4th-36th Vol. 62-Oral Questions

Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members firstly to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Mr. Zhou Xingbao, Consul General of the People's Republic of China.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Also seated in the public gallery, we have twenty-three Grade 9 students from Rosenort School under the direction of Mr. Grant Plett. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura).

We also have twenty-five Grade 5 students from Lord Roberts Community School under the direction of Mrs. Terry Welsh. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

Also, thirteen Grade 5 students from Sister MacNamara School under the direction of Ms. Karla Yallits. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). And sixteen Grade 5 students from Sister MacNamara School under the direction of Ms. Louise Chudy. This school is also located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

* (1335)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Speaker belongs to all members of the House, not just the government but also to all opposition members. In 1997, the Alberta Legislature proceeded to have an elected Speaker with the secret ballot, and just a couple of weeks ago in 1998, Nova Scotia proceeded to have an elected Speaker through a secret ballot.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier: will he support the election of a Speaker in this Chamber, and will he support a private member New Democratic bill that will bring us into the 21st Century for an elected Speaker in the Chamber?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am on record as saying that I believe that that is a matter that should be the subject of a policy announcement prior to the next election campaign, that that is something that I am open to consideration of. I understand that it can be accomplished in Manitoba by a simple change of our rules, so there is no need even to pass legislation.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the United Kingdom, England, has an elected Speaker in their Chamber. The House of Commons in the late '80s moved towards an elected Speaker. It is now a race between Manitoba and Newfoundland to be the last province in Canada to move away from a patronage Speaker to a duly elected democratic Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier, because it is now before the election I would suppose, to have an elected Speaker by secret ballot of all MLAs. What is the Premier waiting for? Does he want to be last to move into an elected Speaker and keep a patronage Speaker in place?

Mr. Filmon: I remind the member opposite, and theatrics aside, that our Speaker has been selected in the same fashion as all previous Speakers in the history of this Legislature. Indeed, my recollection is that you, Madam Speaker, were elected unanimously, and in fact, I was very proud to escort you to your chair with the Leader of the Opposition on the other side, demonstrating the support of all members for your selection. So I think we should eliminate the theatrics and deal realistically with the situation.

Mr. Doer: We look forward to being the second-last province. Hopefully the Premier will not wait much longer, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have a new question to the government. Madam Speaker, we have been raising the issues of workloads in Child and Family Services for the last four years, and we have been raising the issues of the workload and stress with Crown attorneys over the last year. We have called on an external operational review for Crown attorneys, and yesterday in the House, although the minister did not proceed to our recommendation, he did say he would be meeting with Crown attorneys to try to deal with this situation.

I would like to ask the Premier: will he ask his Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to meet with the front-line social workers in Child and Family Services to deal with the crushing workloads that these workers have, to deal with the crushing challenges that our kids have in our communities? Will he take some initiative to deal with the workloads of Child and Family Services workers, and will he make that commitment in the Chamber today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member opposite makes the case, as usual, by fuzzifying the facts. There is a vast difference between the Crown attorneys who work directly for the Department of Justice, our civil servants whose ultimate authority in management is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), and the Child and Family Services agencies which are independent agencies funded by government, with not only their own management but their own board of directors who select that management. So the employing authority for those social workers, for those front-line workers, is in fact the management and the board of that agency.

That has been explained to the members opposite when they have raised this issue over the past week, that that agency is undertaking a strategic planning process that will involve the management, the directors and indeed the employees of those Child and Family Services agencies, and that is the way the process should be.

We know what things were like in the old days when the members opposite from the cabinet room used to set the Autopac rates, used to get into the involvement directly of management of the corporation, where the minister was the chair of Autopac. That is why the taxpayers are faced with a $2-million lawsuit because of the manner in which they handled things by politically making decisions that were inappropriate.

We have a proper system in place, and we will follow the lines of responsibility and authority.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is this Premier who brought in legislation to deal with the creation of the existing Child and Family Services branch of Winnipeg. It is this Premier who took all the community-based wings of the Child and Family Services of Winnipeg with hundreds of volunteers and combined it into one agency. It is this Premier who has been responsible for 71,000 kid days in hotels and short-term shelters in the last year. It is this Premier who is responsible for the care and custody of children under The Child and Family Services Act. He cannot wash his hands of his responsibility, and I say shame, shame on him for washing his hands--for the kids of this province.

