Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I would like to table letters from 2,500 parents addressed to the government of Manitoba dealing with the funding cutbacks to children in education in the Seven Oaks School Division. Parents have been talking about the funding cutbacks and the impact on their children. One parent, Mrs. Rosanne Joseph, who has three children in the Seven Oaks School Division and has been a volunteer for some nine years and has been involved in working with other parents in gathering these names, is very scared about the future of her children in the public education system because of the accumulation of the funding cutbacks from this government onto her children and onto the future of her children.

She called the Minister of Education in June of 1996, again in July of '96, and has asked for just half an hour with the minister on behalf of the 2,500 parents to discuss what these cutbacks mean to the future of her children and to the children in her community. Regrettably, she has not been able to get a meeting with the Minister of Education.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), would he agree to meet with these parents to talk about the reality of the cutbacks on their kids and education in the Seven Oaks School Division?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I do attempt to meet with parent groups as often as I can, and hopefully, in time, I will be able to meet with this group as well, because I have met with innumerable groups over the length of time that I have been minister.

I indicate to the member something that I think he already knows and that I indicate to the field as well to put it into perspective, that over the length of time that we have been in office, since 1987, funding to public schools in Manitoba has risen overall by $113 million. I have to indicate that in the years when we did not have the constraints we are currently experiencing from the federal government in terms of reduced transfer payments, this next year of $220 million of a cut, we were having 8 percent increase to school divisions. Overall that is not a cut. Granted, the last few years, there has been a slight decline.

I indicate overall funding to education when we took office was 17 percent of a $4-billion budget, is now 18 percent of a $5-billion budget. Madam Speaker, our commitment is clear to education in Manitoba.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, Mrs. Joseph has been a volunteer in the schools for nine years, and a parent. She says that she has first-hand experience, and many other parents agree with her, on the deterioration of the education system in the last few years with the cutbacks, the some $43 million in cutbacks from this government to the public education system. Classroom sizes are going up and up and up, supplies are going down, materials are going down, special needs are being reduced, counsellor programs are being cut in half, and they just want to talk about the front-line schoolroom realities to the Minister of Education.

Will the Minister of Education agree to meet and talk about the realities of her cutbacks rather than rhetoric here in the Legislature today?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member refers to rhetoric and whenever we try to present the reality of the fiscal situation in Canada and the constraints under which we operate, he calls it rhetoric. I would point out with respect, part of my rhetoric today will include the fact that we have to spend close to $2 million in interest every day on the debt that his party left us when we took office. That money that we are not able to use for education--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is the reality. The other reality, of course, is that credit ratings are measured in a tenth of a percentage point, and that is $3 million every time that rating changes. They do not wish to acknowledge that, but we are on the right path to ensure that we are able to sustain the education system that is so necessary for our quality of life that we want for our children and grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I have to say that within the schools right now we have done a number of things, that the members also do not wish to acknowledge, through the Child and Youth Secretariat. He mentioned special needs. We now have $450,000 coming from the Department of Health to help us hire nurses for schools so that they can keep their education dollars for education and not spin them off into health functions. We have done a number of things like that to help offset some of the problems in the classrooms.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I suggest the Minister of Education read the credit ratings in '88, '89 and also read the Auditor's Report in the '88-89 fiscal year.

But on to the question of the real impact of the government cuts on children. Would the Minister of Education today agree to meet with the parents that represent some 2,500 kids in the Seven Oaks School Division who feel that classroom sizes are going up, that teachers are being reduced, the materials are not adequate, the courses are not addressing the challenges of the future for our children? People and parents feel your cutbacks, Madam Minister, are scary. Will she meet with the parents and prepare the budget funding for Education next year to allow kids to have a future rather than have some despair under this Minister of Education?

Mrs. McIntosh: I thought in my first response that I had indicated that I would be pleased to meet with the parents.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mrs. McIntosh: Okay, I am sorry. If I did not, then I thought I had, and I indicated that hopefully there will be time for me to meet with the parents. As the member knows, when the House is in session and I am in committee--for example, last Friday, when I had to cancel my time with the rally in Brandon, when he was free to go, I was in committee. My schedule is booked usually eight to nine weeks ahead, and I am pleased to meet with these people as I do with many other parent groups. I meet consistently with parent groups. I am pleased to talk with their concerns, help allay their concerns and help them understand what we are facing, where the costs are escalating and what we are doing to address those costs.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, last night in hearings on Bill 72 we heard that there is no longer any home economics in Pine Creek, no industrial arts in their high school. We heard of increased class size across the province, including a class in Evergreen School Division of 50 students of 16-year-olds, 50 students with one teacher. While at Collège Béliveau we were told that geography texts date from the 1950s and 1960s, when in fact we had not even finished mapping this country, and the budget allows for five new book purchases a year and it will take 15 years to buy new books for the whole class.

