Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Edward R. Arndt, Ross McDougall and Devin Crowler requesting that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Don Sullivan, Jack McLachlan, Elizabeth Carlyle and others requesting that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care, and that this annual income increase as prices increase and that this new legislation also provide for the creation of real jobs, with a goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningful work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Joe Roth, Steve Palamar, Muron Standera and others requesting the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests.

Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). It complies with the rules and practices of the House (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years providing province-wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America and thousands of jobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and

THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and

THAT MTS, with nearly 4,000 employees including more than 1,000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and

THAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MTS and said before and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests.

* (1335)

Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and

THAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and

THAT Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by eliminating government responsibility to ensure that everyone who lacks adequate food, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and

THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits if they fail to meet employment expectations; and

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningful work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave? [agreed]

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Broadway have leave to revert to Presenting Petitions? [agreed]

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of E.J. Richmond, Marguerite Ogilvie, Brenda Pauls and others requesting that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell Manitoba Telephone System to private interests.

Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw attention to the public gallery, where we have this afternoon forty-five Grades 2 and 3 students from Lacerte School under the direction of Madame Préjet and Mademoiselle Dumont. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer).

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

Also in the public gallery, we have sixty-three Grade 11 students from the Diocesan High School under the direction of Mr. Allan Smith and Mr. Blaine Lassen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity again, since the House was recessed for the weekend, to attend a meeting of parents and teachers in the community of Brandon. Regrettably, the government was unable to send any one of their 31 members to that meeting, and it is consistent with a basic contemptuous attitude that we are picking up from the members opposite in terms of the legislative policies they have towards public teachers and the kinds of statements we hear them making.

At a recent public meeting in Seine River, at the lawn bowling club, it was reported that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had stated that teachers were only protecting their own salaries in terms of raising issues of public education. We on this side believe that teachers are part of the solution. Members opposite obviously believe they are part of the problem.

Why is the government continuing to disregard and disrespect our public teachers in the province of Manitoba, and I would like that question to be answered by the Acting Premier, please.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I indicate, first of all, that we are not ignoring the needs and interests of teachers. Teachers we value very highly indeed. Indeed, almost half of our caucus is composed of teachers and many of us have teachers as--our own children are teachers or our spouses are teachers so we know, understand and value the work that is being done by teachers.

With regard to the rally, the member knows that I did receive an invitation this time. I had not the previous two occasions. This time I did receive an invitation to the rally which pleased me very much. It meant a great deal to me to be invited, and I had accepted the invitation to attend the rally if, and only if, I were not called into committee. The member opposite knows because his government House leader along with our government House leader called Bill 32 for the day of the rally, and as the minister responsible for Bill 32 it was a requirement that I be there.

As well, I note that members of our caucus were in full attendance at the committee hearings as required by them as well, so I wrote immediately that the committee hearings were called. I faxed a letter to the president of the Teachers' Society indicating that with regret I could not attend the rally, but that I had very much appreciated being invited. I did appreciate the invitation, and next time perhaps the rules of the House will be such that the Minister of Education and her colleagues might be free to attend and be with the teachers as they discuss their concerns.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I asked why not one of the 31 members opposite would attend that meeting. I guess if it was a ribbon-cutting ceremony they would have about eight or nine members of the government side there.

I also asked the minister and Acting Premier a question dealing with a town hall meeting attended by the Minister of Education, by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), by the Speaker and by the Premier (Mr. Filmon), wherein the Premier stated that teachers are only interested in protecting their own salaries, which I thought was an insult to the many teachers that we know and listen to that are interested obviously in kids, public education and the quality of public education, and are fighting to keep up with the cutbacks, the $43 million that has been cut by this government. A parent goes on to say, in writing, and I will table the letter for the minister, she heard this testimony at the committee hearing on Saturday that--[interjection] No, but the Minister of Government Services was there--the Premier went on to say that the teachers are paid 15 percent more than the private sector over a comparable period of time.

