Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister.

Media reports over the weekend have indicated that the Premier has stated that members of his cabinet and caucus are free to buy shares in the Manitoba Telephone System when they go on sale. This is a very important piece of legislation before this Chamber today, and I would like to ask the Premier directly, is it his policy and the policy of his government that members of his caucus and his cabinet are free to buy shares in the Manitoba Telephone System in light of the fact that all members of this Chamber will have to vote on Bill 67?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, all of us are governed by conflict-of-interest legislation which was passed in this House in fact during the time of the New Democratic administration of which the member opposite was a part. We take those obligations very seriously, and all of us conduct ourselves in accordance with that legislation. My information is that issues such as this in which the issuing of shares or at least the availability of shares and the decision as to whether or not to invest in shares would be treated no differently than other issues would be treated, such as the availability of agriculture support programs to those who are farmers because they are freely available to all Manitobans, and so there is no discriminatory impact on situations of that nature.

The same situation, of course, prevailed during the Pawley administration when they brought in the Manitoba Properties Inc. legislation that ultimately gave a tax benefit to those who made investments. People in upper income brackets who wanted to avoid taxes made investments. As the member knows, it was widely publicized that members of Mr. Pawley's administration did take advantage of that opportunity which they had created, I might say, by act of this Legislature, voted on and passed, and then made investments.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: On May 7, 1996, the Minister of Telephones said, I will not be buying shares because there might be a perception of conflict. He clearly understood that it was very difficult to be on both sides of the same transaction. You cannot be a seller in the morning and a buyer in the afternoon.

I would like to ask the Premier, will he use the same kind of ethical standards that the Minister of Telephones stated on May 7 in public comments and make it very clear that, because of the fact that this government is proceeding to have a vote to privatize the Manitoba Telephone System, it is inappropriate and unethical to vote to sell the telephone system if you intend on buying the shares for your own personal investments?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the other hand, it could be argued that, by making commentary as to whether or not one is investing in the Manitoba Telephone System, one could be attempting to influence the sale of shares in the Manitoba Telephone System. But I say to him, this is certainly very much parallel to the circumstances of the government of which he was a part, which was that they brought in an act creating the Manitoba Properties Inc., that allowed people to buy shares in the assets of the government of Manitoba and indeed gain a significant financial benefit by way of tax reduction from doing so. It was widely publicized at that time that members of the Pawley government who voted on, who conceived the act, who passed the act, also took advantage of those investments.

Mr. Doer: I applaud the position taken by the Minister of Telephones (Mr. Findlay) in terms of dealing with the perception of conflict of interest. Obviously he has a higher ethical standard than the Premier and other members of his cabinet.

We have had a situation where the government has broken a promise, an election promise, to the people of this province. They are now proceeding, through the breaking of that promise, to sell the Manitoba Telephone System. We have had the brokers do the analysis to provide the decision to sell the company. The people that are going to make the commissions have done the independent analysis. Legislators will have to vote on this decision, and surely the Premier would want members of this Legislature to be perceived to be voting in the public interest on the Manitoba Telephone System, to be voting in the public interest in terms of the shares and everything else that deals with this corporation rather than having a perception that they could be voting on the basis of their personal interest as a future investor.

Will the Premier now prohibit all members of his caucus from being both a buyer and a seller of the Manitoba Telephone System?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that the members on this side will only be voting in the public interest when they vote on Bill 67. There will be no other interest in their minds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the member opposite wants to make comments about ethical conduct, then he ought to look squarely in the mirror. When he was a member of the Pawley administration that voted on, conceived and passed an act that allowed not only for investment in a corporation that owned the assets of the public administration in this province, that is the buildings of this province, not only allowed them to invest in that but in fact created a tax dodge that gave them tax benefits to avoid taxation, I might say, by investing in that corporation.

That is the kind of ethics that he represents and that is why, when people look at him, they do not give him a great deal of credibility because they know how low they have to stoop in order to be at his level. The fact of the matter is, the people of this province will know that when Bill 67 is voted on, every member on this side will vote in accordance with the best interests of the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my questions are for the Minister responsible for MTS. The minister knows or should know that agreements made with MTS and First Nations communities with regard to the installation of MTS cable, buildings, microwave towers and other such infrastructure were based on the fact that MTS was a Crown corporation and consequently not subject to a taxation on or off the reserve.

