ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Education System
Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker or Mr. Speaker, Deputy Speaker. It is contagious, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My question is a very serious one. Across the province we have been listening to students and teachers and parents advisory councils on the state of the finances and the cutbacks that have been initiated due to the Filmon government reduction in support for public education.
Today again in this Legislative Building parents advisory councils from across the province came here and talked about the lack of commitment by the provincial government to public education, in fact stated that the government of the day is starving the public education system, and this is having a very detrimental impact on the future for our kids and on the future of their education.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), will he initiate increases in funding to public education, and will he listen to the parents advisory councils that have come forward to this Legislature today? Will he stop starving our children in terms of education funding and start investing in our future for decent funding in public education?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I will check; my understanding was that we only had about 12 people here, but I will accept the opposition Leader's statement that it was parent councils of Manitoba. I was advised that about a dozen people had come. However, in regard to the concerns raised--two concerns I understand were raised. I was presented with a copy of the--watched as it came in.
First of all, regarding their first concern that the quality of education, that parent councils are being limited to talking about cuts, I would read what our role for parent advisory councils is, and no parent council should feel as stated in this release that they are limited to talking about cuts. Their role, according to the act, has many facets: to advise the principal about school policies, activities and organizations, including departmental and locally developed curricula, cultural and extracurricular activities, student discipline, behaviour management policies, community access to school facilities; advising the principal about fundraising, about the hiring process in hiring and assigning principals, to advise the school board of that; to advise the principal and the school board about annual budgets for the school; to participate in developing annual school plans involving the activities in the school and the learning that takes place in the school; to participate in any review of the school that the minister or school board has directed to be carried out and so on, so they are not confined at all. Their role is very extensive.
I should indicate in terms of funding that when we came into office the funding was $631 million. It is now $746 million, an increase of $115 million.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the minister's own advisory council on education and funding, a report that the minister and government received in November of 1996, stated that additional funding and support for public education should come from the general revenues of the Province of Manitoba. The funding should not have to come again from the property taxpayers of Manitoba.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), why did the government ignore the advice of their own advisory committee? Why did they continue to either cut public education funding or freeze public education funding as they have done over the last five years? Why do they keep reducing the support for public education and continue to put that pressure on the local property taxpayer, contrary to the recommendation from their own advisory committee?
Mrs. McIntosh: As I have indicated earlier, funding increases to public education since we took office are $115 million over the stretch of time from the time that we assumed office until today. I do acknowledge, as all members do, that when we began to have federal transfer cuts and a number of other things impact, we did have a few years of 2 percent cuts and a freeze. Even with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our total increase has been that $115 million. By anybody's calculation, that is an increase over what the NDP used to fund public education in Manitoba, and a fairly substantial one, I might add.
In terms of the advice we have been given from the minister's Advisory Committee on Education Finance, I should point out a number of things that we have done, variations in the formula to address many concerns that have been identified. We have put in additional support for small elementary schools in sparsely populated areas; we have adjusted the funding formula so that the funding is not reduced due to reductions in operations and maintenance expenditures. Those could be redirected into the classroom where they should be. We have done a $2,000 per wheelchair pupil provision for students and vehicles, and a number of other initiatives.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know you are asking me to sit because of time.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the minister did not answer the question of why she did not follow the recommendations from her own advisory council on public education funding where they called on the funding to come from the general revenues, not from the local property taxpayers, something that is obviously going to be the opposite of what is happening.
I would like to ask the Premier himself, in light of the fact you have cut minus two, minus two, a freeze, minus two and zero over the last five years, at a time when revenues have grown, including the federal cuts by some 12 percent, including the money coming in from lottery revenues and other means, how can our kids compete in a changing world when courses are being cut, programs are being reduced, teacher-class ratios are changing, textbooks are becoming out of date? How can we compete in a changing world when we do not invest in our future by investing in our children in a public education system?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the minister has indicated, this government has increased its spending in the time that it has been in office to education by $115 million a year, unlike the New Democrats, who, when they were in office--here is an example of their way of doing business. It is an article from the February 20, 1988, edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, and it says, quote, Education and some other social services are getting a dwindling share of provincial resources under the Howard Pawley regime.
