities, the reallocation of different surgeries from one hospital to another, the recommendation that perhaps St. Boniface Hospital might be downsized while surgery moves to Health Sciences Centre?

Why is the minister not dealing with this report? Why will he not make it public and allow the public which pays these bills to have access to it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the public pays the bills, and the public is the group we are working for here in the government, and it is the public who will benefit from changes that take place as a result of the Bell‑Wade experience.

Mr. Speaker, I am not refusing to make that report public. It will be made public at the appropriate time.

* (1340)

Burns Committee

Conflict of Interest

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, there is continuing concern about the government's handling of the Winnipeg Jets situation in terms of deadlines and the status of the Burns committee and other matters, including the exposure of the taxpayers of the province in terms of potential losses.

My first question to the Premier is in terms of the situation with the Burns committee. James Burns, the head of the Burns committee, is also apparently, Mr. Speaker, the head of a nonprofit corporation, Jets Private Sector Inc., which has been in operation for three years and may potentially be one of the options in terms of ownership of the team.

I would like to ask the Premier, first of all, if the Premier has assured himself that there is no conflict in the fact that Mr. Burns is also the chair of the Burns committee, with this particular arrangement, given the fact that the Private Sector Inc. could potentially be an owner of the Jets in and of itself.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we are engaging in exactly what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) said was not appropriate and was not productive, and that is speculation based on speculation. I would just suggest to the member for Thompson that he not try and create a political situation here for his advantage just simply for the purpose of stirring up.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any situation of conflict. That was speculation based on speculation, and he has now tried to make political fodder of it, and I suggest it is totally inappropriate.

Deadline

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking questions on behalf of a million people in the province of Manitoba, and I will ask a further question because there is continuing confusion. It is the Premier and this government who signed the agreement that has exposed the taxpayers in this case. There is also confusion over the deadline.

In Estimates on May 2, the Premier indicated, and I quote: "there is not a good reason why you would want to extend that any length of time . . . ", referring to the deadline. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is now saying that the deadline of June 30 applies only to the option to purchase the Jets.

But, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the documents signed by the Premier, the letter of endorsation signed by the Premier, in fact, it states that, if by June 30, 1994, the interim steering committee and the majority ownership of the Jets Hockey Club have not reached an agreement for a long‑term solution in a new facility or in the existing facility‑‑in other words, tied into the question of the arena, that deadline applies in that particular case.

I want to ask the Premier, what is the situation? What is the deadline and where do the taxpayers of Manitoba stand in terms of the exposure of the Province of Manitoba with the Winnipeg Jets?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the only confusion is that this is being generated, fostered and perpetrated by the members opposite for their own political purposes. I recommend to them that, like everybody else, they wait for the Burns report, and then they can operate on fact, which might be a novel opportunity for them.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I have asked questions on the situation of the Burns committee. I have asked questions in terms of the deadline. I would appreciate an answer on at least one of those two questions.

What is the situation currently in terms of the deadline? Which of the statements of the Premier now apply‑‑the May 2 statement, the statements yesterday, the document the Premier signed, the letter of endorsation? What is the situation in terms of the deadline, in terms of both the ownership of the team and the Winnipeg Arena, and where do we stand in the province of Manitoba as taxpayers in terms of any exposure as a result of the agreement signed by this Premier?

Mr. Filmon: The situation remains that the only exposure that the taxpayers have is exceeded, in fact, by double in terms of direct revenues to the three levels of government.

Whatever exposure is contained within that agreement, the people of Manitoba, in the form of direct taxation to all three levels of government, get more than twice as much back, Mr. Speaker. That is the prevailing situation.

Winnipeg Jets

Future Status

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier was very forthright and frank that he did not favour the government exercising the option to purchase the remaining majority shares of the Winnipeg Jets for $32 million. He also indicated that, to his knowledge, there were not other people wanting the benefit of that option.

Mr. Speaker, my question today for the First Minister: I think the worst‑case scenario under this arrangement would be that Mr. Shenkarow is out trying to sell the team somewhere else, to someone else, and the taxpayers are still on the hook potentially until 1997 covering all the losses. What we know from experience is that when teams are going to leave, oftentimes sales and attendance go down, so the losses, one would assume, may go up.

