Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

This government is proceeding with legislation to break its election promise and sell the Manitoba Telephone System. It has no democratic mandate to do so. They have no independent study that they can produce for this Legislature. They only have studies of their brokers who will make tens of millions of dollars on the sale of this corporation.

They have major amendments that they are dropping in the House literally hours before the scheduled vote and asking members of this Legislature to deal with these amendments without any study, without any thought. They have brokers that are now being investigated by the Securities Commission, based on how this government is handling this major, major issue.

I would like to ask the Premier again if he will take a deep breath, remember what he promised in the election campaign and give the people of Manitoba a vote on their telephone system, allow the people of Manitoba to have a plebiscite as they are democratically entitled to have, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The member opposite continues to play fast and loose with the truth, and I reject most of the preamble.

Mr. Doer: On a point of order, the Premier is impugning motives. It is the Premier who made the promise in the election campaign. It is the Premier who is breaking the promise today. All we are asking to do is trust the people. If he does not trust the people, he should say so without insulting people in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the official opposition, I would remind all honourable members to pick and choose their words carefully.

The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

I repeat that the member opposite and his entire support network and indeed all of the individuals who sit with him want to put their heads into the sand and ignore reality. We have evidence upon evidence of all of the major changes that are taking place throughout the world, the tremendous pressures of change that are on the telecommunications industry, the most rapidly changing technology of any area of our economy, that is going to require massive infusions of capital in the known future. Probably a half-billion dollars is the best estimate of the money that must be risked if we keep it in the public sector. Add that to $800 million of debt that we currently guarantee, the highest debt-equity ratio of any telephone company in Canada, 70 percent of its revenues in competition with the private sector.

All of those areas would indicate that we have a major risk by keeping it in the public sector and, in fact, we restrict it in its ability to compete because they cannot make decisions as rapidly as they should in order to compete.

For all those reasons, as we have said before, the telephone system will be better off in private hands, Madam Speaker. That is why there are at the present time only two telephone companies in Canada that are in public ownership. All the rest are in private.

I have already indicated to the members opposite that rate comparisons do not seem to reflect any advantage to publicly or privately owned. The fact is that we have many privately owned companies that have lower rates than the Manitoba Telephone System, particularly for rural and remote areas.

For all those reasons, we are proceeding with what is right for the future, what is right for the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Doer: Again, the Premier did not answer the question. I asked the Premier to have a plebiscite of the public of Manitoba. Why does he not trust the people? Why does he have such contempt for the people? If these facts that he is alleging are true, surely the people will vote with him. If they are not true, surely the people will vote against them. What is he afraid of? He never answered the question.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask a further question to the First Minister. The pension plan was unfunded in the late '60s with the former Roblin government and, in the mid-80s, we started paying back the employee portion and employer portion of the pension plan, as did the government opposite--a point which I have credited to the government in the past as well as the previous government. That plan is apparently close to being fully funded now but it is a major asset of the Manitoba Telephone System.

I would like to ask the Premier, can he table today the plan to deal with the Manitoba Telephone System pension plans? Can he table the specific plan to deal with the 20 percent that is going to be removed from the superannuation fund, the amount of money from the existing pension plan from the telephone system that will go into the pension plan, the participation of employees, the decision making? Can he table today the exact and specific plan, or are we going to have this written on the back of an envelope like we see so many other things with our Manitoba Telephone System?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): With respect to the preamble, governments are elected to make decisions, to exercise judgment. We do not have a history of governing by plebiscites in this province. We have a history of the parliamentary democratic system. Madam Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing. We are governing and exercising judgment as we have been given a democratic mandate to do so.

Madam Speaker, with respect to the question of pension funds, those funds, it is my understanding, will be transferred in full, including surpluses in the plans with the new pension. They will be subject to probably one of the most heavily regulated areas of our whole society, that is, that of pensions. There are strict rules of governance to ensure that those funds are protected for the benefit of the people for whom they were invested.

The member opposite is right. This government took a pension fund that was largely underfunded and almost fully funded it over a period of the last eight and a half years while we were in government, and so that is something that obviously we are not going to let in any way deteriorate, diminish or not accrue for the benefits of the workers, the retired workers who have earned those pensions.

