Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before Oral Question Period, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today His Excellency Dr. Kyaw Win, Ambassador of the Union of Myanmar to Canada.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

* (1345)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a lot of concern by municipalities over the disaster assistance coverage and what they will be eligible for. In 1992, according to the disaster financial assistance policy, the Disaster Assistance Board was proposing to the provincial government that where damages amount to more than $1 per capita on a provincial basis that the cost-sharing formula could be waived and changed.

I would like to ask the Premier: Have they looked at this recommendation from the Disaster Assistance Board, and what is the present status in terms of the very, very major costs the municipalities will have to bear with this flood even though it is only at the 10 percent level?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Deputy Speaker, when disaster hits, of course, it is a very traumatic experience for most of us, and it is something that we always almost feel that it is not our fault; it is somebody else's fault and we should be looked after.

I think in regard to the provincial-municipal cost-sharing and the federal-provincial cost-sharing that this is a formula that has been worked on for many years and put into place, and of course in discussions with municipalities we realize that there are concerns for municipalities in that regard. I think it is necessary for us to have a pretty good handle on what kinds of damages we are looking at in real dollars before something like this is brought to the foreground as a point of discussion.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would point out that this is a recommendation to the government that was made to them in 1992 by people that are experts on disaster assistance, and it was contained within their public document.

A further concern, listening to evacuees, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would ask the Premier this question. Last week the Premier quoted the Quebec Saguenay disaster assistance to agree to the suggestion to go $100,000 in terms of changing the limit from $30,000 to $100,000 for victims of this flood, particularly victims who are not able to buy or purchase flood insurance here in the Red River flood plain. We have looked at further conditions of the Quebec situation in the Saguenay region last year, and it is our understanding that the 20 percent deductible was also waived and not required by victims in the Quebec Saguenay region. This deductible remains in some provinces, but provinces like Alberta that have gone through more recent disasters with the tornado and other floods in the province of Alberta have waived this deductible. Can the Premier advise the people of Manitoba what is the status of this 20 percent deductible and its impact on the livelihood and lives of disaster victims?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): We have been investigating all of those policies as well. In the case of Quebec, they have some criteria which they have put forward in their disaster assistance policy, but they also have done things that are pertinent only to the Saguenay disaster, given the magnitude and the unprecedented nature of it. In the case of the Saguenay disaster, the member is correct when he says that they did have a provision for waiving the deductible, but it was only in the case of a total loss of property. That did happen in the Saguenay where there was this torrential storm that went through, the flood that actually wiped out not only the dwelling but the land on which the dwelling was located. In the case of a total loss, they did have a provision for waive--but under the normal claims in which repairs were able to be effected, then that did not apply.

I want to point out, because there is certainly, I think, a tendency on the part of people to look at this in isolation and say it is a terrible circumstance and why do we have any deductible at all. I want to make the point that across the country disaster assistance programs have taken into account the fact that this is in lieu of being able to purchase insurance, and that has always been one of the principles there. On the other hand, it was always felt that the compensation should not be more generous than that which you could get if you bought insurance. Recognize two things: One is that people who would have insurance would firstly be paying premiums, which they are not in this case; and secondly, they would likely be subject to deductibles in all cases. So in this case it is unreasonable for them to do neither, not pay premiums and not be subject to a deductible but be given everything. The only circumstances in which they felt that was warranted in the Saguenay instance was if there was a total loss of the property, dwelling and everything under the claim.

Mr. Doer: Of course, under the rules and guidelines that were circulated in April of 1997 and revised, I suppose, with the change from $30,000 to $100,000, not, quote, everything is covered. People do not, quote, get everything that is damaged or lost during the flood. So that condition then would be similar to insurance. For people that cannot get insurance for flood is not the same, and I would suggest that some sensitivity should be made in that regard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people in Ste. Agathe look at the situation in Grand Forks where President Bill Clinton apparently promised 100 percent damages for the flood, for the victims of flood in that community. The more recent changes to disaster assistance have taken place in the province of Alberta where they have waived this 20 percent deductibility because of the hardship it represented to the tornado victims and flood victims.

