4th-36th Vol. 26--Oral Questions

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister. When the Premier broke his word and proceeded to sell the Manitoba Telephone System after the election campaign, he refused to table in the House the various studies and analysis that the government had commissioned and had kept secret from the people of Manitoba.

I would like to ask the Premier: did his government undersell or undervalue the Manitoba Telephone System when they proceeded to break their word and privatize our formerly owned Manitoba Telephone System?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Absolutely not, Madam Speaker. In fact, the amount that was ultimately paid for the Telephone System was more than a hundred million more than the best price that financial analysts said it should bring at the time.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: Of course the Premier has never released the financial analysis, Madam Speaker. He has only stated that brokers, who gained some $35 million in commission, were the ones that established the price for this government. So we do not believe the Premier, when he gave his word that he would not sell the Telephone System. How can we believe his word today when he says that they got a hundred million dollars more?

I would like to ask the Premier: did the government sell the shares to Manitobans and Canadians at a discounted rate?

Mr. Filmon: No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Doer: I would like to ask the Premier: who is telling the truth, the Canadian CRTC commission, which stated on March 5 that the Manitoba Telephone shares were sold at a discount rate, or the Premier in this House today who maintains a position that he is maintaining the truth when it is opposite to the CRTC? Who are we to believe, the Premier or the CRTC?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the member opposite and to any of those who wish to pursue it that we sought the best available advice, and we followed the best available advice from those who are paid to make those judgments. The advice that we followed was to put the share price as it was to ensure that we were able to receive a fair and reasonable price for the Telephone System. We did that.

Mr. Doer: A new question to the Premier. The CRTC is now saying what a number of analysts also stated before, during and after the time that the phone system was sold, particularly after the price was established, that this was a, quote, price that was geared to sell this corporation in a very quick time. Dunnery Best was quoted and other analysts were quoted as saying these shares will sell very quickly because they are very, very low prices.

I would like to ask the Premier: why did you sell this Telephone System, a Manitoba publicly owned asset, at a discount price, and what cost has that been to Manitobans by your giving this phone system away to the private shareholders?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member opposite reminds me of the young lad who in the wintertime tells everybody what a great baseball player he is and in the summertime tells everybody what a great hockey player he is.

When the shares were priced for this issue, he did not allege that they were underpriced. It is only afterwards, as the market has been dealing with them for more than a year, that he has the great knowledge of knowing what the market will pay for those shares. At no time did he or his colleagues say that was an underpricing of the shares because, in fact, we were going by the best advice available to us by those who are paid to make those judgments, the people from the brokerage companies and the market, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Doer: Of course the Premier will remember that time after time after time we asked the Premier to table all the analyses and all the information that the government had in their hands, table that information. The government refused to do so. We asked the government to have a referendum or a plebescite of all Manitobans to decide the future of their own Telephone System. The government refused and only listened to the brokers that they paid $35 million to, and then the government closed down this House, Madam Speaker, closed down the debate in this Legislature. How dare the Premier now talk about these issues.

How can the Premier justify selling a phone system for $900 million when the book value at the time was $1.2 billion, and now the shares are worth close to $1.6 billion? Is this not the greatest transfer of public assets, which were owned by Manitobans, to private shareholders that reside outside of the province in the history of this province that has been conducted by the Premier and the quiet Tories opposite?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, not surprisingly, the numbers and information that the Leader of the Opposition puts on the record are absolutely wrong when he refers to the value being less than the book value. He has to recognize the gross proceeds on the sale were $910 million combined with $428 million of debt that Manitoba Telephone System assumed, bringing the total price up to in excess of $1.3 billion. Based on our analysis, the best information we had available, it was a very fair price for the value of the company, and that is serving us well today, that the net proceeds have been put to use here in Manitoba retiring some of the debt related to our health care facilities and so on. At the end of the day, it has been a very positive initiative not only for the Treasury of this government but for Manitobans who chose to invest in Manitoba Telephone System.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, then to the Minister of Finance, who, according to the former Minister responsible for the Telephone System, now holds the golden share, the golden share of the Manitoba Telephone System, I would like to ask him: who is telling the truth, the Tories opposite or the CRTC, an independent body that states that the Telephone System was sold at a discount rate? Who is telling the truth, the Tories who have a history in this world of underselling public assets or the CRTC that says you sold it for less than it was worth?

