Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Ms. Kaori Satake. Ms. Satake is an exchange student from Japan and has been living in the constituency of the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

I would also like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Dr. Tan, director of research and technology assessment of the Department of Health of the Government of Singapore.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

* (1340)

Additionally, we have in the public gallery sixty-six Grade 5 students from the Southwood School under the direction of Mr. Don Thiessen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger).

Also, forty Grade 5 students from Souris School under the direction of Mrs. Theresa O'Brien and Mr. Glenn Wallmann. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed).

Also, seven adult literacy program visitors from Community Education Development Association of the William Whyte School under the direction of Mrs. Doreen Szor. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in reviewing the tragic death of Andrew Kuryk at the Canadian Corrosion company, one looks through their safety record and is quite appalled. In August of '91, a stop-work warning was issued for air shortages and not complied with shortly thereafter. In July of '92, no permit was issued for a near miss of a worker in a bucket. In September of '93, an injured worker suffered shoulder injuries in a suspended stage operation. A complaint was issued on spray painting in open areas in '93. In '94, there were no safety measures for sandblasting in an open area, and then tragically in June of 1994, the death of Andrew Kuryk at the same company.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Is he satisfied that his Workplace Safety and Health Branch took the necessary action that could have prevented injury at this workplace and possibly prevented a death?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, certainly any accident or injury in the workplace, particularly one causing death, is a tragedy. The department was involved with this particular company, and they did issue improvement orders, which were complied with. They did issue a stop-work warning which was complied with, and unfortunately, later on there was a tragic accident. The department did work with the company and improvements were made.

The thrust of Workplace Safety and Health is to work through an education process to make these workplaces safer, and this was done by the department.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Workplace Safety and Health department is also to prevent injury and death at the workplace here in Manitoba.

The family representative for the Kuryks has stated that, if the company had been prosecuted long before the death, perhaps the death of their son could have been prevented.

I would like to ask the Premier: Has he reviewed this investigation? Has he reviewed the situation of his Workplace Safety and Health Branch? Because we have been raising questions in this Chamber in the past. Why were prosecutions not initiated by the Workplace Safety and Health department? Why were the kinds of prosecutions to back up workers' safety not taken prior to the death and only took place after the death?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Certainly, the safety in the workplace is a shared responsibility: the employer, employees and the government. The process that the department uses is to work with individual companies, particularly ones that have a record that needs to be addressed. The department has done this and through education programs has made workplaces safer. Certainly the trend lines, when you look at accidents and fatalities in the 1990s, have improved quite dramatically from the 1970s and 1980s, but again I say any tragedy like this is one too many. We will continue to work with employers and employees to make workplaces safer.

We received yesterday the results of the inquest. These recommendations are currently before the department, and they will certainly be reviewed and scrutinized very carefully.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Again, this is another company that has allegedly--or has gone bankrupt, Madam Speaker, and of course last year we were asking questions to the Minister of Justice about the Kordite company that also went bankrupt. Sometimes these companies are not prosecuted because they go bankrupt, and the government has not exercised their option of prosecuting the owners of companies rather than the individual companies. In fact, all the prosecutions presently before the court name the company as opposed to the owners. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) indicated before in his capacity as Minister of Labour that he would review this matter. How come the government is still continuing to allow owners of companies to go free of prosecutions by not charging the owners of these companies?

* (1345)

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): That issue is being reviewed, along with the recommendations that were brought forward yesterday. The department will review this thoroughly and certainly be in discussions with the Department of Justice.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Canadian Corrosion has a long list of violations under The Workplace Safety and Health Act. Madam Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that this company had not been prosecuted for past violations and where they ignored stop-work warnings that were issued by the Workplace Safety and Health Branch.

I want to ask this Minister of Labour: Is it the policy of his government to allow companies to use the excuse of no money and being a small company as an excuse to ignore stop-work warnings where safety of workers is at risk? Is that the policy of this government?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Certainly not, Madam Speaker, and I think we do have a dispute over the facts. My staff have indicated that when they did issue an improvement order, it was complied with; when they did issue a stop-work warning, it was also complied with. If the member has information contrary to that, I would be more than happy to receive it.