I would like to ask the Premier: does it not make just as much sense to show urgency, to deal with the crushing workloads of caseloads for Child and Family Services workers and have a solution in place in two to three weeks, as we allegedly will have for the Crown attorneys? Does it not make just as much sense to have prevention, to prevent kids from being taken into care, to prevent kids from having to go to the courts? Does it not make more sense or equal sense to have those resources in place in the next two to three weeks with leadership from this government, which is sadly lacking by this Premier?

Mr. Filmon: Well, Madam Speaker, I remember when the member opposite was the president of the MGEU, and he was a very significant critic of the former New Democratic government's experiment, which he called the Philadelphia model, of decentralizing Child and Family Services. He used to tell me what a terrible system they were creating by following the Philadelphia experiment in those days, and now he is holding that up as the model that we should go back to. That is the kind of two-faced approach that we get from the Leader of the Opposition who says anything any time, if he thinks he can make some cheap political points out of it. That is not the way we are going to go in this province.

Mr. Doer: The Premier did not answer the question, because I asked a very serious question about the issue of kids in care, the 71,000 child days in short-term shelters and short-term hotel stays. I asked questions and we have been asking questions for the last three or four weeks about the crushing workloads.

I am pleased the Premier has now decided to stand up and answer questions on this issue, because he has been ducking for some three to four weeks. Now that he is answering questions on the issue, which we think is a step forward, will he not acknowledge that preventing kids from coming into the justice system through having enough resources to allow children to stay and have adequate care in the community, to have enough resources for proper workloads for our Child and Family Services agencies makes just as much sense as putting the resources in place to ensure that our justice system operates in an expeditious way in our system?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I may not have answered directly the member's question, but I certainly identified his two-faced approach to issues, and that is what is embarrassing him right now.

Madam Speaker, indeed--

* (1345)

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Still in the lead, Gary.

Madam Speaker, indeed this government believes that it is important to set up a system that serves the needs of our children and our families in Manitoba and that protects those individuals. It is a very important responsibility which we do not take lightly. That is why, having given the authority and the responsibility to Child and Family Services agencies to develop not only the network, the plans and the foundation for serving those children's needs, we ought to make sure that we observe their strategic planning exercise and that we ensure that, in taking our evidence and in taking our direction, we use the best information possible, that information that will come out of the strategic planning exercise that will then dictate what directions we take and indeed what resources we apply to the task at hand, and that is what we will do.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to remind the Premier and the Minister of Family Services that the reason we are asking these questions is that a child died and there is an inquest going on, and it has been very clearly shown in testimony that one of the reasons that this child died was that front-line workers have too many cases. The Premier refers to the strategic planning process. The workers asked the CEO of Winnipeg Child and Family Services to have a workload review and they were told, no, that that was not part of the strategic planning process.

So I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services: will she initiate a workload review, because it could save lives in the future and because the testimony suggests that that is one of the reasons that this child died? So will the Minister of Family Services initiate a workload review?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for the question, but I would like to caution him that we are in the process of an inquest, and I am not at liberty to discuss any issues around that inquest. I cannot take the liberty that the member for the--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I want to indicate again that I am not at liberty, like my honourable friend is at liberty, to take certain pieces of an inquest and speak publicly on those issues. I, as the minister responsible, have to wait for the final report from the inquest and the recommendations that might come forward from that inquest, but, Madam Speaker, we have not been standing still. In my department, we have restructured and reorganized and certainly have rewritten standards and ensured that there is a greater compliance focus from my department on the Child and Family Services agencies.

I know that there is new leadership at the Winnipeg agency, and they are going through a strategic planning process. I know that the new CEO of the agency wants to ensure that children are protected in all cases, and he is working towards the end result of better services for children and families in Winnipeg.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if she is saying that not only will she not comment on the inquest but that she is prepared to do absolutely nothing, instead of implementing a workload review which would be an internal process. She does not have to say anything; we just want her to do something. Will she do it now?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I have tried to indicate in my answers over the last several weeks that indeed there is a process in place to look at the way child and family services are delivered in the city of Winnipeg. Another piece that has been ongoing since February is a bringing together of many members of the aboriginal community, given that the high numbers of children in the city of Winnipeg are of aboriginal background and origin. We have brought together the AMC, the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Social Planning Council, the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency to look at more appropriate ways to deal with the issue of increasing aboriginal children in the agency.