Mr. Stefanson: Again, I think the Leader of the Opposition is putting his own spin on what the CRTC has said relative to this issue. I think, as I have already indicated to him and as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has indicated to him, the best information we had from three independent firms analyzing the value of this company is that we received a very fair and reasonable value for this company, and it is reflected today in terms of the net proceeds that we received as a government, as well as the benefits that have been flowing to individual Manitobans as a result of investing in the private sector company.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Will the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for Manitoba Telecom system now, explain to Manitobans and to the 450 laid-off staff of MTS why it is ethical or moral that his brother, the chair of MTS, has received a million dollars worth of stock options?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I am not the least bit surprised that this question would come from the member for Crescentwood, based on his past performance in this House on other issues, Madam Speaker, so I certainly am not the slightest bit surprised by the tone and the accusations that he makes, and obviously, to say the least, I am very offended by them.

I think if he were to look at the history of the Manitoba Telephone System and if he were to look at the annual meeting held in May of 1997, he would see that a stock option plan was approved by the shareholders, individual shareholders who are Manitobans, Manitoba organizations, other individuals across Canada who approved the stock option plan allowing for up to $3.5 million of shares to be issued, turning over the direction for the allocation of those to the board of directors and the human resource committee of the board of directors. They have come forward with their proposal. That is also a proposal that will be put before the shareholders again of Manitoba Telephone System, and that is the process of accountability, a process of accountability under a private sector company that I think members opposite are not all that familiar with because, based on their past practice, they chose to intervene in public sector operations like the MTX fiasco, like MPI, and so on.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm that the process of accountability is the board of directors, of which his brother is the chair, recommending to the annual meeting of shareholders that a stock option plan be approved, and the stock option plan was detailed to the shareholders and that the shareholders did indeed approve it? They approved it on the recommendation of the board of directors, of which his brother is the chair. Is that not in fact the accountability trail?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I think members opposite do need a lesson in private sector companies. There are annual meetings held. The board of directors present information to the shareholders, and that is the opportunity--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the process is that the board of directors present certain information, make certain recommendations to the shareholders, and that is the opportunity for individual shareholders to hold that board of directors accountable, to select the chair, to select the members of the board and so on. That is a process that takes place under MTS, under all private sector companies that are created here in Canada, and it is the long-standing process that is meant to hold individual board members accountable to the people who choose to invest in that particular company. I have a great deal of confidence in that process, whether it relates to MTS or any other private sector company.

* (1350)

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, did the four MTS board members appointed by this government and under the direction of the Minister of Finance who oversaw their appointment, brought their names forward for appointment, spoke at great length in support of the legislation privatizing this company--did the four directors appointed by Manitoba vote in favour of the share options for the officers and directors of this company?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the process from the board of directors, I understand, is, as a rule, they try to find consensus on issues. They work towards consensus on the recommendations that they make. It is the nature of their board of directors, again not uncommon to boards of directors, not uncommon to caucuses, not uncommon to cabinets, and if the member for Crescentwood is suggesting that people like Robert Chipman, Ashleigh Everett, Donald Penny and Sam Schellenberg are not very reputable people who will make the best decisions on behalf of individual shareholders and the citizens of Manitoba, then I say shame to him, because those four individuals have made a significant contribution to the province of Manitoba in many, many areas, and for him to cast aspersions on them and their decision making is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Sale: On a new question, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister of Finance table in this House minutes of the meeting of the board of directors at which the stock option plan was approved and put forward as a recommendation to the shareholders, or is he telling this House that there were no minutes, nothing was in writing, there were no motions, there was never any paper trail until it suddenly got to the shareholders? Will he table those minutes showing who voted for and who voted against?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I am certainly prepared to undertake to provide members opposite with information from the circular providing information on the stock option plan, obviously minutes of the shareholders' meeting that was held on May 30, 1997, ratifying a stock option plan for MTS. I am certainly more than prepared to provide that information, which is public information by the way.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, this is a very serious matter. The minister did not answer the question. I would ask the minister to answer my question. Will he table the minutes of the board of directors meeting at which the stock option plan was approved and put forward to the shareholders? The minutes he is referring to are the minutes of the shareholders' meeting. I did not ask about those. Those are public anyway.

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

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated to the member that my understanding is the board of MTS, in most cases, operates on the basis of consensus. Consensus was reached on the merits of a stock option plan. In fact, in the circular that was distributed almost a year ago--it says very clearly in the circular, for the benefit of the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that on the recommendation of its human resource and compensation committee, the board of directors of the corporation has approved the implementation of a stock option plan.

It goes into detail to talk about the stock option plan that had been approved by the board of directors of MTS and recommended to the shareholders at their May meeting, in May of 1997. At that meeting, the shareholders of MTS, many thousands of Manitobans from right across our province, ratified a resolution approving a stock option plan which, by the way, for the benefit of members opposite who care to listen, is something that is very common. I am sure the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) knows it is very common in the telecommunications sector. If you look right across that sector, most of the telecommunication companies, if not all, in Canada today have a stock option plan. It is also very common in all kinds of other business operations. It is not something new or unique to MTS and not something that does not exist elsewhere.