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. I want to know, after she heard all of that, what more is it going to take for her to understand that her cuts are deep, that her cuts have hurt, and they have hurt our public education system and will affect a generation of young Manitobans?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I ask the member again, in light of last night's committee meeting, what will it take for her to understand the need of school boards to be able to contain their escalating costs? What will it take for her to understand the need of taxpayers to be able to have their ability to pay considered? What will it take for her to understand--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear. The minister's role is to answer questions. If she wishes to ask questions, she will have to wait. Perhaps if she survives the next election, as an opposition member she will get to ask questions at that time, but her job is to answer questions now.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

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

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We have done a number of things over and above the fact that we are putting $113 million more into the system today than we did when we took office, which, I think, is something that bears repeating. We have acquired money through the Child and Youth Secretariat, from Health, through Family Services, to help with some of the new expenses that school divisions are facing.

We also are working, as a result of the decision on amalgamation of school divisions, with school divisions to help them in joint ventures that are proving to be very cost effective. We have evidence being presented already of school divisions that have gotten together to co-operate in permeating those boundaries on joint purchasing, on common bus routes and examples of savings that they are incurring.

The one cost, of course, they have difficulty with is being debated in committee right now, and that is their ability to decide their largest cost which, of course, is the deciding of wages.

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

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister confirm that last night she heard from teachers across the province who said, and I quote: I have never felt as unappreciated and vilified as in the last two years. And from former Tories who see a government, and I quote, with a vendetta against their profession.

Can she explain why, having heard that--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I believe the question has been put.

* (1350)

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, I can confirm that. I did hear from teachers last night. We heard some 30 presenters, and the majority of those presenters were teachers who said they felt undervalued, they felt underappreciated. They felt the bill that was before them was immoral and threatening. Unfortunately, some of them did not know what was in the bill, but they did know, they had been told--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: They did know because I questioned some of them as to the content of the bill. Some of them did not know, and some of them quite honestly, quite openly admitted they had not read the bill but they knew because they had been told by their society that it was going to hurt them.

I think we have a very clear task ahead of us to let those teachers know they are valued, they have always been valued, and they must never interpret the critique of a system with an attack on a person or a profession. They have been told that just as they critique systems at their convention, that we are criticizing them, and that is not so.

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

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister confirm perhaps that it is her refusal to listen to concerned parents who may be critical, her refusal to take seriously the reports of teachers who may be critical of her policy, that this is really part of the fundamental problem facing Manitoba education?

Mrs. McIntosh: I have been consulting, and it is widely known. The member does this government and this minister a disservice by the implication she leaves. If she wishes, I can get out my calendar and go through it with her. She may not wish to have that published in terms of the amount of time that I have spent consulting with and meeting with teachers, parents, school trustees, school superintendents. The first thing I did when I came into office the first week was to be with 20 groups of stakeholders to set the stage for open consultation.

Madam Speaker, I very strongly feel that the field has immensely good suggestions that they can make towards me, and they have been doing that. We have been spending time, through the minister's advisory committee on the implementation of educational change, a half-day every month with all the stakeholders. They have assisted me in writing the regulations for the duties of teachers and principals, for school advisory councils, for all of those kinds of things, and they will continue to help me. I do listen, as I did last night, to trustees and teachers.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Health.

I understand the Minister of Health met with a delegation from The Pas this morning, the chief of OCN, the mayor of the Town of The Pas, the vice-chair of The Pas Health Complex and representatives from Cree Nation Health, including the chief executive officer of The Pas Health Complex, regarding the crisis that this group is trying to deal with in The Pas, this crisis that was developed by this government.

