ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

BFI Landfill Site

Environmental Licensing

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, last evening I attended a parents advisory committee meeting and a number of members of the public were there with myself and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) talking about the massive cutbacks in public education and the impact it had on taxpayers in the community.

Madam Speaker, we have today learned that the government has approved a licence for BFI which the City of Winnipeg argues will cost the taxpayers of the city of Winnipeg up to $7 million in lost tipping fees.

I would like to ask the Premier today, did the government consider this potential loss of up to $7 million and its impact on the taxpayers and the services of the city of Winnipeg when it made its decision to issue the licence to the BFI proposal?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, this is an issue that has been ongoing for a number of years. In fact, through the Capital Region Committee, we have been trying to assemble the information and make sure that all the parties brought to bear their best planning on this issue. Unfortunately, the city and the surrounding municipalities did not come to an understanding on regional planning for waste disposal, and this was the result of communities surrounding the city of Winnipeg looking for an opportunity for a waste disposal site which was formerly unavailable to them.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, again, my supplementary question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon): The City of Winnipeg has identified a loss of up to $7 million to build a second landfill site. In light of the fact that the Environment Commission report does not deal with this loss of income, will the Premier be considering the $7-million loss in income and not accept this BFI site and make a decision on behalf of the taxpayers of the city of Winnipeg so that we will not have this increased taxation of $7 million for a second landfill site that many members of the community believe, inside and outside of the capital region, that we do not require?

Mr. Cummings: Almost two decades ago, the City of Winnipeg walked away from picking up commercial waste. They indicated to the producers of commercial waste that they would only be picking up once a week, and if that was insufficient, they could hire somebody to haul away their waste. There were only a limited number of places that they could take it. They then began to haul, through private haulers, to a landfill owned by the City of Winnipeg. At the same time, the surrounding areas were looking for landfill opportunities and they were denied by the City of Winnipeg the opportunity to hire space, to rent space, to buy space in the existing landfill.

Therefore, we are now sitting with a situation where there is a need and a desire on the part of many of the industrial producers looking for an opportunity to site their waste. At the same time, there are a number of communities in the surrounding region that were denied the opportunity to use Brady landfill.

* (1400)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it may not be surprising to the members of this side of the House that 20 years ago the City of Winnipeg may have made a mistake considering that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and many of his colleagues were controlling the City of Winnipeg in those days.

What we desire for the future is not to make the same mistakes as the Premier made in the past, so I will address this question to the Premier. Will he not repeat the mistakes of the past that he made when he was at City Council and many of his other colleagues made when they were in control of City Council, will he not repeat the mistakes of the past and will he listen to the citizens of the city of Winnipeg and a number of other members of the recycling community who say that we do not need two waste sites, and, furthermore, it will cost the city of Winnipeg taxpayers up to $7 million? Let us make a good decision in the future rather than repeating the bad decisions of the Premier in the past.

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, considering that the comment just came from a former Minister of Urban Affairs who had the opportunity to deal with the issue, what did he do when he was in office? He did nothing. In fact, he perpetuated a situation where the city of Winnipeg--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, there is considerable disagreement over the concerns that the city has raised. They have stated their issues surrounding the environmental concerns. They have stated their issues surrounding financial concerns. There is no agreement on the issue that they have raised around financial concerns. There have been numerous proposals put forward for the city to sit down and discuss the opportunity for co-operation in the handling of waste in the capital region. That has not occurred. I offered my office, any opportunity at all to bring both sides to the table, to sit down and discuss the future of management of waste in this area. The City of Winnipeg, unfortunately, and I would wish that it was otherwise, has not agreed to come to the table to discuss these issues. Their position consistently has been no.

Home Care Program

Privatization--Moratorium

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

There are no studies, no reports, no experts justifying the government's ridiculous scheme of privatization of home care. Visitors yesterday summed it up best, I think, when they said, and I quote: I get the feeling people who want to make money out of a private system are pushing for it.

Madam Speaker, when will the Premier stop playing with the lives of thousands of Manitobans, stop spending up to half a million dollars a day on a contingency plan that is not working and do the right thing, put a halt to privatization for a year, allow for public input, and allow the people of Manitoba to have a say in this crazy scheme of privatization?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, after all of the things that have been said and done by New Democrats about their view of our neighbours to the south, it is rather strange that they should invite them here and recruit them to fight their battles on the political front. It was interesting yesterday to have visitors from the United States whom the honourable member and I were pleased to welcome to Manitoba and to be reminded about why they were really here. They were here because they wanted to access a part of our health system, that is, prescription drugs at much reduced cost to what our American friends to the south can access them.