It talks about how the greatest areas of increase in spending under that Pawley-Doer administration that was in office for almost seven years, the greatest increases went to departments such as the cabinet and its administration, 108 percent increase over that period of time; Government Services, 119 percent; Co-op Development, 219 percent; Agriculture, 101 percent. But all of the social areas, in fact, were dwindling. They were down from 62 percent of the budget for the three major areas: health, education and social services. They were down from 62 percent to 60 percent. They have gone up to over 64 percent of the budget since we have been in office.
It talks about the fact that the interest on the debt was increasing so dramatically that it was heading to be the second-largest department of government--second largest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of their priorities of spending on administration, on cabinet expenses and all those other things but not spending on education.
We have changed that. Interest on the debt is now the fourth department. It is slipping down in priority as it is slipping down in relation to all our other expenses, because we are able to live within our means for the first time in decades, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
* (1350)
Education System
Parental Involvement
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the last year that the NDP government was in office, there was a 4.5 percent increase to public schools, and I and every other parent across Manitoba would put that against the minus two, minus two and minus two of this government.
Last spring at the Yellowquill School in Portage, the government held one of its forums for parents. The Premier spoke; the Minister of Education spoke. In fact, every Tory minister with any connection to public education spoke, all of them glibly about the role of parents in education.
I would like the Minister of Education to confirm that what was in fact offered to parents and what is still offered to parents is not power, not the long list of activities that she wanted to enter into the record here, but in fact what has been offered is a poison chalice, the ability for those parents to cut and cut and cut to the bone their own children's education--because that is what they are telling the minister.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I find it interesting in her preamble the member would indicate that the funding to education in the Pawley administration in their last year was only 4.5 percent. The following year when we came into office and for a few years after, the funding was considerably higher than that increase. School divisions were finding that they were raising their local levies very substantially year after year. I know, I was on a school board at that time, and school divisions were coping with what the member says they are still coping with, local levy. School divisions all around the province will indicate they value very much the ability to have taxing authority, because it does enable control for them. I think her comments are not quite on the target in that regard.
In regard to what parents are now obliged and able to do, I should indicate that we have about 150 school advisory councils now established, and the feedback I receive from them is far, far different from the feedback she has received from the people she says she has talked to. I receive a lot of feedback from parent advisory councils, both indirectly from department personnel and directly from parent councils themselves. That is not the message I am getting.
Ms. Friesen: Could the Minister of Education explain the duplicity of her government which claimed in 1994 when Clayton Manness was minister that we, quote, want advisory councils to have tremendous influence, but yet we have a Minister of Education who refused month after month to meet with the parent councils of Seven Oaks and who ignores the growing and extensive opposition to the cuts in public education across Manitoba?
Mrs. McIntosh: Again, not accepting any of the preamble--and I must indicate that I find the preamble in so many instances to be very, very off the mark and outrightly inaccurate in many instances. I meet regularly with parent councils, and they do not have to wait months and months to see me. The input and the advice that they are giving us is invaluable, the input they are making into their schools, the development of school plans. One only has to go to divisions, go to the former minister's division, Morris MacDonald, talk about what the parent advisory councils are doing, the school advisory councils. It is astonishing. Some of the initiatives in community technologies for the whole community, not just the school, that are going on are outstanding, directly the result of parents who have taken a positive approach to work with the schools in developing those plans.
I can also indicate that on the minister's advisory committee on the implementation of educational change, the input from school advisory councils, parents on that very important committee have played a leading role in advising us on how they want educational change regarding examinations, curricula, roles of teachers, roles of principals, have been incredibly helpful. We thank them tremendously, and I do not see them not being involved, as the member implies.
* (1355)
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister, whose own publication, Parents and Schools: Partners in Education, argues that parental involvement is one of the most challenging practices, that educators need to build trust among parents--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to put her question. On her third question, I do not believe there is a need to put a preamble.
The honourable member for Wolseley, to continue.
Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask the minister how it is she intends to rebuild that trust with parents, the parents who are here today, for example, the parents in Seven Oaks, the parents who are telling us over and over again that confidence must be rebuilt in the public education system of Manitoba.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member will have the parents that she has communicated with whom she quotes in the House, and I will get the overview. I have to indicate that what parents told us in the parent forums--we were the first government in Manitoba to hold parent forums. My predecessor held parent forums with sets of 500 parents--first come, first served; they were not preselected--who gave him indication they wanted several things: higher standards, measurable outcomes, examinations and assessment, improved quality of teacher training at the university in a number of things, better discipline in the schools.
Those foundations formed the blueprint which we are now implementing. Those requests came initially from parents. They wanted higher parental involvement in schools. We have set up guidelines for parental involvement through parent advisory councils. We have had 150 of them established. To my knowledge, from all I have heard from them from meeting with them, from talking with them, from visiting their schools, they are doing just what parents asked. It is too bad--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. McIntosh: --they did not do that when they were in power.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I remind honourable members that under Beauchesne's 417, answers to questions should be as brief as possible and deal with the matters raised and should not provoke debate. It would help in keeping the decorum at this time.
Education System
School Bus Capital Program
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education on the subject of the new capital school bus program.
I would like to remind the minister of May 16, 1996, not very long ago, when the minister told this House, "we have no intention of extending further beyond the 15 years the length of time that school divisions are allowed to own buses, because we feel that is probably the maximum length of time that a school division should be having a bus on the road."
Will the minister admit now that the government has actually removed the 15-and-a-half-year limit for the use of school buses by the public school system, and, in effect, there is no limit by the province, not like her own ministerial car?
* (1400)
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I find it ironic that one member of the opposition would on the one hand ask us to start listening to taxpayers, parents and school officials and on the other hand say that when we act upon what we have heard that we should not do it. It is the damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario that is easy to bring up in the House.
I should indicate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what we have done is to act upon advice from the field, including parents to whom we do listen. We stopped purchasing buses for school divisions. Instead, what we have done is we have given school divisions the money that is required to purchase a bus should they so desire, based upon this premise that people were coming to us and saying: Sometimes buses at the age of eight are completely worn out depending upon the use they have had; others at the age of 17, if they have been well maintained and are not used a lot, are still roadworthy. Some of us do not wish to purchase buses, some of us wish to contract out. Instead of purchasing buses for school divisions, why do you not do the common-sense thing, just provide the money and let us determine how our transportation will take place.
Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are subject to inspection and all of those items. They must be roadworthy and licensed, et cetera, but we are listening to the requests from parents and school officials that these decisions be left to school divisions with the money provided. We will continue listening to people and making adjustments to our decisions if we believe they have made a good case.
Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Deputy Speaker, can the minister explain to this House how many buses the Winnipeg School Division will replace at a $99,000 grant, given that 38 of their 60 buses need to be replaced? How old will those buses be by the time they get replaced?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot speak for individual divisions' decision making. I know that a number of divisions have opted for contracting out in terms of how they transport students instead of owning their own buses. Of course, that is their own decision.
I have to indicate that we have provided an additional funding of $0.4 million to the Winnipeg divisions for the purchase of buses should they desire to do that. We also are saying that we will be providing $195 per pupil for Grade 7 to Senior 4 in cities, towns and villages who live more than a mile or 1.6 kilometres from their school or the transit bus stops. We are making accommodations to make transportation easier in the city and to lessen that burden on local school divisions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, with her final supplementary question.
Ms. Mihychuk: My final question to the Minister of Education: Is the minister finally prepared to admit that for those divisions that require replacement of significant buses--and we do have an aging fleet--over the next few years, that the only viable option for those divisions is to look at leasing for virtually double the cost at $120,000 per unit rather than the $60,000 to buy it outright, so the taxpayers of Manitoba will be responsible for picking up buses for twice the price?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, no, I will not accept the preamble. Again, the preamble is worded for whatever message is intended to be gained from that wording.
