Cabinet Ministers
Spousal Travel Expenses
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier.
Madam Speaker, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) has maintained that it is the government's policy that it is acceptable for taxpayers to pay for spousal travel on commercial flights. Minister Praznik, or the Minister of Energy and Mines, last week said, and I quote: It is unacceptable for taxpayers to pay for commercial flights for family members of cabinet ministers. It is totally and absolutely unacceptable.
I would like to ask the Premier: Who was telling us the truth about the policy, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) or the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) of the Province of Manitoba?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the Minister of Energy and Mines was referring to having the spouse along on a business trip by the minister. We have said before that where we are going to things such as conferences--and this was done in the time that the New Democrats were in government where spouses were included on the program, where there are other types of trips in which spouses were included in the program because there were events that specifically included spouses. I talked about the Team Canada mission and so on, that that is certainly part of the policy.
Mr. Doer: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy and Mines, in a supplementary question, where he stated last week on September 10, 1996, that it was absolutely unacceptable for the taxpayers to pay for family members of cabinet ministers and politicians. This is nothing but their own business, he says, and I quote: As long as they are not adding to the cost of the taxpayers, it is acceptable but they must pay the commercial flight travel.
I would like to ask the Minister of Energy and Mines, was he telling us the truth last week on September 10, or has he a new version of the truth as the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) has this week?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to answer that question because as a politician I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows that when one does an interview, only pieces and clips come from that interview.
Madam Speaker, the question was answered in the context of family members travelling with a minister when they had no role or function on that particular trip, and what the Leader of the Opposition does not know--and I appreciate because it was not reported--is that the next question that came after that was, what is the case if there is a role or if there is a business purpose for that family member to travel, in which case I indicated that there were rules, and I had not been in that predicament, but that there were rules that govern those situations.
Spousal Travel Expenses--Tabling Request
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I can read and listen to the two answers given by the Minister of Energy and Mines, and I guess they have all got the Atlanta Olympic disease from the Premier, the First Minister, in terms of his twisting and turning about who paid for his hotel room.
Madam Speaker, a final question to the First Minister. Apparently, this policy on spousal travel during these tough times secretly changed, according to his press secretary, sometime in 1994, sometime after the swearing-in ceremony that the Premier attended for Kim Campbell, and apparently this policy changed secretly in 1994. I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that there is no disclosure in any of the press releases from the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) and other ministers of the Crown on spousal travel, will the Premier today agree to table the taxpayer portion of spousal travel since 1994, the taxpayer-paid portion of the commercial flights and other travel so that all of us will have full disclosure and full accountability, which is allegedly one of the themes of this government? Surely that disclosure starts at the top. Let us get that full disclosure in tabling today.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, there has been no change in policy. The policy that prevails went back through the days when the New Democrats were in government, absolutely went back to the days when the New Democrats were in government, that where there were events that required the attendance of the spouse, that the spouse was there and that took place, I can assure him, during the days of the New Democrats in government and it continues today.
* (1340)
Cabinet Ministers
Spousal Travel Expenses--Tabling Request
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, senior staff of the government, specifically Bonnie Staples, confirmed that there had been a change. Simply, the question was very easy. Will the First Minister table all of the travel since the change took place? A very simple question. Will he now respond?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, there has not been a change. Spouses have been included in travel from the time that New Democrats were in government all the way back to the time when, for instance, annual Premiers' conferences were begun. They were at that time to include spouses, and spouses have travelled for those annual Premiers' conferences throughout several decades and there has been no change.
Cabinet Ministers
Spousal Travel Expenses
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier.
Will the Deputy Premier, in spite of his attempts to mislead Manitobans, who now has told us that he caused his senior staff to use significant resources to carve out a role for his wife well before the trip left Canada--and while they were away he also has tabled information that shows that Canadian Embassy staff talked about Mrs. Downey's assistant, Mrs. Downey's handlers. The handler was identified as Mr. Durhack, a senior I, T and T official.
