Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon 15 visitors from Mulvey School and William Whyte School from the CEDA Taking Charge! program under the direction of Mrs. Doreen Szor. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) and the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.
All-Party Committee
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, we have agreed with the government's opposition to the Devils Lake project, and we have concurred with the decisions made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the government on the impact of biota transfer to Manitoba with this project.
Madam Speaker, in reading the bill over the last week or so--the appropriation bill--we note that it includes close to $5 million for the construction of the channel restoration project. We know that this appropriation bill is conditional upon the Army Corps of Engineers stating that there is an emergency, but we note that the Army Corps of Engineers have stated that there has been an emergency in this area for some two years now. I would like to ask the Premier: will he convey or initiate an all-party group to look at the information that he has and we have obtained, and will he look at a citizen approach similar to what we used in the Garrison Diversion work?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I thank the member opposite for his question, as well as his letter of Friday in which he provided me with some of that information. I would just indicate to him that as he points out the good work of not only our Intergovernmental Affairs staff in this area, but also I would indicate that this is an area that has been fully pursued and vigorously pursued by the Foreign Affairs department of the Canadian government, Ambassador Raymond Chretien, and certainly our Consul General in Minneapolis, as well Minister Lloyd Axworthy. So there have been many, many people attending meetings and providing us with as much information as possible.
He refers to an appropriation bill that was passed by Congress. Actually, there are two. One provided five million for an engineering study; the other provides five million for construction provided certain strict conditions are met, and a National Environmental Policy Act review must be completed before any construction can begin. This process would take about 29 months.
* (1335)
The President's Council on Environmental Quality has indicated it will not declare an emergency in order to short cut the NEPA process. So we are looking at a considerable length of time for this to mature. We are also, I think, relying on the best advice that we can have to be involved. So rather than up the level of awareness or at least the level of involvement to a series of meetings or trips to Washington, at this point I think my preference would be--and I appreciate very much the offer made by the Leader of the Opposition--to let the various different elements of the opposition continue their process.
As the member knows, I met with Governor Schafer, Governor of North Dakota, as recently as a couple of weeks ago. I would rather that we left that all-party and all-citizens groups alternative to a point where we feel that it is necessary.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We note that the U.S. process runs right through the construction phase in the appropriation bill and in the North Dakota State Water Commission bulletin that was circulated in North Dakota, but it does not refer to the IJC process.
Madam Speaker, we have been informed that there has been no formal request for this matter to be before the IJC. We have been informed that there have been informal memos that have moved across to the IJC. I would like to ask the Premier: has there been a formal request for this matter to be before the International Joint Commission made by the Foreign Affairs department of Canada?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I do not believe there has been a formal request. Certainly the IJC remains as the major vehicle by which something of this nature could be stopped in the end. I want to point out though to the Leader of the Opposition that this is by no means a slam dunk in the American process because one particular state is putting a lot of pressure on particular groups in Washington. It does not mean to say that, even in the American process, there is any assurance that they would get their way.
He should be aware that the state of Minnesota is on record as opposing any outlet from Devils Lake to the Cheyenne. The state of Missouri in fact led opposition to the funding bills in Congress and succeeded in having significant preconditions introduced to the bills. As well, the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, the Inland Rivers, Ports, and Terminals Inc. have all passed resolutions against or expressed opposition to any outlet to the Cheyenne, and in fact the Spirit Lake First Nation has claimed ownership of the entire lake and insists on the completion of any environmental, social and economic impact assessment studies prior to construction. So there are many, many, many hoops that have to be gone through, many other potential areas of rejection or restriction. So the reference to the IJC would occur only if all these other things failed. Many of them, as I say, are process requirements in the United States.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Many of these same groups opposed the Garrison Diversion project which was ultimately proposed by North Dakota and of course was of considerable concern and potential damage to Manitoba. The Audubon Society, South Dakota and Minnesota, many other states, opposed the Garrison Diversion project, but yet Manitoba had to deal directly with Congress and Senate to stop the appropriations going to North Dakota for the Garrison Diversion. We would think that the earliest possible formal intervention with the IJC would be prudent.
