ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Health Care Facilities
Capital Projects
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, we have been raising questions about the state of Manitoba hospitals since 1992. During the election campaign the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province promised a $600-million capital program, $160 million of which would be used for health care and $112 million, I believe, for the Health Sciences Centre.
Since that election promise which was made specifically on March 22, which was both a health promise and a job promise with the infrastructure program, the government has broken that election promise and we have asked numerous questions about the impact of that broken promise on health care programs in Manitoba and specifically referring to a Health Sciences Centre memo that we released in this House. We have asked questions about the impact on patients, the critical impact on adult and pediatric surgical suites at the emergency wards and the emergency wards at the Health Sciences Centre.
I would like to ask the Premier, when is this government going to keep its word and honour the promise made by the Premier last year, which the government is now breaking? When will it honour its word on capital spending in the province of Manitoba?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we have been as a department working very hard to recognize the appropriate priorities of Manitobans in our capital construction program, and we have done a lot of work with representatives of the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, and we are looking, hopefully, towards a resolution of the issues there.
Similarly, with Health Sciences Centre, we are working with that hospital, and all the other hospitals in the city of Winnipeg, through the Urban Planning Partnership to make sure that we have appropriate acute care and tertiary care facilities and services available for people for many years to come.
I do caution the honourable Leader of the Opposition in this regard, mind you, you cannot on the one hand ask that all the services at Health Sciences Centre be moved to the community hospitals and then complain that there is no huge capital project going on at Health Sciences Centre. Maybe the honourable member would be happy to see all the patients removed and we would be like that hospital on Yes, Minister where they have all the staff, all the equipment and no patients. So the honourable Leader of the Opposition has to remember to safeguard his own credibility on this one.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: I would be happy if this government, this minister and this Acting Premier kept their word to the people of Manitoba.
You promised on March 16, 1995, and again on March 22, 1995, that you would proceed with the operating rooms at the Health Sciences Centre, the Children's Hospital. You made that specific promise. You did not say that this promise was contingent upon breaking your word to other hospitals in the urban area.
Is the minister now saying that he was not telling the truth about other hospitals in Winnipeg when he made his promise on the capital commitment? When is he going to start looking at patient care and his own word rather than breaking his promise?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, again, I remind the honourable Leader of the Opposition that his own Health critic, day in and day out, has been pressing for some movement out of Health Sciences Centre and towards community hospitals.
You will notice it was not the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) asking the question today. They had to put the honourable Leader of the Opposition up for this question because they are asking that we spend $112 million for capital construction at Health Sciences Centre; meanwhile, they want us to remove all the patients from Health Sciences Centre. They cannot have both because we are not going to spend $100 million for a place where nobody is going to be.
Mr. Doer: I have the government's promise on health care and I have all their promises from the election campaign. Is the Minister of Health telling us today that they had a secret political agenda, that the Health Sciences Centre capital projects were contingent upon other decisions that affect other urban hospitals such as Seven Oaks and Misericordia, and if they did have that secret political agenda, why did they not have the honesty and integrity to tell the people of Manitoba that? If they did not have that secret agenda, why do they not proceed with their election promise to spend the money at the Health Sciences Centre, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) promised during the election campaign?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, it would have been useful if, like the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), the Leader of the Opposition had taken more interest in the whole discussion about health in Manitoba over the last few months.
We are working with our partners throughout the city of Winnipeg to build an integrated hospital care system for the city of Winnipeg, and the Health Sciences Centre obviously has an important role to play in the future.
But by the honourable member's questioning today, he really embarrasses his critic, the honourable member for Kildonan, who has been pressing for movement away from Health Sciences Centre to the community hospitals.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for Kildonan today says no. Well, obviously he does not want to feel the sting of the embarrassment here, Madam Speaker.
What we have is a Health critic on the one hand saying, get everybody out of Health Sciences Centre, and on the other hand we have the Leader of the Opposition saying, keep your promises and build hundreds of millions of dollars worth of capital construction, all the while silence from the Liberals because it is they who are cutting back $220 million from the budgets of this province for next year. The honourable Leader of the Opposition's question comes as if there was no reality to that. Well, Madam Speaker, there is a reality to that.