Is that also the motive behind Bill 72, the policies in Bill 72, that they only care about their own salaries, which we do not agree with, and that they are overpaid by some 15 percent according to the Tory government after the election?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, we have said repeatedly through all of our dialogue on Bill 72 that what we are seeking to do is to address the concerns that were brought forward by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees which indicated that over the 40 years that the existing legislation on binding arbitration has been in place, over the last 10 to 12 years the things that are bargained, the scope of the bargaining and the precedents that have been set by individual arbitrators have taken that original agreement far away from what it was originally intended.

School trustees contend that they are losing their ability to manage and that the rates they are having to pay their salaried employees in the teaching profession have escalated beyond similar professions in the private sector, and statistics bear out the reality of that. But never, never, to my knowledge--I do not recall the Premier (Mr. Filmon) making the quote that was attributed to him--but I can certainly indicate that never in my experience have I said teachers are overpaid.

` I have indicated statistically that over a course of time the raises accorded to the profession have been in excess of those awarded to other professions, but that is not to say or to be interpreted as any slight on teachers. It is simply a statistical reality. The legislation is intended to introduce balance, fairness and protection for teachers, things for teachers in this legislation far beyond what they currently have, and I believe the balance is a good one, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Doer: The balance that used to be achieved in this province used to be done so between trustees, parents and teachers together, unlike the unilateral, autocratic and dictatorial approach of members opposite. The minister is now confirming that the true motivation of the government is in the morning to cut $43 million or some 2 percent per year from public education and then in the afternoon cut the salaries based on the 15 percent statement of the Premier.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education, who is telling the truth, the Minister of Education's assertion about the Premier or Mr. Tom Barker when Mr. Barker said the teachers only care about their salary levels? We believe that teachers care about kids, they care about parents, they care about curriculum, they care about the future of this province, unlike members opposite who do not care about teachers in our public education system.

Mrs. McIntosh: I do not accept the preamble of the member opposite. The member opposite is putting words into the mouths of people that were not said. He is taking comments about statistical evidence out of context and attributing subjective commentary to objective information.

* (1345)

Mrs. McIntosh: The same point of order, and then if I may continue my question, the member opposite is saying that I am imputing motives to him; I am not. I am simply indicating that one must not make subjective comments about objective statistical analysis. He can quote from a letter, that is fine. But I do not know the writer; I do not know the letter; I do not know the context. I am saying statistical evidence is not an imputation of motives.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

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

Mrs. McIntosh: I am very surprised that the member opposite would call this a unilateral piece of legislation in light of the fact that the request to have legislation such as this brought forward was requested three successive years, two with formal resolutions passed on the floor of convention by the trustees of Manitoba who in turn are elected by the entire population of the province of Manitoba.

In addition, consultation was done on this issue, and I reiterate that if the member feels this legislation is being brought in because we want some way just to simply hurt teachers,the member is wrong. We value teachers highly. There is much in this legislation that is so good for teachers, replacing collective rights with individual rights that they could not get through a collective agreement.

Madam Speaker, we can talk more about this in committee tonight but if I were a teacher right now I would be very pleased with what I see in this legislation, contrary to the rumours, innuendo and the false information that is being distributed about it.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

On four occasions in Hansard and again last week, the Minister of Education has said that many students from former Access programs received annual nonrefundable bursaries of $25,000 to $27,000. Over the past year I have written to the minister several times to ask exactly how many Access students this involved. In response the minister has prevaricated. She offered hypothetical situations; she rolled loans into bursaries; she added four years of bursaries together and eventually said she could not give me any number.

I would like to ask the minister to confirm that the real reason she refused to answer a very straightforward question is that her own departmental records, which I received on Freedom of Information, show that since 1994 no students have received bursaries in that amount.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I would indicate to the member that 25 students, approximately 25, give or take one or two, have received bursary amounts in excess of $25,000.

Madam Speaker, I would also indicate that for the years in which she spoke, she used the figure of $25,000 and for those years no individual student in any one year received $25,000, but four students did receive bursaries and some are in the area of, like, $23,900, $23,000, so very close to the $25,000. There are 25 students who, over the course of their studies, have received more than $25,000.