Mr. Reid: Well, then, I take it, Madam Speaker, the minister has not read the report by Judge Minuk in this case, because those were the words of the judge in his report, that the money and being a small company were the excuses given by the company for ignoring the stop-work warnings.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I want to ask the minister: Considering the long list of violations of this company, why was Canadian Corrosion Control not prosecuted for a violation of that stop-work warning several years ago, which would have led to a record for this company that would have allowed the Minister of Justice, under the directions that the prosecutors have been given by the Justice department that companies will only be prosecuted where they have a prior record--why was that company not charged and prosecuted under The Workplace Safety and Health Act when they ignored the stop-work warning earlier this decade?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): My honourable friend is being vague with which incidents he is talking about. I can tell you the incident from September 1993. An improvement order was issued and complied with. In the 1991 case, a stop-work warning was issued, and departmental staff informed me this morning that that was complied with.

Mr. Reid: Well, Madam Speaker, that is not what Judge Minuk says in his report.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, to pose a final supplementary question.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I want to ask this Minister of Labour--who is a new Minister of Labour, and I have asked this question of his predecessor before--why is it a policy of this government to allow companies to avoid prosecution for serious violations under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, where workers have been seriously injured or killed, by allowing those companies to declare bankruptcy, and the Prosecutions department of the Department of Justice does not prosecute the owners. Why are you allowing companies and their owners to evade prosecution by allowing those companies to go bankrupt and not charging the owners? Why have you not taken action to correct that?

* (1350)

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, my honourable friend refers to the government as allowing companies to go bankrupt. Companies go bankrupt for a number of reasons; to avoid prosecution is not a common one.

We have sent the information from our department to the Department of Justice. Those decisions are made there on the facts that are presented to them.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, an important consideration in a time of computerization and technology is privacy protection, and this is, of course, extremely important in regard to medical records. So I would like to ask the Minister of Health why he has rejected the recommendation that legislation include a privacy commissioner who can issue binding orders.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): First of all, Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The bill, I believe, has been distributed today to members of the Legislature and will be introduced for second reading very, very shortly so that we can get into a debate on these matters.

With respect to the specific issue she raises, the role of the Ombudsman versus a privacy commissioner, I think the debate really rolls around the powers that go with the particular office. It was felt that, in the Manitoba experience for both health information and the general privacy legislation my colleague has introduced into this House, the experience with the Ombudsman has been a very successful one. We have also expanded the powers of the Ombudsman to go to court. It was felt, even through those consultations in discussions with the larger group, that this would be an acceptable way to proceed, although I recognize some of the stakeholders still preferred a privacy commissioner with somewhat different powers.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, given that the protection of health information and privacy is a complex matter requiring specialized resources that simply are not available in the Ombudsman's office, I would like to ask the minister how, in all conscience, he can leave the administration and overseeing the interpretation of this act to the Ombudsman.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the practical reality of administering such a legislative scheme as this one is that those resources will have to be developed to be able to properly administer this act. We are committed as a government, both myself and the minister responsible for the other piece of the privacy legislative scheme, to ensure that the Ombudsman's office is able to have sufficient resources of the right kind to be able to do the job. One practical reality, which was discussed with the stakeholders, in a province the size of Manitoba--until we get some handle on the workload that will go with this legislation, setting up a completely different structure and office may not necessarily be a very economical or worthwhile way to go.

We obviously have included in the bill a right for review in five years. This allows us to place this function with the Ombudsman's office, and we will assess it in five years and see how it works.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I think the minister misses the main issue, and so I would like to ask the minister: What is he afraid of? Why does he insist on having an Ombudsman who can comment and recommend, as opposed to a privacy commissioner or an officer by any other name who can issue binding orders? What is the reason for this?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, not this minister, my colleague nor this cabinet are afraid of any particular issue here. We look at the experience that we have had to date with the role and work of the Ombudsman. It has been a very successful way in which to deal with the current legislation. It also provides, I think, the right kind of role in trying to work through these matters in a way that all parties, including the party wanting access to information, is comfortable with. It is the right tenor. It has worked in the past.