But it is passing strange to me that New Democrats should call on the Americans to help them make their case.

Mr. Chomiak: My supplementary to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Health: How does the Premier or the minister justify sending in high-priced health officials, officials from the ministry's department at senior levels, earning $50,000 and $60,000 a year, into people's homes to do laundry and bathing when you have thousands of workers who are prepared to go and do the job, a job they love and a job they care for, if you would only put your privatization scheme on hold for a year?

Mr. McCrae: The honourable member might well put that question to his friend Peter Olfert who denies the clients of our home care system the essential services that they require so much. Why does the honourable member not put the question to where it belongs?

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how does the Premier tolerate the attitude of this minister? Even in Alberta, when the public said enough privatization the government backed down and said no more privatization. Will the Premier stand up for the people of Manitoba?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy of the member for Kildonan never ceases to amaze me. I noted that when the Premier of Alberta was introduced, he declined to applaud for him. I heard him--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am used to the Premier's insults but I would ask the Premier to withdraw that statement insofar as that is factually inaccurate.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the comment.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister.

* * *

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to reply to the question.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I did not actually see the member opposite because I was watching his Leader and deputy leader, neither of whom applauded.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask the Premier to withdraw that. He is factually incorrect. As a courtesy, we always applaud visitors to this Chamber. The Premier has as many factual points today before this Chamber on who is applauding and who is not as he has on home care, where he has no facts, no figures and no studies to justify his decision.

I would ask the Premier to withdraw that statement and withdraw the privatization plans. Let us get on with this province.

Mr. Filmon: In response to the question of the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), I will repeat for him, as I have every day in this House, that the issue of introducing matters of competition and alternatives within the delivery of the home care system in this province is one of ensuring that we do not place in jeopardy the people who depend upon the services of home care--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I did not address the point of order. I initially thought perhaps the Premier was going to speak to the point of order raised by the Leader of the official opposition.

The honourable Leader of the official opposition did not have a point of order.

* * *

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I interrupted the honourable First Minister prior to the completion of his answer to address the point of order.

The honourable First Minister, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions, the home care system of this province exists to serve the needs of those who depend upon it for care, not the needs of those who work in the system.

We are introducing an element of competition within the system and alternatives and flexibility in the system so that those people cannot be held at ransom by people who wish to withdraw their services from them.

Social Assistance

Rate Reduction

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, seniors in Manitoba have said that this government is mean-spirited and further proof of that comes today, a sad day for thousands of Manitobans whose budgets are being cut by at least 21 percent for food, clothing and household needs, and they are left with $46.80 for single employables and $81.50 for couples without children. People are phoning me and asking how can they possibly live on $411 a month, including rent.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services the same question. How does she expect these people to live on $411 a month?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, again, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does allow me again to tell Manitobans that the people whom we have preserved on welfare are the seniors, are those with disabilities, are women and children who are in abuse shelters and those with children under the age of six. There were no changes to those rates.

We have said many times as a government that the best form of social security is a job, and the welfare reforms that we have announced will indeed take a very proactive approach to trying to help people get off of welfare and out of the cycle of poverty and into meaningful jobs.

* (1410)

Employment Creation Program

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to table copies of a document titled Employment Growth in Manitoba, prepared by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), which show that this government has a pathetic record in terms of job creation compared to its predecessors.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services, can the minister tell the 84,000 recipients of social assistance, the vast majority of whom are deemed employable, where are the jobs that she expects them to get, especially since her own job creation goal is for only 700 positions? Where are the tens of thousands of jobs that she thinks are there?

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

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because, again, it allows me the opportunity to tell Manitobans that government is not going to be the vehicle for job creation; it will be the private sector.

The initiatives that my colleague in Industry, Trade and Tourism is undertaking and the balanced budget legislation that our government has brought in where we have committed to no major increases in taxes--and that includes business tax--has put Manitoba in a good position to have the private sector come to Manitoba and create the jobs that will be needed in the future. We have a track record which Manitobans can be very proud of.

Domestic Violence Counselling

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Can the Minister of Family Services tell one of my constituents and many other abused women in the same situation who can no longer afford bus tickets to go for abuse counselling, whether this minister wants them to forgo the help that they need and instead force them--because of this punitive policy of welfare cuts--to relive their abuse and to get no assistance so they can get on with their lives? Is this the intention of this minister, to penalize these individuals?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, again, I repeat for my honourable friend because he does not seem to have understood the reforms that we announced just a few months ago, that in fact those with young children, those women and children that are in abuse shelters, the disabled and seniors have not had any changes to their rates. So I am convinced--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Family Services, to complete her response.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know that the programs that we have put in place like Taking Charge!, like our partnerships with the private sector that are looking at where the job opportunities are, the individual personal job plans that we are developing with people in Manitoba will help women break the cycle of poverty on welfare and find meaningful jobs.