I would like to table a sample case showing a single parent with three dependants living in northern Manitoba being eligible for up to $33,000, with an Access bursary of $26,890.

I have tried to explain this to the member from every perspective I can think of. I have tried to explain it by individual by year, by individual over time of study, by the eligibility, by the actuals. I do not know how many different ways I can explain to her that Access students can get an unlimited amount of money over and above their loan if they need it, and she just does not want to accept that reality.

* (1350)

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, what I have been looking for is a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

Would the minister confirm that she has just done exactly what she did over the past year? She has rolled years of bursaries into one, she has given a hypothetical situation, but her own Freedom of Information says that the number of Access students who have or are receiving nonrepayable bursaries between $25,000 and $27,000 annually--what the minister had put on the record--show that no students have received bursaries in those amounts. Will she now retract that statement, that there are no students?

Mrs. McIntosh: As I have indicated, I have tried to explain from individual by year, individual by program, individual by eligibility, individual by actual. The member has zeroed in on, how many individual students received more than $25,000 as a gift. I am saying to the member that overall 25 students right now have received more than $25,000 over the course of one or two years.

She wants to cut off an individual student per year at $25,000. I am telling her that someone last year got $24,000, so technically, yes, last year nobody got $25,000, but one got $24,000, another got $23,000, and anybody is eligible for more than $23,000, $24,000, $25,000. Witness the sample case I have just tabled showing an eligibility for $33,000.

So I do not know what more the member wants. Access is able to provide money in this amount. That is the point, that is the message and the member wants to go on and on. She may, but it is counterproductive, and I think she would have more immediate issues to address right now.

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

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, would the minister now retract the statement she has made several times in Hansard, and which shocked so many Access students, that they had received annual free grants of $25,000 to $27,000? Will she now retract that so that Manitobans can be assured that this is not a government which has slipped across the line into the practice of habitual deceit? Because that is what it is.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, if you will refer to Beauchesne, I am not sure of the exact section, but a question that has been asked before ought not to be asked again. This is the third time.

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

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, yes, it is the same question because I have not received an answer, and the minister is doing exactly what she has done over a year in writing. She is prevaricating, she is dissimulating, and she is not dealing honestly with the citizens of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, there definitely is a reference in Beauchesne 409; however, I have been informed that, in Manitoba practice, rarely is that citation followed. However, I would remind the honourable member for Wolseley that on a supplementary question, the question requires no debate, no preamble or midamble and should consist of one carefully drawn sentence.

* (1355)

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I would submit that the question has been answered. The member just does not like the answer because it shows we are good to Access students.

Let me quote the Hansard from which she is quoting because I think it is important with her allegations of dishonesty that I quote what was actually said in Hansard. There were a couple of statements that I made in Hansard, one, October 10, where I said, "Those who need money are given a straight gift over and above the loan of up to $25,000, $27,000 . . . a year if they need it, if their needs require it. It is not repayable in any way to the Province of Manitoba."

Then on--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable Minister of Education, to quickly complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. On that same day, I had indicated that many of the students receiving $25,000 or $27,000 a year--

Ms. Friesen: How many?

Mrs. McIntosh: Pardon me?

Ms. Friesen: How many students received that much?

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, Madam, Speaker, you know what--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Wolseley that this is not a time for debate. A question has been asked, and the honourable Minister of Education is attempting to complete her response but cannot do so when she is so rudely continually interrupted.

The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I do not know what more I can say. I have tried to explain it, as I say, from three or four different perspectives. The member has a Freedom of Information request that zeroes in on one specific item of that response. I have given her all that information. Now I suspect--I do not know if she wants me just to keep going until she gets an answer she wants.

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

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the minister has indicated that a consultant will be hired by Holiday Haven Nursing Home and that the minister will have his department personally investigate the many complaints which I will be forwarding to his office, and they will be forwarded within 10 days.