My question for the First Minister: Can he shed light on Mr. Shenkarow's current plans? Is, in fact, Mr. Shenkarow going to do that immediately, in which case we can all stop pursuing other people who might be interested in investing? Is he going to do that as of the June 30 deadline? One might assume from his recent change of mind that he is going to hold to that deadline.

What current information does the Premier have about the intentions of the majority owners, if any?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to Mr. Shenkarow lately. That is a question that would have to be asked of him.

* (1345)

Investment Inquiries

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, secondly, for the First Minister, has the province, outside of the Burns committee‑‑and, of course, this is being handled, I recognize, primarily out of the Industry, Trade and Tourism department.

Have there been any efforts made or any contacts that have come in from other investors, local investors who might want the benefit of that $32‑million option? Has that been pursued by the government? Have any specific increases been made by local investors in that regard?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): When such inquiries have come to us, we have referred them to the Burns committee, Mr. Speaker.

Burns Committee

Report Tabling Request

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, for the last week or so, I have been asking, as all members have, when this report might come down. We now know about the June 30 deadline. Yesterday, the First Minister indicated that it would be not only prior to the end of the session, but that it would be prior to the June 30 deadline.

Can the minister indicate what his current knowledge is as to when we might have that report, because I think a lot of things flow from that in terms of what public debate we might have and what options we might have. Can the minister, today, tell us when we are finally going to get that report?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Soon, Mr. Speaker.

Goods and Services Tax

Impact on Employment

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

Manitobans are becoming angry and frustrated at the failure of the federal Liberal government to live up to its campaign promise to abolish the GST. Manitobans do not want a change of name of a regressive tax or a change that will be an even greater burden on consumers. I note economists have estimated that Ontario could lose as many as 74,000 jobs by 1997 if a value‑added tax is implemented and harmonized with the provincial sales tax in that province, since it will transfer the burden more from business to consumers, resulting in lower sales and fewer jobs.

My question to the Minister of Finance is, has the minister any estimate of potential job losses in Manitoba that would occur from these proposals?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the number being quoted from Ontario is from a report that I believe is as yet unpublished by the Ontario Fair Tax Commission, and we are anxiously awaiting a copy of that report to see the basis of their evaluation.

We have looked at the kinds of assumptions that are being put forward as it relates to impact on jobs, and we share the concern that there will, particularly in the short term, be a negative impact on jobs because any pressure on consumer costs obviously affects consumer spending, which can affect our overall economic growth and our economy, not only in Manitoba but right across Canada.

The principle of an impact in the short term on jobs is one that appears to be certainly legitimate. The actual quantification is something I do not have a number for as of yet, Mr. Speaker.

Food/Prescription Drugs

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, the report of the committee has come out, so I would ask the minister if he has now received an analysis from his staff of the impact of the proposed extension of the tax. This is one of the proposals of the tax, to food and prescription drugs. In other words, can the minister advise how much more the average Manitoban will pay, or how much will the average Manitoba family pay if this extension of the federal sales tax occurs?

The Leader of the official opposition yesterday mentioned our estimate of $170 million or $680 per family, even at the 5.3 percent lower rate, so I wonder if the minister can comment on that today.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, that certainly is something we will be quantifying. To date, the detailed text is being couriered to us. We have not received it. We have the press release and some summary documents.

We are very concerned about that issue. Not only is there the direct impact of extending it to food and prescription drugs, but there is some concern around the whole exemption level for municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals which can drive cost to governments. There are concerns about impact on people who derive other benefits from government, whether it is our Pharmacare programs, our social welfare programs and so on.

So there are many aspects of potential cost to consumers and governments as a result of some of the potential changes being recommended for this renamed GST.

* (1350)

Elimination

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I thank the minister for that information, Mr. Speaker.

There will be a meeting of Finance ministers in a matter of a few weeks or a few days, and I wonder if the minister is prepared to advocate at that meeting, at which many tax issues will be discussed, whether he is prepared to advocate the total scrapping of the GST or the VAT or any kind of national sales tax, as was promised by the federal Liberals during the last election and as Canadians and Manitobans want. They want that tax scrapped.

