Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). Last Wednesday, the Minister of Justice challenged us to come up with the judge who had made statements about sentences and, of course, we quoted on Thursday in this Chamber that on October 8 Judge Oliphant had stated, had he known, he would not have recommended intermittent sentences in every case. On October 11, Judge Oliphant went on to say: I am concerned that a court sentences an individual to a term of imprisonment and as a result of decisions by the bureaucracy the sentence is not enforced and the time in prison is not served.

Because I believe that that breeds a disrespect for the law and a disrespect for the authority of the court, I would like to ask the Premier specifically, in light of Judge Oliphant's comments and the fact that it has come to public attention that people sentenced to intermittent sentences did not serve any time in jail, does the Premier still have confidence in his Minister of Justice who is responsible for the stewardship of the justice system here in Manitoba?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I have a letter addressed to me dated October 12 from Mr. Justice Oliphant in which he says: I am writing to you to express my deep regret that words which I have spoken have been taken out of context, misconstrued and used by others to imply that I am critical of the manner in which you have dealt with the issue of offenders who have been sentenced on an intermittent basis.

He goes on to identify several other issues, and he also makes it clear that, when a member is asked under what authority and is there any recognition that Corrections is the one who then carries out the sentence, the judge sentences; Corrections carries it out. He also says, please note that my very first comment, which the media has chosen not to broadcast or publish, is to the effect that once a judge has sentenced an individual the judge has no further role to play. It is then up to Corrections to determine what will happen to that offender.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice, of course, is responsible for the Corrections department. She is responsible for the Crown prosecutors or the department of Prosecutions and she is also the public contact to the judiciary on matters of policy. Clearly, the Minister of Justice is responsible for all three areas of the justice system, and the fact that defence lawyers were aware of certain information and the Crown attorneys and the judges were not in no way excuses this Minister of Justice.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), how can the Minister of Justice today justify her department, her deputy minister contacting Justice Oliphant on Friday about the comments he made when she did not have the initiative or the creativity or the responsibility to contact the judiciary six months ago when she made the decision not to have people serving intermittent sentences go to jail after they were sentenced?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The members across the way have led with a scandalous allegation of efforts to not inform the judiciary. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was no effort to hide how intermittent sentences were being dealt with.

I refer the members to the media update April 26, in which it comments, individuals who would normally be serving weekend sentences are being asked to contact--a number is given. That was public notice that was given to the media. That was made public. I also refer the member to a court case argued in the name of the Attorney General, on September 18, in which our Crown attorney very clearly, in open court with the public present, said that intermittent sentences could not be served in our institutions. That, coupled with my comments in Hansard on May 28, has clearly given indication there has been no effort to hide what has occurred in the area of intermittence, none whatsoever. There is clearly evidence the allegations by members opposite are absolutely scandalous, not in the public interest.

Mr. Doer: The only thing scandalous in this Chamber is the fact that the Minister of Justice will not take responsibility for fully informing the judiciary and Crown attorneys--[interjection]

Well, if the Premier wants to have the guts to stand up and answer a question, he is quite able to do so.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, to complete his question.

Mr. Doer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question, again, is to the First Minister. Can the First Minister explain to the people of Manitoba how his Minister of Justice can instruct her deputy minister to phone Judge Oliphant about comments that are made in the media, but does not have the initiative, does not have the leadership, does not have the stewardship, does not have the responsibility to fulfill her duties to inform the judiciary here in Manitoba and the Crown attorneys when she made the decision on intermittent sentences? Does he not think that is a dereliction of her duties and we should have a new Minister of Justice here in the province of Manitoba.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the only people who are derelict in this issue are the members opposite who are trying to make cheap politics without having the integrity to at least be honest with the questions they ask.