My question that I would like to ask the minister is, why, since the minister has had a file of complaints from Holiday Haven dating at least back for two years, has he only taken action in this area in October and after this matter has become a very public issue?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, any complaints that come to my attention are then taken up with the facility or personal care home involved in the complaint. That would be the normal course of the handling of individual complaints that might come forward.

I assume, because of an escalation of complaints and issues in recent times, the department met with the Holiday Haven personal care home representatives earlier this month to address the problems from a systemic point of view as opposed to an anecdotal point of view, to address the problems that may have been somewhat longer standing in that particular place. So we expect that with the help of a consultant that Holiday Haven will be able to address the shortcomings that exist.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a letter dated July 28, 1994, from the minister's department to a person complaining about problems at Holiday Haven, with some very serious problems.

Can the minister explain why, two years after receipt of this letter, some of these problems have not been addressed? In fact, they are some of the very problems that are a concern today. Why does this department not follow up and initiate action?

* (1400)

Mr. McCrae: I thank the honourable member for tabling this information, and it will be taken into account in the review that is presently underway.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, along the same lines, can the minister explain why the Health Sciences Centre, and now we have heard Brandon Hospital will be facing difficulties with their accreditation, because the government has known for years of major problems, particularly in the operating room, where you know last week at Health Sciences Centre what the difficulties were, why the department has sat and done nothing with respect to those centres, particularly the Health Sciences Centre, and now it is in danger of losing accreditation because of government inaction year after year?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): In the case of the Health Sciences Centre, the plan for the city of Winnipeg was announced on August 20, and work will go forward to address issues related to physical plant issues at Health Sciences Centre in furtherance of the plan announced on August 20.

With respect to the Brandon General Hospital, I was pleased to share a platform with the honourable member for Kildonan and the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) last Thursday evening. We addressed a number of matters brought forward by some 258 members of the public who attended that evening. Brandon General Hospital is also part of a larger plan for the regionalization of the city of Brandon. The hospital CEO has recently resigned his position. I am pleased to note that Brandon General Hospital has put together a number of directions in terms of how they will manage their immediate and shorter-term and medium-term issues. One of them, I am very pleased to note, is the opening up of their processes to the public.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, hearings on The Child and Family Services Act have been occurring at the same time as there have been more deaths of small children known to Child and Family Services. A brief presented at these hearings representing the staff says, selected policies of fiscal restraint now appear to be driving decisions regarding acceptable levels of risk for the children of Manitoba.

The report goes on to say that 12,269 days have been lost to Child and Family Services to the children and families of Manitoba due to Filmon Fridays. I want to ask the minister responsible, will the government end its Filmon Fridays at Child and Family Services which amount to putting the agency on crisis mode for 40 days?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does allow me the opportunity to indicate that we have year after year put more resources into our Child and Family Services system. Some $13 million over the last five years have been added to Winnipeg Child and Family Services. I guess it just seems that no amount of money is able to ensure that there is better care for children who need our support and our services. We will continue to work very diligently to try to ensure, through some of the new initiatives, through the review of the act and through the new direction that we have taken in the department, that all Manitobans have the opportunity to participate in trying to help form and support healthy families.

Ms. Cerilli: Will the minister admit that there have been no real financial savings with these Filmon Fridays since they have been forced to hire 40 staff and have people on night duty, and there have actually been real costs of increasing the risk for error, either in having children apprehended who do not need to be apprehended or leaving children in families where they are injured or even killed?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we have been putting additional resources into our Child and Family Services system year after year after year, and it is of some concern, of course, when there are children that are abused or even child deaths. It is not an issue that I take lightly. It is an issue that ministers of Family Services, regardless of political stripe, over the years in Manitoba have had to deal with, as they do in all provinces right across the country.