Will this minister go to Vancouver or wherever this meeting is held and urge that any revenue loss be replaced with fairer tax measures such as repealing business tax loopholes or taxing family trusts, that is, to bring a measure of progressivity to our tax system?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as in reply to the first question, I believe this report from the committee addresses some 20 alternatives, I think. We will be doing a detailed analysis of the entire report and will be doing an analysis of the impact on Manitobans.

Obviously, we are very concerned about the impact on Manitobans. We have taken the position so far that we oppose harmonization. We opposed harmonization when the GST was introduced, and, really, all we have before us today with the information we have been provided is the GST with a new name, plain and simple, with the discussion now revolving around harmonization and expanding provincial sales taxes into books, children's clothing, service industries and potentially expanding into food and prescription drugs and medical supplies.

We have opposed that in the past. We continue to oppose that, because we see no good and valid reason to support that. We will be looking for all alternatives to find what we think is a fair and equitable solution for taxpayers in Manitoba, and we are certainly more than willing to share whatever information we put in place as we proceed with what is going to be a very challenging issue.

Illegal Grain Exports

Impact on Canadian Wheat Board

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, we are aware that even though the Canadian Wheat Board has a monopoly on exports of western Canadian wheat and barley, there is an increasing amount, in fact thousands of tonnes of grain being exported illegally into the United States. This is an undermining of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a very important institute for western grain farmers.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether his department is monitoring this situation as to the impacts on Manitoba farmers and whether he has communicated with the federal government on the importance of maintaining the Wheat Board or, in fact, if possible, strengthening the Wheat Board's monopoly.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will acknowledge, I am sure, that this is largely the jurisdiction of the federal government and its agencies, the Wheat Board. It does, however, perhaps offer some indication to us that individual farmers are making every effort to move grain into market where perhaps failure of the system, that is the institutionalized system, has been unable to do so.

I do not have to call to the honourable member's attention that we had a very serious situation this last harvest year, where we had a great deal of grain that the Wheat Board initially was unable to place a price tag on. So I have some difficulty in faulting individual farmers who have sought to market this grain on their own initiative.

However, the member is right. There are regulations in place, and I am aware, the department is aware, that the issue is being taken seriously by the responsible officials, and it is currently being monitored.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister is condoning this illegal action.

I want to ask the minister if he will not agree that we cannot afford to have the reputation of the Canadian western grain farmers put at risk by farmers who are passing the Wheat Board, selling feed wheat as seed wheat, who are selling different varieties of barley as malting barley and ruining the reputation of Canadian grain producers. This cannot carry on.

Will he agree that this illegal action has to stop?

Mr. Enns: I suppose I am wondering which court on what occasion has decided that something illegal has happened. We are not dealing with O.J. Simpson here or something else.

I am prepared to let the responsible jurisdictions, namely the Canadian Wheat Board, Canadian Grain Commission and the RCMP, pursue the investigations that they are currently pursuing.

* (1355)

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, as far as I know, any wheat that is not sold through the Wheat Board‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since our reputation as grain producers and exporters is based on our quality and quantity and our honesty, and since our reputation is being ruined by people who are selling grain illegally into the United States and bypassing the Wheat Board and not following standards, destroying our reputation, will the minister take a strong stand and defend the Wheat Board and support them in their attempts to have these illegal actions ended?

We cannot afford to have the Wheat Board's‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I know it is in the interests of not just the grain farmers involved, but indeed of all Manitobans that every opportunity be examined and taken advantage of for the movement of the grain, what helps our economy, period, and to that extent, I will transmit this concern to the Wheat Board and to the grain farmers involved.

Maintenance Enforcement

Backlog

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

The family maintenance enforcement court is a critical tool for getting delinquent parents to pay support to their families. Currently, though, the court is backlogged to the extent that one must wait until well into the summer for a hearing. Meanwhile, families go without. Families are exposed to eviction and are faced with poverty.