In fact, Madam Speaker, when I met with the stakeholder groups in the health care side, we discussed all of these issues. Their final advice--the majority who were part of that discussion said going with the way we proposed it in the legislation seemed reasonable. They appreciated the five-year review. There were a couple of organizations, including the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, which still preferred the other model, but the member should not leave the impression that that was viewed as an overwhelmingly bad thing about this legislation.

In fact, the current matter was viewed as a way to proceed, given the fact that we are going to have a review in five years. That will determine exactly how it works.

* (1355)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I do not think that Manitobans in general are aware of the massive intrusion into their personal lives that the government is proposing with respect to their SmartHealth product and their SmartHealth operation that will put more personal information online in Manitoba than in any other jurisdiction in Canada and any other jurisdiction in North America.

To that end, Madam Speaker, we have a piece of legislation that is not adequate to meet the needs. My colleague's question makes eminent sense. I ask the minister again: Why have you not taken to heart the recommendation that a privacy commissioner with expertise can have the ability to not just look at individual complaints but can look at the kind of information that is online and coming online like people's personal health information and ensure that it is protected now and in the future for Manitobans?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the legislation does. In fact, if I am not mistaken, even the power to conduct audits is included within that legislation. If there are complaints, if there are results of audits that the Ombudsman's office will conduct, we would expect on a regular basis throughout the system, if those complaints come forward, there will obviously be the authority to raise that to ensure that those things are pursued.

If the act is being breached, there is ultimately the power for fines, the power for the Ombudsman, if the Ombudsman is unhappy with the final result of the discussion, to go to court. All of those protections are in place. The member for one moment should also appreciate that this legislation does not just apply to the electronic information but also applies to our current paper information.

Today we have nowhere near the kind of protection that this act is proposing. This is a step forward.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, if what the minister says is true, then why has the government divided the powers in this legislation between two areas? Yes, the Ombudsman can investigate complaints, but the Ombudsman can only comment and can give nothing more than advice on intrusions by the government into people's personal privacy, putting information online like medical health information and the rest, and the Ombudsman has no area and no way to stop the government from proceeding to things like tax information online like they did with Pharmacare, et cetera.

This is an intrusion. This requires a commissioner, an information commissioner that reports directly to this Chamber.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if I hear the member for Kildonan correctly, what he is really talking about are major issues of public policy as to what information goes online and becomes part of the system. It is issues of public policy as to how a system such as this will operate.

Madam Speaker, it is not the role for a privacy commissioner or an Ombudsman, who in essence is the administrator of the laws and the rules that we set in this Legislature. That is the role of such an office, to ensure that the public policy decisions that are set by this Legislature, either through Executive Council or directly through legislation, are carried out.

It is not the role of a privacy commissioner or an Ombudsman to be making the matters of public policy. That is why we were elected, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister, who is invading the privacy of Manitobans like no other government in the history of this province, indicate whether or not the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Manitoba Medical Association are in agreement with the provisions of this particular act?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am always a great believer that, when one raises issues in this House, one should try to have their facts straight and certainly have a sense of the context.

The member for Kildonan rose in this House and said that this administration is being intrusive in medical information more than any other government in the history of this province. Madam Speaker, I would like to table, just to put it in a historical perspective, the Journals of this Assembly, where in the early part of our history medical information was published in this House, including individuals, their dates of birth, when they were in hospital, the treatment, including for syphilis. You can go back into the history of this province as late as the 1980s where the lists of who were in hospitals were published in community newspapers.

Today, this is one step forward. We are protecting people's health information in a way that has never been protected before. We are not opening up that information to abuse, Madam Speaker. We are protecting it, and the member should put it in the proper perspective.

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

In the last few days, I have asked questions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the Premier with respect to the health care transfer payments. There is a great deal of concern from Manitobans in terms of what sort of a position this government is going to take on the whole idea of the devolution of powers from Ottawa towards provincial jurisdictions.

My question to the Premier is: At the Premiers' conference that is coming up this summer, can the Premier indicate to us whether or not these agenda items are going to be talked about?