Health Care Facilities
Public Consultations
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, this government has cut over $100 million out of hospitals since '92-93 and is cutting $53 million this year. Now the minister who has made a mess of health care with his consultants, his secret committee meetings, is trying to do the same thing to the hospital sector.
When will the minister who has recommendations from KPMG, million-dollar consultants, who has recommendations from the urban advisory committee, when will the minister do something that the government has never done and put these recommendations, not final decisions, before the public of Manitoba and let them have input into these decisions?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member, quite unintentionally, I am sure, is misleading everybody when he talks about all these secret committees and everything. We have had repeated information bulletins to everybody involved in the planning partnership and the design team structure that has been going on. It is a very, very open process. The debate obviously has spilled over into this Chamber, which is quite appropriate that that happened. We have a very public and open process. It will result in better health care for Manitobans in general and Winnipeggers in particular with respect to the hospitals that we are talking about.
The process will result in a more appropriate use of all of the various facilities that we have and an integrated approach--
An Honourable Member: Be efficient.
Mr. McCrae: Oh, yes, Madam Speaker, an integrated approach to acute care services in the city of Winnipeg. The honourable member's messages and those of his Leader are very mixed. Maybe the two of them should go away and have a little chat and come back united in their approach.
* (1350)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I understand the minister's sensitivity since even his business friends at Manitoba Business have seen fit to criticize his policy.
My question to the minister is, will the minister admit that his policy, his secret reports, consultants, deal making has pitted hospital against hospital, CEO against CEO, community against community, and will the minister not commit today to put the recommendations before the public and let the public who own these facilities, who own these hospitals have an opportunity to have input into these decisions?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, everybody knows that Health Sciences Centre is in need of attention. I mean, certainly for 10 years under the New Democrats, there was a crying need then, so nobody is going to say there is not today.
Today, the honourable member for Kildonan has made a big, big mistake because he knows and I know that at Seven Oaks Hospital there are modern operating rooms ready to be used. He knows that at Grace Hospital and at St. Boniface Hospital there are operating rooms, but now, no, he wants us to build a whole bunch at Health Sciences Centre so that we cannot use the ones at Seven Oaks. Well, I say to him, let him be consistent. Does he want to stand up for Seven Oaks Hospital or is it because it was in the newspaper over the weekend, maybe to make a comment about the Health Sciences Centre today would be a good day to do that? Somebody has to be consistent around here. Honourable members on this side are prepared to do so and are prepared to face the public and discuss it publicly and openly with them.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, all we are asking the government to do is to live up to its commitments that the government made during the election campaign, which is that the government will not only upgrade the facilities at Health Sciences but will keep the community hospitals like Seven Oaks and Misericordia open as they promised and as we have asked them to do and as Manitobans believed they were doing when they voted.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, just in case it was not enough for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) to blow his credibility today, the honourable member for Kildonan seems to insist that he needs to do that too.
Madam Speaker, what he wants us to do is ignore the federal Liberal cuts, ignore the fact that it is the law in Manitoba that we live within our means, and forget about all that and just spend, spend, spend in every area regardless altogether of what goes on throughout the rest of this country--no eye at all for the realities of the '90s and beyond that we live in, absolutely no sense of reality over there. I think it is time they got together and had a long meeting.
Young Offenders
Mandatory School Attendance
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In the last few weeks I have had the opportunity to speak to several school principals and a school superintendent who have told me they are very concerned about their schools being used more and more as jails for many of our young offenders.
This minister has talked about co-ordinated services through the Youth Secretariat, but we know that no resources have come from her Department of Justice to the Department of Education. Can the minister tell us how many young offenders have mandatory attendance at a school as part of their sentence or probation order?
* (1355)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, as the member knows, we are in the Estimates of the Department of Justice now. If she is referring to young people who may be in open custody who are attending schools, I will be happy to review the matter with her through the process of Estimates. We do believe that the community does have a role to play in terms of assisting young people in their return to the community. Interestingly enough, that has been the position of the other side until now, and now we seem to have another position being raised by the member for St. James.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, clearly, we would like young offenders to have the proper supports in the community.
Can the minister tell us how her department checks if these young offenders are actually attending as their sentences require? Are they in the schools, or are they not?