So, Madam Speaker, we are not standing still. We are moving to try to ensure that the services and the appropriate services are there and available for children and families that need them.

* (1350)

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services who surely knows that, since baby Sophia's death in January 1996, 16 children have been killed in Manitoba, 11 of them at the hands of parents or guardians, is she saying that things are so bad and the caseload is so great that there are legal foul-ups in the process and the result is that people are getting custody of children where they should not get custody? Is the minister saying she is willing to do nothing about this, instead of having a workload review?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I can indicate to my honourable friend that the new CEO at the Winnipeg agency is very aware of the issues in the Child and Family Services system. I have said many times, Madam Speaker, that, no, we do not have a perfect system. I believe that the agency, with its independent board, does need to make the strategic planning decisions that will improve the services for children and families in Winnipeg. I am confident that they are working towards that end goal.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): When the Children and Youth Secretariat was created approximately four years ago, the original mandate was to implement and co-ordinate the implementation of the Postl report. This government is picking and choosing which recommendations to implement, and the recommendations they are not implementing are turning out to be life-and-death recommendations.

I want to ask the minister to explain why her department has not followed the recommendation of the Postl report to increase the prevention expenditures to 10 to 15 percent and the family support expenditures to 35 to 40 percent of the budget. These were not to be pilot projects; they were to be system changes.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question. I know that we are going to be into the Estimates of the Child and Youth Secretariat later on today, and we will have an opportunity to discuss in detail the accomplishments of the Children and Youth Secretariat, the number of recommendations from the Postl report that have been implemented and the action that we continue to take.

I want to indicate that over $20 million that was put in this year's budget for children and families on the prevention and early intervention side is new money and new initiatives. My honourable friends sometimes criticize pilot projects, but we have indicated that those pilot projects are projects that are starting off with stable funding that will be continued year after year. But the reason they are pilots is that we want to evaluate, on an ongoing basis, how well we are doing, what the outcomes are, how families are being served better.

If we need to adjust the way we do those programs--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister, to quickly complete her response.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Our government has clearly indicated that those will be ongoing programs, but we want to evaluate and measure the outcomes on a regular basis. The important piece for our government is that the programs work.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I would like to ask the minister if she will acknowledge or does she know that what is actually going on in her department in Child and Family Services agencies is that staff intended to do prevention work and family support are being drawn into protection work because the caseloads for protection are so high.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I know that in the past the whole focus on prevention has been with the Child and Family Services agencies. Madam Speaker, our Families First document and the consultation we did with the community indicated that community wanted to take a greater responsibility, that there were many people out there in our communities that had some of the answers around how to prevent and do early intervention so that children did not need the services of the Child and Family Services system. The new money that we have put in is going to community, based on--and I know my honourable friends may be critical, but I know in many of their constituencies there are community organizations that have received the funding from the $20 million that we have put in place to do the early intervention and the prevention. We have to ensure that the Child and Family Services agencies are working with those community organizations. The prevention is the responsibility for all Manitobans, not just one segment of Manitoba, and we need to work together to ensure that the new programs are complementing what the agency is doing.

* (1355)

Ms. Cerilli: My final question for the same minister is: will she admit or does she know that any budget increases in her department intended for prevention are being spent on protection work, in hotels and for the high caseloads for the numbers of cases of kids in care and protection in Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I want to indicate that we are funding the Winnipeg agency at $63 million this year, significantly up from when the NDP were in government, over double--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We have over doubled the amount of money that we provide to the Winnipeg agency in the years that we have been in government, but over and above that this year, there is another $20 million in new money for community organizations, many times in partnerships with our Child and Family Services agencies, to do the early intervention and the prevention that is needed to ensure that children get off to a healthy start to life, children have the opportunities, even when they come from disadvantaged families, to grow and thrive, enter our school system ready to learn and become contributing members of society.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I was quite disappointed in the Minister of Education's (Mrs. McIntosh) response to the question. In essence, it reaffirmed the government's position of do nothing and defending the great status quo with respect to the school divisions. There are many inequities that are there as a result of this government's inaction. I am asking and appealing to the Minister of Finance to address one of those. Over the years, north end residents have paid millions of dollars more in property taxes as a direct result of this government's inaction. Because the Minister of Education refuses to take any action, is the Minister of Finance prepared to address that particular issue?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster has asked similar questions in the past, and we have had discussions about the make-up of our property tax bills in Manitoba, in his constituency.