Madam Speaker, we are also aware that the Garrison Diversion Technical Committee met on April 29 in Minneapolis. Was this matter raised, and can the Premier report back who attended the meeting and what success--were there any discussions on this project, and were there any results from that meeting?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, my understanding of this would be that the IJC would need an actual proposal to examine. They would need to have documents, technical design to be able to evaluate, and that, at the moment, I do not believe is in that stage. There is a series of predesigns, a series of alternatives, a series of different things that are not a firm proposal such as we had in Garrison where we had in fact the entire design of the system that was going to be constructed. That is not at that stage yet, so all of these other different aspects would have to be examined, including the site referred to, the 29-month process of environmental assessment. I would say that my judgment would be that the IJC would not even touch it until all of these other things had been first done. That is why we are pursuing all avenues of this particular approach to it.
I would say the bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that we are not going to take any risks in this, but we are going to follow due process. That is the only way in which you can deal with something of this nature, is to follow due process. If we were to subvert or to avoid due process in this, we would be as much to be criticized by our American neighbours as we would be critical of them. So we must follow it step by step through due process so that we have firm legal grounds for any steps that we take and not just do it on a political basis.
Compensation
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, last week Manitobans were distressed to hear that our Health ministers were not able to resolve the hepatitis C question but merely passed the issue on to a working committee, perhaps the same working committee that first recommended that compensation cover only the period from 1986 to 1990. The ministers know all the arguments. Clearly people with hepatitis C need action, not working committees, not delay and not study. So I would like to ask the Minister of Health, did he--because one day our Premier (Mr. Filmon) intimated in the hall after Question Period that his government would consider extending compensation--put some cash on the table and agree to extend the compensation period? What position did our minister take when he was in Ottawa?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member. It is certainly very timely, given it is the first time we have met since the meeting in Ottawa. I can tell the member--and we will have a chance to discuss this in greater detail, I am sure, in one form or another. But, as I have indicated publicly, what the meeting in Ottawa was, was the first, I think, of what will be a number of meetings on this particular issue. The second point I made--it was very clear from the provinces who were in attendance that the government of Ontario, the government of Quebec and the federal government are very much involved in a battle of the Titans as to who will be doing what. I am not going to get into the motivation between any of those particular players at this time, but the smaller provinces who are certainly there--and our Premier has indicated very clearly, and I conveyed that message at the meeting, that should a national program come out of this process, Manitoba of course will be a part of that. But there is a very colossal battle going on now between the governments of Quebec and Ontario with the national government, and my feeling is it is going to take some weeks to evolve.
* (1345)
Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, will the minister table the composition of the former and current working committees so that we can determine if there is any hope for progress or if the same old committee will come to the same old conclusion?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, ultimately this decision will be made by governments and ministers, but as we have discussed on many occasions, to have any national program in this area would require a significant contribution from the national government. They have not yet indicated that they were prepared to do that. They, I think rightly so, want to firm up numbers and the kind of assessment of what that program would involve. Two provinces in attendance at the meeting, the government of Quebec and the government of Ontario, both governments took positions and are involved, I believe, in a battle with Ottawa right now as to who will be paying how much. Out of that battle may emerge a contribution from the national government. We are prepared certainly to be part of all the talks and processes that go along. Should a national program emerge, our Premier (Mr. Filmon) has indicated, and I have conveyed that message, Manitoba would, if it is a reasonable and fair program, want to be part of it.
Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister: since Ontario and Quebec have taken positions, would he take a position? I want to ask the minister again if he will agree to the compassionate recommendations of Justice Horace Krever and offer a Manitoba compensation package to pre-1986 victims just as his colleagues in other jurisdictions have done. What is his position? We do not know.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, we have said over and over again that should a national program develop, the Province of Manitoba would want to be part of that program. To be very blunt to members opposite who call across the way, the key to any national program is if the federal government is prepared to make a significant contribution. They were not there at that meeting to do that; they wanted to explore options. The government of Ontario and the government of Quebec have both made statements about unilateral programs, and quite frankly the amount of money that they have offered would not in any way satisfy the demands without a federal contribution. So all of the smaller provinces, or most of us, I believe, are of the view that as the battle goes on between Queen's Park and Ottawa about who will be paying what, that that battle should develop, and when we know what the national government is prepared to do and what other provinces are prepared to do for a national program, Manitoba, who would account for less than 2 percent of any package, would then likely be part of it.
