Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon twenty-two Grade 8 students from Rossburn Elementary School under the direction of Mr. Grant Ross. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach).

Also, twenty Grades 4 and 5 students from Luxton School under the direction of Ms. Ellen Kolishyk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).

Also, 13 visitors from the YM-YWCA life skills training program under the direction of Ms. Carrie Petryna. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos).

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

* (1350)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yesterday, to use the language of Ross Nugent, we asked questions about the "rate shock" that would take place with the privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System. The Premier maintained his argument that there is no difference between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, one being a profit, private company and the other one being a nonprofit, publicly owned company, and notwithstanding his broken promise from the '95 election campaign. Looking at the rates in Regina and Winnipeg, the rate in Regina is $15.35 and proposed for 1998 to be $15.35 for the local rate for the consumer, and in Winnipeg it is $17.55 and proposed to go to $20.55.

Would the Premier not agree that the rate in Saskatchewan in the nonprofit, publicly owned company is lower than the private rate here now in Manitoba and proposed to be in Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as the member knows, there are a number of issues that have to be considered. As a former minister responsible for the telephone system, he knows that, firstly, rates are set on the basis of the number of telephones that one can access on a toll-free basis, and that would be approximately five times as many in the city of Winnipeg as in the city of Regina. Secondly, it has been indicated already by the CEO, chairman of SaskTel, that they will have to adjust as they lose market due to competition in the long-distance field, that they too will have to adjust their local rates.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I already read out the minister responsible's press release yesterday, but the Premier can run around with his newspaper clippings all he wants. I am looking at real rates for real people in real communities.

Looking at a comparable-sized community, as the Premier has cited, in the city of Brandon--and I do not know what the trained seals opposite are doing in terms of their community, because it has had a 69 percent rate increase, as you have moved to this new corporate private model, proposed 69 percent increase. The city of Brandon now has a $17.55 rate for 1997. It is proposed to go to $20.55. In Moose Jaw, a comparable community with comparable numbers of phones, it is $14.10. Can the Premier tell us who is telling the truth, the facts or the Premier, about a private phone company here?

Mr. Filmon: I am glad that the member opposite acknowledged that his initial comparison was not a valid comparison because one community was five times the size of the other. Having said that, the only valid comparisons are going to be when the Saskatchewan telephone company is subject to competition in which they do--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, competition which has the impact of lowering the rates for long distance, which results in a lower overall telephone--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, they obviously do not want to hear the answer.

* (1355)

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition wishes to have his comments on the record. He has not yet been recognized. I stood to maintain order so I could hear the honourable member, and I would caution the honourable Leader of the official opposition to use discretion with his words.

Mr. Doer: Thank you--

An Honourable Member: Apologize.

An Honourable Member: For what?

Mr. Doer: For being cut off in debate last year and being denied a vote? Never. We will never apologize to the members opposite--ever.

Madam Speaker, given the fact that both SaskTel and Manitoba Telephone System are part of the long-distance out-of-province calling system called Stentor, can the Premier explain why in Dauphin, Manitoba, the rates have gone up some 87 percent--and I do not know how members opposite in rural communities listen to the two of them that are jamming these bills through on behalf of the brokers in downtown Winnipeg--how the rates could go up in the Parklands region in Dauphin from 16--it started at $10.15 last year, $16.15 in 1997, proposed to go to $19.98, an 87 percent increase, when Yorkton, Saskatchewan, under the same long-distance calling relationship with Stentor, will be $14.10.

Is it not cheaper for a nonprofit corporation as opposed to the private broken promise of this Premier?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to read his own comments directed towards me yesterday in Hansard, in which he urged that the member not have such a thin skin and get control of his emotions so that he does not make a fool of himself here in the Legislature.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated with respect to the deregulation that CRTC has imposed with respect to long-distance rates, the impact has been that the bills for Manitobans with respect to long-distance charges have gone down dramatically. As a result of that, overall bills for many Manitobans are substantially less than they were prior to that.

In that process, CRTC has indicated that there will undoubtedly be a rebalancing. As the costs go down for telephone users on the long-distance side, local rates have to be increased to balance that. That is a process that has been in place now for several years. It is a process that is impacting people right across Canada. It is a process that Saskatchewan has avoided temporarily by virtue of staying out of CRTC regulation to this point in an agreement that they signed with the Mulroney government some four and a half years ago. That has been acknowledged by their own chairman, Mr. Ching, to be coming to an end, and he has indicated that the undoubted consequence of that coming to an end was that local rates would have to go up as they have gone up across Canada. Even the chair of the Saskatchewan telephone company has acknowledged the truth of that statement.