I think, as he knows, about half of the property tax bill does relate to education tax, and of that education tax, roughly half of it is levied by the province through the education support levy. We have basically maintained that levy at the same amount over the last many budgets. We have not increased the education support levy at all in the province of Manitoba. The other half is the special levy which is levied by the individual school divisions, and those are decisions that the individual school divisions make in terms of the programs they feel they need to offer, the priorities that they put in place.

In this last budget, we did increase funding for education in Manitoba, we did increase funding for those school divisions, and that is obviously of benefit to those school divisions.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what I am asking the minister is to recognize that there are a number of people that live in the north end, all north end residents almost, that are paying a disproportionate amount of money towards school division tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance: because the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and this government are not taking action on the school division issue, is the Minister of Finance prepared to address the inequities of the tax burden that north end residents are having to pay because of this government's failure to address this issue of division alignment?

Mr. Stefanson: Again, Madam Speaker, I believe the education support levy, which is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, is levied uniformly across Manitoba. It is the special levy. It is a decision of the individual school divisions based on their priorities, their expenditures, their collective bargaining with the teachers and other employees, the programs they want to put in place and so on. So those are decisions made by individual school boards right across this province, and I am wondering where the member for Inkster is heading and what individual suggestions he has in this area if he is suggesting there are inequities.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Finance to acknowledge the way in which we finance health care, as an example, if you like, and education is another social service that is being provided. There are mechanisms that this government has, and my question is: why, through the years, has this government refused to acknowledge those mechanisms and address this very serious issue where north end residents are paying an unfair portion of financing education? Why is this government refusing to use those mechanisms?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, I would welcome the suggestions from the member as to what mechanisms he is referring to, but I again remind him that, of the education levy on our property taxes, roughly half of that is the education support levy, and we have not increased that levy over virtually all of our budgets. So, again, the decision that we directly impact in terms of the education support levy, that levy has been held uniform for the last several budgets. It has not increased the property taxes of individual Manitobans or the people in his constituency.

The special levy, roughly 25 percent of our property taxes, is the levy that is there for the autonomy of individual school divisions to give them a revenue source for the priorities that they believe need to be addressed. Again, if there are adjustments taking place relative to the school division he represents to other school divisions in Winnipeg or across Manitoba, many of those are reflected as a result of the individual decisions being made by that school board.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, we have before the Legislature two bills that provide the Department of Health with the authority to charge manufacturers costs. In the province of Ontario, the Ontario government has put in place a regulation that permits the government to charge to manufacturers of drugs the cost of any projected overruns in the use of drugs that are on the formulary in Ontario.

My question to the Minister of Health: is the Minister of Health anticipating planning or is it part of his process that the government of Manitoba is similarly planning to charge manufacturers costs for overutilization, overuse of drugs that are listed on the formulary or are listed in a plan by manufacturers that goes to the Province of Manitoba.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the member's reference to the bills in the Legislature with respect to the cost of processing their applications to be included in our formulary is part of the cost-recovery process there.

The question with respect to the policy announcement in Ontario was a very apt one. That has not been a matter that we have contemplated in our planning. This is a policy initiative in Ontario that is somewhat new. We have not had an opportunity to discuss it with the Ontario Health minister as to their rationale, logic and detailed planning behind it. But I can tell the member at this particular time, it is not a particular matter that has been under study or review within the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the minister with respect to pharmaceuticals. There is no doubt there has been a major delay with respect to the utilization and getting the Betaseron program off the ground and running, doing a disservice to those patients who require it.

Regardless of who the minister blames for it, can the minister outline for me whether or not he will now put in place a plan for those other MS drugs that are coming on stream so that those victims and patients who require those drugs will not have to go through the delays in order to get the much-needed drugs that they require with respect to MS, or for that matter, other ailments, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the honourable member for Kildonan with respect to Betaseron. It is not a matter of blaming any individual groups. The plan, of course, was to have the MS Clinic host this particular process. They have one physician; when we started, they had two. That has created some difficulty, because the case with Betaseron and with other potential drugs that may have approval for the formulary is that they do require a physician to be involved in the process.