The member opposite knows that a proposal--he has a copy of the amendments that have been shared with him. He also knows that in accordance with, I believe, the wishes of his caucus and his colleagues, the minister and colleagues are meeting right now with the representatives of the retired pensioners and the unions to try and further clarify to their satisfaction the issues surrounding the pension funds.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: Of course, these are amendments that this Premier wanted to ram through at three o'clock in the morning. Thank goodness somebody stood up. The Premier knows there is no specific plan because pension assets can be used both for the investors and the workers, and we want to ensure there is a specific plan. We are not going to give this government a blank cheque, let me guarantee you that, Madam Speaker, in terms of those workers and those investors in the Manitoba Telephone System.

Madam Speaker, the Premier mentioned plebiscites. He will note that Elections Manitoba in their annual report stated that they are working to implement plebiscite and referendum legislation pursuant to the balanced budget legislation. So let not the Premier pretend he cannot have a plebiscite or referendum. It is only because he has contempt for the public that he will not have a referendum.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): In light of the fact that it is the Premier, Jules Benson and Tom Stefanson who work with the brokers on this MTS issue, the brokers that are leaking all over this province, and in light of the fact that Section 37(1) prohibits a company, which would be the Premier, and agents of the company from releasing this information prior to the approval of a prospectus by Manitoba Securities, who is going to investigate the Premier, the minister responsible, Jules Benson and Tom Stefanson for these leaks about the cost and the values of the shares? Who is going to investigate the Premier on this matter?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I have indicated before, it is not in our interest to release any information prematurely. I have declined to--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: If the member opposite has any specific allegations and evidence to substantiate his allegations, let him put it on the table; if not, let him just simply try and stick to the truth, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we wish the Premier would stick to the truth, to what he said when he said he would not sell MTS in the election.

We have seen that the government has an undemocratic agenda for this province with MTS. They said they would not sell it. They have not had a vote since; they have not had a single public meeting. What is increasingly clear and what is really sad is the unethical way in which they are selling off a fine, publicly owned corporation like MTS.

I want to ask the Premier, in regard to this prospectus issue, since he said yesterday it was being investigated by the Securities Commission, since there are only two sources for this leak, either the government or the investment brokers, will he now indicate if he has received any indication where this leak came from and will he ensure that either he fires the investment brokers or takes action against the people in government that are responsible for this completely unethical leaking of the information and possibly illegal leaking of the information--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I indicated yesterday the matter is being investigated and looked into by the Securities Commission and I will await their report and response.

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

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, people are being deluged with information from brokers pushing the sale of MTS--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1350)

Mr. Ashton: I would like to ask the Premier why he will not take immediate action to deal with the fact that brokers right now are contacting Manitobans based on the information that was leaked all over the front pages of the newspapers. When will he get some ethics and some control back and ensure that this kind of unethical and possibly illegal trading in the shares of a company that has not even been voted upon in the Manitoba Legislature stops? We have not sold off MTS.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we have not come to a final conclusion in this Legislature. We obviously have a democratic process, a process which I respect.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, if there are any accusations of breach of The Securities Act or the requirements of the Securities Commission, I would hope that members opposite would phone the Securities Commission, as we have done, to pass along what information we have.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): A final supplementary, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier, when the final prospectus is released, will he ensure that a notation is included in the prospectus to indicate that the people of Manitoba did not agree to the sale and that many Manitobans, including the New Democratic Party, are committed to ensuring that if there is any way possible, MTS will be brought back under public ownership immediately following the election of the next government in this province, as soon as we throw out the Conservative government? Will he ensure that the investors know that--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am sure that I do not have to assist the members opposite in publishing their next election platform.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the deliberate destruction of free collective bargaining in education has brought a strong response from Manitobans such as the Assiniboine South Teachers' Association who told the minister, surely no government wants to go on record as being the author of such undemocratic legislation, or the Agassiz Teachers' Association, which said that Bill 72 is an affront to teachers and anyone who is committed to strong education. It cannot be allowed to become law by any government that calls itself democratic.

Will the Minister of Education tell us how it benefits our province, our community, our education system to dictate to and to bully Manitobans in the manner of this government?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, of course, I do not agree with the preamble. The member knows absolutely that the government embarked upon this particular bill in an attempt to rectify and correct some of the things that had crept into the process of binding arbitration over the years, to restore in fact to its original purpose the ability of school boards and teachers to be able to bargain together in a way designed to allow the school boards to be accountable to the public and provide fairness and protection for teachers. We have gone back to that original premise, which had changed in the last 12 years.