I would like to ask the Premier: Has he looked at Ste. Agathe versus Grand Forks? Has he looked at Alberta in terms of Manitoba?

I recognize that some provinces have maintained deductibles. I agree with the Premier, but other provinces actually that have more recent disaster experience have changed that based on the sensitivity of restoring people's lives as much as possible as victims of these disasters.

* (1350)

Mr. Filmon: The answer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that, yes, we have looked at the various different programs. We have a great variety. New Brunswick, for instance, has a maximum payment of $75,000. Saskatchewan has a maximum payment of $30,000. British Columbia has a maximum payment of $100,000 with a 20 percent deductible. Every province does have different circumstances.

I think it is incumbent on us to try and compare the circumstances that are faced here, to try and take a reasonable view of it but recognize as well that whatever rules we set are also going to be there for future eventualities and that this is an unprecedented civil disaster. In this case, I think it is fair to say that the lion's share of the disaster assistance costs will be picked up by the federal government. There may be many other disasters such as a localized flash flood in a small community, such as some forest fire circumstances or a brush fire circumstance in which the lion's share will be picked up by the Province of Manitoba.

So whatever rules we set are going to apply to us under those circumstances, and it may well be that we are picking up 75 percent of the costs in a future disaster. So there may be a tendency to say, well, because the feds are picking up the lion's share, we set generous limits today. I do not believe that is the way we ought to do it, but we ought to try and look at ways in which the system provides for the greatest fairness possible and recognize that ultimately we are providing on an ex-gratia basis payments for losses that are not covered by insurance, cannot be covered by insurance, and so people pay no premiums for them. Therefore, where is the requirement for people to take some responsibility themselves for this, knowing that in many cases they are building consciously on a flood plain?

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Some people in rural Manitoba are returning to their homes and others will have a very long wait, and the effects of the flood will be long-lasting. The physical losses will be easier to deal with than the emotional stresses that will continue for a long time. The Premier said on April 30: No efforts will be spared to continue to fight the flood. Our objective at this point is to provide them with comfort, relief and assurance that the government and Manitoba and indeed all citizens of the province will stand behind them and will continue to stand behind them.

We used to have a rural stress line, but the government did not recognize the value of it and eliminated the funding. Given the crisis facing rural Manitobans, will the Premier recognize the importance of this line and immediately reactivate the line so that service will be available for rural Manitobans as they face this crisis?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I realize that this provides good fodder for debating political issues about decisions of government in times of stress, but I say this, that there were many, many things that were looked at. Firstly, there are stress lines that are available throughout the province of Manitoba for a whole host of reasons. My recollection was that the cost per call on the rural stress line, because it was a separate and distinct service compared to generally utilized services available for a variety of purposes throughout the province, was something to the effect that the generally used services were in the range of $10 a call, and the rural stress line was in the range of $200 or more a call.

So we have to look at the efficacy of every decision we make. You just cannot say, well, hang the expense, this sounds like a good idea so let us do it. You have to have some basis of deciding whether it is reasonable to provide the service. When it is 20 times the cost of other available stress line services, those are not the kinds of decisions that you make.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Speaker, does the Premier not understand that there are going to be additional calls? There is a tremendous amount of stress out there. The lines that are in place under Klinic will not be able to meet that demand. People have been trained to deal with rural issues, and these people are not being called in. Will they immediately bring back those people who have special training to deal with rural issues and ensure that service is available for rural Manitobans as they face this crisis?

Mr. Filmon: With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many of us have been working very hard and interacting with people from all levels of government, with people in stress in our communities, with leaders who are put under enormous stress by challenges that they never dreamed could be put on their doorstep. We recognize that there is a need for people to be addressed in this time of need.