Did the minister have any appreciation or understanding at all of the degree of crisis that he has created in The Pas, and if he did, what is he prepared to do, for example, in the area of the $180,000 shortfall that is being experienced in the obstetrics department?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Indeed, Madam Speaker, I was part of the meeting the honourable member has described. I am sure it is just an oversight on his part, but there were two nurses who were part of that meeting as well who provided some very significant input this morning in the meeting. I guess it could be said that we had a full and extremely frank exchange of views. It was my very strong suggestion to the delegation that they do what they can, and I will do what I can, to improve the communications between the Town of The Pas and the regional health authority for Norman because it is through that sort of helpful approach that I believe we will resolve issues as they arise in the regions and throughout the province of Manitoba. But, as I say again, the input of the nurses who were present was the most useful of all.

Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, in view of the request that the minister had made with the group, that of having to meet with the regional health authority first before he meets with them, if the group meets with the Norman Regional Health Authority, will the minister make a commitment today to travel to The Pas and meet with those people with a view to addressing the various situations that exist in The Pas?

Mr. McCrae: I have met with people in The Pas on several occasions in the past, and I fully expect that I will be doing so in the future, but in the meantime it would be my hope that the delegation that visited in my office this morning would attempt to ensure that their relationship with the regional health authority becomes stronger. If that happens, I think that we will have far more constructive discussions and actions flowing therefrom in the future.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my final question to the minister has to do with the capital program that he announced two weeks before the last election.

I would like to ask the minister whether he will make good the commitment that he made two weeks before the election, that he would spend capital dollars in The Pas to remedy a crisis situation, a firetrap situation that exists at the St. Paul's care home, Madam Speaker.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I think it was last week the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) gave a good answer to the question raised by the honourable member with respect to the capital program for the Department of Health. I would also offer, Madam Speaker, briefings for the honourable member for The Pas so that he might get a better understanding of what we are trying to achieve in our reform initiatives in Manitoba. I often perceive in his questioning that he has not read much of the documentation that has come out with respect to health reform in Manitoba. The honourable member does not listen to the answers that are given in this House by myself. He might want to read, for example, the proceedings of the Estimates review of last spring and get a general background as to what it is we are trying to do in Manitoba, what it is we are trying to achieve, and then I think that he and I might have a more co-operative working relationship.

* (1355)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice: If it was not clear in May, it was certainly clear last night when we were told that inmates released from Headingley following the riot were completely ineligible, did not qualify for temporary absences under the usual criteria, contrary to what this minister told this House not two or three or a dozen but 22 times.

My question for the minister: Is the minister still going to try to maintain now, six months after the riot, her public relations position that there was no increased leniency, that the usual release criteria was applied?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member tells me that he relies on certain media outlets for his information. What we will be relying on is the report of former Justice Hughes. This government has asked Justice Hughes to do a very wide-ranging report. Part of the issues that we have asked him to look at is the issue of temporary absences, and that is the report that our government and the people of Manitoba will be paying attention to.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who should understand it is up to this House, not just to Mr. Hughes, to answer this question--was and is the minister deliberately not telling the truth or is she just utterly incompetent?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, as I have said, this matter has been referred to Justice Hughes because there has been some controversy, much of it raised by the member from the other side. I can also tell the member, and he does well know this, that there are some criminal charges pending around issues relating to the Headingley riot. Therefore I am not able to speak specifically, and those issues have to be resolved. I can also tell the House that, at all times, the information that I receive from professional correctional officers I believe to be true.

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister simply answer this question? Did she deliberately mislead this House, not just two or three, not just a dozen but 22 times?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member for St. Johns to withdraw the words "deliberately mislead." It has been ruled unparliamentary on several occasions.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, the issue before the public of Manitoba is not whether she misled Manitobans. That issue has been settled, I believe, Madam Speaker. The question of public interest is, did she deliberately mislead this House? It is a question.

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

* (1400)

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne's Citation 489 says in part: Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions--deliberately misled, deliberately mislead are both the expressions used in Beauchesne's Citation 489.

In the context of the question, Madam Speaker, it clearly imputes motives or purports to impute motives, so on two counts it should be ruled out of order.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, indeed, the government House leader is correct in terms of Beauchesne's Citation 488, but we have had a number of incidents in this session where questions have been asked about whether the government is telling the truth or not, statements which, if they were made directly, might be considered unparliamentary.

I do believe the member for St. Johns has every right to ask in this case what exactly the Minister of Justice was doing on those 22 occasions, and I would indicate that it is up to her, I believe, to establish and explain to the people of Manitoba exactly what happened. I believe once again that the member did not directly accuse the minister of deliberately misleading the public. I think it is up to the Minister of Justice to explain her actions to the people of Manitoba--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ashton: If I could complete the point of order without the members opposite showing such great frustration, I would like to once again point out that the member asked the question, and it does not even violate Beauchesne's Citation 487(2) in terms of hypothetical cases. I think that he has every right to ask the Minister of Justice to explain her action.