* (1340)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Further to the statement last week from Associate Chief Justice Jeffery Oliphant of the Court of Queen's Bench, a statement which we suggest certainly speaks for itself, the government was breeding disrespect for the law, we have just confirmed now that in the Provincial Court, Judge Ashdown said at a sentencing hearing, and I quote--I will table this: I have to be satisfied that a custodial period is available; otherwise, I am just speaking in terms that have no consequences, and I do not like to do that. I think that brings the court system into disrespect in the minds of the community, especially when a broadcast like that goes out over the air telling people that in effect the judiciary is powerless in these situations to have its orders respected. That does not do the community any good. My thought would be therefore that I would adjourn the matter.

My question to the minister: Does the minister now intend for her office, indeed her deputy, to call Judge Ashdown, as we have learned she did with Justice Oliphant on Friday, to intimidate him, to retaliate and then go so far as purport to speak on behalf of the judge?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member across the way continues to be scandalous. Though I understand hypocritical is not a word able to be used in this House, it is unbelievable the way that he continues to construe and misconstrue and put forward allegations. On Friday he put forward a number of allegations which are in fact quite wrong, absolutely not substantiated by any facts whatsoever, absolutely unsubstantiated allegations. Justice Oliphant does comment that he believes his remarks were twisted. He believes it is not unusual for a justice to speak out, and he believes that in fact this is clearly a case of cut-and-paste journalism.

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

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): The minister does not recognize there is but one scandal in this province, Madam Speaker. Does the minister not understand that by calling a specific judge she is influencing that judge, and, worse yet, by speaking on the judge's behalf attributing untrue quotes to him, she is further undermining the independence of the judiciary to an extent not even contemplated last week? She must resign.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I do not purport to try and speak or influence the judiciary, but I will say that I have in Justice Oliphant's letter a comment that says: I wish to state that you have my full permission to use this letter to correct any misapprehension created by the misuse of remarks.

I did not call Justice Oliphant, but it was made very clear that Justice Oliphant was very, very concerned about the way his remarks had been misconstrued. He then asked for a copy of the tape, and he said: Although CBC agreed to provide me with a copy of the tape of my interview with Miss Roy, they declined to do so when an executive assistant to the Chief Justice went to pick up a copy of the tape. She was provided with what was purported to be a transcript of the comments made. I reviewed the document and found it to be incomplete and inaccurate. Later that same day, the CBC did provide a further transcript, and I am enclosing a copy for your perusal.

Madam Speaker, Justice Oliphant has made himself clear.

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister not admit that Judge Ashdown has made himself perfectly clear, Madam Speaker, people of Manitoba are making themselves very clear and people on this side are making themselves perfectly clear, and will she now be attempting to pressure Judge Ashdown, as she did with Judge Oliphant through her deputy minister on Friday, or will she do the honourable thing and resign today?

Mrs. Vodrey: I will read another paragraph from Justice Oliphant's letter, because I believe that Judge Ashdown, if he chooses, may comment in a similar vein: If media reports which followed my interview are accurate--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order.

* (1345)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, first of all, I would ask, as is in accordance with our custom, that the minister table the letter she is reading from, and, second of all, that she answer the question which is in regard to Judge Ashdown's comments. The member for St. Johns was very clear. I would like to ask once again that the minister respond to the question, and if she wants to share that letter or any other information, she can table it, as are the rules in this House.

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

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I think the minister clearly was responding to the question raised by the member for St. Johns. The fact of the matter, the member for St. Johns last week raised what we gather now to be inappropriate or inaccurate comments. I think it is important that the minister lay out for all members of the House exactly the kind of thing that can occur when certain allegations are made that are unsubstantiated.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable minister that, according to our rules, Rule 34, where in debate a member quotes from a private letter, any other member may require the member who quoted from the letter to table the letter from which the member quoted.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased to table the letter and have the full permission of Justice Oliphant to do so. In that letter he says, I am very angry that others have chosen to make me a pawn in an attempt to discredit you. I have not and do not question either your ability or your integrity.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, we know that, on the average, victims of domestic assault are assaulted 33 times before reporting to the police. We know that police, Crown attorneys and judges understand the complexities of domestic abuse and that they are doing their work.