Unlicensed Blood Products
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, last week in the Legislature we raised the issue of the fact that institutions and facilities in Manitoba were using unlicensed blood products and delivering it to patients. We advised the minister that we believed these patients were getting these unlicensed products without patient consent, and we asked the minister to review the situation since he is responsible as the Minister of Health. That was a week ago. It has since been reported that this is in fact happening, as we indicated in the House a week ago. Can the minister outline for us specifically what he is doing as minister with respect to the utilization of unlicensed blood products, specifically albumin and other products in Manitoba?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, after the question was raised by the member for Kildonan, I had opportunity to investigate that particular matter. Let me say, first of all, that the use of blood and blood products is federally regulated, as are pharmaceuticals, et cetera. They are part of a federal responsibility.
I should inform him that both albumin and, I believe, another product are licensed in Canada. The issue, of course, is that the product was not available in Canada, had to be imported from, I believe, the United States, and that required a particular licensing because the company did not have, I believe in one case, a distributor here.
So the products are under the care of Health and Welfare Canada, and they have that responsibility to ensure that the product is safe. That is their responsibility, and we have no reason to believe that they in fact are not living up to their responsibilities.
* (1350)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister not agree, whether it is discussing the hepatitis C compensation, whether it is discussing the use of unlicensed product, the minister's attempt to move all of the responsibility over to the federal government is precisely what Justice Krever recommended against, what Justice Krever indicated was part of the problem, which is one of the reasons why we are in this difficulty in the first place? Why will the minister not take on his responsibility with respect to this issue and take some initiative and some responsibility for matters like this and not try to shirk off his responsibility to the federal government? He has done that with compensation, and he is doing that with this issue as well.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the member for Kildonan, what in fact happens in so many of these cases is when jurisdictions that do not have responsibility interfere in the work of jurisdictions that do, it confuses the issue and ultimately the responsibility. The last time I looked, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of food and food products, pharmaceutical products, blood and blood products rests with Health and Welfare Canada who ensure the standards of care, develop and ensure the enforcement of standards of care for the entire country.
Unless the member is prepared to bring forward some evidence that they are shirking their responsibilities or not living up to them, then why would any minister want to get into their area of jurisdiction? All it does is confuse the issue, and it makes it more difficult for patients to decide their courses of treatment when other people are trying to make an issue out of one that is not the responsibility of this Legislature.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister not recognize that he has made major announcements about the taking over of the new blood agency on September 1, and he will have responsibility, and in fact the province did have responsibility through their Canadian blood agency in the past, and it is the same issue of saying, well, we are not going to cover hepatitis C victims in Manitoba because they are not our responsibility, and yet they are requiring drugs that are not being covered by the province, they are requiring treatment? The minister can, in the interim, until a solution is met with hepatitis C, cover those patients. With respect to a blood agency, he could look into it and ensure that licensed products are not only used in Manitoba, but in the future that we are not in a situation where unlicensed products are being used by Manitobans.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member's comments in this House are not reflective of the reality of the regulation of those products. The member is trying to leave the impression with the public that they are unlicensed products, not safe, being brought into our system. There is a process to deal with products that are not produced in Canada. Under the federal licensing scheme, there are certain provisions to deal with them. Those are being met. So the member tries to scare individuals as if nothing is happening by the federal government when that is not in fact true.
Those products are not licensed--they are in fact licensed in Canada, I understand. These products are being imported. In one case, I believe there is not a distributor for them, so they require a different letter of approval, and it is up to those, whether it be facility or physician, who prescribes that particular product to their patient to ensure that they are informed of that information. But to leave the impression in the record of Manitoba that there is somehow an unsafe product there without any evidence of it is not doing the issue justice.