Madam Speaker: I will take the matter under advisement to review the exact wording and the context within which the words were used. However, I would remind all honourable members to pick and choose their words carefully because the use of certain words causes serious disruption in this House to no one's advantage.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, of course, again, Justice Hughes will be examining all of the information. The terms of reference, in relation to temporary absence, for former Justice Hughes are whether, in the administration of temporary absences during and after the riot, correctional authorities acted unlawfully, unreasonably or changed the criteria for release to increase eligibility. In addition, Justice Hughes can look at any other matter.

In dealing with that and the other issues that he is examining, I am told that former Justice Hughes has interviewed over 150 witnesses, he has over 6,000 pages of transcript, he has approximately 250 exhibits, and it is his report that we will look forward to in this House. But my concern is the member for St. Johns who continues to use this very tragic issue to advance his own political agenda. I would like to say that in some ways he may also have caused damage to some judicial proceedings.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The member for St. Johns, on a point of order.

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, in a search for the truth in this Chamber and in this province, the Minister of Justice has just stood up and imputed unworthy motives to an honourable member. I ask--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, to quickly state his point of order.

Mr. Mackintosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask that you call the Minister of Justice to order for imputing motives, which is contrary to Beauchesne and long-standing tradition in this House, that you call her to order as you attempted to call me to order and that we can get to the truth in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker: I will take the matter of the point of order raised by the honourable member for St. Johns under advisement and review Hansard and report back to the Chamber.

Over the weekend it was reported that Manitoba Hydro is ready; they are ready to compete in a deregulated market.

Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lamoureux: And we hear "hear, hear" from the other ranks. We applaud the efforts of Manitoba Hydro but, of course, the concern is, what is this government's intentions with Manitoba Hydro. In particular, does it have any intentions of privatizing Manitoba Hydro today or into the future?

Can the Premier indicate to this House today that Manitoba Hydro will not be on the selling block as long as he is Premier of this province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, no, we do not have any intention to privatize Manitoba Hydro. The member, though, of course, raises some of the right points in reference to the article, points that were raised by former chairman of Manitoba Hydro, Len Bateman--whom I know is known to members opposite and is often a critic of Manitoba Hydro--but he points out that in a deregulated environment the government would have to look seriously at the alternative circumstances that would prevail because there would be all sorts of pressures and competitive requirements that would be placed upon the utility. So in a very pragmatic sense in our duty of responsibility to the taxpayers of Manitoba, we would have to re-evaluate circumstances if circumstances changed. But, today, I see no reason why we would want to consider that.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, can the Premier then state whether Manitoba Hydro may be carrying what the Conservative government believes to be an unacceptably high debt ratio?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I can tell the member opposite that those who do bond rating analyses consider that the debt-equity ratio that Manitoba Hydro is carrying is probably high. Those who are financial market analysts consider that the debt-equity ratio of Manitoba Hydro is probably high. You will get many people who will argue that case, but the fact of the matter is that under public ownership, as they are, where we the taxpayers guarantee their debt, then those circumstances obviously are different than they would be if they were a private sector operator.

Having said all of that, you have to look at what are the real basics of their fiscal framework and are they in a situation where currently they can do their job and do it well. They have the lowest published rates for hydroelectricity in all of North America. It is all a matter of trying to ensure that it continues to be well managed, that you build dams when you have demand for the power, not like the New Democrats did building a dam two years before the power was needed and paying two years of interest on $1.8 billion of debt. That was foolishness, and everybody who could count knew that, but those are the circumstances and the choices that you make. All of these things require constant good management, constant analysis and--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: I can assure the member for Inkster that we will not do any of the foolish things that were done by the New Democrats when they were in office. We will continue to ensure that it is well managed.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would ask the Premier today if he is prepared to promise Manitobans that he will not consider privatization of Manitoba Hydro today or into the future, that Manitoba Hydro will remain a Crown corporation owned by all Manitobans as it is today. Will he make that promise today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this is a foolish question coming from a Liberal whose colleagues in Ottawa privatized the CN railway, the biggest privatization ever in the history of the country, and here he is asking for assurances and commitments on privatization.