Will the Deputy Premier tell Manitobans the cost of his staff's time to provide services and support to Mrs. Downey before and during the trip?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, accepting none of the preamble, that matter has been dealt with.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister now confirm in the House what he told the media in the hall yesterday, namely, that in spite of whatever staff work was done to support Mrs. Downey, and in spite of whatever good work she did, the trip of some 15 women tourism operators is not at all confirmed at this time, that it is in the planning stages, that no decisions have been made by that group as to where they will go this year? Will he now confirm that in the House?
Mr. Downey: Again, I appreciate what the member is trying to do here, and it certainly is not in the interests of bettering Manitoba, the Pan American Games and the overall tourism activities that were carried out and the positive outcome of the events which took place during the trip. My comments are the same as they were and will continue to be the same, that there are some 15 people considering coming to Manitoba, of which it flowed--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Downey: Well, Madam Speaker, they want to split hairs--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Downey: --of which flowed from a meeting that took place on Mrs. Downey's trip. That matter has been dealt with.
* (1345)
Physician Resources
Rural Manitoba
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, today we hear about the partial closure of an emergency ward in Stonewall and the last two weeks the same problem occurred in Morden-Winkler. This summer the same problem occurred in The Pas and over the summer the same problem occurred in Ashern. It occurred over and over again over the past three and four years in Manitoba. The minister keeps promising he is going to do something. He keeps promising and promising.
Will the minister, who today again said he is going to do something, the same speech we have heard for the past three years, immediately announce a program of incentives, peer support and locum support as at least a first start to deal with the serious situation of rural Manitoba considering doctors' exodus?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member might, rather than asking for a menu of programs like we already have, rather than doing that, he might do well to lend some support to the regionalization of health services which has as one of its major goals the recruitment and retention of physicians throughout rural and northern Manitoba. That is one of the key reasons for regionalization.
He stands up today and he brings attention to a problem that we have right across Canada, and governments across Canada are regionalizing in an effort to make the environment more appropriate for physicians to want to practise their art and provide services to Manitobans. So I certainly recognize the difficulties that communities have when physicians leave or when physicians experience burnout because of overwork.
Another thing I would like to hear some support from the honourable member on is looking at alternative ways to remunerate physicians. I mean, he gives a little lip service every once in a while but let us give it some real support so that we can work productively with physicians in Manitoba.
Mr. Chomiak: How does the minister, who on May 22 of this year promised immediate action in a letter to the Manitoba Medical Association, have the nerve to get up today and throw it back onto the regional boards and say he is going to do something when in fact the number of communities without service doctors has risen from 50 to 65 that are underserviced, and there are 25 communities without adequate medical services in this province during this minister's watch and during this minister's inaction?
Mr. McCrae: Jurisdictions right across Canada have had a very difficult time in the last year, year and a half because the American people are seeing the benefits of the Canadian system, and they are trying to copy what we are doing here in Canada by calling on Canadian doctors, probably the best educated physicians in the world, to come and work in the United States and become primary care providers there. This has created quite a lot of pressure on Canadian jurisdictions. I am acknowledging that. All I am asking is every move that we make to try to address it, the honourable member does not want to support it. Where is he coming from? Does he really care about the things he is asking about or does he have some other agenda, Madam Speaker?
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: Does the minister who has done more to aid the recruitment of Canadian doctors to the U.S. than any other minister in provincial history--will he today commit to the promise he made in May, to the promise he made when the regional boards were set up, to the promise he made in 1995 to do something about the rural doctor depletion and announce immediately today a program for remuneration, a program for some form of incentives, a program for locum support and a program of peer support as a first step towards dealing with rural depletion of doctors?
Mr. McCrae: Over the years, and the last three or four years is certainly no exception, governments in Manitoba have come out with numerous programs to address different physician recruitment problems that have arisen, and we are no different. We have this two-year conditional register that is helping us. It is not the panacea, but it has certainly gone some distance to helping us. We have return-of-service arrangements. We have special circumstances that are requiring special responses. All of those things have happened and are happening, Madam Speaker.