Apology Request
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Justice. In the ministerial statement by the minister last week in which he compromised the Chief Judge, there was no mention of the basic and essential issue of the whole affair, and that is that, no matter what version of events one believes, the minister broke the law. He breached The Provincial Court Act; he breached the constitutional provision to protect the public from interference by the minister in the appointment of judges.
My question to the minister is: would he explain why his statement failed to even acknowledge that he broke the law, a law that speaks to him alone, and why he has not, at least for starters, apologized, and would he do so now?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I would indicate that I did not break the law. Indeed, the statement as much indicates that. The only person that I saw breaking the law was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who, knowing that certain names were under the legislation not to be released, deliberately released those names. That is unfortunate. So I take issue with the statements of the member.
* (1355)
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would this minister, who has just misled this House--there is no provision about the release of names by anyone except the nominating committee, and when he spoke in the hallway about the names himself--would the minister explain to Manitobans what he sees as the appropriate consequence of a minister of this particular government who has breached the law? Is there no remedy, no result, not even an acknowledgement, not even an apology? Would he just get out of the way of justice so there can be a review of this matter?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition released those names in this House, I walked outside in the hallway and spoke to members of the press at that time. At that time, members of the press raised two names with me. I never raised those names with the press. I think the member is misleading; I was simply responding to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) raised and stated two names.
Gag Order
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, it is embarrassing to tell the Minister of Justice what the law is, but he has got it wrong.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his question now.
Mr. Mackintosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the Minister of Justice tell Manitobans what instructions he gave to his lawyer before he approached the Chief Judge, other than to obtain a gag order on the Chief Judge? Was it also to specifically ensure that the Chief Judge never commented on the fact that the minister broke the law, and was it in fact--well, I will leave it at that. Would he explain what the instructions were?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, to indicate that I, in any way, put or forced a gag order onto the Chief Judge is simply not correct. I have responded to that question in some detail on last date's Question Period.
Compensation
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Krever report clearly indicated that not only did the national government have responsibility but also the provincial government has responsibility. What we have tried previously is to get the provincial government to recognize that the province does have some responsibility here. My question specific to the Minister of Health: will he acknowledge that responsibility and indicate today that there will, in fact, be some form of compensation for individuals infected pre-'86?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): What we have said is that it is very important for these matters to be dealt with on a national basis to ensure Canadians are treated equally across the country. We have also recognized, as a small province that would account for probably less than 2 per cent financially of any package, that those who bear the lion's share of the funding, because of their size or their role, would have to come forward and indicate what they are prepared to do, et cetera, before a national package would be developed. In Ottawa last week, what we saw was the federal government wanting to do some more work, two provinces making their particular statements. Being the observer and participant in politics, as I have been for 10 years, I recognize that there is a bit of a battle brewing between Ottawa, Queen's Park and Quebec City. We will see them fight it out over the next while, and when the dust settles, it is likely that some national program will evolve.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Health acknowledge that he maybe should not be on the sidelines, that in fact what the Minister of Health should be doing is taking some sort of a role? Will the Minister of Health acknowledge that maybe what this government should be doing is in fact putting on the table--based on the same percentage that they had in the first hepatitis C package, in terms of whatever that next package might be. So, if we contributed 2.5 percent of the package for the original compensation package, maybe that same formula could then be used for the next.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the key players in putting forward or developing a national plan will of course be the governments of Quebec, Ontario and the national government. Mr. Rock did not come to that meeting with a financial offer. We have been his partners of the federal government in developing the first package, which is maintained and will continue. As a consequence, we felt that it was important to work with the national government in moving this forward. Two provinces did not take that particular view, and I suspect there is a political battle to be had there which would take place. A province like Manitoba and others--as our Premier (Mr. Filmon) has said, should a national program emerge, we will be there. If the member would like to be helpful in this debate and advance his position, I would suggest he speak to his friends in the federal Liberal Party.