I would like to ask the minister to tell the House now when he first raised concerns with his colleagues over the implications of the sale of MTS on this matter and table any correspondence, memos, whatsoever, that he may have on this matter.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the member remembers from last week, the comment was that MTS as an entity continues legally on into the future and any enactment of Bill 67 will in no way affect any contracts, permits, leases or licences for easement. They are now currently held by MTS NetCom; that continues in the future, and in no way Bill 67 changes that.

* (1350)

Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my second question is to the same minister.

Has this minister consulted with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs or the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanac or any other First Nation organization concerning this issue, and can he table any information that he may have sent to those organizations outlining the government's position?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Manitoba Telephone System is responsible for delivering telecom services to all Manitobans. They carry out the negotiations, the contracts, the leases for acquiring property easements or rights of way for installing their equipment and that stays in effect when Bill 67 is enacted.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Can the Minister of Telephones explain to the House why he would support a policy of full-cost recovery for rural and northern Manitoba communities when he knows or should know that the result would be monthly phone bills of more than $40 a month for some of the poorest regions in Manitoba?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased that the member has asked that question. Many times on that side there have been statements about telephone rates rising, and we have consistently said CRTC is the regulator and they will take great care to prevent that from happening. If he will read the release from CRTC of November 15 where they talk about affordable telephone service and I quote the chairman of CRTC: Although there is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest local rates will not remain affordable, the commission wants to ensure that telephone services continue to be affordable to all Canadians.

That is why we have asked the telephone companies to implement a launching program that will help detect early on any existence of a lack of affordability and CRTC will deal with it. They are committed directly to maintaining affordable rates for all Canadians, as the regulator.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Deputy Speaker, along the lines of my colleague the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), since remote northern communities have the most to lose under the privatization of MTS, can the Minister responsible for MTS explain why no First Nations communities were consulted prior to the decision being made to sell MTS?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I continue in the CRTC release of last Friday talking about service to remote communities. The commission notes that as a matter of ensuring reliable and affordable telecommunications services to high-cost serving areas, they deserve special consideration in light of the forthcoming competition to local markets.

Again, they announce a commitment to being sure that they maintain access and affordability for all Canadians in all communities regardless of the location in Canada.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question was why no First Nations communities were consulted by this government before the decision was made to sell MTS.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the issues that the government faces, that MTS faces, are competition, the fact that competition is going to create challenges in the marketplace, they have a debt, they have a requirement for more capital. These are real issues that must be dealt with by the government and by MTS. Again, I refer the members opposite to the comments of Bob Rae, who really thinks that things have changed rather dramatically.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe the minister has the right not to answer the question but he should not provoke debate. Indeed, I listened patiently. Twice the member for Rupertsland asked a specific question as to why First Nations people were not consulted by this government prior to the privatization, and the minister continues to read from a document that has no relevance whatsoever to the particular question raised. I ask you to call the minister to order.

* (1355)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan did have a point of order. I would ask the minister to keep his comments relevant to the question put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of MTS, to continue his response.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Speaker, throughout the campaign we are constantly challenged to be sure that we have governed with fiscal responsibility in mind. That is what the issue is, and if you read all the editorials that are coming out these days, many are recognizing the reality that what the government is doing is right given the conditions that lie ahead.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I will ask that question again tomorrow.

I would like to ask the minister, since Bill 67, the act selling MTS, is subject to the Indian Affairs Act, has he consulted with the federal Department of Indian Affairs or any other federal government department that has an interest in this issue?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Department of Indian Affairs has agreements with MTS on land under their authority, as they do with Crown land, as they do with private owners. Yes, there has been communication which led to what I said earlier, that the agreements in place are legally in place under the existing company and will continue in force after Bill 67 is passed.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, early last week Pool delegates passed a resolution raising their concerns with the privatization of Manitoba Telephone System. At the end of the week, they passed another resolution, and that resolution said that Manitoba Pool Elevators will take steps to encourage the government to stop the process of privatizing Manitoba Telephone. These delegates are concerned that following privatization, rural communities may not benefit to the same degree as urban centres from advanced technology.

Will the Premier heed the advice of Manitoba Pool delegates and put the plan to privatize Manitoba Telephone on hold until rural Manitobans have had an opportunity to speak on this matter?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, last year when I spoke at the annual meeting of Manitoba Pool, there was a disagreement on their part, and they passed a resolution to oppose dual marketing of hogs. I noted that one of the major items that came out of this year's annual meeting of the Pool was that they were going to make an investment in the processing end of the hog industry because things are booming in the hog industry in Manitoba now. As a result of the move that we have made to dual marketing of hogs, now the industry is so buoyant, now the industry has such tremendous investment going in on the production side that Manitoba Pool has been urged by their delegates to invest in the processing side because of the fact that our policies for dual marketing have done so much for the hog industry.