* (1355)

I will tell you that there are central lines right now through our Emergency Management Organization that have psychologists available, central answering services that if somebody is in difficulty, under that kind of stress that the member talks about, they are put right through to somebody who can help them. These are people who are part of our Emergency Management Organization, trained psychologists who are part of the team. When I went to see the team, they include engineers, so that if people are concerned about technical details of what might happen under these circumstances, changing flows, changing levels, what is the effect of the floodway on this, they have engineers there available to them that immediately take those calls. They have people there with logistics training; they have people there from the Highways area; they have people there from every area of Government Services, and they have trained psychologists.

So believe me, we are concerned about it, so concerned that we have put specialized people in place to answer their needs when they have those needs, and I believe that is a far more effective service than setting up a service at 20 times the normal cost to provide for something that did not get a lot of calls, quite honestly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, with her final supplementary question.

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to assure the Premier that I do not want to discredit anybody. I know that people are working very hard to help--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to put her question now. There is not the opportunity to put the preamble.

The honourable member for Swan River, with her question.

Ms. Wowchuk: As I put my question, I want to give the Premier credit for getting all those people in place.

Does the Premier not recognize that these are very serious situations? There is a lot of emotional stress. What we are asking for is that the supports be there in a preventative way to ensure that the government does not have higher costs to pay when people end up with emotional breakdowns and end up in hospital. Mr. Deputy Speaker, $80,000 is minimal in the whole scheme of things, when we have to ensure that people in rural Manitoba have the services that they need, that they do not end up with emotional breakdowns.

* (1400)

Mr. Filmon: With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member is mixing apples and oranges. She is attempting to essentially bootleg an issue that she was arguing about for the last year and a half in this House, an issue for which there was more than ample justification, and trying to change it here into an issue of whether or not people who are in stress today are getting the kind of support they need to prevent the eventuality she is talking about. I told her that through EMO we have psychologists and trained personnel available to deal with people who are in stress. I am telling her as well that Klinic has added people, available through a flood stress line. So the resources are there for the emergency that we are encountering now with the flood and also under other circumstances as has been adequately talked about in this House over the past year and a half. It is not I who does not understand the circumstance; it is the member for Swan River.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on March 6, 1989, the Manitoba Disaster Assistance Board wrote a new policy which it sent to all municipalities. I just quote from that policy: The board proposes that where damages amount to more than $1 per provincial capita, that the provincial-municipal cost-sharing formula no longer apply. Further in that same document, the Province of Manitoba under Section 4(4)(1): The Province of Manitoba/minister may waive all or any portion of the municipal business and/or individual financial share of disaster costs.