I have to indicate that we have done a number of things in addition to allowing the local divisions to make the decisions, which were the requests that were made of us. The response we gave to points raised to us, in listening and responding positively to suggestions we were given from the field, we have also done a number of other things to help offset costs. I started to mention earlier that we will now give $2,000 per wheelchair pupil for pupils who are provided vehicles other than school buses, provided, of course, they are appropriately licensed. We have done a number of things like that.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you cited Beauchesne 417 which states that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." We have now listened through nine rather painful so-called responses from the minister, many of which bear no resemblance to the question asked. The minister was just asked a very serious question about school buses, in particular whether school districts will have to lease rather than purchase because of the pressures they are under.
I would like to ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would ask the Minister of Education to finally at least respond to one of the questions we are asking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, he is quite right. Citation 417 does state that answers to questions should be as brief as possible and deal with the matters raised, but in listening to the minister's answer I was not sure if she was coming to that point or if it was coming further on, so I cannot rule it a point of order at this time.
Personal Care Homes
Safety Standards
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. We have now had the announcement of an inquest into the death of Mr. Molnar at Holiday Haven, but there is still a huge gap, a huge hole in the Holiday Haven and the nursing home story.
I am asking the Minister of Health what steps the Minister of Health is going to take to answer the questions about previous difficulties at Holiday Haven, previous difficulties at other nursing homes and the huge lack in confidence that Manitobans have in the ability of this government to manage nursing homes as a result of the Holiday Haven affair.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Speaker, as we have discussed in this House before, we certainly wanted to see what decision the Chief Medical Officer would make with respect to an inquest. We understand that he has now ordered an inquest with, I think, a fairly broad mandate with respect to these circumstances. As I have indicated to the member before, we will wait to see the outcome and the recommendations that come from the coroner’s inquest or the inquest of the Chief Medical Officer.
Holiday Haven Nursing Home
Inquest--Mandate
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Can the Minister of Health and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who seem to know something about this, inform the House whether or not issues such as the Morrissette case where they have been forced to go to the Human Rights Commission or the 19 cases that I wrote to the minister last fall, 19 cases of abuse at Holiday Haven, will be dealt with by this particular inquest?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Every time I seem--or on many occasions in which we get questions from members opposite, I think it is very important to remember that it is important to have our facts correct. The member talks about 19 cases of abuse as if every one has been proved. Many times there are inquiries made or allegations made that the facts do not bear it. It happens from time to time. We heard the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) make reference to three deaths of the same nature which were not the case.
My understanding from discussions my office has had with the Chief Medical Officer is within the mandate that he will be addressing his concerns regarding safety of elderly persons in personal care homes in our province, and that is part of the discussions or the inquiry that he will be having.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister. I spoke on the weekend with the daughter of Mrs. Sands, the other subject of an inquest at a personal care home four years ago that still is unresolved. What assurances will the minister give this House and the people of Manitoba, since this inquest is going to be into other nursing homes, that all of the cases, that all of the situations will be adequately investigated and followed up so that we are not in this House a couple of years later like we have been again talking about the failure of this government to follow up recommendations?
Mr. Praznik: I too have had occasion to speak to some of the relatives of that particular case that he referenced, and from the information that was provided to me--I have not spoken with the daughter but another family member--they are not quite as the member would lay out before us in the House. As I have indicated, the Chief Medical Officer will be holding an inquiry. Part of that mandate is to address concerns regarding safety of elderly persons in our personal care homes, and as minister I certainly want to have that kind of information. It is my responsibility as the minister who licenses personal care homes, both private and public in this province, to ensure that to the greatest degree possible we are protecting the safety and security of residents of those facilities.
Labour-Market Training
Federal-Provincial Agreement
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Merci, Monsieur le vice-président, et bienvenue.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and welcome.