So my question to the minister is, how can she justify closing the court for sittings on July 14, July 28, August 18, August 25, August 29, and what will be the impact of these closures on the backlog?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member knows‑‑and I am sure we will be discussing this when we get into Justice Estimates, I hope it will be today‑‑exactly the plans we have in Maintenance Enforcement to deal with the workweek reduction. I think he will find there is a plan in place and that the hysteria he is attempting to incite will not be the result.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain to mothers like Maureen Nolin of Winnipeg and her family why after two weeks and six messages left, the maintenance office will not tell Ms. Nolin the outcome of her ex's maintenance enforcement hearing, and will the minister explain why her own office has failed to tell her what happened, as it promised to do by yesterday?

Mrs. Vodrey: I hear the other side calling, shame. I say shame also for bringing an individual's case in here. I have no idea I have permission to speak about that individual's case and do not intend to drag that individual's case into this Chamber.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the member before, if there is an issue where I can be of assistance or my office can assist, then please let me know. I am glad to look into the matter.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Ms. Nolin was promised an answer by Monday, Mr. Speaker, and single moms in Manitoba are so desperate that they want these issues addressed in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, given the worsening conditions in the family maintenance office, tell Manitobans where the government's legislation is, given that in the throne speech of this session, the government stated that it would be introducing further measures to compel delinquent parents to honour their responsibilities? Where is that legislation, Mr. Speaker?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed, over several answers, exactly what this government has done in the area of family maintenance and exactly how our record stacks up across the country. In fact, we have a very good record, but it is not perfect, and we understand that. We continue to attempt to make changes and add to the developments of the family maintenance enforcement office.

I have explained in this Chamber before the increase in the number of staff, the $50,000 put towards computers, the money put towards the automated voice so that individuals can phone up and find out the status of their maintenance account. We continue to work across Canada with other jurisdictions and with the federal government in the area of maintenance enforcement so that we can make sure we have the best amount of co‑operation across the country.

I know we will have further opportunity to discuss this in Estimates. I look forward to it. The maintenance office in this province, I know, works very hard on behalf of Manitobans.

* (1400)

Gross Revenue Insurance Plan

Continuation

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

My question to the minister is about the success of the GRIP program here in Manitoba, where the average payment in 1993 was approximately $20,800 per farmer, while in Saskatchewan, it was only $2,465 per farmer.

In light of the fact that there has been some discussion going on regarding the safety net programs in Manitoba, such as the GRIP program, can the minister give us and our farmers some assurance that the GRIP program will continue here in Manitoba for the foreseeable future?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Gimli for that question.

I think as much as, I believe, that is a news story emanating from Saskatchewan, it is a legitimate question that perhaps demonstrates better than anything else I can say this government's continued commitment to our farmers, just that plain and simple.

It is understood, I think, by all that we had extremely adverse harvest conditions last harvest year. Thanks to the program that was initiated by my colleague, the now‑Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findlay), the program did precisely what it was designed to do, to support our farm economy, namely our cereal grain growers in their time of need.

Mr. Speaker, that answers better than I can the kind of ongoing commitment that this government has to the farmers of Manitoba.

Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, I just have a supplementary to the same minister.

In light of the Saskatchewan government's lack of support for agriculture in that province and the loss of jobs in agriculture, and seeing as agriculture is such a major industry in Manitoba and a major employer in Manitoba, and also it is a major factor in the preservation of family farms, can the Minister of Agriculture give us some assurance that in the discussions of the new safety nets, the GRIP program will continue for many, many years? [interjection]

Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members of the official opposition may comment, but the fact of the matter is, Saskatchewan dropped the GRIP program and has no particular future to offer to their farmers in the coming crop year.

We in Manitoba have opted to continue the GRIP program, and that is the position that I will be taking to the ministerial conference the first week of July, that the GRIP program continue to be a major portion, a major plank in our safety net program for Manitoba farmers.

Child Support Tax Treatment

Manitoba Position

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): My question is for the Minister of Finance.

On May 7, a group of custodial parents met in this building to share their experience with Manitoba's Maintenance Enforcement Program. We formed a working group to prepare our position on the taxation of child support payments for presentation next Monday to the Federal Task Group on Tax Treatment of Child Support.

My question for the Minister of Finance: Will the department or this government be making a presentation to the task group on Manitoba's position on the tax treatment of child support?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, Mr. Speaker, this is purely an issue of federal jurisdiction.