Now we know that the Minister of Justice, the supposed embodiment of justice, has undermined her office by undermining intermittent sentencing. I want to ask the Minister of Justice to consider a woman who, after 33 assaults, has found the courage to report to the police and go to court only to see the perpetrator walk free, and I want to ask the minister to explain to that victim, not to this side of the House but to that victim, her policy of nonserved intermittent sentencing.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I can tell you that our Crown attorneys take a very aggressive position in court regarding any domestic violence cases. It is the judiciary who provides the sentencing and one would have to ask the member, in terms of the five days in which the individual does not serve intermittent sentences, does she assume then that the victim is safe? Her questions simply fly in the face of logic and reason.

This government has done significant work and has been recognized by Jane Ursel in which in her report and testimony before the Lavoie inquiry she says: Manitoba is not only a leader in Canada, but my recent participation at an international conference has made it clear that Manitoba Corrections is a leader in the world.

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

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not share the minister's concept of justice.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member she was recognized for a supplementary question which requires no postamble.

Ms. McGifford: Since the minister claims to be forthcoming with information, I want her to tell this House and the people of Manitoba exactly how many convicted sexual and domestic offenders were given intermittent sentences which were not served. Exactly how many?

* (1350)

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I am not able to provide the member with those numbers at the moment. However, I would remind her that in the case of sexual offenders or domestic offenders, that is still the prerogative of the judiciary to sentence intermittently or to sentence for continuous time. I would ask her where she thinks those individuals are in the other five days when they are not serving intermittent sentences. They are in the community, and all of us probably see these individuals on a regular basis.

If the judges determine that they will sentence a person convicted of domestic violence to an intermittent sentence, that does not mean that Crown attorneys have not argued for the sentence to be different.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I want to ask the minister, who has mocked her own zero tolerance policy, perhaps put people at risk and certainly insulted all Manitoba women, to act with the wisdom and courage which should characterize her office and submit her resignation.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, to mock the women of Manitoba is a position of the NDP party. To mock the women of Manitoba is the position of members opposite who do not support the Family Violence Court, who have not supported initiatives that have come forward from this government. We heard members across the way--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

The minister was asked once again why she will not resign, and she should answer that question and not waste the time of this House with the kind of irrelevant debate we are trying to see from that minister. It is a desperate attempt to distract attention from the clear fact she should resign.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I would remind the honourable ministers that responses to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.

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

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to tell the member opposite all the steps that this government has taken in the interests of the safety of women--the very first Community Notification Committee process set up all across Canada which, by the way, the member for St. Johns said did not do enough, was not good enough and that he did not support.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I am certain that the Attorney General does not want to be further careless with the truth here again today. She will want to get up and advise Manitobans that what she said was untrue. She was talking about the lack of support from this side for matters dealing with domestic violence. She was only right when she said it did not go far enough, what this government was doing.

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

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Natural Resources confirm that a contract was let in April of 1996 to Leipsic Communications for sustainable development marketing services in the approximate amount of $78,000?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm that at this time. I will take it as notice.

* (1355)

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tell the House why this contract was let through the Treasury Board and not through the department's signing authority, given that the amount of the contract was well within the minister's own signing authority of $300,000? Can the Premier tell us why the contract went through Treasury Board?

Mr. Driedger: Madam Speaker, I just gave an indication in my last answer that I will take the question as notice and provide information.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

Will the Premier confirm that the reason the contract had to go to Treasury Board was that Leipsic Communications was in fact not even close to the lowest bidder, not by a long shot, but orders were given to award the contract to Brenda Leipsic, a former president of the Conservative Party, joining her with a long list of Tory patronage contracts to former campaign managers, personal finance advisers, communications managers? That is the reason it went to Treasury Board.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take the question as notice and bring back the information.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

One of the things this government did is they established another level of bureaucracy known as the 10 super regional boards out in rural Manitoba. I would like to put forward a question for the Minister of Health, very specific: Can the Minister of Health today tell us how much money has been allocated for interim funding to each of these 10 regional health care boards?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member asked a similar question a week or so ago. I told him I would compile the information for him and make it available to him.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the minister can indicate to us why it is his department has refused to give us that information.