An Honourable Member: Sentence them to school, that is pretty severe.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, we hear the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) saying, sentencing young people to school, that is pretty silly.
An Honourable Member: Severe, I said.
Mrs. Vodrey: Sentencing is done by the courts. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, the minister did not hear my comments. I did not say it was “silly,” and I would like to ask her to withdraw that. If she is going to put comments on the record from other members, she should be very careful in putting them on accurately.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order by the honourable member for Thompson, he does not have a point of order. I did not hear the comment and, obviously, the honourable member was not recognized so the comment is not on the record.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete her response.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, again, I would encourage members opposite to have the courage to put their views on the record. That is an important way for us to finally know where they stand. It has been very difficult to ever figure out where the other side stands on youth crime. We have asked for support in the area of the Young Offenders Act--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson.
Point of Order
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.”
A very serious question was asked. The minister was lecturing this House in terms of taking positions on justice issues. We are prepared to debate justice issues any time, any place with the minister, but this is Question Period. It requires answers from the Minister of Justice, not the kind of irrelevant debate we are seeing in the supposed answer to this question.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable Minister of Justice that she should respond to the question asked and her comments should be as brief as possible.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, as I said, this government has put forward a number of initiatives dealing with youth crime. It always would be helpful to have the other side also supportive of initiatives which deal with prevention, which deal with intervention, deal with consequences. It is a position of this government that young people who have been sentenced, whether they are sentenced to closed custody within the Youth Centre, or outside, should attend school. The other side seems to have some problem with that. As a matter of fact, we were the government that said that school will operate within our institutions 12 months of the year, because we believe that young people should have the best opportunity they can to maximize their skills for their return to the community.
* (1400)
Ms. Mihychuk: Well, I will try one more time. Will the minister admit that there is no communication with schools about even the basic information such as which students are under these sentencing requirements and for what offences they were sentenced?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, as I said to the member, we are in the Estimates of the Department of Justice. In those Estimates--[interjection] Well, members opposite have trouble with that, but we will have the opportunity to speak. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) does not want debate. Questions can--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete her response.
Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and as I said, we can look at answering those questions more fully. As the member knows, there are, in some cases, some legal reasons why certain information is not able to be shared. That is the difficulty, though this government has taken great steps towards the co-ordination through the Child and Youth Secretariat, which is our way to co-ordinate in all legal ways the sharing of information between Health, Family Services, Justice and Education. However, there are some laws which govern the sharing of information and those laws are ones which we believe should be respected. Perhaps others have another view.
Public Housing
Property Sales
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, over the last few weeks we have seen this government put public assets up for fire sale. They have given away public assets with no studies, no plans and no consultation.
I want to ask the Minister of Housing, how many Manitoba Housing Authority units are up for sale this year, and how many are being appraised for sale at this time?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, with any type of analysis and priorities of spending, all avenues are looked at in regard to where the allocation of fundings are going. At the present time, there is an evaluation going on throughout the whole department as to what should or should not be looked at. There has been no decision as to whether there will be a mass sale--as the member is referring to--that we are unloading or downsizing.
I should point out though that the federal government has indicated that they are getting out of the social housing and they are in the process of wanting the provinces to take over this part of their portfolio. That is under active consideration but no decision has been made on that either.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I want to table a letter from the former Minister of Housing where she said that there were no plans and no studies to privatize any housing stock other than 35 individual units and one boarded-up complex. In view of that, I want to ask the Minister of Housing how he can explain the sale of a 20-unit complex in St. Vital that was in good repair and as recently as last summer had thousands of dollars invested in it for repairs. How can he explain the sale of that complex?
Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I am not too sure which unit the member is referring to when she says a unit in St. Vital. We have units in all areas of the city. Granted, there are units in St. Vital. As to what unit it is, unless I know specifically which area it is, I could not comment on it.
But I should point out that once units are declared surplus and they have not shown that they are in the portfolio, they are then put through the normal process of resale. So this is an ongoing matter, an ongoing process when a unit or a home is declared surplus--that we do sell it.
Ms. Cerilli: I would ask the minister to clarify his answer, especially in view of the first question which was, how many social housing units are up for sale in this province at this time? Can he explain to the House why we are putting up for sale and demolishing 20 units of good-quality social housing so that there can be built a hardware store?
Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I believe I understand where the member is coming from in regard to what she is referring to in St. Vital. There has been no sale of any unit there in St. Vital--that she is referring to--for demolition for a hardware store. There are ongoing negotiations. There have been meetings. There have been conversations, but there has been no decision as to the sale of the unit.
As I stated before, units that become surplus, units that are not used anymore, these are units that we put up for sale.
Restorative Resolutions Program
Funding
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
As a police officer, I am disappointed by the lack of vision demonstrated by this government and the official opposition in the area of criminal justice--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable member for The Maples.
Mr. Kowalski: As I said, as a police officer, I am disappointed by the lack of vision demonstrated by this government and the official opposition in the area of criminal justice.
Pandering to the mob, both the minister and her NDP Justice critic talk about locking up more criminals for longer sentences as if that would solve the problem. What they forget is that, if you are arrested for a property crime and you are locked in Headingley, you are going to be back on the streets in less than two years, often in better shape, a little meaner after earning your undergraduate degree in criminal activity. What is even more ridiculous is that these fantasy solutions cost the taxpayer more and do nothing to make restitution to the victim.
My question for the minister: Will the minister, if she is concerned about safety and crime prevention and not her 10-second video clip, which she shares with the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), stand in the House today and commit this government's support for the Restorative Resolutions program?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the Restorative Resolutions program is one which is at the moment undergoing an evaluation.
We have the member for The Maples who, without evaluation, without any kind of reference points, says that this should just continue. Well, our government has in fact provided significant support, even more support than the member might have found in an article which appeared today. Our government funds this program to approximately $120,000 annually, including two staff who are seconded and also operating funds.
The difficulty, however, seems to be that the federal Liberal government has not made up its mind whether it will continue to fund, and our indications are that their money may be withdrawn.
Corrections
Alternative Programs
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Will the minister now admit that, as stated in the document Achieving Balance for Community and Correctional Services released by the New Brunswick Solicitor-General, the success of provincial community-based correctional programs such as alternative measures, fine option program, community service orders, and others, are proof that focusing on rehabilitation instead of simply incarcerating offenders reduces public risk?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, again, for those people who are eligible--and that is really the criterion--this government does support alternative measures in the way of mediation and in the way of Restorative Resolutions, but we cannot get away from the main fact here. The federal Liberal government also has a part in the funding of Restorative Resolutions. We have had no confirmation, as usual, from the federal Liberal government that they are in any way willing, even based on the evaluation, to continue their support. Now, this government cannot continue to backfill for a federal Liberal government who simply gives up on its responsibilities.
* (1410)
Mr. Kowalski: Will the minister agree that contrary to public statements about rigorous confinement, restorative programs for nonviolent offenders that compensate the victim and make the criminal accept responsibility for their actions lessen crime better than some medieval idea about locking people up and throwing away the key?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, the member as a former police officer shocks me. He makes no comment about what communities would do with high-risk offenders, and in fact this is the pressure that we are trying to put on the federal Liberal minister now, is to deal with high-risk offenders.
As I said to him in my answer, for those people who commit a criminal activity and who are eligible, this government has in fact supported through mediation. We are recently supporting a new mediation program in Brandon, the Westman mediation. We support mediation services here in Winnipeg, and to the tune of $120,000 including two staff, this government has supported Restorative Resolutions.
But he has to get it straight. He has to talk to his federal Liberal colleagues who are the ones whose money may not be on the table, even though the evaluation is there, so that is where to put the pressure. I will be very interested to see if he is willing to follow through with that or if he thinks the people of Manitoba should continue to backfill for the failed promises of the federal Liberal government.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization--Rural Manitoba
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, earlier today we introduced legislation that would give Manitobans a say over the future of their Crown corporations. We are seeing now, with the release of details from the Minister responsible for MTS, just why Manitobans should be concerned about the future of our telephone system, Manitoba Telephone System.
I would like to ask the minister, to begin with--and looking at the few guarantees that are in his proposed sell-off of MTS which include basically a majority of the board being from Manitoba and that the head office be here in Manitoba--can he confirm then that there will be no guarantee of any of the rural and northern offices, the several dozen offices that are a significant source of employment for rural and northern Manitobans and provide more than 1,000 jobs across this province?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, thank you for an opportunity to comment because certainly telephone jobs all over rural and northern Manitoba are very, very important. As the member knows, a lot of technology is taking place that has allowed the corporation to downsize by some 1,400 positions over the last four or five years with only about 45 layoffs.