No one maneuver or no one initiative seems to be the panacea here that solves all the problems. The honourable member's question implies that, but he lives in another world somewhere. He has got to recognize that in all the Canadian jurisdictions, American recruiters are on the move. Ask any doctor how many times in the last year their mailbox has been stuffed full of invitations to come here, there or somewhere else in the United States and collect all kinds of money and get all kinds of benefits and all of that, but the honourable member does not pay much attention when the doctors return to Manitoba and help us out in that regard too.
So I ask the honourable member to stay tuned, watch for the initiatives and support them when they do come forward.
* (1350)
Physician Resources
Northern Manitoba
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, last February, medical doctors, Banks and Rudman from The Pas, wrote a joint public letter denouncing the shortage of medical officers at The Pas stating that the hospital's specialty and outpatient emergency departments may have to shut down or severely curtail the services they offer. Since then, of course, the Health minister, while authorizing hundreds of thousands of dollars in self-serving public relations propaganda, has at the same time ordered cutbacks in all northern hospitals.
This week, I received a letter from the Health department's spin doctors that was signed by the minister. “Spin doctor” is a phrase I learned from the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) yesterday.
My question to the Minister of Health is, who should northern Manitobans believe, Doctors Banks and Rudman or the spin doctors from the minister's office?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): In spite of the way the question was put, I know it is grounded in a genuine desire to seek solutions to problems in the health care system in Manitoba in general and in The Pas area in particular. The issue is similar to the one raised by the Health critic for the New Democratic Party, and the answers are the same. We do seek partnership. We do seek support from even honourable members opposite because we often respect their opinion when it comes to issues in Manitoba.
So we are making moves that we expect will improve the situation for physician recruitment and retention in Manitoba in those areas that it is harder to recruit to and retain physicians at. But all we do is we work with communities to apply the various programs that we have available to us in a time of increased recruitment on the part of American authorities. All we ask from honourable members opposite is support for those approaches and support for those initiatives.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, I only have one more question to ask the Minister of Health and that is: How is it that he is so confident about the standard of health care that is being given in northern Manitoba when nurses and doctors who actually work in the field every day do not agree with him, and that there are already cases well documented? I believe, as a matter of fact, one case is on its way to the court system of patients already suffering badly.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member knows that this is a time of transition and change, and doctors and nurses and other people employed in the system do look with some anxiety on the changes that are happening. We understand that. The honourable member represents that here in this House, and I respect that.
In The Pas specifically, the staffing guidelines application had a particular impact in The Pas, and we know that. That is why we used the staffing guidelines implementation in the way that we did to make that as least painful as we could possibly do and still treat other communities in Manitoba on a basis that would be fair with The Pas, Flin Flon, Thompson and those northern communities.
I recognize that change is difficult for some people to accept, and when change happens, there is a tendency on the part of some people to strike out and to object on some other basis other than that being patient care which is the bottom line, and in the health--oh, excuse me, Madam Speaker.
Lottery Employees Labour Dispute
Mediation
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. If you talk to some of the striking workers that are walking the picket lines with respect to the casinos, there is a sense that this is a government that does not care what is actually happening in that area. In fact, there is a great deal of disappointment in the sense the government is not prepared to take some form of immediate action in terms of attempting to be able to resolve this problem.
My question for the Minister of Labour: Can he indicate to this House that today, this afternoon, he is prepared to appoint a mediator in an attempt to resolve this labour dispute?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I have sent the correspondence from the Lotteries Corporation to Mr. Olfert. Mr. Olfert, at approximately noon today, wrote back a letter to me. It is a relatively brief letter. I am prepared to table both of these letters in the House. It indicates to me that there is a substantive difference not only on issues but, in fact, what the issues are. Clearly on the basis of the material that I have before me, there is no basis on which to appoint a mediator.
The department has always been willing to have a conciliator there, and I think I can only repeat the words of Mr. Desjarlais, the Steelworker president up in Thompson, who said these types of issues must be brought back to the bargaining table. There must be collective bargaining. Third party intervention simply does not work where the parties are this far apart.