I would hope that whoever is in government, whether it is federal or provincial, municipal, that they make judgments that are based on the best long-term interests of the province and the people of the province, and that is precisely what we will do.

* (1410)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Donald Rouire is charged with an alleged murder, an alleged murder that took place on a TA from Headingley. On 22 occasions we asked the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) and the Premier whether the criteria had been changed for Mr. Rouire and whether special circumstances were given, dealing with the riot, with his release on TA. The Premier stated on May 21 in this House that the release was made under the existing criteria. In light of the information we have yesterday, the Premier still maintained that Mr. Rouire's release is based on the existing criteria, or was the Premier misled by his Minister of Justice?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, one thing I will attempt to do is, by virtue of my dealing with this question, avoid any possibility that the mere discussion of the circumstances and the individual and his circumstances could prejudice a court case that is currently underway, and so I will not deal at all with any of the specifics of any of the material that the member puts forward. What I will say is that, in the case of any and all of the allegations that are being put forward, whether it be by the CBC or whether it be by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) or the member for Concordia, I think that I would rather place my faith in the dispassionate, objective and very well-educated judgment of former Justice Ted Hughes and not put my faith in a media outlet that is looking to improve its ratings or in the position that is put forward by members opposite wanting to somehow develop a political constituency for themselves on the misery of others.

Mr. Doer: I have met with members of the family of the victim, so I do not need any lectures from this Premier about the TA and the circumstances of the TA and the answers we received in this Legislature by this Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), reaffirmed by this Premier on May 21.

My question simply was, did the Minister of Justice mislead this Premier after she had informed the House on 22 occasions that the criteria had not been changed? In light of the fact that the government has access to the files, was Mr. Rouire a minimum risk or was he classified a higher risk, contrary to the criteria of TAs in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I will repeat that I will take my judgment and my analysis of the circumstances of all of the things that have been raised and discussed in this House with respect to all of the temporary absences, all of the decisions and judgments that were made by Corrections and Justice in the aftermath of the Headingley riot, I will take my analysis, my judgment and my conclusions based on the advice of retired Justice Ted Hughes, not on any political cheap shots from the member opposite.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): In light of the fact that the Minister of Justice last May and the Premier today has access to the file, in light of the fact that he did not refute the fact that Mr. Rouire was not a minimum risk as articulated by the Minister of Justice in the past, and on 22 occasions the Minister of Justice said in this House that the criteria had been met, how can this Premier keep a Minister of Justice that releases somebody without the proper criteria, as alleged in the media? Either the media is wrong or the Minister of Justice is incompetent and should be removed. Why does the Premier not do the right thing here today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I have neither confirmed nor denied, accepted nor rejected any of the detail that he has put forward with respect to a case that is currently before the courts--[interjection]

An Honourable Member: That is Choices.

Mr. Filmon: That is the junior Choices over there, Madam Speaker.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I see that we have the junior leagues that are developing for the members opposite, and they have equal competence and capability to the members who sit opposite as they bring them into the Chamber.

Mr. Doer: A point of order, Madam Speaker, the rules clearly state the issue of debating. I asked a very serious question about a very serious matter about his Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) . The Premier should address himself to the question and not give commentary to whatever he sees around him. Answer the questions.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. It is regrettable there was a disturbance in the Chamber that was pretty hard to ignore, but I would remind the honourable First Minister to reply to the question asked.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I would be just as embarrassed as the Leader of the Opposition by the junior New Democrats.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I recognize that emotions are running high, but it would be much appreciated if the members on both sides of the House would cease and desist when the Speaker is on her feet attempting to maintain order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, you

just told the Premier to answer the questions. He rose immediately and immediately defied your ruling. I would suggest you call him to order, and if he refuses to obey, perhaps, you should show him that he still is not the dictator of this province and he has to follow the rules of this House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable member for Thompson to pick and choose his words carefully.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I believe I heard the honourable member for Thompson--even though he stood on a point of order, parliamentary language refers to all statements made by all members at all times in the Chamber. I believe I heard the member for Thompson call the Premier (Mr. Filmon) something very unparliamentary. Now, if that is not the case, I will review Hansard, and I will report back.

Mr. Ashton: I chose my words very carefully, and I will state them again. I said, the Premier is still not the dictator of this province. That is not unparliamentary. I think it is a statement of fact, and I would state very clearly that I chose my every single word very carefully because the kind of disdain we have seen from the Premier again today, in this case for your ruling, Madam Speaker, the reason I rose on the point of order, I think should concern all Manitobans. He is not the dictator of this province. He is one MLA out of 57 and, I believe, should follow the rules of this House.