I would suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that next year, after the privatization of Manitoba Telephone System, they will be looking at even greater opportunities with respect to more telecommunications, more services that they can get in a privatized environment.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Well, the minister may choose to chastise Manitoba Pool, but is he also going to--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member that there is no need for a preamble to her question.

The honourable member for Swan River, to continue.

Ms. Wowchuk: Manitoba Pool, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and seniors across the province all oppose the privatization of Manitoba Telephone because they fear the increased rates that will face Manitobans. Will the Premier put on hold his--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

* (1400)

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a point of order, please, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member for Swan River was admonished by yourself, indicating that no preamble is required to a supplementary question. In spite of that admonishment, she continued with a preamble in direct defiance of your authority as the Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, please call her to order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister did not have a point of order. I was listening to the honourable member. She had phrased it in the format of a question at that point after I had corrected her at that time. I would ask the honourable member to finish posing her question now, please.

Ms. Wowchuk: Will the Premier agree to go out to rural and northern Manitoba and listen to the people, listen to the seniors, listen to the northerners, listen to all people who are opposed to the sale of Manitoba Telephone?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government has consulted and has implemented things to ensure that it kept in touch with people in all corners of this province, things that were never dreamed of by New Democrats when they were in office. This government, for the first time, instituted cabinet meetings held outside the city of Winnipeg.

When they were in office, New Democrats were always preaching to others about how they would revise the world so that it was in their image, the social democratic image of the members opposite. They never listened to people. I can tell the member for Swan River, time and time again, thousands of Manitobans told the New Democrats that they did not like what they were doing, whether it was with respect to the French language amendment to the Constitution, whether it was with respect to their political handling of MPIC, or many other major issues; they ignored them. I do not think that we need to take any counsel or any advice from the member for Swan River about consulting and listening. Nobody listens more than this government.

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, then, will the Premier listen to the people of Carman and Killarney and other members of MAUM who have put forward a resolution saying that they are opposed to the sale of Manitoba Telephone along with UMM, along with seniors? Maybe the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) can have a Jeopardy answer for this one.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker--[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind all honourable members, they will have their opportunities to ask their questions or enter into debate at a later time, but this time is Question Period. There has been a question put. I would like to give the First Minister an opportunity to answer that question.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have indicated in the past that members opposite have gone forward on a mission of frightening the people in rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba based on false information. They have encouraged them to pass resolutions. All of these things may be good politics and good tactics for the New Democrats, but they do not make for good laws.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is either for the Premier or the government House leader (Mr. Ernst). With the debate of Bill 67, the privatization of MTS, there is a big concern that is out there in terms of who is going to blink first: is it going to be the official opposition or is it going to be the government?

My question to the government is, even in the limited skills that the New Democratic caucus has, they do have the ability to carry this session on endlessly, well into the new year, quite frankly. The concern that we have in the Liberal caucus is that this government at no point will bring in any form of closure to see the passage of Bill 67. We would seek the assurance from the government that they will not seek any form of closure with respect to Bill 67.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): We have a bill before the House that requires debate, Bill 67, now for the first time on the Order Paper today in report stage. We will debate report stage. We will debate third reading of the bill, and we will expect that the rules requiring passage of this bill by the end of the session will be in fact enforced.

Mr. Lamoureux: To the government House leader, then will he commit that he will not bring in the closure rule that would limit debate on this particular bill, that in fact he will allow whatever debate necessary in order for this bill to go through the normal process without any form of closure?

Mr. Ernst: The member for Inkster was a signatory to a memorandum of understanding regarding House rules and participated in the process of going through the rules committee. In fact, he and all of the other members of this House unanimously adopted a rule dealing with issues such as this: All government business will come to a vote on third reading before the end of the session.

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was not the Liberal caucus that broke the agreement. Having said--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member that there is no preamble or postamble necessary after his third question. The honourable member for Inkster, to pose his question now.

Mr. Lamoureux: My question is a follow-up question that the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) asked a while back, and that is in dealing with the strategic alliances with MTS. We are told that we are going to be receiving something tabled.