I can assure the member that the corporation understands the value of its rural and northern customers, and delivering service by having people employed there is a critical part of being an acceptable company. The majority of Manitobans will ultimately own the company through the share offering because the majority of Manitobans have the first right of opportunity to purchase. So the owners of the company will be living throughout Manitoba and naturally will want service from their company and therefore will be able to direct that the employment stays in the similar basis that it is today.
Mr. Ashton: I would like the minister to explain how rural northern Manitobans right now can have any sense of security in what is going to happen with employment when senior managers of MTS are saying that, beginning under privatization, they will be looking at eliminating positions. These are statements made to employees. When the draft act itself includes up to 25 percent foreign ownership and has no specific guarantees over Manitoba ownership other than the shares being offered to Manitobans first, will the minister admit today that there will be significant job losses in rural and northern Manitoba as a result of his privatization?
Mr. Findlay: The answer is no. The member is wrong.
Mr. Ashton: Well, if the minister will not admit to what MTS senior staff are telling people, will he also indicate that, under his vision, this government's vision, nobody else's vision for the MTS, the only statement in the act which makes any reference to rural and northern Manitoba in terms of access to service is a statement to provide access to telephone service to residents of the province? Will the minister indicate that Manitobans, and especially in rural and northern Manitoba, will have no guarantee of the kind of first-rate, first-class service they have had under a publicly owned phone system, under this sell-off of our public assets?
Mr. Findlay: Telephone service in Manitoba has been supplied by a very competent company and will be supplied by a very competent company. A good, effective, competent company is one that has a definite debt-to-asset ratio that is responsible. When those members were in government they lowered the debt-to-asset ratio to 9 percent to asset, in other words, 91 percent debt. That is what those members opposite put that company in, the worst position of any telephone company in Canada.
During our tenure it has improved to 78 percent, and under the public share offering it will be in the 45 percent range. That is positioning the company to be a very significant offer of services in the telecommunications industries of the future for Manitoba and Canada. This company has improved and strengthened dramatically along with the private line system that we put in place that took away 47,000 party lines that those members did nothing about.
School Boundaries
Announcement
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): In 1993 the government commissioned a report on school boundaries. In 1994 Mr. Norrie reported. In the summer of '95 the people of Manitoba responded to Norrie's proposals, making clear in hundreds of written submissions that the majority did not consent to the proposed boundaries.
The Minister of Education has promised to make her announcement on boundaries this spring. We are now in June, and I want to ask the minister, will she undertake to bring this announcement to the Legislative Assembly this week so that we can have the open public debate that this issue deserves?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member knows that we have been taking a tremendous amount of time to study this issue. I am pleased to see that at least on one issue she agrees with the amount of time we are taking to study. Most other issues, she says, do not take time to study, rush through. If we rush through, we are accused of not taking enough time. If we take time, we are accused of taking too long. Just negative for the sake of being negative.
The report is soon to be announced, and it will be announced, as indicated, this spring.
Ms. Friesen: I wonder what the minister is afraid of. Why will that not be brought to the House now?
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member should learn not to judge other people by her own standards.
* (1420)
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I will not, I think, respond to a comment which was--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Wolseley she was recognized for a final supplementary question which requires no postamble and no preamble.
The honourable member for Wolseley, to pose her question now.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Education to confirm that she specifically rejected the Norrie commission's recommendation on the city of Winnipeg, to divide successful school divisions to create, in the words of Glenn Nichols's research report, quote, an elite school division in Winnipeg.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I should indicate, contrary to the member's assumption, there is no fear on the part of this minister to bring forward decisions once they are made. I do indicate to the member that we are at the final stages of making our decision. The decision is, in effect, soon ready to be announced. As I indicated, that will be announced this spring. There is no fear on the part of this minister whatsoever. I look forward to being able to have--
An Honourable Member: Bring it to the House.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, could you call the--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. McIntosh: The interruptions are most rude.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
I would remind all honourable members that this Speaker will not recognize a member to either stand on a point of order or be recognized until I have order because I cannot hear the honourable member over the roar from one side to the other.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I will not read Beauchesne Citation 417 again. I have read it once already in this Question Period, but I would ask you not only to call this minister to order but ask her to withdraw those absolutely inappropriate and unacceptable comments. She should not lecture anyone in this House about being rude.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, the member had asked a question which I was attempting to answer. All during my attempt to answer the question the same member who asked the question was heckling from her seat, clearly not listening to the answer and distracting this side from providing the answer that I had thought they had requested.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order, I will take the matter under advisement so that I can accurately refer to the comments made in Hansard.