Part of the challenge that our department is working on with the MS community today is to ensure that we have sufficient physicians who are part of these programs. I am sure the member would agree, that is, the recruitment to the MS Clinic is not a particular matter over which he or I have direct control, but it is the area that has to be addressed. We hope that there will be sufficient resources to deal with future drugs that may be approved.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my question then for the minister: is he putting in place a process at the department and through the formulary program to ensure that these new drugs that are coming on stream can be expeditiously approved and a system put in place so that we do not have the wait not only for the approval that took a long time, but as well as for the implementation that is also taking a long time?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the concern that the member has in this area is one that I certainly share. That is why, in fact, we have made changes to the formulary approval process that has allowed for a greater number of approval time periods during the course of the year so that we can make adjustments on a much speedier basis. That is also the reason why we implemented a yellow light approval process for drugs that are in that gray area, in essence, of not knowing whether they should be approved or not. The committee then can recommend a test or pilot. Betaseron is the first. One thing that we are learning out of this is we obviously have to have a host for those pilots that has a sufficient physician base to handle the demand, and that is something we are attempting to work on with the appropriate bodies. But I appreciate the member's concern. It is one that I share.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, evidence mounts daily that the government misled Manitobans seriously in their promise of no harmful consequences from the sale of MTS. The CRTC has said what every broker knew, that the company was sold much too cheaply. We learned a couple of weeks ago that rates are going to have to go up $38 million, $6 a phone, just to cover the income taxes as a result of privatization. Now it is clear that our concerns about service to rural and northern customers of the telephone company are being realized. They face ruinous increases. I want to--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I think I cannot be accused of intervening too often in this place with respect to the management of the Question Period, but honourable members know, on both sides, that there are Question Period guidelines. We are reminded about them almost every day. I could be talking about the honourable member who is on his feet now or one or two others this afternoon who have been asking questions. There is a tendency not to follow the guidelines. One of those guidelines calls for a well-drawn sentence as part of your preamble, or another one calls for not being repetitive when it comes to asking the questions, asking one question at a time and not--sometimes we have heard as many as three or four or five questions at one issue. I think the honourable member here--[interjection] The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) says he has not got to his question, but he had completed three complete statements before he even--

An Honourable Member: It was one sentence.

Mr. McCrae: No, it was not. It was three separate sentences. I was counting them, and Hansard will bear me out. Are we going to get three questions to follow? Madam Speaker, that is my point of order.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, indeed, I would agree. Our question, according to Beauchesne 409, should be a question, should seek information, be brief and comply with the rules and practices of the House.

Madam Speaker: I would ask that the honourable member for Crescentwood please pose his question now.

Mr. Sale: I will try to be brief. Will the Minister responsible for telecommunications tell the House why he did not even bother to go to Thompson to represent the needs of northern Manitobans and remote and rural users of the telephone system when the Minister responsible for the Saskatchewan system was there in person? Why could he not even drive down the street and use the video link?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I am sure the member will agree we had a very reasoned and responsible submission to make to CRTC with regard to high-cost areas, and a staffperson, the Telecom policy officer, made the presentation. It would have been no different if I had been there. The position was thought-out, presented on paper and submitted to the commission, which they will review and respond to over the course of time.

* (1410)

Mr. Sale: In the presentation, why does the minister feel it necessary to say, and I quote: No less important to the interests of those living and working in rural and remote communities is the knowledge that the delivery of their service will not be terminated.

Why is he concerned that their service may be terminated, Madam Speaker?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I am sure everybody in this House is concerned about where costs will go in terms of delivering services, basic services and high-quality basic services, to citizens all over Manitoba. I do not think it is fair that MTS or other Stentor companies should be required to pay the extra costs to get the last mile. All players in the telecom industry should be part and parcel of paying the costs to do that, because they want to run their messages over those lines. So that is why we are making the presentation, to be sure that both the basic telecom providers and the citizens receiving that telecommunication service are treated fairly and reasonably in the overall evolution of the telecommunications industry in Canada.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, is the government, then, finally acknowledging that its theories that markets can do everything, that there is no problem when we just privatize, everybody will get service, were in fact wrong, that we need to find ways of providing fair, equitable and affordable services for all Manitobans and that the market cannot do that? Is he now finally admitting that?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the answer is an emphatic no. Because CRTC, as a regulator, has introduced competition to the country which has led to a 70 percent reduction in long-distance rates which every consumer benefits from, it is in the process of rebalancing. I can guarantee you, compare apples to apples across this country, Manitoba citizens, whether in the city of Winnipeg or rural locations, have the lowest total cost telecommunication services in the country when you consider the reduction in long distance along with the increased cost for local service. The evolution has been positive for the consumers of Manitoba.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Government Services and concerns the $150-million computer contract between this government and SHL and the hardware contract for the 7,000 computers. Unsuccessful bidders are looking for answers from this minister as to how vendor presence was defined, which accounted for 25 percent of the points assigned. They want to know why vendor presence counted for 25 percent of the points, which heavily favoured IBM, and the price of the equipment provided counted for only 15 percent, which again favoured IBM, which was one of the highest-priced bidders.