In the new manual presented to us last week, under Section 4(2)(1) this exemption has disappeared, this ability to waive has disappeared. This is putting an incredible burden on municipalities such as Ritchot, Macdonald and others. Will the Premier reinstate the former provision which allowed for waiving of the municipal share over the individual thresholds that were in place in 1992?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member opposite is in a position, of course, which is that he can be a critic on all things at all times and that he can take all sides of the issue. The circumstances of this are that it is an unprecedented civil disaster, an unprecedented civil disaster for which everybody is going to be bearing some share of difficulty and ultimately share of cost. I know that the federal government will be paying out substantial amounts of money that they did not plan for and that they are going to have large responsibilities for. I also know that our provincial government is going to be paying out a lot of money. In fact, he and other critics have tried to make the point that we are going to have these huge draws on our Treasury and that under our balanced budget legislation we are not in a position to be able to adjust for them. Now he is asking us to take the responsibility for more because he says it is unfair that municipal governments should have to pay a share of these costs. Individuals will also bear a share of the responsibility.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, he cannot have it all ways. He cannot tell us that we do not have enough flexibility to bear our share of the costs and then tell us to bear somebody else's share of the costs as well because he thinks that is good politics.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will the Premier, who knows that the balanced budget legislation provides for exceptional situations such as disasters of the kind that we have experienced, simply restore the formula that was in place in 1992 which allows municipalities to not have to pay more than the share of the first $6 million on the various sliding scales that are provided for in the 1992 formula? Will the Premier not recognize that in some R.M.s' cases their 10 percent share will exceed more than twice their annual tax revenue? Will he not recognize that sharing the burden is a principle on which Canada and this province have always been acting? That is what a million people do; they share the burden. Will he share this burden?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find it absolutely astounding that the member does not understand that what I proceeded to tell him at some length in answer to the first question was that we are sharing the burden, that we will be spending, I do not know, $15 million, $20 million, even more as our share of that burden. It will be a very significant share of that burden, and that is the way the program is set up, that there are many partners in the sharing of the burden, including of course the federal government, the Province of Manitoba, municipal governments, individuals and businesses throughout the province. That is exactly what is going to happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will the Premier not recognize that even if we paid $50 million from the province to our share of this, that would be 1 percent, slightly less than 1 percent of our annual revenue? He is asking municipalities to pay something over a hundred percent of their annual revenue for their share. Does he not see the unfairness in this?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not going to make ad hoc policy here based on a critic's desire to get some publicity. What I am going to do is, as I have always done--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was wondering how long it would take us to get into this, and of course in this case once again the Premier is leading the way and violating Beauchesne 484 which is very clear about not imputing motives. It is very obvious, I believe, if you look, the member for Crescentwood is simply asking the Premier a question related to policy. I would appreciate if you would ask the Premier to withdraw his remarks and to answer the question without the kind of political statements that we are getting from the Premier on this very, very important issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Premier, on the same point of order.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, asking about fairness is not a policy question. That is making judgments, and the member was way off base. I do not think I in any way impugned motives to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable members for the information on the point of order. I am going to take it under advisement to just clarify exactly what was said, and I will get back to the House with the information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to complete his remarks.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point that I make is that, as a responsible government, we always evaluate the circumstances that face us. We do not even have quantifiable estimates of what is being faced in some of these municipal jurisdictions let alone actual bills being submitted for payment at this point, so for us to make policy from the seat of the pants would be absolutely irresponsible. It may be something that is in the interests of the member for Crescentwood as part of his normal policy development, but it is not in anybody else's interest in our society.

* (1410)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, these past several weeks in northern Manitoba the support for the people affected by the floods has been unprecedented. There are fundraising efforts going on, and I thought probably the most touching comment I heard when I was in Nelson House, a community that was affected by permaflooding more than 25 years ago, when, indeed, a member of that community said that we are all Manitobans and we all have to chip in.

I want to ask, and appreciating the fact that the No. 1 priority has to be to fight the flood in southern Manitoba, if either the Minister responsible for Hydro or Natural Resources can give an update on the impact that the increased levels will have on a number of communities. I know in Split Lake, they have already been told that one of their roads, the main road in the community will probably be flooded. I believe Highway 373 is in the same situation in a couple of spots potentially, and certainly parts of Cross Lake may be cut off from each other. I would like to ask whichever minister can perhaps give the best update on that what the current circumstances will be on the downstream impact of the increased water levels.

Hon. David Newman (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can respond specifically with respect to Split Lake. I do have information on that at this time. My understanding from Hydro is that we are anticipating high flows into Split Lake and expect the level to rise from the present 549.5 to 553.25. It is anticipated it will flood a small corner of the reserve land near the graveyard. This has happened before, and compensation can be claimed under a fixed formula under an existing agreement with respect to that matter outside the Northern Flood Agreement.

Mr. Ashton: A supplementary: Perhaps I will focus this on the Minister of Highways, and I would indicate I know Cross Lake is potentially affected as well. I would like to ask the Minister of Highways what role his department will be playing in ensuring that 373 is not cut off in terms of accessibility. The communities of Cross Lake and Norway House rely on that as their connection to the outside world. I would also like to ask if the Department of Highways will be working with the communities that will be affected on road access, because my understanding is, internally within communities, you may see parts of the communities cut off, for example, from the nursing station, from stores and other vital services.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can assure the member that Highways will work with the communities to maintain access to the outside world. There are ways and means in which that can be done, whether it is pilot vehicles or whether it is using just one lane, whether it is building up the road over a short stretch to keep it above the water. All those ways and means will be assessed in conjunction and communication with the communities. That I can assure the member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: As a final supplementary, I will return perhaps to the Minister responsible for Hydro since the communities that are most affected are the Northern Flood communities because of the increased levels already from the control structures. I would like to ask whether the minister, either in his capacity as Minister responsible for Hydro or in his capacity as Minister responsible for Northern and Native Affairs, will ensure that every action is taken, similar to what Highways will be doing on the highway structures, to keep the communities open and to make sure that the roads are not cut off for any great length of time, because I know in Split Lake there is a concern that if it goes up any more, part of the community will be cut off from the other part of the community. People will not have access to vital services.