* (1400)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I still do not have the agenda for this summer's conference, so I could not say that at this point.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier be requesting or supporting those types of agenda items?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, all I can assure the member opposite is that I will continue to do what I have done in the past, which is to always defend the best interests of the people of Manitoba, no matter what the issue is. I will go there with an agenda that is the agenda of the people of Manitoba, unlike my honourable friend for Inkster, who is always attempting to come to this House with the agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada. When that agenda is to reduce transfer payments that are harmful to us, in our efforts to try and protect vital health and social services and education, all he does is ignore the best interests of Manitobans and blindly defend his colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada. I think that is a tragedy.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier, as one of the most senior Premiers in Canada, put on the agenda the issue of ensuring that health care and the national government will have a leading role in ensuring that cash transfers will in fact be there so that he will be able to reassure Manitobans that health care and the medicare system will be relatively equal from one coast to the other?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the one thing I will continue to do is defend Manitobans against the unreasonable, unwarranted and unprecedented cuts that have come from Ottawa to our transfer payments that were designed to help us maintain the highest quality of health services that we could possibly afford in this province. We lost, over the space of the last two budgets, $220 million in annual transfer payments from Ottawa, money that was vitally required for us to be able to protect and enhance health care. Not only does he attempt every day in this House to defend that, but when the federal budget came out with the second tranche of those cuts, the second tranche that resulted in some hundred-odd million dollars of annual cuts to us, his leader, the leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, stood up and gave that budget a four out of five.

I could not believe it, Madam Speaker. There she was out there defending it, saying this was a good budget, it deserved four out of five, and that is the kind of nonsense that Manitobans have to put up with, with the Liberal Party here in this Legislature that thinks that its only role is to defend Ottawa's interests in Manitoba no matter what they do, no matter how much their reductions in transfer payments, no matter how much they harm Manitobans.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Justice or the Premier. The Justice minister has been certainly concerned about the Court of Appeal's decision and the federal government's amendments to the Criminal Code as it affects the Bauder case, but he has not been concerned about the conduct of his own department in this case. We do have concerns.

Can the House and Manitobans get an explanation as to this government's policy on plea bargaining? Is it undue pressure on the Prosecutions branch, or what, given our understanding that charges of sexual interference, uttering threats, in fact, threats to kill we understand that were made in writing and a charge of driving dangerously--our understanding is that Mr. Bauder was pursuing and threatening the victim. Why were these charges dropped? For what? No wonder the court did not think the accused was a threat.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, without accepting the accuracy of any of the preamble that the member for St. Johns has put forward, I will take that as notice on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews).

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I wonder if the Premier can today answer the questions that were posed to the minister yesterday in light of the fact that this case took 18 months so far. There were 12 appearances, five prosecutors; it certainly was not a lack of time. Why is it that all information that we have points to the fact that the government never so much as challenged any version coming from the accused as to the victim's conduct? Why did they not put in her original statement? Why did they not put in a victim impact statement?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, without playing political games in this Legislature, he knows that I would not have the answer to the questions that were asked of the Minister of Justice, but I will take that as notice as well, because I know that he has to get himself on the agenda in Question Period.

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

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I hesitate to ask the Premier, who thinks that something like this is a game--

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

Mr. Mackintosh: If the Premier thinks that this is a game, would he explain, if this case is not bad enough, why did the government not so much as seek an order of protection for the victim, did not seek a no-contact, did not seek a no-communication order? Why? Whatever happened to the victim in all of this?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), in concern for the victim, has announced that this will be appealed to the Supreme Court. What is a game is the member standing up, knowing that the minister is not here with the information, and repeating the questions just for his own publicity's sake.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for MPIC. MPIC has filed its rate increase request with the PUB, and certainly there will be some increases, I believe, to 80 percent of motorists, particularly to motorcycle owners.

What I really want to ask the Minister responsible for MPIC is what the projections are from Autopac in terms of payment for injury claims. This government has cut the amount of money going to Manitobans in terms of injury coverage from $193 million to just over $100 million in just over three years under the no-fault system. Could the minister indicate what the projections are in terms of what will be paid out next year to Manitobans who are injured in automobile accidents?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Act): I will make that kind of detailed information, projections from the corporation available to the honourable member. I remind him, however, of the unfairness of the system of the past whereby, depending on one's ability to secure clever and effective legal representation, one might be able to convince a judge that a higher award might be appropriate than for someone who perhaps sustained even worse injuries and/or damages. So the luck of the draw has been taken out of the system through the no-fault system. I think the honourable member, in general, supports that. When you consider taking out the legal costs involved in that system, that does result in a more equal and fairer sharing of the dollars available.