* (1355)
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I beg to differ with the Minister of Labour. I would ask that the Minister of Labour reconsider the position that this government is taking and take a look in terms of what is happening with the workers, that it is indeed in the best interest of all Manitobans to see this labour dispute resolved and to ask if not the Minister of Labour but the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to take some sort of action so that the workers will have some reason to be optimistic that this issue is going to in fact be resolved.
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have not said that I would not appoint a mediator. All I simply said is, I see no basis upon which to appoint a mediator.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the Lotteries board itself is a government appointed--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster was recognized for a final supplementary question. Would you please pose your question?
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Labour acknowledge that the Manitoba Lotteries board is in fact a board that is appointed by this particular government and that maybe what this government should be doing is taking a more proactive approach to resolving this labour dispute as opposed to taking a philosophical approach bent on some hard-right attitude in dealing with labour?
Mr. Toews: If it is a philosophical approach to say that workers have the right to strike and to express their disapproval with their employer, then I am prepared to say I support the right to strike. I have heard members opposite say that the right to strike should in fact be enshrined in our Constitution. I went to the Supreme Court of Canada as a lawyer for this government, defending the right to strike and that party, the New Democratic Party, said that should be enshrined. Now not only the New Democrats but the Liberals want me to interfere.
I want to say, Madam Speaker, that the way you achieve collective agreements is much like the administrative unit of the Lotteries Commission that has now ratified a collective agreement through bargaining within the government framework. We are not unreasonable. We have set a framework; we want to establish a collective agreement in that. As the Minister of Labour, I have to look, is this an appropriate time to intervene by third party, and I say it is not.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, the Minister of Labour had indicated that he would be prepared to table both documents.
An Honourable Member: He did.
Mr. Lamoureux: I understand that he has tabled both documents. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: That is correct. The honourable minister did table the documents.
Lottery Employees Labour Dispute
Mediation
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, the public wants a government that treats its people in a fair, even-handed and impartial manner. The public also wants a Department of Labour to use all of the tools at its disposal to quickly settle any strikes or lockouts that occur within the province of Manitoba.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour, who was supposed to be the government's representative in settling these disputes in a fair and even-handed manner, why this minister whose self-imposed time limit has now expired and since his government has appointed mediators in the University of Manitoba strike, the nursing home strike, the Boeing strike and the sugar workers strike, will he appoint a mediator today to settle the dispute involving the casino workers and the Lotteries Corporation in the province of Manitoba?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I can appreciate that the members opposite do not believe that workers have a right to strike and to express their disapproval with an employer. I defend the workers' right to strike and I, as members opposite do when they are on the other side of the House, hesitate to get involved directly into labour disputes. Labour disputes are best settled between the parties. Where there is an opportunity for conciliation, I will appoint a conciliator. Where there is an opportunity for mediation to succeed, I will appoint a mediator. This is not the time. Nothing on the basis of the paper that Mr. Olfert or the letter that Mr. Olfert has presented to me indicates that. Mr. Olfert clearly indicates there are numerous outstanding issues in his letter. He agrees with the Lotteries Corporation's position in that respect.
* (1400)
Mr. Reid: The minister appears to have accepted the word of the Lotteries Corporation management people in this respect.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Labour, for the sake of fairness and impartiality, can this minister indicate to Manitobans how at one moment he can be the decision maker responsible for the Civil Service Commission which negotiates on behalf of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation and then switches hats and becomes the decision maker as the Minister of Labour responsible for applying The Labour Relations Act and determining whether or not to invoke mediation in a dispute that is involved in the province of Manitoba?
How can this minister wear two hats and expect to be treated--said that he is being impartial in these matters. How can he explain that?
Mr. Toews: I trust, Madam Speaker, that I will do it in the same even-handed manner that NDP ministers whom I served under did it.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Reid: Then, Madam Speaker, for the sake of fairness for the people of Manitoba and for the casino workers in this province, will this minister remove the perceived conflict of positions that he has and now appoint an independent third party to act as a mediator to resolve the casino workers strike in this province so people can get back to work and people can get on with their lives?