Fleet Vehicles Agency
Board Membership
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Government Services. This government continues to reward its friends and political supporters with the recent revelation that the government fleet of some 2,300 vehicles has been opened up to leasing competition.
I would like to ask the minister, can the minister confirm that members of the auto industry sit on the board of the Fleet Vehicles operating agency?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, the Fleet Vehicles Agency was our first special operating agency in this government and has effectively harnessed many of the benefits for the taxpayers of this province that imitating successful small businesses of our province would cause them to. They have had, as part of their plan as a special operating agency, part of their original mission, in fact, the desire to be able to compete, to offer services and compete with any other agency that might choose to offer those.
The benefits to the taxpayers of this province of that type of mentality are evident in the fact that the Fleet Vehicles Agency already operates with 20 percent fewer vehicles than it did just three years ago. The taxpayers of Manitoba want to see us offer government services in a cost-effective way and that is precisely what we are doing with Fleet Vehicles and with many other of our special operating agencies in this province as well.
Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister since the minister did not answer the question. The question was, are there any car dealers on the board of the agency?
Mr. Pallister: Madam Speaker, through the ongoing analysis that is done of the special operating agencies--and Fleet Vehicles Agency is no exception--we have determined that our agency, which is now in its fourth year, is capable of withstanding the pressures of competing and is able to offer services to government departments on an optional basis. Now, as part of that analysis--
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, if the minister wants to follow Beauchesne Citation 416, and that is that a minister may decline to answer a question, the appropriate thing to do would be to stand up and say, I am not going to answer this question, and sit down. Instead, the minister has violated Beauchesne's Citation 417, and perhaps I should read it again, which is: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised--I will repeat that--deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate.
Madam Speaker, the member has asked twice whether car dealers sit on the board, and the minister should answer that question.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, in all fairness the minister was just beginning his comments, and I am--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson raised the point of order now on the supplementary question, and the minister had just commenced his response. I am--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The opposition knows full well a minister is given approximately one minute to respond. My watch indicates that he had just commenced his comments and that 10 seconds had elapsed. So, therefore, I am not in a position at this point in the interruption with the point of order to determine if he was about to respond or not.
* * *
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. I have two rulings for the House.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe you were ruling that I did not have a point of order, and I am not challenging that, but if that is the case then we anxiously are awaiting the minister to finish his response, which is the normal procedure in Question Period, and if it takes leave to actually get the minister to actually answer the question, we are prepared to give it.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
* (1430)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that the clock continues to run when I am attempting to restore order.
* * *
Madam Speaker: Now, is there leave for the honourable minister to complete his response? Leave?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Pallister: Madam Speaker, I think it is only fair and reasonable to point out that without the constant interrupting of the member for Thompson the members opposite would get a heck of a lot more questions in, in Question Period.
But suffice to say, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), who is the fellow who asked the question, has on several occasions complimented our department and myself on our openness. In fact, if one would peruse Hansard and the debates that took place during the Estimates process where the member had the opportunity to put these questions and chose not to, one would find that the member for Elmwood has complimented our department and said that I myself and our department are the most open and disclosing of information of any department that he has had to criticize and work with. On an ongoing basis, we provide information to the member such as I am doing now. I will continue to do that and try to set an example of openness to the members opposite.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: Yes, I would like to rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, and now that the minister has had that one minute, I would like to ask you to rule whether indeed he was violating Beauchesne Citation 417. I do not believe I heard an answer again, and I heard the minister being totally irrelevant.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would agree, indeed he does have a point of order. The honourable minister responsible, I would remind him to respond to the question asked.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.