Will he now come out of hiding and give the bidders in this House a definition of vendor presence so we might try to understand why IBM was given such a helping hand?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): I would just like to clarify for the honourable member's information that he has indicated that cost was a 50 percent requirement; it is actually a total of 35 percent of the total evaluation criteria. If the member is talking about vendor presence, there is also vendor stability, there is level of technological investment, investment in research and development, delivery capabilities and commitments and performance bonding, which all contributed to the general aspect of the general qualifications area, so vendor presence was a very small part of the overall general qualifications. I look forward to the member in discussion in Estimates and going through this in a much more detailed way.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what he confirmed: that several companies, including at least one Manitoba company, quoted lower prices than IBM for the actual hardware provided.

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): With regard to the overall contract, I have to remind the honourable member opposite that the Province of Manitoba entered into a contract with Systemhouse for the provision of services, and that is totally a desktop management service.

With respect to the contract that was signed between Systemhouse and IBM, that was a separate contract and is part of their ongoing commitment or their commitment within the contract to the Province of Manitoba to supply the province with the necessary hardware to make sure that we had a totally managed desktop environment.

Mr. Maloway: The minister just refuses to answer any of the questions. I would like to ask him a final supplementary.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Will the honourable member please pose his question now.

Mr. Maloway: I would like the minister to tell this House whether he can confirm that a B.C. company was actually the lowest-priced bidder for the actual hardware provided?

Mr. Pitura: I would just like to re-emphasize again for my honourable friend that, with regard to the overall contract that was issued with the Province of Manitoba, that contract is between Systemhouse and the Province of Manitoba. Systemhouse--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I cite Citation 417--

Madam Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order--that indicates answers to questions should be concise and not provoke debate. Madam Speaker, I have patiently listened through three questions by the member for Elmwood, which the minister has refused to answer. The minister may not have to answer the question, but he should not go off and provoke debate.

I remind you of your earlier ruling with respect to questions by our members when you admonished us to get to the point and get to the question. I ask you to call the government to order and ask the minister to do likewise.

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker. I too was listening very carefully, as was the honourable member for Kildonan, and frankly at the moment he rose on his point of order there was no disorder in this House. People were listening carefully to what the honourable minister was saying. He was not provocative. There was no debate that was being provoked, certainly not by what the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura) was saying.

The Minister of Government Services was indeed dealing with the issue being raised by the honourable member for Elmwood. I find no point of order here, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), indeed the honourable member did have a point of order. I would remind the honourable minister to respond to the question asked.

Mr. Pitura: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just add to my honourable friend across the way that we are in the middle of the Estimates process, and I look forward to having further discussion during that process with my honourable friend.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. The minister will recall I wrote him a month ago suggesting that the Mining Reserve Fund account could be headquartered in Lynn Lake. Since then he and I have received support for this proposal from many sources, and the minister has said he was seriously considering the proposal. Contrary to the suggestion made yesterday by CIBC PR officers, Lynn Lake is not about to get a private ATM and still Lynn Lake needs banking service, not extra charges to cash cheques.

Could the minister suggest what progress he has made regarding the proposal to move the Mining Reserve Fund to Lynn Lake?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, on the face of it, it sounds like a nice convenient and efficient solution to the dilemma of attracting a financial institution to the community. The rationale, of course, behind the threshold amount for deposit by the credit union movement is that they want to ensure that there is sufficient capacity for the community to, in effect, own, operate and support in local community building ways, the financial institution. So to simply move money in is not the answer, but if they were close to a threshold and a modest deposit, or what would be a relatively significant deposit were to be made, we are prepared to look at that as part of the overall solution, but it is a complex problem.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

* (1420)