My question is either to the minister responsible or the Premier (Mr. Filmon). How long are we going to have to wait? Do we have to wait until the privatization of MTS has already gone through, or will this government, in the next couple of days, table a document that demonstrates which companies MTS has a partial ownership in, in the province?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member has asked for certain information. As soon as it is available, we will be able to supply it.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Campaign 2000 issued their child poverty in Canada report card for 1996 today. They point out that the number of children living in poverty in Canada has increased by 46 percent or 428,000 children since 1989, when an all-party resolution passed the House of Commons setting a target of the year 2000 of eliminating child poverty in Canada.

My question is for the Minister of Family Services. I would like to ask her, what is she saying and doing, what is she saying to the federal government? What is she doing to try and stop their cuts, given that the federal government has introduced the CHST with less leadership and less spending, stalled on child care, decreased funding for the Community Action Program for Children and failed to index the child tax benefit? What is this minister doing to stand up to the federal government to stop more children in Manitoba from going into poverty?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for his question. Many of the issues that he raised in his preamble are very legitimate when we talk about the offloading that the federal government has done year after year and is continuing to do. There is a responsibility by the federal government also to look at the issue of child poverty in Canada and make some choices and some decisions on how we can best deal with it or how they can best deal with that issue, but it is not an issue for Manitoba only.

I know that First Ministers right across the country have had this high on their agenda over the last few years, and I know that ministers of social services across the country have discussed the issue. As a result of the Premiers' last meeting, the issue of child poverty and an integrated child benefit is an issue that is being discussed by social services ministers and ministers of Finance across the country to see whether we can come up with a proposal that would look at better support for families and children that are living in poverty.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services what responsibility she feels that she has, since she likes to talk about the responsibility of the federal government, to stop matching their actions and inactions and their cuts in the area of child poverty. What is she going to do and her government going to do to stop making the problem of child poverty worse in Manitoba, since it is already the second-highest rate in Canada?

Mrs. Mitchelson: We have said, time and time again, that the best form of social security is a job, and that is why we have implemented many programs through our welfare reform and before like Taking Charge!, like Opportunities for Employment, like the Rural Jobs Project, like the programs that we support through the City of Winnipeg that do create economic opportunity and the moving of people from social allowance to meaningful employment, and we will continue those efforts.

We have already seen some very positive results as a result of our welfare reform, and we will continue to work to ensure that there are job opportunities. I know that the economic forecast in the province of Manitoba is showing that we are doing very well, and along with increased economic activity in the province come jobs, meaningful jobs for Manitobans that will remove them from social allowances and create the opportunity for better incomes.

* (1410)

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

Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of Family Services, who has referred to the City of Winnipeg, whose rolls by the way have decreased by 3,000 as opposed to 800 by this provincial government, will she say to the City of Winnipeg that they should not cut their social allowances rates for children under the age of 18 next spring as they are planning to do, and what is she going to do to prevent that cut from happening so that the rate of child poverty does not become worse in Winnipeg and Manitoba? Will she cost-share their additional $1.5 million or will she put more money into benefits for children to prevent the astonishing rate of child poverty in Winnipeg?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we applaud the City of Winnipeg's efforts in trying to bring their welfare caseloads down. I do want to indicate that one of the differences between the provincial program and the city's program is that those who are on the city's caseload are employable, and the caseload for the province of Manitoba is single parents and the disabled. So it stands to reason that the results may be a little slower on the provincial caseload than they are on the city caseload because there are more obstacles to overcome to attain or achieve employment.

But I want to indicate again that, as a result of our government's support of business and the economic growth and the economic opportunity and the new job creation in the province of Manitoba, it will allow us to ensure that those who are employable who are on the welfare caseloads will have jobs and will be able to contribute in a very positive way to our Manitoba economy and our Manitoba community.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Deputy Speaker, The Pas, Ashern and most recently Stonewall are examples of rural Manitoba communities that have seen their emergency wards cut off, or Morden, or their dialysis cut off, affected by the government cutbacks. Last year, when the government tried to close all the emergency wards in Winnipeg, the people of Winnipeg rose up and said, do not do it, and forced the government to back down.

Now I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether or not the Department of Health is prepared to put resources in the form of salaried doctors, or some other form of resources, into these rural communities so programs like emergency programs or programs like dialysis can be carried out in rural and northern Manitoba.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the honourable member made reference to reductions in spending in health care. I remind him that the sum of money put toward health care during the time when his seatmate was in the government of Manitoba was pretty paltry compared with the kinds of dollars that are being put towards health care spending today; 31.4 or 31.5 percent of all spending in those gloomy NDP days were spent on health care compared with 33.8 percent today, fully $600 million on an annualized basis, more today than in the days of the New Democrats. Indeed, in 1995 this government spent $60 million more on health care than it did in 1994. Those expenditures were for increased spending in areas like dialysis, in areas like hip and knee replacements and heart surgery.