[English]
My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Your department is currently in negotiation with the federal government to assume more authority in the area of training. I am upset with the members of my constituency that are being frightened by reports that have been circulated in St. Boniface because of closed-door agreements, which I do not believe. Will the minister update this House on the current negotiations between the province and the federal government regarding a transfer of labour market services and dispel the rumour of closed-door negotiations?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, yes, the member is correct in that Canada and Manitoba are negotiating a labour market training agreement. We are in the final stages of that negotiating. The member makes reference to concerned employees, and I indicate that we, in negotiating, have every intention of ensuring that those who currently do work in providing training opportunities and labour market training for the people of Manitoba are all fairly and well treated as we conclude our negotiations.
* (1410)
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Speaker, has the minister considered entering into a co-management agreement with the federal government similar to the one already existing between the federal government and the Province of Newfoundland?
Mrs. McIntosh: We have looked at all models that exist. We will be ending ultimately, I am sure, with an agreement that is made for Manitoba that may or may not reflect what is happening in other provinces but that will be well suited to the people who live and work here. Our goal is to achieve that in a co-operative venture with the federal government. We have had many discussions on that very topic and, rumours notwithstanding, I can assure you that both the federal minister and the provincial minister and those two respective governments want the very best solution for all involved.
Mr. Gaudry: Can the minister guarantee that Manitobans will continue to receive the same in bilingual services and support as provided under the federal government?
Mrs. McIntosh: Our goal here is to provide the same or enhanced services in all areas in the most cost-effective way to avoid the overlap and duplication that currently exists and to ensure that we end up with a system as good if not better than what we had with costs that are contained and will not continue to grow because of duplication and overlap.
Our concern would be that as we have this devolution of power the funding that is required to sustain our system accompanies the agreement, and of that we have confidence of a successful conclusion.
Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines
Expenditures
Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had a response to a question asked last Friday, March 7, from the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and I would like to put that on the record.
Of the total amount of $74,734.77 included in the 1995-96 Public Accounts, there were two categories of expenses. The first one concerning relocation, $69,985.31 relates to relocation expenditures incurred in the recruitment of the deputy minister, in relocating the deputy and his family from Ottawa to Winnipeg. The expenditures are consistent with the general manual of administration policies and Treasury Board guidelines, I am advised by the Clerk of the Executive Council. In their review of these expenditures, staff have confirmed that they relate specifically to the moving of household goods to Winnipeg, fees, commissions and disbursements related to the sale of the property in Ottawa and miscellaneous disbursements incurred during the relocation of the deputy minister and his family.
Out of the total relocation expenditures, only $4,008.67 passed through the hands of the deputy minister in reimbursing him for relocation expenses; $65,850.33 was paid direct to Royal LePage and $126.31 was paid direct to American Express.
The second category was business-travel marketing; $4,749.46 relates to travel and associated costs for the deputy minister in the course of performing his regular duties. Of this total, only $2,685.89 passed through the hands of the deputy minister in reimbursing him for his travel and related expenses.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Newman: Oh, I am sorry.
An Honourable Member: . . . been standing for five minutes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just to inform the minister, we have been dealing with the rules which have been set forth by the House prior to my coming to the Chair, but we have been leading to the establishment of one-minute clear guidelines for the answers to questions and sometimes a little bit longer, but that was dragging on to two minutes.
Youth Gangs
Reduction Strategy
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Last week when I asked why, despite the threat of gangs on everyone's mind, there was not one single word in the throne speech on the issue, the minister launched into a fit against Lloyd Axworthy.
Rather than turf wars, gang or political, can the minister possibly explain what I think Manitobans would be dismayed to learn, that the government has quietly buried a report by its own Youth Secretariat which made 34 recommendations for comprehensive action on gangs, a call to action done when? Ten months ago. What are they waiting for?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would certainly be more than happy to have one of my staff members sit down and speak with the member opposite to indicate exactly what we have been doing over the last number of months.
I want to indicate that, and I do not have the report here, but Mr. Justice Hughes's report indicates specifically--I think it is at page 56, it is in around page 56: difficult work, but the progress that has been made by many people in respect of this initiative.
I would refer the member back to those comments in order to give him some assurance that it is not simply the government standing up and saying that we have been doing a good job and a lot of work in that area, but an independent person as well.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government was called on for a comprehensive response to gangs, but the government very--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. I would ask the member to put his question now, please.