Headingley Correctional Institution

Independent Review

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Headingley riot is again exposing what is beneath the minister's press releases and tough talk in law and order when she is even turning a blind eye to justice and safety right under her nose, and now public confidence must be restored, beginning with a full public inquiry.

My question is, would the minister tell Manitobans that her so-called independent review means evidence cannot be compelled, information is not under oath, informers are not protected, no questioning in full public view, no requirement for public release of findings and recommendations? What is the minister afraid of?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, let me just correct the member in some areas. First of all, we intend our independent review to be a review which is very comprehensive in which individuals who have a story to tell will certainly be able to tell it. We understand as well there are a number of individuals who are seeking to have a confidential opportunity to express their concerns, and so we could, as the member said, wait forever, wait until we have had criminal charges disposed of.

Members across the way seem to be taking advice from I do not know whom. We have taken our advice from a justice of the Supreme Court who has suggested and has said that it is very difficult to hold a public inquiry at the same time that you would hold a criminal trial. That is just very difficult, so what we are doing is in a very open way committing to the independent review, and I have said from the very beginning that the results of that most certainly will be public.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister who says that criminal charges and an inquiry cannot run at the same time--absurd in light of the Westray inquiry decision of the Supreme Court which said, the public inquiry, it does proceed--would she table the legal opinion that she says that she is relying on?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I am relying on remarks by a justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Sopinka. I am relying also on the view that this is very difficult for the courts and that in this case we want to do the very best job that we can. That is why we are proceeding in the way we are now. We are proceeding with the independent review. There is nothing to hide. There will be nothing hidden. Within this process we expect to look fully at all of the issues, some of which have been raised over the past few days and others which correctional officers may wish to raise during the process. It will be a very full and complete opportunity and the results will most certainly be made public.

Mr. Mackintosh: Absent tabling a legal opinion, would the minister admit, at least admit, that the gist of the Westray decision is that any decision necessary to protect the rights of the accused can safely be left with the commissioner of the inquiry? Will she just get out of the way of an inquiry and the truth?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I resent very strongly the comments of the member. Let me tell you that this government will not stand in the way of the truth. This government--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete her response.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, one of the important points is, according to Justice Sopinka, that public inquiries must not be covert criminal investigations. That is the issue. Therefore, this government will be operating according to the plan we have set out. There will be an independent review which will examine the circumstances. There will be an internal review. There will be a criminal investigation with possible charges.

I am also pleased to say that our Justice people have met with the MGEU, and in developing with the MGEU they will be also having what they have called at the moment the Rebuilding Headingley Committee that will be an opportunity for individuals who work within the system to come forward, to speak very frankly about the issues of their concern. We want to get on with it.

* (1420)

Landfill Sites--Winnipeg

Requirements

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and I think it is about time that the Premier starts getting involved in demonstrating some leadership.

I want to cite a couple of examples. Today we have the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) approving the licence for BFI to have a dump. Last week we brought up this question in the Chamber. The city of Winnipeg does not need to have another landfill site or garbage dump or whatever it is that this government wants to call it.

The question to the Premier is, is the Premier prepared to stand up and make a commitment to Winnipeggers and Manitobans as a whole that there will be no additional garbage dump located in the capital region just north of the Perimeter? Winnipeg does not need another dump yard.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I think the member is well aware of it, but let me remind him that there were two processes in front of the Clean Environment Commission.

The first process was to review the concept of waste management in the area of the capital city. They recommended that the decision be made on environmental grounds, and it was.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, to cite another specific example--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster was recognized for a supplementary question. Would you please pose your question.

Home Care Program

Premier's Involvement

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Madam Speaker, let me again ask the Premier, is the Premier prepared to get involved in what appears to be another minister's inability to resolve an issue, that being the stalemate with reference to the home care workers and the clients and get this particular issue resolved? Again, will the Premier show some leadership?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will repeat for the member for Inkster, this government is determined to ensure that the clients of home care get the services they require when they require them, as they require them and on a guaranteed basis. We have demonstrated to us right at this present time that by giving a monopoly bureaucratic solution to the problem, we cannot guarantee that all of those who depend upon home care will get their home care, because decisions can be made to withdraw those services. We are going to ensure that there will be competition and alternatives and flexibility in the system so those clients of home care cannot be held at risk, cannot be held at ransom because of the irresponsible decisions of others.

Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Premier show leadership and say no to a dump yard in the city of Winnipeg and say that there will be a one-year moratorium put on home care services in areas in which this government has demonstrated incompetency?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, speaking of incompetency, he should be aware that the dump yard is not in the city of Winnipeg; it is in the Rural Municipality of Rosser. He should be aware of the fact that this has been the subject of Clean Environment Commission hearings, and he wants us to throw aside a credible third-party process that has recommended a licence be issued--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, the Premier is imputing motives. He is suggesting that we want him to throw aside CEC recommendations. I request the Premier to read what CEC said. It said, show some leadership.

In fact, I will table the recommendation for the Premier. Read and adhere to it.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.

* * *

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the CEC, a credible third-party objective review, has recommended that the licence be issued. Under those circumstances, the member opposite is suggesting that that process be thrown aside. That is nonsense. That is irresponsible and that is not the situation we are going to impose ourselves in. We will abide by the recommendations of the CEC.

Headingley Correctional Institution

Riot Cleanup

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Yesterday, when asked to respond and deal with the causes of the Headingley riot, the Minister of Justice in her in-your-face policy responded by saying it was more important to put tools into the hands of the inmate population.

I want to ask the Minister of Justice, who cannot even run a prison, who said just last year that anything can be used as a weapon, can she explain to Manitobans and to corrections officers how putting hammers, saws and other tools into the hands of Headingley inmates will make corrections staff who were just attacked feel safer?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do not believe--and I would have to check Hansard--I would be very surprised if those were my comments yesterday.

However, let me address the issue of the rebuilding. First of all, to our knowledge, there has never been a requirement for inmates to take part in a cleanup and a rebuilding where there has been a disturbance across this country. This is the first time. This government is saying that, separate and apart from the criminal procedures which may take place, there must be an accountability to the taxpayers, that these people clean up the place in which they live.

However, as the member knows, we have had in already, and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) has arranged to have in already, cleaning which will deal with those materials which may in fact be hazardous or be used as weapons, things such as the shards of glass and some of the needles which are there.

What we are looking at is setting up a process whereby inmates--the member does not want to hear--whereby inmates will begin the cleaning process and the rebuilding process; however, all of that will be done--he has been talking the whole time I have been talking, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), this is not a time for debate. The honourable member requested a response from the honourable Minister of Justice.

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

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

With the Rebuilding Headingley Committee, which is a co-operative effort between the MGEU, the union, our correctional officers and our government, we will be looking at the best and the safest way in which inmates can participate in the rebuilding of the institution.

Public Inquiry

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, just do not give them ashtrays, that is all we ask.

My supplementary question is for the same minister. Can the Minister of Justice explain to Manitobans how, without an open public inquiry process, she intends to obtain all the facts about the riot when employees have been recently fired for speaking up about Headingley conditions? How does she expect all the truth and facts to come out about this case without a public inquiry?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, there are a number of issues which I hope you will give me the opportunity to speak about. First of all, members across the way are speaking about ashtrays. That is a very serious matter in the matter of domestic violence.

It was our government's position when changes were being made to the Criminal Code that significant and additional sentencing should not be limited to only the use of firearms but should also include other materials which are used as weapons. Those are regular household items available and used in matters of domestic violence. Members across the way have always chosen to consider that to be something very funny, but it has never been funny to the woman on the other side.

The member also raises issues relating to personnel issues. If he has any facts at all in which he can suggest there was any dismissal relating to the issues that he has brought forward, such as speaking out, I think he should lay it on the table, because those are personnel matters and to my knowledge absolutely have never occurred.

* (1430)

Guards--Employment Standards

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews).

Will the Minister of Labour explain to the Minister of Justice that her in-your-face, warm, fuzzy, feel-good reform policy forcing corrections officers to do lunch with inmates only added to the prison tension and is a violation of The Employment Standards Act of this province? Will the Minister of Labour explain that to the Minister of Justice, please?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the members across the way totally trivialize the work of our correctional institutional employees. So let me just take this opportunity to say very clearly from this side of the House--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, let me just say very clearly on behalf of our government and people on this side of the House that we are extremely grateful to the work of the correctional officers, and that their work has been in fact something which we are making every effort to make sure that we have expressed to them our consideration and actually our thanks for all of the work that they have done.

Now, when the member speaks about policies, he seems to be confusing two possibilities. The time in which correctional officers spend time actually, not having lunch, not doing lunch as the member says, they are at that time being paid, Madam Speaker. They are paid employees to do their work as correctional officers.

However, I said earlier today, there is this opportunity through the Rebuilding Headingley Committee for all of these issues to be examined by the people who know them the best, by the people who have the greatest interest in them. We will be looking at all of the results.