* (1400)

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, Club Regent and McPhillips Street Station were built in 1993 and were then billed as a $30-million investment. Upgrades since then have added an additional $27 million, and now the recent announcement of the additions to McPhillips Street and Club Regent adds another $50 million for a total of $107 million on the two bingo palaces.

My question to the Minister responsible for Lotteries: When, since we did not notice, were the tenders issued for the recently announced $50-million additions to the McPhillips Street and Regent casinos? When were they publicly tendered? We understand, and maybe the minister could confirm--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member for St. James, on behalf of her party, outlines the historic cost of the two facilities, Regent and McPhillips, and the announced expansion as provided from the Price Waterhouse report, when she herself, on behalf of her party, on the day that we made the announcement was out there promoting the expenditures of some $90 million over and above these amounts on a downtown casino.

So, again, as usually happens with members opposite, they try to play both sides of an issue. In terms of this specific request--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, in terms of if she is asking about how we move forward with the proposed expansions to the two facilities, we have--[interjection]

Madam Speaker, this is absolutely unbelievable. You would think members opposite would want to hear the answer to the question. [interjection] I am answering it. I will tell you--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I understand that the rules of the House would indicate that the minister has some obligation to answer the question. The confusion seemed to be that the minister was not aware that I was asking him when was the tender issued. So I just wanted for clarification--and if I can remember citing the Rule 417--that perhaps the minister needed that clarification.

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the point of order, the honourable member has not very well disguised a point of order for simply a repetition of the question that she asked. Now the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) would be the first to remind us that Beauchesne is very clear that you are not supposed to do that.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, and since I am being cited as an authority on House rules, I would refer the government House leader to Beauchesne's Citation 417 that states that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

I want to commend the member for St. James for not only raising a legitimate point of order but citing the correct citation in Beauchesne.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. There was no point of order raised by the honourable member for St. James.

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

Ms. Mihychuk: My question to the Minister responsible for Lotteries: Will the minister tell us when the tenders for the recently announced additions were issued, when the tenders for the $27-million upgrades were issued and is it true that Dominion Construction was awarded both contracts?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, as I was attempting to explain to members opposite and as I indicated at committee the other day, the expansion plans for both McPhillips Street and Regent will be brought forward very shortly in terms of outlining specifically what will be done to both of those facilities in terms of their physical redevelopment and in terms of any other changes that will be taking place in those facilities. We will also be outlining at that time in terms of how we move forward with tenders and so on.

If she is referring to the firm of Dominion Construction, they have been a firm of record in terms of construction work for the Lotteries Corporation, as there are firms of record for various functions, whether it be other professional services or whatever.

In terms of moving forward with the redevelopment, when we come forward with the redevelopment proposals, we will outline very clearly how we will move forward with tender calls and so on at that time.

Ms. Mihychuk: My final question to the minister: Is he telling this House that Dominion Construction was awarded the additions, the renovations and then the original construction without tender? Is that what the minister is saying--for $107 million?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the short answer to that question is no.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): When the government decided unilaterally to compel all Manitobans to provide their income tax forms last year and this year in order to qualify, in order to obtain the benefit under the Pharmacare program, we were concerned. The minister justified the decision on the basis "in many cases people had provided inaccurate information with respect to their incomes."

How does the minister explain the fact that this information, this decision was based on the fact of two individuals undervaluing their deductibles for the sum of $381, and as a result of that, all Manitobans are forced to provide personal information to the provincial Health to be used for all income-based programs? Is that not unacceptable?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the information that I have from those in the department who administered and checked on last year's program was it certainly was not the case of two individuals on which that decision was made.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister not admit that 14 low-income individuals were audited, and of those 14 low-income individuals, two were found to have undervalued their deductions for a sum total of $381, which is what the information that the minister's Freedom of Information officer provided to us in regard to this and in regard to his answer to the question? Can the minister not confirm that?

* (1410)

Mr. Praznik: When those who administer the program were looking at the results of last year, I know they did a sampling. They also found, in addition to several individuals who had understated their incomes and so received a greater benefit, that there were some, I understand, who did it in reverse, had overstated their incomes and did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled.

Given that many of the people completing those forms in fact are elderly, given that often that information is complex, given family income, it was felt a much better process was to ask for that information. There are other programs that require people to provide that income tax information. Anything other than that particular line or that critical information is able to be blanked out--and let us not forget that the department is part of the program, has the ability to go to Revenue Canada and check that information anyway--but in the interest of ensuring as accurate information as possible, this was recommended by the administrators who run the program as a means of doing it.