Hon. David Newman (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Thank you very much for bringing that to the attention of the House. That definitely is something that will be monitored and communication is the key. You have given good notice, and I will take this into consideration and bring it to the attention of Manitoba Hydro.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is either for the Premier or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).

An individual who has a $20,000 claim is looking at approximately a $4,000 deductible, and for someone that might be on somewhat of a limited income, acquiring those sorts of dollars is going to prove quite difficult. Given the circumstances surrounding the flood, has the government given any consideration in providing things such as no-interest loans so that people could actually acquire the dollars necessary in order to meet the potential for deductibles? Is the government looking at that issue at all?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I want to repeat the point that I made earlier with respect to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition. That is that under this disaster assistance program individuals are being treated in a manner that reflects the fact that: (a) they pay no premiums, which they would have to if they had insurance coverage, and (b) that they would still have deductibles in all likelihood, and so they have deductibles here.

The disaster assistance program, as I understand it, and I can be corrected by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), is so flexible that in some of the circumstances people's own efforts in restoration can qualify for payments. So, in other words, part of that deductible they can virtually save by virtue of doing some of their own work, so those are flexible circumstances. I think that the program is very, very flexible, whereby they essentially are paid for doing their own work, and that can reflect the cost of the deductible to some degree.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I am asking the Premier is to take into consideration one's ability to be able to pay, for example, the senior that might be on a fixed income that might not be able to put in sweat equity or any form of that nature, being able to acquire the dollars necessary in order to get the work done.

Is the government prepared to offer or provide no-interest loans as a last measure?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that has not been a part of the program in the past. Certainly, I will take his suggestion under advisement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the final supplementary question would go to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), with respect to the numerous organizations throughout Canada, in essence, that have been donating to the victims of the floods.

My question to the government is: Is there somewhere within the department in which there is a monitoring or looking at where the money is ultimately coming from? Does the government play any role with respect to that?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sorry--I have so many things that are going through my mind with respect to briefings--I should have added for the benefit of the member opposite that, in discussions yesterday, I believe that the Red Cross and some of the agencies that are collecting money indicated they would be willing to look at hardship circumstances such as the member raised in his first two questions as a source for utilization of that money.

There are funds that are being raised and put into various holdings for the potential benefit of people in hardship circumstances. I may have indicated this earlier in the course of discussion, but there are three of them that are involved with the relief side of things: the Red Cross; the Salvation Army who are looking after supplies of various natures, blankets, food, clothing and so on; and the Mennonite Central Committee whose major role is going to be in helping with restoration.

There was also the Red Cross who are involved with raising money, as well as other organizations that are the recipients of money, the banks are doing that, and so on. It will be our endeavour to try and develop a co-ordinating umbrella that will see the choices and decisions made as to where the priorities are so that we could look at a whole range of issues, including those that have been raised by the member opposite.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Yesterday the Minister of Family Services said that some of the increased budget in her department under Community Living will be used to support more children and more families, and this is good. What I would like to ask the minister is: What is she going to do for the 68 agencies to help them to pay their existing staff and to see that they get decent wages, the people who are already there who need to be paid an adequate wage? What is she going to do with this new increased budget to help those agencies?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question, and I will repeat what I said yesterday because I believe, as there is increased demand for supports for children, families and those within our residential care facilities that need support, that if we can provide additional support to those individuals, that is good use of our dollars. I know there are circumstances and there have been occasions when workers have come forward and asked for higher salaries, and I guess I have indicated that our key priority is to try to ensure that the most people are served that we can possibly serve with the additional resources.