St. Boniface College

Funding Reduction

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the College Universitaire de Saint Boniface lies at the heart of the Franco-Manitobaine community and I know that all members of this House are concerned for its survival. Recent cuts from the federal government, and what are believed to be additional cuts from the province, have put the future of the École technique, the community college section, in jeopardy.

Could the Minister of Education explain to the House why the 50 percent cut to the École technique is so much greater than the reduction the province experienced from the federal Official Languages Program?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question because it gives me a very timely opportunity to indicate to the House that the federal government, after much effort on the part of this provincial government, has agreed finally to assist us with the funding that they had withdrawn.

If I may, Madam Speaker, in addition to thanking the many members of my staff who worked very hard with the federal officials, I also would like to extend thanks to the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), who set aside his partisan opportunities to work with the minister and the department to be part of the solution rather than acerbate the problem. So I thank him, and I am pleased about the outcome.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for that and I want to ask the minister to make a commitment to the House today and to the Franco-Manitobaine community that there will be a short-term solution in place over the next week--and this is the crucial time for enrollments and for program announcements--so that those academic programs and student enrollments can continue in a stable manner?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, we now have confirmation that the federal government has changed its mind, seen the error of its ways, decided that perhaps it was most unwise to not show commitment to French language education in Manitoba and, again, my thanks to the member for St. Boniface.

My thanks, as well, to the people at the St. Boniface College for their patience, assistance and understanding through this difficult time.

I indicate to the member that the plans that she is talking about are already underway. Although she has not asked a question recently on this topic, we have continued daily working on this issue to resolve those matters, and I am very pleased to say that we now have a solution that will enable St. Boniface College to no longer be in the very precarious position in which it existed over the last few weeks.

Hugh Goldie

Untendered Contracts

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, yesterday I drew to the House's attention the giving of an $18,000 untendered contract to the Premier's campaign manager, Mr. Goldie.

I wonder if the Premier could tell the House if Mr. Goldie is doing any other untendered work for his government or any other departments.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as was fully explained yesterday by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), the fact of the matter is that that contract was awarded by the Civil Service Commission, a body that has been set up under The Civil Service Act to be independent of government, so the allegation is one of the typical smutty ones that is brought out by the member for Crescentwood.

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the statement made by the Premier is clearly unparliamentary. I would have thought that when we have the Premier of Alberta here, the Premier might have put on his best behaviour and perhaps he might wish to consider--instead of taking this matter under advisement, would you perhaps ask the Premier to withdraw those comments. They are very unparliamentary and I think very unfair.

Madam Speaker: I will take the matter under advisement to review the exact context in which the words were stated and I will report back to the House with a ruling.

* * *

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, of course my concern is when the member is faced with the facts and knows that his allegation is untrue that he repeats it. That of course is also contravening our rules here in this House.

The fact of the matter is, as I understand it, that Mr. Goldie over the past year has had two other contracts, both of which he received as a result of tenders for which he was the best bidder and was selected as such.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, would the Premier confirm then that Mr. Goldie is doing work for the regionalization in the Health department? Will he give us the amount and the date of that contract, that he has also recently submitted a study on the organization of the Department of Health on March 15? Will he give us the amount and the date of that contract?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, Madam Speaker, and as I said, both of those contracts were received as a result of a bid process for which he was selected as the best proposer and the best bid. Under that selection process, one was--

An Honourable Member: This person had inside knowledge.

An Honourable Member: That is scummy.

Point of Order

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I distinctly heard the member for Thompson from his seat say that Mr. Goldie would have had inside knowledge. That is a totally inappropriate comment, particularly because Mr. Goldie is not here to defend himself, but apart from that the fact that he can make allegations like that is totally inappropriate, and he ought to withdraw that and apologize.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I suggested that someone who was the campaign manager for the Premier might have some inside knowledge about what is going on in that government. That is not only not unparliamentary; it is obvious to anyone who looks at the facts. If that individual is campaign manager to the Premier, does not know what is going on in government and does not have inside knowledge, I would be very surprised. I will not withdraw those comments. In fact, they are not only not unparliamentary, they are what anyone looking objectively at the situation will come to the same conclusion.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order by the honourable government House leader, I will take the point of order under advisement, and I will peruse Hansard and report back to the House with a ruling.

* * *

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I just want to say for the record that Mr. Goldie has absolutely no inside information. When a request for a proposal is put out, it is the same information that is given to everyone who proposes. The members opposite may want to carry on their campaign of smear and innuendo, but it places them right in the gutter where they belong when they make these--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.