In any event, the rates reflect the claims, and that is the purpose for coming forward to the Public Utilities Board with this application.

Mr. Ashton: Will the minister confirm that what essentially has happened is the net payment--take out all the legal costs--going to Manitobans is at least $30 million to $40 million less now under the new system than compared to the old system, and that he ignored 35 amendments brought in by the NDP that would have made the current system a fair system? Will he explain to Manitobans the fairness of having a dramatic drop in injury payouts to Manitobans, insurance that they are entitled to under any fair system?

Mr. McCrae: Well, now, Madam Speaker, the honourable member appears to be arguing for the American system where, depending on how much you can afford to pay your lawyer, you can get a ridiculously high award. People in Manitoba want reasonably appropriate awards for their injuries, for the damage to their vehicles, but certainly for their injuries. I cannot agree with the honourable member, and I do not think Manitobans want to support, through their rates, those ridiculously high awards when others may end up getting nothing, which is not fair. We disagree in principle on this, and yet I do not know how the honourable member can claim to be supportive of the no-fault system we put into place.

* (1410)

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, when will this minister stop playing these kinds of word games and accept the fact that Manitobans were prepared to support a no-fault system? In fact, the New Democratic Party was prepared to support a no-fault system but not like they have done with Workers Compensation, a kind of system where they run surpluses at the expense of people who have been injured. They have done that with Workers Compensation. When will they stop doing that with Autopac, where they run a surplus and they shaft people who have injury claims?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member virtually takes himself out of the debate altogether when he, on the one hand, very quietly says: I support in general what you are doing, but I really like the American, Perry Mason-style justice system where you can get awards based on the American system.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, Beauchesne does state that answers should relate to the matter raised. Perhaps I may have gone on a little bit longer in my preamble to my supplementary question, but I do not think I mentioned Perry Mason, who by the way was played by a Canadian, or the American legal system. I asked the minister whether he would explain why he has a $46-million surplus and many Manitobans are not receiving the injury coverage they are entitled to. I would like to ask if you could ask him to be a little bit relevant in his response.

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

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I have no doubt the honourable member would be a tough competitor in a game of Trivial Pursuit where he can come up with trivial facts and figures to back up almost any argument. Today, his point of order lacks any merit whatsoever.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, Beauchesne is very explicit. Answers to questions should be explicitly direct to the question posed.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. McCrae: Well, Madam Speaker, to be as responsive as your ruling suggests I should be, I would simply say to the honourable member I support the people of Manitoba who want to have the highest level of insurance coverage for the lowest level of premium. That is what people want, and we are trying year in and year out in a very transparent system which reports to the Public Utilities Board annually and brings its applications to that body annually, and we have a very public discussion of those matters. I am on the side of the people of Manitoba who want the most coverage for the least premium dollar, and I think that is the right place to be.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, in the press conference release from the Western Premiers Conference, I note that the Premiers and this Premier, I guess, finally got on board with the concern about the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment and have asked that the committee of ministers of international trade should be reactivated in order to study the problems in this issue. I am glad to see that he is finally on board with other western Premiers who have expressed concerns about this.

I wonder, is the Premier aware of American legislation which prohibits trade with Burma on the basis of that country's appalling record of human rights.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to let the member for Crescentwood know that, since I was the lead-off speaker on international trade, I raised the issue and that is why it is in the communique.

The member opposite, of course, was quite ill-informed when he kept raising the issue over previous weeks, when he was suggesting that this draft that he had access to was something very, very serious. The fact of the matter was, it was a draft, an early draft. The Manitoba government position has been consistent throughout the process that said we would accept no diminution of the policies and rights that we have in the NAFTA agreement, and obviously all of those issues that he kept raising would have violated NAFTA and would have been unacceptable to Manitoba.