Mr. McCrae: We have been reviewing the question. Again, that question was asked as well. We are reviewing that question with a view to making as much information available to the honourable member as is appropriate.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate in terms of why it is that the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals would have to go to court to try to get information from this government?

Mr. McCrae: That would be part of my review. I remember saying to the honourable member there may be some proprietary issue involved in that particular response, but I am attempting to get to the bottom of that to find out what information I can make available to the honourable member, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, the Oblate Justice and Peace Committee in their brief on Bill 36 said: Those who have come here during these two days to tell their stories are not parasites. They are very courageous individuals who take the risk to reveal some of the pain of their very difficult lives in order to help the rest of us understand just how excruciatingly difficult it can be to live on social assistance.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why it is that her government consulted the public before introducing legislation on vulnerable persons, and why this minister appointed an 11-member panel and a member of the Legislature to consult the public and tour the province a year in advance of introducing legislation and similarly appointed another member to tour the province, a member who has been to 140 daycare centres already to consult the daycare community a year in advance of introducing changes to legislation. Why is it that the public was not consulted and people on social assistance were not consulted until the committee stage of the bill?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does show that the opposition does believe that we do consult as a government with many Manitobans. I want to indicate, as we have made some very major changes to our Social Allowances Program, our income assistance program, that we did do very significant consultation. We met with many members of the community when we looked at our new focus through Taking Charge! where we brought together members of the business community, members of the community at large with those who were on social allowance who were single parents to ask what kind of program indeed was needed in order to serve and try to assist those who are single parents gain meaningful employment.

Madam Speaker, we have consulted with many of the changes we have made and will continue to do that. I really appreciated the comments that were made by many of the presenters.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why this government is bringing in workfare through Bill 36 when many presenters were opposed to this legislation--in fact, I think 39 out of the 40 presenters are opposed in total to the bill--when she was told by, for example, the Mennonite Central Committee's Opportunities for Employment program director, Reverend Garry Loewen, that they had 80 applications before the door even opened for that program and there are 20,000 employable people in the city of Winnipeg. Why is she bringing in workfare when there are no jobs available and people want to work for the jobs that are there?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I listened very intently to the presentations, the comments that were made by the Mennonite Central Committee. I think their comments were very appropriate to what we are trying to do and that is, in fact, if there is an opportunity for people to volunteer in places like some of the organizations that the Mennonite Central Committee works with in order to gain them some meaningful experience that may lead to employment, they are very prepared to do that. I would encourage that and we would certainly want to work with them.

* (1400)

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Can the minister tell the House why she is introducing amendments in Bill 36 which will punish people and reduce their benefits when, as one of the United Church presenters said, it seems ironic to us the government offers loans and tax cuts to the well-off as an incentive to work and yet removes dollars from the pockets of its poorest citizens as an incentive to work? Why is there one benefit to the affluent members of society but punishment for people who genuinely want to work for whom there are no jobs by way of this bill that is going to reduce their benefits?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the New Democrats in opposition speaking out of one side of their mouths when the New Democrats that are in government do completely the opposite, and if we just look to the Province of British Columbia where they have just announced that they are going to cut all youth from the ages of 18 to 24 off welfare completely unless they are involved in training programs or in employment opportunities.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and it concerns the new $50-million tender for all government computer services. Now, prior to 1990, this Premier signed a bungled deal with Wang computers in a failed attempt to centralize computer services. Can the Premier tell us why this particular tender is designed for IBM and Systemhouse and against the many small Manitoba computer companies?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, the member is misguided yet again in his question. The reality is that in terms of the process that is underway right now, we are looking at requests for proposals or ideas on how we can better link and co-ordinate the computer services that we offer within government in a manner in which we can bring more efficiencies to the operation, more cohesiveness in terms of training benefits, software acquisition and the like, all with the idea of doing a better job with the taxpayers' money that is entrusted to us and providing better services to the people of this province.