* (1420)

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I think clearly the use of the word "dictator" in whatever context the member for Thompson tries to disguise it is still an unparliamentary word and ought to be withdrawn.

If memory serves me correctly, you have ruled that word out of order on at least one previous occasion in this House. Clearly, the use of that kind of terminology--I understand the members opposite are sensitive when the Premier made certain references with respect to the demonstration that occurred in the gallery. If you would like to rule junior New Democrats out of order, we will support that ruling.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson and given the words of the honourable government House leader, I will review the Hansard transcript and report back to the Chamber. But there is no need for name-calling in this Chamber regardless of who says it or when it is said. If the honourable members would afford the Speaker the luxury of doing her job and giving me an opportunity to rule, regardless of who says what, it would be much appreciated.

Madam Speaker: Now, where were we? The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Yes, Madam Speaker, as I say, I have neither accepted nor rejected, neither affirmed nor denied the comments that have been made by the member opposite with respect to the temporary absence with respect to a case that is before the courts. What I will say again is that I will await the report and recommendations of former Justice Ted Hughes. I believe that is the best solution to any of the issues that are raised by members opposite.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Tonight, public hearings will begin on the bill to sell the Manitoba Telephone System. Incredibly, we are being asked, the people of Manitoba, to present tonight and as legislators to make a decision on the future of MTS with only two documents having been tabled by the government, a seven-page report from three investment bankers and a heavily censored document from the Crown Corporations Council.

My question to the Premier is, will he now confirm that we in fact have found that the prospectus for the sale will not be issued until two days after the bill is voted on, on November 7? Will we not even have the opportunity to find out what the prospectus will say before we have to decide on the future of MTS?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, my understanding is that it would be highly improper for us to be putting out a prospectus that is based on a legislative decision that is yet to happen. We cannot be seen to be promoting the sale of--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: We are going through a process, a process that requires us to abide by all sorts of regulations, including Securities Commission regulations, certainly the rules of this House and all of our legislative processes, and we are attempting to do it in the order in which it must be done in order to abide by all of the laws under which we are governed.

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

Mr. Ashton: I am wondering if the Premier can then explain why on the one hand it is okay for the government to spend $400,000 promoting the sale, but, on the other hand, we the people of Manitoba are not going to have full and complete information about the sale.

How are we as legislators, let alone the people of Manitoba, supposed to decide on the future of MTS when the official information will not be made available until after the last vote in this Legislature, November 7?

Mr. Filmon: There are two stages to this process: One is a decision as to whether or not the Manitoba Telephone System is better off under public or private ownership given the current stresses and challenges it faces in terms of the tremendously rapidly changing technology. The second is whether or not, having decided that private ownership is the best solution, that private ownership is a broadly held offering of shares, ownership by one private entity, a major corporation, many options that might be there in a private-ownership scenario.

The first part of the debate obviously is that debate as to whether or not the telephone system is better off in private ownership, and that is precisely what we are going through today.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): My question is for the Minister of Labour, who is also responsible for the Workers Compensation Board.

Since 1988, we have been trying in this House on seven successive attempts through a private member's bill to reintroduce protection for firefighters, to recognize the fact that firefighters are, in the performance of their duties, daily susceptible to communicable diseases from people that they may come in contact with. In 1988, Justice Lyon struck down the regulation that would provide that protection for firefighters.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour why--as this Minister of Labour who says that he is developing a protocol that will protect firefighters--he has refused to take into his confidence in the development of this protocol the very firefighters whose lives are at risk as a result of his inaction.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): Madam Speaker, I may not have understood the question correctly or the member is confusing two issues: one which relates to the Workers Compensation Board and the other which relates to a first responder protocol. I will respond to the Workers Compensation issue.

I have told the firefighters in that respect that I regard their work very, very highly, but that I, unlike NDP ministers, would not improperly interfere with the jurisdiction of an independent board, the Workers Compensation Board. I am prepared to listen to the Workers Compensation Board through the representation that worker advisors on that board have, but by interfering improperly in the operations of the board, it will lead us into the situation where, when they left office, it was a quarter billion dollars in the hole. I am prepared to listen, but I am not prepared to do the kinds of foolish things that they did.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.