I would like to indicate that there are--it is not only the hours of nine to five, Monday to Friday, that we find children in dangerous circumstances in families. It happens after hours and on weekends also, and I have to indicate that I would hope that all of the work that is done by those that are working in the field is work that will improve the circumstances of children in families in Manitoba.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister to understand that we are asking her to reconsider her policy of Filmon Fridays at Child and Family Services, especially given that Fridays have the highest incidence of abuse disclosures from children. Given all of these considerations, will she look at the impact of Filmon Fridays on the caseloads and on the children in families in Manitoba?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I know that very often allegations of abuse or children left abandoned or neglected is not necessarily on a Friday, but it happens. Monday to Sunday, 24 hours a day, we find that there are children that are apprehended at all times of the day and night, so what we want to do is ensure that the additional resources that are going into our Child and Family Services system, some $13 million extra in Winnipeg alone over the last number of years, are being used in the most appropriate fashion to ensure protection, care and support for children and families.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

On October 10, my colleague from The Maples asked the Minister of Education if federal funding was available for Écolé Lavallée in St. Vital. In response she claimed that she continually grovelled for education funding from the federal government. I find that image disturbing since it is not true. The minister's cuts to education are a responsibility to no one else. If matching funds for the St. Vital school, Écolé Lavallée, are available, will the minister support this project?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's support for education in his district because over time he has proven to me his credibility on this issue, so I take his question seriously.

I indicate, first of all, that all capital for new schools comes through the Public Schools Finance Board. Those decisions are made by that body and not by government. Government will allocate a certain amount of funding to the Public Schools Finance Board, and from within that allocation, it will prioritize the needs of the province and assign capital projects on that basis. So that decision would have to go through them.

I also indicate though that we do repeatedly ask the federal government to reinstate its transfer payments. Those cuts are huge, and the OLE funding cuts are huge as well. I know the member has tried on occasions in the past to be of assistance to us on that issue.

Mr. Gaudry: To the same minister, Madam Speaker, if her department has applied for federal funding for Écolé Lavallée School, and if she has been refused, will she table the rejection letter or the letter of approval?

Mrs. McIntosh: I do not have such documents to table. I can indicate to the member that in our dialogue with the federal government on issues of funding for French language education, we have addressed the overall picture of the federal transfer cuts, the funding for French immersion, the OLE funding, which have had huge cutbacks in recent years. A positive response from the federal government on those issues would be very welcome. It would enable us to deal with individual requests such as this more easily.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): To the same minister, will the minister admit that education is a provincial responsibility regardless of where the funding comes from?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Yes, indeed that is true. Education is a provincial responsibility, and ministers of Education right across this nation have indicated that they prefer the consensus provinces can come to as a group for national direction. Ministers across the nation at the same time have said that though it is a provincial responsibility, over the course of the history of Canada, the federal government has always provided a certain amount of money for post-secondary education which has been drastically and dramatically cut-- $220 million cut this coming year for health and education and family services here which is roughly the equivalent of the University of Manitoba operating budget.

If you follow the time at which the cuts began to be implemented--it was not necessarily with just this particular federal government--you can see that, prior to the massive decreases in federal transfer cuts, we had a lot more money and were able to fund education much more highly than we currently are right now.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): In 1995 the Conservatives ran a fraudulent election campaign in which they said they would not sell MTS, a misrepresentation they repeated numerous times in this Legislature.

I would like to ask today, on a day which will probably have the first vote ever on the sale of MTS, that of the members of the Legislature, if the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) will not finally do the right thing and, given that fraudulent election campaign, put the decision on the future of MTS to the people of Manitoba, a shareholders' vote of the people of Manitoba?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to say to the member that I do not accept any of his preamble about the election and the manner in which it was carried out. As the member knows, there are 57 people sent to the Legislature to express themselves as to the direction the government is going and the actions they are doing. He has had that opportunity to do it. We have had the opportunity to do it, and there will be a vote take place.

I can assure you that there is a sensitivity to the people that we represent in the province of Manitoba, and it is our intention to do what we believe is in the best interests to carry on the future of this province in a very positive way.

* (1410)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Well, since at least 23 of us told the truth to the people of Manitoba in the election, not the 31 government members--

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

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if the Deputy Premier is really serious about being sensitive to Manitobans, will he at least--since this bill will probably be voted upon in second reading today and will be going to committee tomorrow--ensure that hearings will be held throughout rural and northern Manitoba to make sure that Manitobans can have a first-hand opportunity to speak about the future of their telephone company?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Unlike other provinces in this country, the public does have the opportunity to come before committee, come to this Legislature, as they have done when the New Democratic Party were in office, when the Conservative government are in office, have the opportunity to come forward and express themselves. That, Madam Speaker, they will have the opportunity to do and will continue to have to do as far as we are concerned.