I am not aware of the provision that he refers to with respect to Burma, and I am happy to have that information given to me.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, would the Premier also confirm then that, under the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, such legislation would no longer be possible, that human rights issues in any country would not be able to be the subject of any trade-related legislation in any other country?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat--and perhaps he had the question ready to go. The provisions in that draft that he has access to are not provisions that we support in large measure. We have indicated to our federal counterparts that our position is that we will accept nothing less than the protection that we enjoy under NAFTA, and that clearly is not the case in the draft that he has.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, since the Premier is so confident that the position that Manitoba has taken is appropriate, will he today release it so that Manitobans can see what the Premier and his colleagues have written in regard to this treaty that is under negotiation and was to have been completed this May and has been delayed for some time? So it is hardly an early draft. This is a working paper that has had serious discussion in many different international conferences and is well advanced. Will he table Manitoba's position in writing so that we may know how progressive the minister has been in defending our interests?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): This is, indeed, a very progressive minister, so he can take great confidence in the position that our very, very progressive Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) has taken.

I wanted to summarize it, because all of these things are moving discussions and moving documents and moving negotiations. So the summary is that we will not accept any protection that is less than what we have under NAFTA. That will put it in simple terms for the member for Crescentwood.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, the flooding that took place in the Red River Valley has certainly delayed seeding in many areas of the Red River Valley. It is somewhat ironic that at the same time we have a situation in parts of Manitoba where the drought situation is now delaying seeding in those areas where some farmers, I heard this morning on radio, are actually stopping seeding because they are waiting for rain. Similarly, there were a number of statements made during the election campaign, which was at the height of the flooding, that indicated that the federal government would be willing, No. 1--

Madam Speaker: Question.

Mr. Penner: --to waive the indemnities and also to top up crop insurance or--

Madam Speaker: Question.

Mr. Penner: --compensation.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he could give us an update as to what the seeding progress is in the province, and what indication he has had from the federal government as to their willingness to put in place an emergency federal program to help these people with their unseeded acreages.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Unbelievable as it may seem for all of us who still very visually remember what the scene was like a month ago on Lake Morris, at that height some 610,000 acres of fertile Manitoba farmland were covered by water; 400,000 of that has since already been seeded as of today.

My departmental estimates believe that upwards of 10,000 to 20,000 acres only may have difficulty in being seeded. In other words, 95 or 96 percent of the cropland will in fact be seeded, weather continuing favourably. So I am very pleased, and it gives you some indication of the resilience and of the innovativeness of the Red River Valley farmers.

* (1420)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My question is to the minister responsible for the Manitoba telecommunications act. I would like to ask the acting minister, I guess, if the acting minister could indicate whether the newly privatized MTS is going to be receiving a profit from the new system that is going to be in place in terms of 911 charges.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question on behalf of the minister.

My understanding is that the effect of the CRTC decision is to allow for the financing of the 911 service on an equal basis across the province to all of those who have access to the 911 system, and that Manitoba Telephone System, in its application last fall to the CRTC, gave an indication of an option as to the pricing that would maintain a higher rate for rural access versus the city of Winnipeg, as well as the option of equal rates across the province. CRTC, in its wisdom, made the decision to make the charge, in their view, fair and reasonable by making it equal to all those who have access to 911 across the province.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I believe there is a profit being made by MTS, which I believe is absolutely unacceptable to make profit off providing a 911 service.

I would like to ask a further question to the First Minister, again responsible not only for the act but for MTS, where there are still four government employees, and that is: Is there any indication whether the privatized MTS will be expanding the 911 service into areas of the province in northern Manitoba and parts of rural Manitoba that do not currently have the 911 service?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, just to be sure that the member understands, this application was made to CRTC while the corporation was still publicly owned. So, if there is a profit in it, it would have been there in terms of a return on equity as a publicly owned entity. It is the same price today as it was when it was in public ownership. To indicate, as well, the rates in other provinces that have 911 service across Canada are between 22 cents a month and 32 cents a month is the range. This is at 25 cents, which is clearly in the lower echelon of the charges. He may want to make some case for his own ideology's sake, but I do not think people will buy it.

Our intent would be that, where it is practical and reasonable to do so, we would encourage the availability of 911 service throughout the province. In fact, we were instrumental, as the member probably knows, in seeing the extension of 911. It had only been available previously in Winnipeg, Brandon and Shilo, and as a result of the initiatives of this government and some money we put in through Rural Development, it has become available now in quite a number of rural municipalities. I have the list, but it is probably longer than the member would want me to read.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.