In fact, I would like to table a letter sent by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees contradicting and addressing many of the points that the member has raised and that teachers raise, a letter from the trustees indicating that they wish to disassociate themselves from those kinds of comments which appeared, incidentally, in an ad recently in the Free Press. It may help the member understand there are two sides to every story.

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

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister, who refused day after day, evening after evening, to listen and to heed the words of thousands of Manitobans on Bill 72, listen to the words of a resident of Oakbank who said, I am ashamed to admit that I worked two decades for a political party who has become arrogant in government. Having discredited my profession, the government now feels the time is right to bring in dictatorial legislation in Bill 72.

Will she heed the words--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. The honourable member has exceeded the time allowable.

Mrs. McIntosh: I would like to correct for the record some of the things the member alludes to in her preamble which are incorrect. She indicates that we did not listen. Indeed, Madam Speaker, we listened. We listened to many thousands of people. I suppose if we want to go on anecdotal statements, I could bring in anecdotal statements, too. But the point is that trustees had indicated that they could no longer function as binding arbitration crept more and more into management functions, indeed began to see on the table things that actually appear in the act as management functions and duties of trustees.

Madam Speaker, they asked for some ability to have their ability to pay at least considered. That we have given. The teachers asked to have the ability to pay, which they did not want to see in the collective agreement, but if it was going into the act, if it was going to be in there, they asked to have certain definitions around it, which we included. I think we listened and reacted and responded to both.

* (1355)

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister, whose major contribution to Manitoba education has been to set the stage for several years of conflict and confrontation and who is publicly referred to as a bully by the Free Press--and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tells us yesterday is always right on these things--will the minister acknowledge and act upon the advice of the teachers of Morris-Macdonald, who said that the government needs to become consensus builders, communicate instead of dictating? You were not, they said, elected to become dictators.

Mrs. McIntosh: I wish to indicate to the member that I agree we were not elected to become dictators. We were elected--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: We were elected--[interjection] Nor were they elected to be rude.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I say that we were not elected to be dictators as the member alludes, but we did, during the election, have as a major topic of conversation, dialogue and debate the entire subject of arbitration, because the previous minister, Minister Manness, had at the response of two resolutions passed by trustees who were elected by all the people in Manitoba and hence represent all the taxpayers of Manitoba, in two successive years had asked to have this broken wagon fixed and Minister Manness had promised that he would address the situation.

It was the subject of an election debate. It was the subject of conversation. We had promised during the election that we would address the whole problem of binding arbitration, so we are showing the leadership that we promised we would in the election, and we have done it in consultation with both teachers, trustees and others as well. The member is wrong.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, this government broke its promise to have elections for boards and instead appointed regional health boards chock-full of Tory appointees. There are no programs that have been given to these boards; they are told they are going to have to make $100 million in cuts. When the people from The Pas complained, the minister says, go to the board. The board does not even know what the mandate is. In one region if they want to talk to their board, they have to fax to Texas to find out.

My question to the Premier, who I think is the most undemocratic Premier in the history of this province, can the Premier explain how this system they put in place even closely resembles any kind of a representative accountable health care system?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, under the Constitution of Canada, the provision of health services is the responsibility of provincial governments, and through various programs in the system, provincial governments delegate certain authority to other players in the health system--in the past, for example, hospital boards, community health centres and other agencies like that--and carries forward the work that way. The ultimate responsibility and accountability rests with the government of the day, that being in this legislative Chamber.

The honourable member will recall, as we went through over 50 hours of review of the Estimates of the Department of Health earlier this year, the honourable member talks about democracy, that is what democracy is, working within the Constitution of Canada, delegating authority where that is appropriate. That is the kind of regime that we have in this province, like we have in provinces right across the country.

* (1400)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain how he can set up boards full of Tories and exclude women, exclude aboriginal people, exclude any kind of representation from the community and expect them to deliver the cuts the Tories are delivering?

Mr. McCrae: The problem with the question is its premise. If you look at 1995 over 1994, you will see that spending in the Department of Health was up by $60 million. Indeed, since 1988, when this government took office, we were up in spending nearly $600 million on an annualized basis, and $600 million may ring a bell with you, Madam Speaker, because it sure does with me. Coincidentally, that is about how much money this government has to fork over to the creditors of Manitoba, thanks to the spending habits of honourable members opposite when they were in office.