* (1400)
Mr. Lamoureux: What I am asking the Minister of Health is: is he prepared to look at the same percentage that the Province of Manitoba contributed towards the original compensation package, not the actual dollar amount but the percentage, and apply that sort of a percentage to whatever other compensation package might be there at the end of the day coming down from Ottawa? At least then the government is taking some sort of a leadership role. So we are asking him to make that commitment.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I believe that for provinces such as Manitoba, it is important to take a role in being able to work with all the parties in this dispute on both sides to see if people can be brought together at some point in time as other agendas and other battles evolve in eastern Canada, in essence. That is a role that I think our chair, Mr. Serby, from Saskatchewan, and others, including myself, envision because we have had partnerships with the national government in developing this.
I can tell the member as well, in terms of determining what would be acceptable to the community, in the presentation that was made by two groups representing people suffering with hepatitis C, we had a wide range of numbers as to the number of people who would be affected. We also had one particular organization--when we asked what plan would you have, they said, oh, we have not time to even develop one or suggest it to you. So there is a lot of work to be done, and that is what the working group will be proceeding on.
I say very kindly to him, if he wishes the federal government to take a greater lead role in putting money on the table, I am sure his colleague from his part of the city, Mr. Pagtakhan, would be available to speak with him or others, and he should advance his cause there at this time.
Comments--Apology Request
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the parents of more than 2,500 children in Manitoba's alternative education programs have been described recently by the Minister of Education as, and I quote, yesterday's people. In this Legislature, we are aware that the minister, when in a tight corner, lashes out with name-calling rather than constructive discussion, but in the interests of common courtesy to hundreds of Manitoba parents, I would like to give the minister this opportunity today to withdraw those remarks.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's generous offer. I do indicate, however, that there was no scoffing--I believe was the word used in the paper. The fact is that in preparing students for a future in which testing and evaluation and performance evaluations are every part of every walk of life and every opportunity students might have in a world that is full of change, it is important that we prepare them for a future that enables them to adjust to that and to be familiar with assessment, also that they are prepared along with all the other students in this nationwide, international trend to do proper assessment and evaluation. So I would urge any parents who are thinking of having students exempted to seriously reconsider that decision, take a look at what will best prepare their students for the future so that they are not living by yesterday's standards but rather moving forward to tomorrow.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister be prepared to take my request under advisement, reconsider what I think most people regard as another intemperate dismissal of Manitoba parents as yesterday's people in this case, and write a letter of apology or at least explanation to the provincial association of parents of alternative education in Manitoba?
Mrs. McIntosh: The alternative program is not in conflict with assessment. Last year the parents in the alternative program wrote to me. I replied and explained to them that there is assessment that takes place all through the alternative program, and the provincial exams in no way compromise the integrity of the alternative program. This is not--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington, on a point of order.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, the question was very clear and very concisely put: would the minister apologize for her intemperate comments to the Manitoba parents who have chosen an alternative form of education, instead of calling them yesterday's people? Would she please just apologize? Would you ask the minister to answer that question?
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe the honourable minister was indeed attempting to deal with the issue being raised by honourable members opposite. Honourable members opposite tend from time to time to fall into the habit of wanting to dictate the answers that ministers are to give. I do not think that is the way democracy works. Surely the honourable member for Wellington is not suggesting that we depart from democratic practices such as freedom of speech for members in this House like the honourable Minister of Education and Training.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I am attempting to put a quotation that was in the paper into context, which of course the member is reading for just the actual words that were in the paper, not taking into context there was no criticism of the alternative program or people who believe in the alternative program. We were talking about whether or not assessment is relevant. Assessment is very relevant even for the alternative program.
Madam Speaker, I would be more than willing and delighted to meet with the parents should they ask me for such a meeting. They have not requested a meeting, but I would be delighted to meet with them so that we could clarify for them what was intended in terms of talking about preparing for the future and not condemning children to be without a process of assessment that will give them good diagnosis for future strengths and weaknesses.
Ms. Friesen: I would like the minister to explain why she believes that the alternative programs whose parents are intensely involved in their children's education, whose curriculum is hands on, uses manipulatives, rewards curiosity, rewards independent thought, why is this the product of yesterday's people?