* (1355)

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, the Finance minister is now confirming I believe, and I would ask him to confirm, that the board of directors in fact voted unanimously for this plan, including the four members of the board under his direction appointed by his government, voted for a plan which would make his brother a millionaire. He apparently has confirmed that by talking about consensus. Is that in fact the case?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, first of all, again, I think the member for Crescentwood puts a great deal of misinformation on the record, which is a pattern for him, unfortunately, and does not do service to discussing any issue in this Chamber.

In terms of the issue, I have already outlined very clearly that the board of MTS made a recommendation to the shareholders to adopt a stock option plan. That has been ratified by the shareholders right across the system in terms of the thousands of Manitobans who are shareholders in MTS. But I want to make it very clear to the member opposite, in terms of our relationship with the four members who are appointed to represent us, my first and foremost responsibility as Minister of Finance is to ensure that the debt that we took back on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba is in fact repaid by MTS, and when MTS was privatized on January 7, 1997, the debt stood at $426 million. Today that debt is down to $239 million, a repayment of almost $200 million against that debt. Those are the kinds of responsibilities that I have. I do not get into micromanaging or providing direction to our appointees, unlike members opposite when the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) was responsible for MTS and was micromanaging the fiascos like MTX here in Manitoba. There are operational decisions that are made by the board, and I have confidence in our four appointments, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. This government has a history of dragging its feet when it comes to approving new drug treatments. Betaseron is an excellent example of the slow and cumbersome process a new drug treatment faces even when it has been approved by the federal Health Protection Branch. The drug Aricept, a treatment which offers relief for sufferers and families of Alzheimer's victims, now faces a similar struggle.

Given that the approval process for Manitoba for the drug Betaseron has taken over two years, and in all likelihood, the approval for Aricept will take even longer, can the minister indicate if a two-year waiting period for new drug treatments is standard government policy?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, yes, the member's question is a good one. I can assure him that it is not the intention of this minister or this administration to have undue delay in the approval under Pharmacare of drugs that have a value to patients in the province of Manitoba.

The process that we use for approval of drugs under our Pharmacare program, after they have received their medical approval from Health and Welfare Canada, is to have them considered by our Pharmacare Advisory Committee that assesses the drugs for their benefit, a pharmaco-economical analysis of that particular drug, and they make their decision based on the best information that is provided to them.

We have taken some steps, coming out of the Betaseron story, to improve the operation of that committee, including giving them more options in their approval for a yellow-light process where they can recommend a pilot project for a particular drug on which they may be uncertain.

Mr. Kowalski: Madam Speaker, will the minister explain why the pilot project for Betaseron that was promised to start in March has not yet started?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, with respect to Betaseron, a great deal of effort has been underway between the ministry and the MS clinic, who will be the host for that particular project. The committee to design the reference for the assessment has been working away. It does take a little bit more time sometimes than one would anticipate initially, but I do know, compared to some of the other provinces that have gone through the same process, it has taken many, many months, not two or three, and we have consulted with them and garnered information on how to make that process work as quickly as possible. Hopefully, it will be available through the MS clinic in the not too distant future.

* (1400)

Mr. Kowalski: Does the Health minister have any plans to speed up the approval process for new drug treatments or will he continue to rely on ministerial intervention?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am glad the member has flagged that particular issue because I do not think anyone would suggest that the best way to do these approvals is to have the ministers themselves make the approval. There should be a process based on scientific information and the benefit of the drug in terms of its effect and reduction in cost for the patient, and that is why we have that committee. I have worked with that committee over the last number of months to put a green-light, yellow-light, red-light process in place, which does give them the option to recommend pilots where there is a kind of a balance that may result in a denial, and we also have taken steps to more regularly update our formulary to ensure that the ability to get new drugs on is much faster.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, this government has agreed to compensate persons living with HIV-AIDS who acquired the virus through tainted blood. Time lines were not a factor and played no role in this agreement, and this is right and proper just as it should be. But given this precedent, I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) why his government has agreed to a compensation package which excludes those infected with hepatitis C acquired through tainted blood and before 1985.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I truly do want to thank the member for this question because this has not been an easy set of issues with which to deal, and I know members opposite have followed this whole process of a compensation package for those with hepatitis C acquired through the blood system.