I wish I had that $600 million to spend on health services and on family services and on education services, because those reflect the priorities of Manitobans. Nonetheless, we do reflect those priorities in our spending year over year.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Health, who recently signed an agreement with all the faith institutions in Winnipeg, this great democrat, or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) explain how they can sign an agreement and say in this agreement that the provision and the establishment of the superboards that was not even planned, was not promised, was not studied, that is being put in by this government, is non-negotiable and all the provisions, under the way these superboards are going to be functioning, are non-negotiable to the citizens and to the institutions in the city of Winnipeg? How do these great democrats--

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

Mr. McCrae: In view of the very, very significant history of service to the people of Manitoba provided by faith-related organizations in Manitoba, it is a particular pleasure and honour for me to be able to follow through on a commitment this government made to faith-related organizations with respect to the future of health services in Manitoba. It is a model for other provinces that have gone ahead with their changes without the same regard for faith-related organizations.

The faith-related organizations which have joined with us in this agreement recognize the requirements of the government, just as the government recognizes the requirements of the faith-related organizations, and that is what you will see in the agreement.

I am delighted that we have been able to bring that about, and I will be pleased to look forward to working with faith-related organizations in the future.

If it was left to honourable members opposite, there would be no relationship.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and you hear words of the Premier being arrogant, the Premier being a dictator. Well, it makes me be somewhat nostalgic. I can recall the Premier in 1988, a Premier that was prepared at least to work with the opposition members, work with the public. In fact, you had the New Democrats supporting the government at the time. A lot has changed. In fact, we have a Premier who is arrogant, who has shown a dictatorship-style of democracy, if you like--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster to pick and choose his words carefully. All members in this Chamber are honourable members.

The honourable member, to pose his question quickly.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Madam Speaker, even though all members of this side of the House would agree with that particular statement, out of courtesy, out of respect of your ruling I will withdraw the word "dictatorship" but still ask the Premier, what is this Premier prepared to commit in terms of, as we come to an end of this particular session, what is he prepared to do to try to bring back the old Premier of 1988 where we saw more consensus building, where we saw more working with Manitobans and lose the arrogant style of--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think that might fall in the category of a question that provokes debate. I want to assure the member opposite that, as fundamentally opposed as he may be to some of the things that we are doing in government, we accept our responsibility very, very seriously, our responsibility to govern, to make decisions and to take action where it is appropriate on behalf of the people of Manitoba.

I know that the member opposite has not had the opportunity to be in government and to be held accountable, and I know that when you are in opposition, it is easy to be on all sides of the issue, to say, on the one hand, that you support the privatization of Crown assets, but you do not like this particular deal on Manitoba Telephone System--[interjection] Well, that is his Leader--on the other hand, to say that you support health care reform, you just do not like this particular plan.

On the other occasion, you say you support the reform of education or the changes in education; you just do not think that this is the appropriate policy direction, and so on and so forth. We talked this morning about whether or not you can have it both ways or all ways, and I know that is a luxury that is afforded those who are in opposition and those who do not have the responsibility to make choices and to govern.

I could start talking about his colleagues in the federal government and their choice to cut $230 million a year from health, education and social services in this province and the onerous responsibility that that has put upon us to try and govern under those circumstances. I could talk about their lack of commitment to many of the things that are important to the people of Manitoba. I could talk about GST and all the other promises that his colleagues made and what they are doing when they are in government. I do not want to embarrass him, though. I do not want to embarrass him.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear in terms of answers--on a point of order--that answers should be--questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. I would suggest that the Premier is neither being brief and indeed is engaging in debate. I ask that you call him to order.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind all honourable members that we all know the rules full well, and there is a lot of deviation from every member in this House on several occasions.

Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Premier commit to working with the public, working with the average Manitoban, when it continues to do things such as health care reform, when it continues to look at the idea of privatization of other Crown corporations like Manitoba Hydro? Is the Premier today prepared to make the commitment to start working with Manitobans in the future in terms of working and consulting?

Mr. Filmon: I think that one of the hallmarks of this administration is that we have continued to listen to the people of Manitoba, continued to work with the people of Manitoba. We continue to have caucus and cabinet meetings outside of this building where we go out and interact with the public--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister.