Mr. Mackintosh: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did the government bury the Youth Secretariat's report because it was embarrassed by its comments on how Manitoba leads the nation in violent youth crime or how the problems of gangs is being ignored or describing, and I quote, inaction, noncommunication and potentially dangerous situations in programs?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I categorically reject the accusations made by my colleague across the way. I want to state that in fact we have been working very aggressively in that respect, and given the limitations of time, might I indicate a couple of areas where I think we lead the nation in terms of assuring the public that we in fact are concerned about the youth gang issue. First of all, in Manitoba we, in spite of having one-thirtieth of the population, have about 50 percent of all the transfer applications. We take a very, very serious look at violent crime, and if there are no appropriate facilities in the youth system, we actively move on transfers in that respect.
I might indicate for my colleague's benefit that the Court of Appeal has examined that issue in three areas, three separate decisions, and have in fact supported the government's position on those transfer applications.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with his final supplementary question.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the government own up to the reports--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could the honourable member place the question. It is not necessary to put a preamble.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is as it was, would the government own up to the criticisms in the government's own report which said such things as reductions in social allowances and Child and Family Services are factors leading to the gang activity in Manitoba, allegations that probation is a joke, that the court system is taking too long, and will the government just get down to business to deal with gangs in this province?
Mr. Toews: I think my colleague has pointed out a very important issue, that as Mr. Justice Hughes has pointed out, the real solution extends beyond penal sanctions and criminal proceedings, but the real solution deals with social agencies and some of these social issues as opposed to the criminal issue. I want to say, in respect of my concern with the federal government's approach, that at the same time they put $200,000 for a gang co-ordinator here, they take $200 million out of this province, $20 million on an annual basis that went directly to pay for services for our First Nations people off reserve. We feel that this is a tremendous shortcoming and a failure of the federal government, and I hope that my colleague across the way will work together with me on that issue to convince the federal government of the error of their ways.
Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.
Board of Directors
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): My question is to the Premier. The board appointments for Manitoba Telecom systems were recently announced, and members of the multicultural community are very concerned about the composition of the board. Despite the throne speech rhetoric of the government's spirit of partnership, there was not one aboriginal person or any visible ethnics represented in these board appointments.
How can the Premier justify the throne speech rhetoric when not one of his own appointments to the MTS board are from the groups he says he wants to develop a spirit of partnership with?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): As the member knows, the Manitoba Telecom Services will be in, or is already in, the private domain as a privately held corporation. As such, it was very important to have names since the shares are publicly traded, names that were well known both nationally and certainly within the corporate community, because we expected to get the maximum value for the corporation and in fact received over $900 million. It was very important to have people with business capability and a very strong business background in order to attract that kind of investment.
In the long term, all the people of Manitoba, including our aboriginal brothers and sisters, and others, will benefit by having that $910 million come back to Manitoba to be invested in Manitoba.
* (1420)
Mr. Hickes: My question is to the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism. The Minister responsible for Multiculturalism must have been appalled by the lack of ethnic representation on the MTS board. Will she meet with the Premier to develop a strategy to ensure that this situation does not happen in the future and that all Manitobans are represented when the government is making patronage appointments?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): This government does have a very good record of involving the multicultural community and becoming continually involved with the community. It is a record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I believe is a good one, and I am sure this government will continue its commitment in the way that it has already acted.
Boards and Commissions
Ethnic Representation
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas, with his final supplementary question.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the Premier clearly did not consider aboriginal or visible ethnics in this series of political appointments, will he now commit to legislation which would ensure a true representation of the population of Manitobans on boards and commissions? I would like to table the boards for the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, the Manitoba Hydro board and the Manitoba Telecom Services which truly show the lack of appointments by this government for aboriginals and visible ethnic people.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member selects only those boards which he thinks make his argument. If we look at the hundreds of boards and commissions that are appointed by this government, we will find that this government's record is better than was ever achieved by the New Democrats with respect to appointment of women, with respect to appointment of visible minorities and with respect to the broadest range possible of people from all elements of the Manitoba community.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time for Oral Question Period has expired.