The current compensation package which was agreed to by provincial governments and the federal government is based on compensation for a period of time in which there may have been negligence on the part of the blood system. The period of time was determined by and large by the work that was done by the federal government in preparing for this particular time, and there are other issues that I am sure we will discuss in Estimates around how we structure compensation for things that may go wrong within the health care system. I can tell members that the federal government offer of some $800 million towards that plan was based on the principle of only compensating those for the period in which the blood system may have had negligence.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) if his government recognizes a moral and ethical responsibility to all victims of hepatitis C who have already been betrayed once by the blood system.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the issue here--and I appreciate the question and the concern around compensation, and this was the issue that we had to wrestle with as provincial and federal ministers--is the issue of how do we compensate, and to what degree individuals who may suffer damage or loss because of things in the health care system that do not produce the desired result, whether there be negligence or not be negligence involved in the system. It does raise a whole host of questions about that kind of liability within the system.

I am looking forward to that discussion in Estimates, because it is a rather involved one, and I would like the opportunity in greater detail to discuss it with members opposite.

Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) if he will do what the majority of Manitobans consider his ethical and moral responsibility and agree today to offer compensation to all victims of hepatitis C, even those who were infected before 1985.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, just to put this discussion into context, the blood system which was operated by the Canadian Red Cross Society and which was regulated by the national government had the provinces as by and large the purchasers or funders of this particular system. By far the bulk of the liability for any malfeasance or negligence in that system rests with those other two partners, and that is why when we developed a national compensation plan for that particular area it was the federal government that took that lead and did put some $800 million on the table. My criticism is they did not recognize the $1.6 billion in medical costs we as provincial governments will have to bear for the medical cost piece of hepatitis C.

I certainly think the initiative must rest with the national government to take the lead in this particular issue, and if there is to be an expansion of this program, there are some issues that have to be dealt with on principle. Certainly the federal government would have to be at the table with a sizeable amount of money to make it happen in a practical way.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, last week the Senate committee was in Manitoba to hear views of farmers on Bill C-4, the amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board. Although I was not allowed to make a presentation, farm organizations did. One section of the bill that they did support was the inclusion clause, which creates a mechanism by which new crops can be added under the Wheat Board jurisdiction. However, this Minister of Agriculture, who also made a presentation, is once again out of step with Manitoba farmers. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he will not listen to Manitoba farmers and why he is so opposed to the inclusion clause which, if farmers choose, would allow other grains to be included under the Wheat Board.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I am not aware of a single farm organization representing agriculture across western Canada that requested the inclusion clause to be in the act in the first instance. So if it is a question of being out of step, I am pleased to join those people like the Manitoba Canola Growers Association, the Pulse Growers Association, all of whom have prevailed upon me, and I might add upon my First Minister (Mr. Filmon), to in fact make this clearly known to Minister Goodale with respect to Bill C-4, that the inclusion clause adds uncertainty to the situation and uncertainty is not something that we need to have at a time when we look for value-added opportunities and investment dollars.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister: given that there is an exclusion clause where there is ability to take grain out from under the Wheat Board through a democratic vote--they can have them removed--why is he always so opposed to an inclusion clause which would give farmers a democratic vote? Why is he so afraid of giving farmers a say? Does he want to control everything they do?

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, for the benefit of the honourable member, allow me to remind her, the exclusion clause was put in there by Minister Goodale who had it recommended to him by his own committee, if you recall, that studied the Canadian Wheat Board situation prior to any amendments coming in. He had it put in there because he recognized that there may well be certain crops, organic wheats and others that ought to be excluded from the crop.

Now, Madam Speaker, because an honourable member of Parliament from eastern Canada, Prince Edward Island to be exact, thought it would be nice to have balance--if we are going to have an exclusion clause, then you should have an inclusion clause--that is no cause for us in western Canada to be so directed and to be so misguided.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is more interested in producing cheap food for processing or he is more interested in allowing farmers who grow the grain have a fair return for his product. Who is he standing up for, the farmers or the processors?

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, therein really lies the tragedy, that the honourable member refuses still to not understand what is happening and to pit one section of agriculture against the other section of agriculture. All our interests are served if we can move up the food chain ladder, if we can process our primary production here in this province and we can benefit from it. So it is difficult to continue to try to make that point with her, but I will tell you one thing: I feel comfortable that I am in step with the growing, growing number of progressive farmers in Manitoba.

* (1410)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we are now seeing that what we suspected for a long time is true, that the sale of MTS was the biggest rip-off in Manitoba history, and there were four people who were the key players in this: the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Jules Benson and one Tom Stefanson, connected right to the heart of this government who now may cash in on up to a million dollars from that rip-off.

I want to ask the Premier: since this government still has shares with MTS, still has a special share in the ownership of that, what action will he take to make sure that Tom Stefanson does not cash in on a million dollars at the expense of the Manitoba public?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): First of all, Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member for Thompson to look at the documentation submitted by MTS, look at how stock options work: that you get an option to buy shares, in this case over a five-year period of time; those share prices fluctuate. They have gone from $13 and hovered in that area. Today they are at a high of $23, and they certainly will vary over the next weeks and months and years. But I want to go back to his fundamental point of what is our responsibility as a government. Our responsibility was to get a fair price for MTS and we did that. Our responsibility is to be absolutely certain that we are paid for the entity itself, and we are being paid. I have outlined very clearly that the date for the debt, the $426 million of debt, that MTS has now paid almost half of that back in roughly a year and a half.

When it comes to the citizens of Manitoba, whether it is a private company or a public company, MTS has to go before the CRTC, justify their rates, justify their expenditures. Today MTS has the lowest residential rates in all of Canada, and that is an outstanding performance here in our province.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate if the Premier would answer my supplementary--to put the Minister of Finance out of a position of a clear conflict of interest. I asked about Tom Stefanson. I want to ask the Premier what action he will take to make sure that Tom Stefanson does not benefit from some of the most corrupt and unethical behaviour we have seen in this province in decades by pocketing a million dollars at the expense of the people of Manitoba.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, you know, I find it interesting that members opposite want to put themselves into the gutter and put themselves in a position where--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, what the members opposite fail to do of course, though, is to compare the operations and the actions of the Telephone System, ones that were approved by a vote of the shareholders at their annual meeting, over 70,000 shareholders from Manitoba represented in that decision.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, the members opposite, who are trying to make a political issue out of this, should look right next door at Saskatchewan where their colleagues in the Saskatchewan New Democratic government have the CEO of their Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan being paid $10.6 million U.S.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

An Honourable Member: Grant Devine's--

Mr. Filmon: Exactly. You make my point. Exactly.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Indeed, the Premier obviously looked to Saskatchewan for the influence of Grant Devine in terms of this government.

I want to ask the Premier, who has not answered this question, what action he will take to prevent one Tom Stefanson, directly connected to the heart of this government, from pocketing a million dollars. This is the person who sat on the board as the chair of the board, as our representative, who engineered through the whole process the sale of MTS and now is getting a million dollars. That is corrupt; it is unethical. What is the Premier going to do about it?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, Mr. Stefanson is not one of our appointees to the board of directors of Manitoba Telecom Services. Mr. Stefanson was selected by the shareholders. The agreements and the provisions that are being referred to by members opposite are ones that have been approved by the shareholders of the private corporation, Manitoba Telecom Services.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a new question. Is the Premier now denying that Tom Stefanson was appointed by his government to be chair of the publicly owned company, that he was very much involved, as he admitted in committee of this Legislature, in pushing through the sale of MTS along with the other key players, one Eric Stefanson, one Gary Filmon and one Jules Benson? Is he now denying that Tom Stefanson was not the government appointee on the board?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the decisions with respect to compensation and share provisions were not made by the public company. They have been made by the private company of which Mr. Stefanson is not one of the appointees of this government. His choice as chair was made by the shareholders of Manitoba Telecom Services, and all of the provisions of the compensation agreement were agreed to and voted on by the shareholders. It is the shareholders who made that decision and to whom all of them are responsible.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, the Premier has not answered my question. I will try again in a supplementary. Why will the First Minister not admit that Tom Stefanson was appointed by his government to engineer the sale of MTS against the will of the public and that this Premier, this Finance minister and Mr. Tom Stefanson are responsible for the biggest rip-off in Manitoba history?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat that the decisions that have been made by the privately owned Manitoba Telecom Services have all been approved by their shareholders in an annual meeting, and the individual to whom he refers is not one of the appointees of this government on the board.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I do not know what difficulty this Premier has with answering the question and facing the reality of what has happened to MTS. Will the First Minister confirm that Tom Stefanson has been the chair of the board, was chair under public ownership as well as private ownership, and that he is the one who was responsible for shepherding through the privatization agenda in terms of when it was publicly owned and that now he is pocketing up to a million dollars as a result? Why will the minister not accept that that is not only the fact--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the decision to privatize Manitoba Telecom Services was made by this government based on a very sound rationale that we have explained and defended many times in this House, and this House passed the legislation that privatized the Manitoba Telephone System. The individual to whom he refers is not one of the appointees of this government to the present board of Manitoba Telecom Services, and the compensation plan was approved by the shareholders at their annual general meeting.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.