* (1410)

Mr. Filmon: We continue to go out to seek the views and the opinions, to listen to the priorities, to the dreams and the goals of Manitobans. In so doing, we know that Manitobans want us to act in their best interests, they want us to act to ensure that this province gets stronger, has jobs and economic opportunity, investment and opportunities to continue to improve all of the public services that we have a responsibility for as guardians of the public purse.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite ought to know that, during the first six months of this year, he and many of his colleagues, for instance, appeared with groups who were telling us to save the Seven Oaks General Hospital. There was one of probably a hundred different reports and recommendations that was the basis upon which they stirred up all sorts of fear and anxiety on the part of the--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, I want to make it clear, Madam Speaker, it is in relation to the Premier, not other members of the Legislature, the point of order, and I am raising again Beauchesne Citation 417 that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. I would like to ask if you could rule in regard to the Premier once again breaking the rules of the House, and would you ask him to please come to order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, earlier in this Question Period, members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the member for Thompson, were allowed to have postambles, preambles, engage in debate on issues, constantly make slanderous remarks and all sorts of exaggerated breaches of the rules of this House. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If members opposite want to abide by the rules of the House they should look in the mirror and start with themselves.

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

Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, in his--[interjection] The Premier does not run the operation of this House. He may run the government, but he is not going to lecture to any member of this House. I am rising on a point of order. The Premier stood in his place--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson raised the point of order, and I have not dealt with the point of order raised.

Mr. Ashton: Well, I am trying to provide more advice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member, but I was about to make a ruling when the honourable member stood on his--

Mr. Ashton: I will rise on a separate point of order after this. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I recognize emotions are running high, but an awful lot of latitude has been allowed to every member of this House this afternoon, and I would ask for the co-operation of all honourable members in completing the last two minutes of Question Period.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I raised the question about one member of the House who was breaking the rules, the Premier (Mr. Filmon). He, in the subsequent discussion on the point of order, made all sorts of comments which show once again that this Premier seems to think that he runs this House, that he runs this province. He does not. He is the Premier. He is the temporary trustee of this province, and I ask you as our Speaker to ask him to follow our rules.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I will take it under advisement and report back to the House.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker--

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster was on his feet prior to the honourable member for Thompson and the honourable member for Inkster was duly recognized.

The honourable member for Inkster.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on a new point of order.

Mr. Ashton: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker, I would raise a point of order again in regard to the Premier's comments. I raised a point of order and I will raise a new point of order in regard to his references to slanderous remarks being made by members of the Legislature. I would like to ask whether you will at least rule on that now. It has been very clear that the Premier has not been following the rules of this Legislature and I would appreciate a ruling now on his comment, not on the other 56 members of the Legislature, on the Premier's comments. Will you please--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson stood on precisely the same point of order he rose previously regarding comments made by the Premier, and I indicated I would take it under advisement.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my question to the Premier is, will the Premier acknowledge that the type of consensus building that he has accomplished over the last year in terms of the hog industry, vertical integration, privatization of MTS, health care reform, education changes, has been the furthest thing away possible from consensus building? Will he acknowledge that and that he is going to see to it that that is not going to happen again in the new fiscal year?

* (1420)

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the entreaties of the member for Inkster and indeed oftentimes we have issues that take on a controversial nature as a result of decisions that government makes.

I am glad that he raised the issue of the dual marketing of hogs, because I can tell him that even within the past few weeks I had a letter from an individual who was out in the halls berating me about the dual marketing of hogs, who came here day after day and said things like liar and so on, wrote a letter of apology--[interjection] Thanks for the applause--wrote a letter of apology to me, saying that now that it is implemented he can see that Manitoba Pork is as strong as ever, if not stronger, and that he has options now that he did not have before, and that he recognizes the wisdom of the move that we made in government, and that is exactly--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Burrows, with a very short question. There is approximately 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, when Bill 36 went to committee the presenters told the Minister of Family Services that the bill violates the United Nations covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. It violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada and is akin to an abusive relationship.

I would like to ask this minister and her government, why is she bringing in such undemocratic legislation? Why is she abusing the poor, as the presenter said? Why is this government proceeding with this kind of legislation that is clearly an attack on the poor?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I do thank my honourable friend for that question, although I do not thank him for the manner in which he put the question forward. But I would like to indicate to all Manitobans what we have said many, many times before, that the best form of social security for Manitobans is a job. What we have done as a government over the last eight years in office is set the economic climate for investment in Manitoba so that jobs can be created and Manitobans can work. We want to help as much as possible those people that have become dependent on social allowance as their only hope, to change that dependency and make them become independent, productive members of society with our assistance, and Bill 36 will help to facilitate that process.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.