Mr. Toews: If the member for Transcona wants to talk about fairness, we can do that. But simply put, how can I look at all the other civil servants, those civil servants who took a minus two or a zero and who accepted the agreement much like the Lotteries Commission people did in this recent--[interjection]
The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) might have a question to ask me, I do not know, but perhaps she could wait until I finish with this answer. If the member for Wellington has a point of order, maybe she can stand up and say it.
If this is in fact what other civil servants, public servants, who work as hard, if not harder than the casino workers, how can I justify that 10 percent is an acceptable raise? When we settled last year, 3 percent for casino workers, the member for Transcona said it was a double standard and now--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Reid: On a point of order, the minister, I believe, is attempting to mislead Manitobans and this House, Madam Speaker. This is a very serious matter. The minister is attempting to mislead Manitobans and members of this House by saying that I supported the 3 percent. Let me tell you, a direct quote from the article that appeared: NDP Labour critic, Daryl Reid, said the settlement seems reasonable considering the rate of inflation, but it does seem to set a double standard. That was the statement.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour on the same point of order.
Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, he has not quoted from the article directly. What it says, and there are other comments, but he says: NDP Labour critic, Daryl Reid, said the settlement seems reasonable considering the rate of inflation, but it does set a double standard.
There is a sense the government did not want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and I want to tender that here in this House.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Transcona and subsequently spoken to by the honourable Minister of Labour, there was no point of order. It was clearly a dispute over the facts.
Rail Line Abandonment
Meeting--Federal Minister
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways and Transportation.
After over two and a half months since neither the Back On Track Coalition nor anyone else in northern Manitoba has been able to get a meeting with the federal Minister of Transport over the Sheridan line or the other lines threatened with abandonment, has this minister been able to schedule a meeting with him over this issue?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, we have had a number of meetings involving CN, involving companies from the North, involving citizens of the North as we all push to find a solution to ensure the tracks are kept open in northern Manitoba for all the users.
I can confirm to the member that a meeting between myself and the federal minister, David Anderson, has been set up when we are having the ministers' meeting in about two weeks time.
Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that answer. Further to that, is the minister prepared at this meeting to lead an all-party delegation, including the Back On Track Coalition, directly to the minister at this meeting?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I think the member can recall being part of a meeting in this building about 10 days ago where we had the interested individuals from the North meet with the CN officials, and significant discussion took place at that time. I think the member recognized that was a positive thing to do.
In terms of meeting with the minister, this is at the federal-provincial ministers' meeting, and I will be expressing to him the views that we talked about at that particular meeting here in this Legislature and the meeting we subsequently had as cabinet with the CN officials where we got some commitments that give us some confidence there is a solution down the road.
RCMP--Sergeant Jennings
Conflict of Interest
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice.
It has come to light that Sergeant Gerry Jennings, the spokesperson for the RCMP in Manitoba, the person who interprets serious matters in this province, whether it is crime statistics, the Headingley riot, the Waterhen standoff, the Pukatawagan blockade, for example, matters often involving government policy, is an active campaigner, indeed was and until his partisanship became known, the president of the Springfield Conservatives. So Manitobans must now wonder how he can be neutral when there is pressure on him to both defend and protect Conservative policy and speak for the RCMP.
My question for the minister is: Would the minister tell Manitobans, when did she first become aware of Sergeant Jennings's apparent conflict, and what actions did she take to preserve the appearance of impartiality of the RCMP?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I understand that Sergeant Jennings has since resigned that position and that he has dealt with this as an internal matter with his employer. I gather that there has been extensive consultation within the RCMP around this matter, and Sergeant Jennings has resigned that position. So I believe that the matter is now closed.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns with a supplementary question.
* (1410)
Mr. Mackintosh: I will try another question, Madam Speaker.
Would the minister, whom we know does not understand the importance of police independence when she summoned police Chief Henry to a Conservative election announcement last April, would she as the chief law enforcement officer for the Province of Manitoba immediately communicate with the RCMP to help ensure the reassignment of Sergeant Jennings so that this very serious appearance of bias is dealt with?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, as has been spoken about across the floor, it is very clear that civil servants do have rights, the same rights as other people to be active and to be interested and participate in political parties. Now, the member for St. Johns has often tried to take a position, often against the police, often a position in contrast to the police and their ability to do their job.