Mr. Chomiak: Despite the minister being unable to confirm the reason and rationale for forcing Manitobans to do this, will the minister now admit that all of this information that is going to be on-line and based on the minister's own Privacy Act will be accessible to all government departments in Health and all government programs and agencies to utilize that information to deal with all programs of the Department of Health? Will the minister not admit that is in fact in the privacy bill, and that is unacceptable to Manitobans?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, one's income tax is not personal health information. Information provided by government is protected by the companion legislation introduced by my colleague the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey) and is protected by the legislation as proposed. One reality in any income-tested program is you have to have an accurate calculation of what are people's incomes.

As I indicated to him, there were cases, I am told, where people had misstated their information to their own disadvantage. When you are dealing with elderly people, often with very complicated forms, it is often the easiest and simplest way to ensure that Manitobans get exactly the coverage to which they are entitled, not more, not less, and there are other programs where this information is provided. This is not a particularly new or novel process.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Under this government, Manitoba has become the car theft capital of Canada, Madam Speaker, from 2,400 thefts in 1991 to 9,856 last year, and not only that, an increase in the last year of more than 15 percent in one year alone. The response of this government has been to make motorists pay. Make the victims pay, first through the deductible, and now we are seeing a new proposal whereby Autopac would pay for additional policing services in Winnipeg to deal with car thefts.

I would like to ask the minister responsible for MPIC: Why is it that the government still has not reviewed its decision to make motorists pay through the deductible? Why will they not accept responsibility for this epidemic of car thefts and take government action and not make the victims of car thefts pay?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): The honourable member is certainly being appropriate when he raises the issue of an increase in the incidence of the theft of automobiles from Manitobans. The ratepayers of the publicly owned and administered automobile insurance company have an interest in seeing a reduction in the number of automobiles stolen in Manitoba and especially in the city of Winnipeg. I think it fits with the philosophy of the honourable member and his colleagues to use a Crown corporation as an instrument of public policy where that is an appropriate thing to do as well, and it is certainly appropriate and good business, Madam Speaker, to reduce the incidence of theft of automobiles, because we need to bring that under better levels of control. We also need to remember that ratepayers need to be respected here, and it is very, very unfortunate when Manitobans have to pay the costs associated with the theft of something over 9,000 vehicles.

So it is more than simply just discontinuing the practice of waiving deductibles. It has to do with getting involved in partnership with the City of Winnipeg Police and others to try to curb this behaviour.

Mr. Ashton: I want to ask the minister how he thinks that it helps do anything with car theft to have a deductible apply not only to car owners who may have, say, left the keys in their car or left their car running, but how he will apply the deductible in all cases, and will not even give any consideration to waiving the deductible for the many Manitobans who are taking their own action, when the government will not take any action to deal with car theft, by bringing in security devices. Why is he penalizing all of the victims of car theft through the deductible?

Mr. McCrae: Well, I think the honourable member is contradicting himself. Through Manitoba Public Insurance, we are taking action in partnership with police agencies to assist with this particular problem. As I said to the honourable member, I agree with him. It is not enough simply to discontinue waiving deductibles as a way of getting at this problem. I think the honourable member probably agrees with me. He may not want to admit it.

Insurance is a partnership between the ratepayer and the insurer as well. That is why we have deductibles and co-payments and those sorts of things. When we know that something over half of the people whose vehicles are stolen in Manitoba--in addition to having taken not enough action to protect their property, they have left their vehicles--a lot of them--either in an unlocked state or, in some cases, with the keys in them.

The honourable member's question, I recognize, is directed at those who take extra measures, and that certainly has been and continues to be looked at as one of a number of things that can be done, but certainly what we see going forward is something I support.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if the minister is willing to look at that suggestion that we not penalize victims, will the minister also look at the question of--while indeed most of the car thefts are in the city of Winnipeg, will he look at also the fact that many other areas of the province also have difficulties with car thefts and whether it would not be reasonable, not even through the same process but in some way, shape or form making sure that rural Manitobans and northern Manitobans are not subsidizing a fight against the car theft war in Winnipeg when, indeed, we have some problems in our own communities?