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

Mr. Maloway: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The tender calls for 25 percent of any cost savings to be given to the bidder in any effort to reduce the cost. Is this not turning over too much control to the successful bidder?

Mr. Pallister: Hardly, Madam Speaker. I am not quite sure if the member is saying this directly, but I think what he is implying is that it might be better not to have any savings at all. Of course, the reality is that if we can achieve economies within government, if we can deliver these services more effectively on behalf of all of us, on behalf of everyone in this province, we will all benefit. Certainly that is the focus of this whole initiative, that is the intention here, and I think that certainly based on the response thus far, the interest in this proposal, this request for proposal has been very heartening, very exciting. I believe that Manitoba small businesses are looking at this as an opportunity.

Mr. Maloway: My final supplementary to the same minister is this. Small Manitoba companies are cut out because they cannot get the bonding requirements nor can they afford to hire the 45 civil servants that are required or contemplated under this tender. Can the minister confirm this?

Mr. Pallister: Not only will I not confirm that, I will deny that because that is hogwash. The reality is that there are tremendous opportunities here for consortiums, for strategic alliances to take place among Manitoba small businesses. That is precisely what we expect to see happen, and I find it almost hilarious that the member opposite, who saw small business when he was in power as something to be gouged by the introduction of a tax on payroll, would now raise questions as if he was the defender of small business.

This is the best province in this country for small business because of the initiatives of this government. That is what The Globe and Mail has said and numerous business organizations echo that thought. So I am proud to see us continue that fine tradition on this side of the House.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Health. I have received information today that indicates that the Minister of Health is giving a directive to the Selkirk & District General Hospital that a number of nursing positions must be deleted to comply with the government's budget reduction targets for Manitoba hospitals.

My question for the minister: Will the minister advise the House today why directives are being issued for staff layoffs and budgetary cutbacks during this time when health regions are supposed to be putting together their regional health plans?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The adjustments to which the honourable member refers are being made in many places in Manitoba and have to do with hospitals making adjustments required to bring them into compliance with staffing guidelines which have been the subject of discussion for over a year and a half which finally led to decisions about staffing guidelines in acute care facilities throughout Manitoba, and it is in an effort for hospitals to make their staffing guidelines come into conformity with that, that these changes are being made. The staffing guidelines, incidentally, were arrived at through significant consultations carried out over a long period of time with hospital professionals, bedside caregivers, administrators and others.

Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, these adjustments will mean five nurses will be laid off at the Selkirk hospital. Since these plans are supposed to be in place by the end of this year, will the minister explain to the House today how the boards can be given any real authority over health care when changes are still being made from the minister's office with only a month before the plans are to be finalized by each region?

Mr. McCrae: The honourable member is correct in identifying difficulties that arise during a time of transition, a transition from one system of health care delivery to another one which is designed to provide maximum efficiency and maximum care for the patients in the health care system in Manitoba. It is at a time like this that we require co-operation from people like the honourable member and his colleagues more than ever before.

Mr. Dewar: My final question to the minister. Will the minister agree today to put on hold any further cutbacks and allow the boards to do their jobs?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I remind the honourable member that in 1995 the spending in the Health portfolio was up $60 million over the spending in 1994. That is not a cut, that is an increase in spending, actual over actual, year over year. So the honourable member and his colleagues who wish continually to bring forward the spectre of cuts in the health care system are just plain wrong and all they have to do is look at the quarterly reports that are put out by the Department of Finance as to spending in the Health department. He wants hospital administrators and others to be able to do their jobs; that is exactly what I want them to do too, and that is exactly what they are doing. The honourable member's question just demonstrated it.