Mrs. McIntosh: The alternative program and those who believe in it have a very good basis for believing in that program. What I am attempting to indicate, Madam Speaker, is that denying a child the opportunity to be assessed and diagnosed because of the educational program they are in is a shame for that child. That child has the right, just as a child who might be healthy for all outward appearances whose parents wish to take them for an annual check-up just to make sure that they are indeed as healthy as they appear to be. Assessment is that simple. It is not a punitive thing; it is not a grading thing. It is a diagnosis that will enable those who are involved in any kind of educational program to understand the strengths and weaknesses, individualized student profiles for each child identifying the knowledge that they have gained and their ability to apply it. That is the diagnosis that the teachers in any program can use, including the alternative program. It is a program for the future as well as yesterday.
* (1410)
Bidding Process--Hardware
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Madam Speaker, this government concocted a bidding system that was designed for conglomerates and against small Manitoba companies by virtue of a rigged evaluation system designed to give the higher price supplier the edge.
Why will this minister not tell us whether the successful hardware bidder had the lowest price per computer for the actual hardware provided?
Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): I just want to inform the honourable member that certainly cost is a very important part of any contract that the government may go out with the proposal. However, it is not the only thing that government has to look at with regard to a contract. There are those things such as the technical parts of the contract that have to be conformed to, the qualifications of the supplier, what kind of product quality are we going to have in terms of the whole contract. Yes, cost is very important and it constitutes a significant part of the contract, but is not the whole contract, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask this minister: why is it so hard for this government to admit that it did not accept the lowest-cost bid from the 11 hardware people that supplied bids? Why can he not admit it?
Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, when the request for a proposal is put out and the contract is bid on, with regard to the evaluation of the contract, basically the criteria are used to score each company or contractor that puts a bid in on a proposal. On that basis, you go through those criteria, and that in essence is the bottom line for making a choice with respect to a contractor. Certainly, in many cases, it just so happens that the contractor that is chosen does indeed have the lowest cost. However, there are other contracts within government where lowest cost may not give us the product specifications but certainly would be the cheapest and therefore, in terms of responding to the request for proposal, does not meet the criteria. So that is why the evaluation criteria are set up to be able to give an overall score and weighting to each proposal.
Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask this minister why this government would choose a higher-cost hardware supplier when a Manitoba firm could have saved Manitoba a hundred jobs and millions of dollars. Would he now release the point system that they used to decide who got this contract?
Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, I think some time ago I shared with the honourable member across the way what the point system was with regard to weighting. So I think that information is already on the record. But I point out again that when you put down a product specification, product quality that you require, in most cases the contract will go to the lowest cost, but there are circumstances where to meet those specifications that it is not always the lowest cost. So that is why the overall evaluation criteria are put into place to make that selection and to help the committee that is struck to make that selection, make their choice very carefully on the basis of a number of parts of the proposal, not just the cost alone.
Mr. Maloway: On a new question to the same minister, I would like to point out to the minister that he has not provided what has been asked, and that is a copy of the point system for each of these hardware bidders. He has just provided a very general sort of outline as to what they use to decide. For example, Madam Speaker, they only allocated 15 percent of the point system to the cost of this product, whereas they allocated 25 percent to general qualifications and another 25 percent to product quality. Very nebulous concepts at best. I would like to ask this minister to release the scores for each of the manufacturers so we can clearly see who was the winner.
Mr. Pitura: You know, with regard to this contract in the way of desktop management, certainly general qualifications were an important part of the whole process because this was a desktop rollout across the government which was going to provide a seamless connection between all departments of government. I point out that that is the first time in the history of this government, and probably most governments in Canada, where we are going to have that seamless connection between all departments. So we are truly heading into the information technology era.
So, Madam Speaker, the ability to have the qualifications to be able to manage that desktop system, the ability to have after-product services and the ability to give us the management of the desktop technology that we require in terms of the evaluation criteria was very carefully laid out and evaluated, and that was the reason for our choice.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.