Mr. McCrae: Coming from outside Winnipeg myself, Madam Speaker, I think I would be one of the last people to want to start pitting regions of our province against each other, but there are different rate structures for different risk groupings with our ratepayers, and we try to reflect that in our rates, the whole issue of dealing with car thefts. I do not think the honourable member is saying he disagrees with that. I hope he is not, because this is a very serious problem we have in Manitoba, and we need to recognize that in more than one way. I respect that. I understand that. We are also trying to work with automobile manufacturers and other jurisdictions to see if there are not devices that can be part of future model years of vehicles that have better protections in them to make it harder for these people who want to take other people's property.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Premier. This summer there will be a Premiers' Conference, and there are going to be discussions on the unity issue. Quite frankly, I have lost trust in this Premier in dealing with this particular issue. We have the minister and his saying no to cash transfers, yes to tax points. We have a Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) who is cherry picking on which laws he wants to enforce on the national scene, and his past record has clearly demonstrated the devolution of power on culture, forestry, tourism, housing, recreation, municipal and urban affairs.

My question to the Premier is: Does he have any other agenda items to dissolve the House of Commons in Ottawa?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I really do not understand the tirade of the member for Inkster. It has never been my intent to dissolve the House of Commons in Ottawa. I have always indicated that I believe we need a strong central government in this country. I have always indicated that we need to have national standards in medicare and that we need to co-operatively work together, the provinces and the federal government, to ensure that we have the best possible system of health care.

In fact, I, Madam Speaker, am one who has advocated that we need to have the federal government involved, for instance, in setting national standards in education. I do not believe that we should have a situation prevail whereby people, young people moving from one province to another can be moved up a grade and down a grade or in some cases even two grades, because curriculum is so different from province to province, and standards and grade levels are different. I am one who advocated that there ought to be national standards, for instance, in pollution standards, pollution control standards, as long as there was a co-operative federal-provincial process for environmental assessment and review.

I have not been one who has blindly advocated turning the government in Ottawa into a post office sending cheques. I have advocated co-operative federalism. That is something Prime Minister Chretien has spoken about since he has been the Prime Minister. I believe it is something that we all ought to work toward, but co-operative federalism is just that. It involves us bringing the provinces together to make decisions that impact on all of us. It involves all of us coming together to decide on who is best positioned to deliver particular levels and types of services.

You cannot assume that the way in which this country was structured at the time of Confederation, over 130 years ago, is the best way for it to operate today. So that is the position that I have taken, and I object seriously to all the preamble that he has wrongly put on the record.

* (1420)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, will the Premier then advocate that, in fact, things such as the opting-out clause are something which this government will not support, anything that would take away from equalization payments, this government will not support? Will he make those two commitments this afternoon?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have always been one who has said that equalization is one of the fundamental principles that binds this country together. We have so many disparities region to region, province to province that if it were not for something as dramatic and as important as equalization, you would find that there would be essentially two classes of citizens, at least two classes of citizens in this country, and we do not want this.

We did not want that as a province back in the '60s when equalization was brought into being. It was brought into being through the discussions, I am told, of Premier Lesage of Quebec and Premier Roblin of Manitoba. They conceived this as a response to that fear of having different classes of citizens in the different provinces. Equalization has served us well, and in every single discussion I have been engaged in, whether it was Meech Lake, whether it was Charlottetown, I argued that we had to have protection for equalization as part of that, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, will the Premier reaffirm his position or the government's position with respect to the whole distinct society clause, which was addressed through the Meech Lake Task Force, where there was all-party agreement through the Canada clause to acknowledge that, in fact, Quebec is a distinct society? Will he reaffirm that position today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, every time I have been interviewed anywhere in this country, including recently at the Western Premiers' Conference, I have said that Manitoba on an all-party basis continues to support the Canada clause, which was conceived and developed here in an all-party committee of this Legislature that found its way into the Charlottetown Accord that indicates a number of the fundamental characteristics of this country, including our aboriginal heritage, our multicultural presence, the equality of the provinces and the distinct society in Quebec.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry.

I am advised that the minister responsible for the Manitoba Development Corporation is responsible for McKenzie Seeds in Brandon, since the MDC holds $4 million of shares in the company. Therefore, I would ask the minister whether he receives regular reports from the MDC and/or from the government appointees on the board to ensure that Regal Greetings is fulfilling the conditions of the sale agreement. In other words, how is he advised on whether the terms of the sale agreement are being fulfilled?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, on issues such as that, we have a relationship where reports are brought forward either on request and/or on need be, as it is seen by the Manitoba Development Corporation.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, is there provision in the sales agreement, which has not been made public, requiring Regal Greetings to obtain approval from the government for any shift of jobs out of Brandon? For example, would Regal Greetings have to get permission to move the catalogue division from Brandon to Toronto, or would that be an abrogation of the agreement?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I know the member for Brandon East is genuinely interested in McKenzie Seeds, and maybe this would be a good time to review the preconditions on which the sale was made.

In 1994, six preconditions were set out. The first was employment protection for McKenzie employees. The second was keeping A.E. McKenzie company in Brandon; thirdly, honouring all existing union contracts; fourth, upgrading McKenzie's facilities, technology and competitiveness; fifthly, maintaining and increasing McKenzie's market share and, sixthly, to demonstrate a long-term commitment to McKenzie and the community of Brandon.

I can tell the member for Brandon East that, based on the work done by the Department of I, T and T, the new McKenzie Seeds company has met or exceeded all of their requirements.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm that McKenzie Seeds no longer has its own CEO or president and that the CEO of Regal Greetings in Toronto is now also the CEO of McKenzie Seeds and, secondly, that the national sales and marketing office has been transferred from Brandon to Toronto?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, the last time we discussed this in the House, I encouraged the member to meet with the board or talk with the management of the companies. Certainly, McKenzie's is part of the Regal Greetings and Gifts and MDC of Toronto. McKenzie's has always had staff stationed across the country, and this is no different.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, for a few months I have been dealing with complaints from constituents about CN Rail running stationary diesel engines all night, causing diesel smog and noise affecting community health. This has been a problem since CN was privatized, and it is a problem now for the Department of Environment in Manitoba since they are now responsible for a privatized CN. They have no licences in place and no enforcement and compliance ability, and CN has been slow to respond to them.

I want to ask the Minister of Environment why it has taken more than two years since the privatization of CN and calls and letters from my constituency to have discussions with CN and the federal government regarding the responsibility for environment inspections, and when will the provincial government have the necessary licences and agreements in place to enforce compliance with environmental regulations in Manitoba.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): I believe the honourable member has asked a number of questions in that one question. I will make sure that the information is made available to her very shortly.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Can the minister tell us what will be the increased workload and cost to the provincial Department of Environment for inspections and enforcement at a privatized CN, which has operations across the province, and how will these new workloads be met when they have eliminated half a million dollars this year from the budget for the provincial Department of Environment?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): I would have been pleased to provide that information had it been asked for when we were examining the Estimates of the department, but I would be pleased to do so now as well and will do so.

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

Ms. Cerilli: I would like for the minister to explain to the House, when he knew very well not only CN was going to be privatized but the airport, costing more responsibility for the Department of Environment for inspections and enforcement, they are getting more responsibilities with transfer of responsibility for environmental impact assessments and they are cutting the department budget by more than half a million dollars. How is that work going to be completed?

* (1430)

Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member has had demonstrated to her a number of times in the past that the Department of Environment takes its responsibilities to Manitobans extremely seriously and carries out its work in accordance with its legislation and regulations. Indeed, in the last few years, this government and this Department of Environment have moved very significantly forward with respect to protection of the environment for now and for the future.

Again, I wish I could take more of the credit, but I have only been at it a short time. My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) had a lot to do with many of the advances that have been made with respect to contaminated sites, with respect to pollutants in Manitoba. So the record has been good, and it will be my job to ensure that that progress continues with respect to the protection of our environment and making it sustainable and working in harmony with industry in the years to come.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): To the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism: The Isobord project has attracted a wide range of investment. I would like the minister to provide the House with the total investment by different categories from the public sector in this project. What is the total that has been invested in the project?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I believe the member must have a short memory, because we dealt with that just but a few short weeks ago during Estimates. I would ask him to refer back to that time. If it was not explained at that particular time, I am prepared to get him that information.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, my memory is not short at all. The minister refused to provide this information in Estimates.

Institutional investors in the hospitals, Ontario pension plan, Manitoba Capital on behalf of Manitoba and Vision Capital have all invested in this project. Would the minister simply tell the House how much the various public-sector-controlled entities have invested in this project?

Mr. Downey: It seems to me, Madam Speaker, in the question that he is asking that he has all that information, making references that he has.

I can tell you what we are directly responsible for is a $15-million loan from the Province of Manitoba through the MIOP program. There are some several, I believe close to 135 millions of dollars of not only public sector funds but through the financial organizations that have been solicited by the president and the directors--are participating in $150-million project providing some 100 direct jobs and several other hundred jobs in the community of Elie to produce a product of an environmental problem for the city of Winnipeg, the burning of straw, something that this province is extremely proud of to provide those jobs and turn that environmental problem into a positive product for the people of the world. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.