* (1410)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, the quarterly report for MTS has just been released in this House today, and it shows that there has been an increase of 9.1 percent operating revenues, or $24 million, at MTS. In fact, the net earnings for the first six months of this year are going to be over $15 million compared to $6.9 million last year, and this with a far more modest rate increase than such private companies as AGT in Alberta.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for MTS, since a lot of people ask me this question, and that is, why are they selling off a company that is proving it can be profitable, the Manitoba Telephone System?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I really thank the member for that question. It gives me a chance in this House to congratulate MTS on the very strong, effective way in which they are managing the corporation in meeting the competition of today. There are changes happening in the industry; MTS is responding to them.

In the time that this member remembers, it was a true monopoly in this province. Today, over 70 percent of the revenue stream is in competition. The company needs to be more aggressive than it could be under government ownership, be more responsive to the marketplace, quicker to seek opportunities. Right in this report are identified niche markets that they can go after, and they want to have the freedom to move more effectively in the marketplace, and they can do it. They have over 80 percent of long distance revenues, one of the better records right across Canada. That is why the bottom line is good and it will be better in the future.

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

Mr. Ashton: That is right, congratulate them and sell them off in the process.

My follow-up question, Madam Speaker, and I want to refer to a response to a Freedom of Information request we put in. I would like to ask the Minister responsible for MTS if he can confirm something we have suspected on this side for quite some time, as has been confirmed by MTS, that they had no studies done on privatization and it is not using any studies for the privatization of MTS. Can he now confirm that the Manitoba Telephone System itself was not even given the opportunity to look at the question of privatization before this government made the dictatorial decision to sell off MTS with no consultation with the people of Manitoba?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, over the last many number of months, it has become obvious that things are really changing in the telecom industry. Manitoba Telephone System is owned by the government of Manitoba. We take the financial risk for the corporation. We guarantee its debt, and as we looked at the risks that we faced, three companies were hired to do an analysis of the risks for the future and what recommendations they would make as to how we would recapitalize the company, and that is what the government has done.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he can also confirm that another group that was not consulted, perhaps the most unfortunate omission, were the pensioners of MTS, in fact. I am wondering how he can justify that we are receiving many calls from people who are receiving MTS pensions today who are absolutely incensed that in Bill 67, the bill that sells off MTS, it indicates there is deemed consent for them to leave civil service superannuation which guarantees their pension. How can he justify putting the pensions of MTS employees, all 1,300 Manitobans receiving those pensions, at risk?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, there is no risk for the pensioners. The bill very clearly identifies that the plan will be equivalent in value. I want to remind the member when he left government, they had only funded a portion of the pension, some $60 million out of $200 million. Today, because of aggressive--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the member asked the question; I would like him to listen to the answer. Because of aggressive work by the Manitoba Telephone System--

An Honourable Member: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Findlay: If anybody put the pension of MTS at risk, it was the people over there when they were in government. They did not fund the pension and they had run the debt load up to 91 percent. They are the ones who put it at risk. Today, the pension plan is fully funded and the legislation directs that the new plan will be equivalent in value. There is no risk for the pensioners. In fact--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System, to complete his response.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, Manitoba Telephone System executives have had numerous meetings with pensioners, explained the detail to them and when the meeting was over, the vast majority of people said, what is the issue here? That member will not listen to the facts that exist and when explained to the people, they understand. I am sorry that member is not part of that.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Brandon East, with a very short question.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): How about three short questions?

To the Minister of Family Services: On September 30, I asked the Minister of Family Services to look into the problem of those social allowance recipients, including mentally ill people, displaced by the closure of two apartment blocks in Brandon that were deemed to be unfit for human habitation. Two weeks later, Madam Speaker, in spite of the efforts of the Canadian Mental Health Association, two mentally ill persons are still forced to live in third-rate hotels in Brandon and at least two persons are now living in apartments that are substandard, filthy and deplorable.

Will the minister review this situation right away and tell us what action she will take?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. I certainly take seriously my responsibilities. I do know that through the mental health system, they are attempting very aggressively to resolve the issues of placement of those individuals and they will continue to do so.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.