It is our government's position, my position as the Attorney General, that we continue to have confidence in the RCMP, in the RCMP's ability to deal with their staffing matters, and I believe they have dealt with this matter.
Education System
Student Transportation
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, on September 3, parents from south Transcona made a presentation to the Education Finance Advisory Committee urging them to make changes to the school bus funding policy to consider the availability of transit, and I am pleased the Department of Education is following up on this advice.
I want to ask the Minister of Education, since these policy changes will not affect this year and areas like south Transcona have been told that they may lose their transit bus this February, I want to ask the minister if this year she will reinstate the designation of rural for south Transcona so they will receive the $345 per student and the division will be able to afford busing those students.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her expression of appreciation that we are looking at the problem of what to do when City Council makes certain decisions about busing that school boards do not wish to backfill upon, but I would indicate that in 1992-93, which is only three years ago, funding for urban students was $150 per transportable student in kindergarten to Grade 3. Today it is $195 per transportable student from kindergarten to Grade 6, so we have considerably expanded both the amount of money and the grades which are covered in the last three years.
The member talks about a cut, as did the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) before. What she is talking about is a $5 reduction we made this year as an adjustment to the $200 we had raised it up from the year before. So, in effect, since 1993, we have had a $45 increase in the last three years per urban transportable student and extended it three more grades.
The school division will have to decide if it needs to bus the students in this year's budget. If the school division decides to transport the students, we will provide the grant.
Ms. Cerilli: Given that the minister did not answer the question, I want to ask her now: This year there is a problem. There are going to be students who do not have adequate transit service. While her department is looking at the policy changes, will she not designate those that have lost their rural designation as “rural” so they can have busing and will she let the school divisions know that there will be a policy change coming for next year so that those school divisions can fill buses that are often empty with students that need bus service?
Mrs. McIntosh: School divisions have the right, the authority and the autonomy to make that decision right now, today. Transcona-Springfield can make its decision, considering the needs of its pupils as it best determines. Madam Speaker, I reiterate again, because it is important to note, given the questions that have been going on all week, that since 1993, three years ago, Transcona-Springfield and every other division in a city setting gets $45 more per eligible pupil than it did in '93 and it is extended to three more grades than it used to be extended to, so it is a considerable increase over the last three years, both in money and in the age of the pupils to be transported. Notwithstanding the minor adjustment this year, the overall impact is a $45 increase, and the member needs to note that, and so I think do the school divisions.
Canadian Wheat Board
Government Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Premier said that he supports the recommendations of the marketing board. He said, we support the report; that is our position. We all know that supporting all of the recommendations will weaken the single-desk function of the Wheat Board which is really the heart of the Wheat Board.
In light of the fact that in a recent survey only 3 percent of the farmers said they want to see the Wheat Board eliminated, will this government now see the light and recognize what farmers are saying and they want single-desk selling, so will they oppose those recommendations which will weaken the single-desk selling concept of the Wheat Board?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, yesterday, of course, the member and her Leader asked similar questions about the Wheat Board, and in a preamble to that questioning the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) stated that he had been out consulting with farmers all summer, and we find out from an Angus Reid survey that is in today's paper that he spoke to 8 percent of those farmers when he was out there, those ones who are in favour of no change to the Wheat Board, which is a nonsensical position.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, as is verified today by the Angus Reid survey, 92 percent of the farmers in the prairie provinces believe that there ought to be change to the Canadian Wheat Board. I put forward our rationale yesterday for reasonable change, for sensible change, for change that would be in the best interests of the farmers of Manitoba and the economy of Manitoba, thousands of jobs and substantial millions in investments involved in value-added processing that we ought to have because of the changes that are necessary to the Wheat Board. That is what we stand for, that is what we believe and that is what 92 percent of the farm producers believe. I think the member opposite ought to go back to the future where she wants to be, put her head back in the sand and look at that narrow vision that is presented by the Farmers' Union who call her tune.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.