Ms. McCormick: My supplementary question then to the minister: Does Manitoba not have something to contribute to this debate, and is there nothing that Manitoba parents would benefit from its government's position on this matter?

Mr. Stefanson: There is a case, I believe, before the Supreme Court at this particular point in time. It is an issue that falls under federal jurisdiction, and they are dealing with the issue.

Maintenance Enforcement

Government Initiatives

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): My final question for the Minister of Justice: Has Manitoba examined recent legislative initiatives in Alberta with respect to renewal of driver's licences and other provincially controlled licences and permits, and can she report to this House when and whether we can expect a similar get‑tough approach to defaulters in Manitoba?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member raised this question in Estimates last night. It surprises me it is asked again today. It was answered in Estimates last evening. She asked particularly, was this considered by the advisory council, and the answer at that time was no, it is not by the advisory council.

I also understand that the Liberal opposition in Alberta is very strongly opposed to this, so I am very interested in the member's question today.

Gasoline Pricing

Increase Justification

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

This morning, Esso and Shell stations across the city raised their pump prices of gasoline from 51.9 cents to 54.9 cents, a 3‑cent increase per litre.

Mr. Speaker, given that the price of a barrel of oil has actually dropped over the past year, can the minister explain why these increases are occurring at this time?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): This matter came to my attention a couple of hours ago, that, in fact, one oil company had increased their price very substantially.

Mr. Speaker, that causes me, it causes our government some concern, and I have asked my staff to look into the matter to see what rationale was being used for that, and then we will see what further action is taken after that.

Mr. Maloway: Would the minister then take this opportunity to call in the presidents of these oil companies and have them give an explanation as to why these increases are occurring? Mr. Speaker, just turning it over to his department for monitoring purposes is not what we need at this time.

Mr. Ernst: As I indicated in the response to the member's first question, the matter is under investigation. I am not jumping to conclusions. I am not flying off the handle. We are going to investigate and find out what the facts are, and then we will act.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, on December 28, the minister indicated he was puzzled about gas price differences there, and he promised that he would get back to us. He was going to have a look at it and get back to us. Well, that was six months ago, and we keep hearing things from this government like this. We want action. We want action now.

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, while the member did not ask a question the third time he stood, what I want to say, though, in response to his little outburst is that we are going to deal with facts.

This is not a simple issue of bash the oil companies or nationalize the oil companies, as members opposite would have happen from time to time. We will deal with the facts. Once the facts are known, then further action will be contemplated.

Bingo Revenues

Decrease

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, volunteer community charitable fundraising organizations provide the financial backing of many community projects. They raise funds by operating bingos and Nevada ticket sales. Monies are donated to many needy projects, such as hospital foundations, cancer research and treatment, assisting transplant patients, as well as funding a multitude of activities for young people, such as cubs, scouts and sports.

I have here with me today, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the quarterly report figures for the last four years for the Transcona Optimist organization. My question is for the Minister responsible for Lotteries.

Can the Minister of Lotteries explain why after 20 successful years of operation, including the last three years, pre‑Club Regent, Mr. Speaker, where bingo revenues averaged $120,000 per year, why is the Transcona Optimist bingo revenue lucky to hit $40,000 in revenue figures this year from a high of $120,000 per year?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, overall over the past year in the province of Manitoba, bingo revenues, pure bingo revenues, have increased about 6.2 percent. Notwithstanding the fact that bingo revenues have increased, the associated revenue from break‑open tickets has decreased. The break‑open ticket game, by and large, has reached maturity. It is on its decline.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell him exactly what has happened in the 20 intervening years the member referred to. In 1974 in this country, there were 35,000 registered charities. Today, in 1994, there are 70,000 registered charities. There is substantially increased competition. The Lotteries Corporation makes no distinction. Anyone who meets the criteria applying for a bingo licence is entitled to a bingo licence. We do not restrict those licences.

So, with the doubling of nonprofit and charitable organizations in this country, many of them‑‑most of them, as a matter of fact‑‑seeking bingo opportunities, there is fierce competition for the bingo dollar out there, and that is the primary reason why that club is in the situation it is in.

* (1410)

Mr. Reid: