Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members, firstly, to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Mr. Satish Roopa, a member of the Executive Council responsible for safety and security and public service transformation, northwest province, South Africa. Mr. Roopa is accompanied by Mr. Logan Naidu, Mr. Hamlet Morule and Ms. Charlene Grobbelaar.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you today.

Also seated in the public gallery this afternoon, we have sixty-two Grade 5 students from Whyte Ridge Elementary School. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey).

Also, twenty-three Grade 5 students from Immaculate Heart of Mary School under the direction of Mrs. Debbie Wittevrongel. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).

Also, 11 English as a Second Language students from the University of Winnipeg under the direction of Mrs. Shannon MacFarlane. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in 1975, there was a co-operative memorandum of agreement between the federal and provincial governments dealing with the water quality in surveys in the province of Manitoba.

In 1994, the provincial government cut some 43 percent of their share of that funding. In 1995, the federal government carried on with about a 70 percent cut in the funding to that program. I have asked the government and the Premier before, will they be reinstating their cut to this program as a way of showing leadership to the federal government, to reinstate their cut so Manitobans can return to the days of proper monitoring and forecasting which obviously we need in this province?

* (1335)

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, conveniently the Leader of the Opposition leaves out a little bit of the original history in this agreement, and that is that, originally, on behalf all jurisdictions, the federal government was the lead authority on providing water quantity monitoring.

Yes, there has been a devolution of some of the responsibility, and agreements were struck between the province and the federal authorities. We have, as I have stated in the House before, an agreement from the federal government that they are interested in renegotiating and backing away from the position that they said that there were going to be additional reductions, and, as I have stated on numerous occasions, a loss of ability, any additional loss of ability to monitor and prepare proper information in this area is simply not in question. We will make sure it is done.

Mr. Doer: Of course, the federal government is pointing fingers at the provincial government. The provincial government is pointing fingers at the federal government, and both jurisdictions have cut money out of the federal-provincial co-operative agreement.

Madam Speaker, Professor Doering today stated that one gauge at Grand Forks failed and that, of course, led to the devastation in terms of their lack of preparation for a peak that was obviously 3 feet higher than they forecasted. Obviously, there were a lot of other factors besides one gauge that would lead to this.

I would like to ask the government, will they not admit that they were wrong to cut their portion out of the 1975 agreement and take a leadership role to reinstate the funding for this agreement and take the federal government to task for their cutbacks as well?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I think there is an implication in the question, the way it has been asked, that somehow there has been a loss of forecasting capability in this province, and that is simply not true. The truth of the matter is that there have been ways of rationalizing the monitoring system, and there is quite a difference between the capability that we need for forecasting surface water quantity and the capability that we need to deal with the quantities in aquifers and forecasting usage in aquifers.

In some respects, we are mixing and matching apples and oranges when we use the gross figures, because in fact we have a pretty good working arrangement with the federal authorities. I think they have realized that what they were considering in terms of reduction on the MOU, where the discussions evolved last fall, prior to Christmas--they are quite prepared to work co-operatively with us to make sure that we have the capability. Remember that there was no question about the capability to gather information for the most recent flood event.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, of course the minister will note that the federal cuts are scheduled to take place on August 1, 1997, and will impact, in combination with the provincial reductions, on monitoring and forecasting for the next year. It is almost rather ironic that the provincial and federal governments could co-operate in an infrastructure fountain behind here that would probably cost a lot more than this federal-provincial agreement that has been cut back by the Conservative government and by the federal government.

Will you be taking a lead role, instead of blaming each other, in reinstating our cuts and forcing the federal government to reinstate their cuts so Manitobans will have proper monitoring and forecasting for 1998?

* (1340)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate the point that the Minister of Natural Resources has made, that nobody is suggesting that any of the changes that have been made in the budget by the provincial government resulted in a lack of forecasting capability. The member opposite is correct in saying that, if the federal government goes forward with its intended reductions, there would be a reduction in forecasting ability. That has been pointed out by Professor Doering. It has been pointed out by Larry Whitney as the person responsible for the provincial monitoring system and flood forecasting and management.

In the course of that, Mr. Axworthy, on CBC Radio during the course of the flood, Wednesday, April 30, was asked that question, whether or not the federal government would take another look at the cuts that were intended because of their impact on our ability to manage a flood such as the one we had this year and to do proper forecasting. He said, and I quote: Well, I think it is a legitimate concern. I think, you know, there have been cuts on both sides. I think the province has also made some reductions in its own area, but I told a CBC reporter earlier this morning that, if that is the case--and I will be speaking to Ms. McLellan, our Minister of Natural Resources, and ensure that we would change that position because I think we cannot allow anything to be taken that would in any way minimize the ability to deal with the future flood problem. So I can give you some assurance on that.

That was his direct quote. We will work co-operatively with the federal government because, as the minister has indicated, we will not do anything on our part that will limit our ability to have the proper flood forecasting capability, and we want the federal government to do the same thing.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). I am looking at headlines from the last election campaign in this province: No wheels for johns, PCS say. Here is another one: Filmon targets pimps, drug dealers, get-tough stand just got a whole lot tougher. They are going to seize and require the forfeiture, the confiscation of the vehicles of johns. Here is another one: Filmon car grab rapped. He will give police the power to confiscate the car. Another one: Promising Premier.

My question to the Premier: I am also looking now at the traffic amendment act, which sets forth the government's new position on prostitution, and I ask the Premier: Will he admit that the election promise that he made at the Remand Centre and before all those lights and cameras was fraudulent? Why is he breaking his election promise to confiscate the vehicles of johns?

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): To use the words of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), Beauchesne is very clear with respect to certain language we are not supposed to use in this place. I think the word "fraudulent," no matter which list it falls under, in the context used today by the honourable member ought to be disallowed.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, the word "fraudulent" does indeed appear in Beauchesne. It only appears once, and it is on the list of parliamentary terms listed in Beauchesne Citation 490. So "fraudulent"--in fact, it is on page 148 and was ruled to be in order in the House of Commons, November 9, 1964, page 9880 of the House of Commons Hansard. So not only is it a term that is appropriate to this question, it is in order.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the government House leader, with the advice from the Clerk of the Assembly, indeed, "fraud" has been ruled out of order; "fraudulent character" has been ruled out of order; "fraudulent" which stands alone has been ruled parliamentary, but I would take the matter under advisement to check the context within which the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) used the word.

* (1345)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the issue of prostitution, and the associated social evils that go with it, has been a matter that has been of much concern to this government, beginning with the position that our government took at the time of the election.

We have had occasion to discuss this matter in some detail with the police. It was as a result of the discussions with the police, who made certain suggestions in respect of the direction that we should be moving in, we are introducing the bill that we see today. The bill is, in fact, one which will allow a motor vehicle to be seized, but there are some intermediary steps that the police thought would be more effective in dealing with this particular problem, and we want to listen to people when we pass legislation.

Mr. Mackintosh: To the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who made this promise and got mileage on this during the election, I ask him: Will he not admit that the Conservative response to prostitution is merely a temporary licence suspension only if a john does not show up for a john school for one day as an alternative to court?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Well, that is pretty tough.

Mr. Toews: You know, Madam Speaker, I hear the member for Thompson saying that is pretty tough. Well, the question is not whether it is a question of being tough. It is a question of being effective, and we believe this is an effective program consistent with what was indicated at the time of the election.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, then, to the Justice minister I ask this: Would the minister, who was too embarrassed to even mention that the traffic amendment act contained this provision, too embarrassed because it showed what a fraudulent exercise their election campaign was in this regard--I ask the minister how it was that on talk radio on February 21, he himself said to Manitobans, and I quote, we gave an election promise that is on prostitution, and I intend to fulfill that.

How does he justify that?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, there are a number of aspects that need to be considered in respect to that. Number one is that the people primarily responsible for the criminal law in our federation is the federal government, and we are continuously discussing with them to take further steps. What we are doing within the extent of our constitutional authority is to pass a law which we believe will be effective in reducing this problem. For this member to stand up and talk about fraud, who takes a Department of Health paper on sniffing and then passes it off as his own, full of flaws, constitutional flaws, and then attempts to come here to this House--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Citation 417 is very specific that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." I would ask you to perhaps review what the minister just said. He was asked a question about this government's campaign promises in terms of prostitution, and he was now getting into some personal attack on the anti-sniff bill, which the member for St. Johns brought in in this House based on community pressure and support.

So I would like to ask you to have the member not only withdraw those comments but stick to the question that was asked about the fraudulent election campaign promises put forward by this government.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour, on the same point of order.

* (1350)

Mr. Toews: The member for St. Johns comes into this House making all kinds of aspersions as to character--[interjection] I am dealing on the point of order. Are you the Speaker?

He indicates, you know, that he comes to this House with clean hands. I want to make sure that we, in fact, are carrying out our promise. Perhaps he should be looking at his own actions in respect of what he is doing.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), indeed I would agree that the honourable Minister of Labour was veering away in his response from the question asked, and I would ask him to keep his comments relevant to the question asked.

Mr. Toews: I would indicate that I am the Minister of Justice, not the Minister of Labour. I would not want any aspersions cast on my colleague from Minnedosa.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Justice, and I apologize to the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer).

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, earlier today a diverse coalition of citizens' groups, including the Manitoba Library Association, the Provincial Council of Women, the Winnipeg Council of Women, the Taxpayers Association, the Canadian Association of Journalists and the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties unanimously condemned Bill 50 and its restrictions on freedom of information and demanded that legislative action on this bill be suspended until genuine public consultations can take place. They were demanding an end to the secrecy and arrogance surrounding this process, the process behind Bill 50.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the honourable member has a question.

The honourable member, to pose the question now.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has assured us that his government is anxious to listen--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), who yesterday rejected our hoist motion, if she will now accede to the demands of Manitobans, do the honourable thing and conduct open, public consultations?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, the bill, Bill 50, which the member references before this House, is what this government believes to be a very good balance, a very good balance between the access provisions which in fact are very, very similar, very close to the former FOI act, and they do finally introduce for the people of Manitoba legislation to protect their privacy. This bill was developed in consultation with Manitoba. My colleague the former Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, now the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), put forward a discussion paper. There were comments, and based on comments, based on a review of the act and based on a review of legislation across Canada, we have put forward what we believe to be an extremely good balance for protecting the privacy of Manitobans but also to ensure that there is access to information.

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

Ms. McGifford: Apparently members of the public disagree.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Will the minister--who knows that tabling a major complex bill on the 5th of June, reading it on the 10th, while the government is pushing to close down the House, is deliberate issue management in seizing control--explain why she is in such a hurry with this bill? Why is she in such a hurry to pass the most secretive and restrictive--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

* (1355)

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, the member knows certainly that the end of the House tends to rest on how bills do move forward and what the debate is, so the member is wrong. She is also wrong in terms of her characterization of the legislation and, in fact, quite wrong.

In terms of the new act, I can tell the member that this new act, the principles of The Freedom of Information Act basically do remain in place. The new act has all of the existing rights of access by any person, the right to any record held by a public body in Manitoba subject to the prescribed exceptions in the act, similar to the FOI, the right to correct personal information about themselves, the right to correct personal information about themselves and to an independent review of an access decision. On the access side, the changes were to assist in clarification, particularly towards a third person. That is not secrecy. However, the people of Manitoba have every right to expect that the personal information held in trust on their behalf should be protected by legislation, and that is what the privacy section of this act does.

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

Ms. McGifford: Then, Madam Speaker, I ask this minister if she would provide the public with the same opportunity as did her colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and therefore delay this legislation, rerelease the legislation as a white paper for all eyes to see, recognizing that freedom of information and privacy protection are essential elements in the democratic right of free speech.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the member is alluding to in terms of my colleague the Minister of Health, who did not release his bill as a discussion paper following--he did not do that.

What we have done is go to the people of Manitoba in the development of this bill, as I said. In addition, we also looked at our experience with the FOI, and we also looked at other provinces across Canada. There is now a process that has been in place in this House, which is a committee stage for this bill. This bill has now been before the people of Manitoba in the usual way, and their comments I look forward to hearing when this bill comes to the committee.

If the member had wanted things to be as they were last year, she can only look to her party, who, when those rules were in place, destroyed those rules in November of this year, and that is why we are operating on the time frame and the process we are now.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, when the minister introduced the regional health boards, the Minister of Health said, and I quote: By allowing people who live within a particular region to determine what services are required and the best way to deliver these services to the people of that region, I am confident we will be able to provide the best health care system.

We know that, if you are out of the province for several months on your own business, you can get on a regional board. We know if you play golf with the Premier and give consulting contracts, you can get on a regional board. We know if you are a Tory, you can be on a regional board, but if you are an aboriginal woman, you cannot. My question is, can the minister clarify what the residency requirements are with respect to appointment to the regional health boards?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, in most cases the members of those boards are residents of the particular health region. There are exceptions to that. Some of those exceptions are where individuals are representing another health board in terms of a board. I think of the South Westman and Marquette regions in Brandon. I also think of people who are appointments or nominations from various facilities, for example, in Winnipeg, who have a big involvement in the health care delivery system in Winnipeg but whose residence might actually be outside of the boundary of the city.

Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister explain how it is that one Mike Ogborn, president of the OmniTRAX corporation that has not even negotiated a deal to take over the area, who lives full time in Denver, who is a United States resident, how it is that this individual would become appointed to the Churchill Regional Health Board in front of all of the other people and residents of Churchill? How does that happen?

* (1400)

Mr. Praznik: If the members of the New Democratic Party, who claim to represent northern Manitoba, would spend some time talking with the Churchill Health Board, they would quickly have learned that that individual was suggested, in fact nominated by the Churchill Health Board and the reason, if they spent some time with the Churchill Health Board, is--they would discover, of all of our regional health authorities, in fact the most unique. They are the only one of their category. Churchill, as a community by itself and its size, does not justify its own health board, but because it has a health centre that services many northern communities outside of the Churchill area and if in fact did not have those people coming and using Churchill, it would not exist, and so very much the regional--[interjection] If members opposite would do me the courtesy to listen to my answer, they would demonstrate themselves to be parliamentarians. The fact of the matter--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Praznik: The fact of the matter is that this health region for Churchill is very much a matter of the economic development of that community to be a centre for health, and not only is that individual who represents the major transportation link, a ground transportation link--but there are also members from the Northwest Territories and Winnipeg who have been recruited by the Churchill board. Members opposite should have a discussion with them if they do not like their recommendations.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, despite all of the minister's rationalizations in an attempt to justify this, does the minister not recognize what message a government that refuses to listen to a report that recommends electing boards and appoints their own Tory people to boards, appoints an American who is operating the railway station who is a resident of the United States to be on the board of the Churchill region--does he not recognize what impact that might have on aboriginal people and women who feel discriminated against because they are not on boards and the people of Manitoba who have no representation on the board? That is wrong.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member for Kildonan and his colleagues are very brave in this Assembly today. It is easy to criticize the people in Churchill who are struggling to build--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that the rules are very clear. If a member wishes to be recognized, he or she stands, and once they have been recognized by the Speaker, the mike is open so the comments can be put on the record. Now, if the honourable member for Kildonan wishes to make a point of order, would he please rise and then be recognized, because his comments were not on the record?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A further point of order. I am wondering if you could perhaps advise the Minister of Health that he should take his seat during that period, too, because one of the difficulties was that the Minister of Health stood there when, indeed, the member had risen on a point of order and sought to be recognized. Perhaps if the Minister of Health would follow the rules, too, and sit, Madam Speaker, when you are attempting to recognize someone, that might also be of assistance.

Madam Speaker: The point raised by the honourable member for Thompson is indeed accurate. I would remind all honourable members, when the Speaker stands to maintain order, those that were previously recognized should sit until order has been maintained, and they will be rerecognized.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan.

Mr. Chomiak: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Praznik: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe I am still attempting to answer the question, unless the member is being recognized on a point of order.

Madam Speaker: That is what I am attempting to establish.

Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I think Beauchesne's indicates the member ought to answer the question that was posed. The minister was refusing to take any responsibility, as is the arrogance of this government, for any of their appointments and in fact was trying to blame the people of Churchill and members of this side of the House for their own irresponsibility, and the minister ought to be admonished to answer the question directly asked.

The question is: Why have you rejected the--I will repeat it for the minister, because he may have trouble. Why did you reject the recommendations of your own committee, and why did you go against all of the women and aboriginal people of Manitoba, who feel that they have been ruled out, and appoint an American based in the United States--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Chomiak: --to be on the Churchill board?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan did not have a point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): A new point of order then. I think that if all honourable members were to pause just for a moment and reflect on the way things are going today and just paused a moment longer, I think what we could achieve would be an answer, albeit perhaps not the answer the honourable member for Kildonan might like to force out of the Minister of Health, and we can also get the questions properly on the record, too. It would be my plea, through you, Madam Speaker, to all honourable members. I know it is late in the month of June, and it is getting warmer out and everything like that, but you know--and a little warmer in here, too--I think if we cooled it down, we could probably get these questions properly asked and properly answered.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader did not have a legitimate point of order; however, I appreciate his advice, and I would sincerely hope that all members would take the comments seriously.

* (1410)

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I take responsibility for the appointments that I have made. I also respect those who provided those nominations from Churchill.

The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and his colleagues are so brave today in the House--so brave. I am going to invite the member for Kildonan to join me in July when I go to Churchill to attend their annual meeting, and I am going to invite him to come with the same bravado and say to the people of Churchill, who are attempting to build a regional health authority that will serve the North and be an economic benefit to Churchill--to make his argument. I invite him today, if he is brave enough to join me on that trip.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Once again we are starting to question this government's attempts to try to go through a tendering process. It was highlighted through the questioning of the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) with respect to the $50-million contract.

The government has talked highly about computer technology and OBS. We have had departments like the Department of Education that has completely ignored the OBS system.

My question is: Why would the government not tender through programs such as OBS that will ensure that there is a fair opportunity for not only Manitobans but people from across Canada to participate in the tendering process?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I am not sure what the issue is that the member is referring to. We do support and we did implement OBS.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, if the Premier is correct in his assertion, then I ask the Minister of Education: Why did you not tender one contract under OBS?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, you know, I have been listening to what the government House leader said and I just would love to have the House, for a moment, pause and celebrate some of the great things that are happening, like what happened at noon today with the scholar athletic awards and all the wonderful achievements happening through education in the government.

I will take his question as notice and get the details for him, but I think we have so many things to celebrate, and maybe we should be positive just for one day of the session to celebrate the good things that are happening in Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what an amazing answer from the Minister of Education. It never ceases to amaze me.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question to the Premier, seeing as the Minister of Education does not know how to answer a question, is, quite frankly: Will the Premier issue a directive to the departments that it is not acceptable and all contracts over $5,000 should be registered for MERX, which has replaced the on-line bidding system, so that all Manitobans will have an opportunity to put in a bid on contracts? Will the Premier give that directive today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, you know, I was once advised by an old friend of mine, Magnus Eliason, who happens to be a New Democrat, when we were city councillors together, that I should never judge an idea by the person who puts it forward. I see the idea being put forward and the suggestion by the member for Inkster as being a good one, and I certainly am committed to OBS, now MERX system. I will take the advice of the member for Inkster and ensure that all of our departments are reminded that we are committed to that form of open tendering and certainly will carry on from there.

I would suggest to him, however, just in closing, that he might want to take that suggestion to his colleagues in the federal government who gave his leader a very lucrative tender in the millions of dollars that was not done on an OBS basis, to my knowledge.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Beauchesne is, indeed, fairly clear. An answer should be short, concise, answer the question.

I was really impressed with the Premier (Mr. Filmon). He answered the question, and then he started to go on some sort of a diatribe. It starts to take away from the essence of his original answer. I think that maybe the Premier should reflect on that and maybe just be quiet and leave the first part of his answer as being a full and complete answer.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister responsible for Lotteries (Mr. Stefanson) for his very--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James, to pose her question.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I have not finished my preamble. I just got started.

Madam Speaker, just yesterday the minister announced that he was reversing his decision and allowing for an open public tender which we called on him to do. For that, he deserves congratulations. For the rest of his gaming policy, I condemn him. He misled. He has misled the public in terms of the Gaming Commission.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the honourable member for St. James is ready to pose her question now.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, the minister and this government have misled the public about the moratorium, misled the public over the role of the Gaming Control Commission and tried to mislead the public about the new additions on the two casinos.

My question to the minister: Will the minister tell the House how much money was awarded to Dominion Construction since 1991, and will he table that?

* (1420)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): I certainly thank the member for St. James for the first part of her preamble, which was very complimentary. The issue of Dominion Construction, back in 1991 there was a public tendering process to determine project managers for the development of the facility on McPhillips and the facility on Regent Avenue. The original cost of those was about $15 million for the raw structure, the building component of it. Since then, there have been additional renovations. Obviously, equipment has been installed, and so on. Throughout the time from '91 to '96, Dominion Construction have in fact been the project managers for those housekeeping kinds of projects.

In terms of the specific compensation to Dominion Construction for that period from 1991 right through till 1996, I will undertake to provide that information. I do want to tell the member that normally on construction projects, project managers' fees are generally about 2 to 3 percent of the total cost of the project, as a rule of thumb, but I will undertake to provide this specific information.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Will the minister table the contract with Dominion Construction, the full details of when it was issued, what other firms were invited and who else had a chance to bid? Because we understand that perhaps all firms did not get a fair chance at that time--so make it opener.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, going back to the original award of the contract back in 1991, I believe the request for proposal was sent to 10 firms here in Manitoba. I believe nine of them responded to the proposal call. Dominion Construction, I believe, was the best on the culmination, again, which is always the case on quality service and price. So there were 10 firms that received the opportunity to bid on that work back in 1991.

The member has asked for copies of contracts. Provided there are no issues around third-party confidentiality and those kinds of issues in terms of protecting third parties, Madam Speaker, I will look into that issue and undertake, if possible, to provide that information.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My final question. Can the minister tell this House how many other perpetual contracts are in place, which the minister says is commonplace in the government now? How many perpetual contracts are there, and who are these firms that have this firms of record by this government?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, it is not uncommon in the private or the public sector to have agents of record that provide services in a whole range of areas, whether it is engineering services or architectural services or project management. Of course, similarly in areas like professional accounting, legal services and all kinds of areas that you have firms that provide you services on an ongoing basis, so that is not an uncommon practice either in government or certainly in the private sector.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.