Madam Speaker, they did not have the opportunity to speak out, other than when the next election came, when the former New Democratic Party spread $27 million over the sands of Saudi Arabia through the Manitoba Telephone System.

Mr. Ashton: My question was very simple, Madam Speaker. Will this government hold hearings in rural and northern Manitoba about the future of MTS, a decision that will be made on November 7, just barely over a week to go? Will they hold hearings throughout Manitoba?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, as I indicated previously, the public will have the opportunity to come before the committee of the Legislature when the bill goes before it, which is a normal process. Nobody will be denied the opportunity of presenting themselves and that I think is extremely important, that the opportunity remain as legislation is presented in this province, unlike when I said actions like the New Democratic Party carried out when they spent $27 million in the sands of Saudi Arabia without the right to do so by the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier.

Earlier this year the government through MTS entered into a contract worth $3 million with a newly formed company called Manglobe Virtual. Since no tendering process was used, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier what criteria were employed to select the successful applicant.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

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

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister is this: Since the corporation, advanced its first $375,000 in February--can the minister tell us what results he has to show for this expenditure?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, as it relates to any activities carried out, I can assure the member that any programs or any development are carried out in the interests of the development of activities in the province of Manitoba, whether it is creation of employment, technology, but I will, as well, get additional information for the member.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my final question to the same minister is this, and this is an easy one that he should be able to answer. That is, what was the purpose of the additional $125,000 advanced to this company by this minister from his I, T and T department?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, I am prepared to provide the information. The agreement that was entered into with Manglobe, as I said, was to create and develop technology to create employment for the people of Manitoba.

If the member has additional information that I should be aware of, I would invite him to provide it. I am quite prepared to make sure that any activities carried out by my department and by this government are appropriate. I am quite prepared to respond back at an appropriate time.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Last week, I asked the Minister of Labour why he would not appoint a mediator to resolve the dispute that is taking place currently between Westfair Foods and the retail-wholesale employees employed in that company. At that time, the Minister of Labour said that there was a unique situation and that there are unique concerns, and that is why he will not appoint a mediator.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour, are the unique concerns that he talks about with respect to this strike the fact that Westfair Foods has contributed to the Conservative Party since 1988 some $40,000 and that is the reason why this Minister of Labour will not appoint a mediator because Westfair does not want him to appoint a mediator?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): As indicated in my response to the member's question last week, we continue to look at the situation. We continue to work with both parties. I understand there is a conciliation meeting set for November 4. Some of these unique concerns will be discussed there, and I am trusting that in time a resolution will be arrived at in respect of this particular dispute. We are prepared to do as much as possible to try to get these two sides together. It is a difficult situation, and I am confident that in time they will resolve their dispute.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the Minister of Labour, because he does have a double standard with labour relations, why this Minister of Labour is listening to Westfair Foods and their $40,000 contribution to his party when he knows full well that he appointed a mediator to deal with the strike during the University of Manitoba strike last year that was not called for by both parties at that time, and he went forward and appointed a mediator. Why is he relying on the fact that both parties in this case have not called for a mediator and that he will not appoint a mediator in this case? Why will he not do the right thing and appoint one now?

* (1420)

Mr. Toews: Again the member indicates that there is some kind of double standard. I can tell this House that there is no double standard, not like the kind of double standard that the NDP used in 1988 when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was in power, and he told striking workers at the Health Sciences Centre that the provincial government is not involved in a dispute between the hospital and the union. He said it was not any of our business at that time.

I can tell you that this government continues to stay involved in an appropriate and in a prudent way, unlike the member opposite who said that labour disputes are simply the concern between the employer and the union. We have never said that. We do not set a double standard such as they do now that they are in opposition.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.