Mr. Martindale: Can the Minister of Family Services tell these agencies what they are going to do in order to meet the requirements of the Employment Standards branch since the Department of Labour has ordered compliance with their regulations? Will the minister provide the money in order to meet the compliance orders which were issued in April and retroactive, I understand, to April 1? What are they going to do to meet the requirements of The Employment Standards Act?

Mrs. Mitchelson: As a result of that information coming forward some time ago we have been working with the Department of Labour to see what the final result might be, and we are still in that process. That will be continuing and ongoing until we find a resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, with his final supplementary question.

* (1420)

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if she is going to force these agencies to choose between obeying the law that the Department of Labour is going to enforce, namely the compliance orders with their regulations, or whether she wants them to shut down due to lack of resources and have their clients put into institutions at much more expensive daily rates. What are these agencies going to do? Why is she not going to allocate some of this new money so they can meet the compliance orders?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I will repeat to my honourable friend that we have been working with the Department of Labour and trying to find some solutions or some answers to the problems that have been raised by my honourable friend. It is not a new issue for us, and we are working to try to address it.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Deputy Premier. This government has a double standard when dealing with ManGlobe employees. Former ManGlobe staff received only partial settlements and had to wait two years to get action while management employees are treated in a special way. For example, project manager Karen Alcock waited only 52 days for a full settlement of $53,000 in severance and was immediately hired as a consultant to Bruce MacCormack, president of MTS Advanced and a board member of ManGlobe. Can the Deputy Premier tell this House why there is one standard for management and another for the employees of ManGlobe?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): I would recommend that the member has an issue with ManGlobe, he should raise it with the management of ManGlobe.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the member should be aware that, according to the ManGlobe project papers, it is very clear that the province requires a senior management team acceptable to Manitoba to be in place prior to ManGlobe receiving the second installment of funds for the project. This minister and this government are in charge of that project.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, with all due respect, the honourable member for Elmwood is simply debating the issue and not raising anything by way of a point of order that should be cause for any ruling on your part other than to tell the honourable member that he does not have a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the same point of order. Indeed, if questions are beyond the administrative competence of the government, that indeed is a reason for the government not to have to answer those questions. That is indeed outlined in Beauchesne. But the member was rising on a point of order to indicate clearly that the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is wrong, obviously does not know that he does have administrative competence. If he chooses not to answer the question, he does have that right, but he should not use the excuse of lack of administrative competence because, indeed, he should have administrative competence, given the direct responsibility for ManGlobe.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Elmwood did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Elmwood, with his supplementary question.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My supplementary to the same minister is this. After Mrs. Alcock's departure from ManGlobe, she immediately was hired as a consultant to Bruce MacCormack of MTS Advanced while he was still on the ManGlobe board and MTS was still a ManGlobe partner. I would like to ask the minister: Why was she fired in the first place, then rehired, and is her salary still the $7,500 per month plus GST?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am quite prepared to answer on behalf of the province as it relates to the funds that were provided to ManGlobe as a research and development project. There was, in fact, a management team in place, a proper board of directors in place, that were acceptable to the province before any advances were made to the company.

As it relates to the hiring, to the dismissal, to the activities of individuals that are hired by ManGlobe, I would suggest, whether it is dealing with Ms. Alcock or whomever it is dealing with, I would recommend the member ask the question to the management of ManGlobe.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Elmwood, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My final supplementary is this: Could the minister tell us what happened to the $20,000 that was budgeted in the ManGlobe project papers to produce an Internet video, and can he tell us how much the video really cost, who produced it and what use was made of the final finished product?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on detail like that I will take the question as notice, but, again, the province, before advancing any money to this research and development project under the ManGlobe corporation, made sure that the proper board of directors was in place, that there was participation by private-sector companies that were participating as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it relates to specifics within that project, I will take it as notice, but all the information to date that the member has brought to this House has basically been inaccurate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time for Oral Question Period has expired.