So I am not sure I can agree with the preamble. In fact, I know I cannot agree with the preamble of the honourable member because spending in health care has been up very, very significantly in recent years.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Deputy Speaker, can the minister comment on a letter written from his own executive director of Winnipeg operations, and I will quote: "The most recent case, combined with many communications Manitoba Health has received from rural residents and rural health care providers, causes serious concern about the accessibility of quality care for rural Manitobans . . . . "

This is a letter from the minister's own executive director--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Deputy Speaker, quality and volume of services is always a concern, not only in rural Manitoba but also in the city of Winnipeg. The statistics that I have been citing for the honourable member are meant to demonstrate that demand for health services is up each and every year, and the government of Manitoba has been responding with dollars for programs to meet that increasing demand year after year. I can share with the honourable member statistics related to heart surgeries. I have done that in the past, but this year we expect to do 1,000, a minimum of 1,000 by-pass operations compared with 523 just four years ago. I have statistics on dialysis, people receiving dialysis, and those numbers are growing year after year.

The honourable member did make a reference to alternate forms of remuneration for physicians in an attempt to attract and retain them in places where they are needed, in underserviced areas, and those are options that we are looking at vigorously.

Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister explain why his executive director has said that rural Manitobans are concerned about serious cutbacks, the same minister who had heart surgery closed two weeks ago because there were no beds available in Winnipeg, who had heart surgery closed two weeks ago because there were no beds available at Brandon? Can the minister explain why his own executive director has absolutely no confidence in this minister and this government's ability to deliver health care in rural Manitoba?

I will table the letter from his own executive director.

Mr. McCrae: Any Minister of Health across Canada can tell you this is a difficult time in the history of the health system in all of Canada. Indeed, it was not so long ago that I was in the city of Toronto and meeting with health care providers from across the country, and at a time of great difficulty, at a time when we are facing $200 million in cutbacks from the cousins of our friends over here in the Liberal Party, in Ottawa, at a time like that, Manitoba's record in health care looks pretty good when compared with the record of other provinces across the country.

So it is no surprise to me that anybody might be concerned. I remain concerned day in and day out, and I will tell you, the one thing that I would be more concerned about is if we followed the advice of honourable members opposite because we would have destroyed our health system several years ago if we had listened to them.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, earlier this afternoon the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) was saying that her government is looking for better ways to support low-income families. Well, we can give them one right now and that is to stop increasing the rent for those 8,000 families in Manitoba living in public housing. Under this government, the rent has been increased by about 17 percent just since 1994.

I want to ask the Minister of Housing to confirm in the House today that his government will not increase the rents for public housing tenants any further this year or next year.

Mr. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should point out to the member for Radisson that this government has not increased the rental formula, unlike the federal government that is advocating that the rent will go to 30 percent, which has brought on a hardship to people in the low-income area. We have not increased our formula, and in the immediate future in this budget cycle we have not looked at increasing that.

* (1420)

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will quote from a letter sent to me last September from the Minister responsible for Housing. It says: I would like to point out that the budget, the federal government did not change its--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I might not have heard the honourable member, but this is not the time for a preamble. This is your second question; you might want to pose it as a question. The honourable member for Radisson, with her supplementary question.

Ms. Cerilli: Given that the minister has just said that they did not increase the rents, the federal--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. That is not a question. At this time I would ask the honourable member to pose her question without the preamble.

Ms. Cerilli: I would ask the minister to clarify then if he is correct or the minister for the federal government is correct when they claim that their rent geared to income scale has not changed, it is still set at 25 percent. Can he clarify, as we have learned, or confirm from what we have learned that they are anticipating increasing the rent geared to income for public housing to 30 percent in Manitoba?

Mr. Reimer: The number of 25 percent that the member for Radisson is referring to is a rental formula that is used in calculation of bachelor suites. We use that formula within our own calculations, and our maximum right now on the family units is 27 percent. The member is right, the federal government has been advocating for three years now that we increase our rates to 30 percent. We have been more responsible in our dedication and our recognition of families in need, unlike the federal government which has advocated this 30 percent for the last three years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time for Oral Question Period has expired.