ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Home Care Program
Privatization--Public Hearings
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. Today in the committee room in the Legislature we heard articulate and passionate presentations from Manitobans about the future of home care and the government's plans on home care.
Father Fred Olds, president of the Manitoba Christian health and healing council said, and I quote: I have yet to see any kind of conclusive argument that privatization of home care services will improve the services to Manitobans that require it.
I would like to ask the Premier, would he take some time from what I know is a very busy schedule today to listen to what Manitobans are saying about home care and the government's plans on home care? Would he take some time today to go to the committee hearings and hear from Manitobans first-hand about their government's privatization plans?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions to the Leader of the Opposition, the objective is to ensure that we can at all times and in all circumstances provide the coverage and the service that Manitobans need from home care. That means seven days a week, 24 hours a day, when they need it, how they need it, as they need it.
The only way we can assure them that their needs are going to be met and that their services will not be arbitrarily withdrawn from them because of a monopoly situation which exists today is to introduce competition and flexibility into the delivery of these services. That is the foremost responsibility that we have. That is our objective: To serve the needs of those whom home care is set up for. That is why we are doing what we are doing.
* (1355)
Mr. Doer: I am extremely disappointed in the Premier's response. The Premier can find time to go around the world and travel around the country, but he cannot go around the corner to listen to Manitobans about his privatization plans.
As Evan Burns said so clearly today, what is the Premier afraid of? Why is he afraid to go to these public hearings? I would like to quote again from the Manitoba seniors organization, which, of course, is one of largest users of home care, one of the largest client groups of home care, that totally disagrees with the Premier's statement about home care and say they too have no evidence--in fact, they say the costs will go up and the quality will go down.
Would the Premier now agree to listen to the people in those committee hearings, listen to Manitobans about the plans on privatization, listen to Manitoba seniors, listen to the Christian health coalition and others who are saying the privatization profit plans are silly and should be put on hold by this Premier?
Mr. Filmon: We have said time and time again that every time we look for opportunities to expand the services, to provide more flexibility, to assure hours of coverage, to assure types of coverage, we have had difficulty doing it under our bureaucratic system. This would not be the case when we introduce flexibility and competition within the system. Our sole objective is to serve the needs of those who depend upon home care, the most vulnerable in our society, who must have that assurance. Government cannot provide that assurance when we have a monopoly situation that can arbitrarily withdraw the services such as we are experiencing today. Our endeavours are to correct that situation for the benefit of those that we are obliged to serve.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I am disappointed again the Premier would not agree to listen to the people presenting briefs and listen to Manitobans in the room. If he had, this morning he would have heard a lady named Jodi McClelland who has been a home care user for a number of years who is now receiving the services of a private profit home care service. She presented today, as a lady, she was presented today with the fact that she was provided a male attendant who would have to bathe her as part of her home care requirements. She complained to the private company, and they refused to send a person of the similar sex. There was story after story today.
I would like the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to get some compassion, to get some humanity, start putting common sense ahead of the profit ideology of the Conservative Party, listen to Manitobans, come to the hearings, put his profit plans on hold and give us back our home care system in terms of Manitobans for Manitobans.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I have asked repeatedly the honourable Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues to do everything in their power to show that they have some compassion and humanity in order to help bring about, if nothing else, at least an essential services agreement so that we can make sure the people who need care during this time of labour disruption get the care they need. They have flatly refused to do that, in a sense turning their backs in a callous and insensitive way on the clients of our home care system.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Public Hearings
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, we are getting nowhere in this debate because the government is not listening to Manitobans and, instead, sticking steadfast to their plan to privatize home care. The minister had time today to meet with his consultant, KPMG. Will he have time today to go down to the hearings and hear what Manitobans have to say about their privatization plan and maybe for the first time listen to what the public has to say about the privatization plan? Will he attend the hearings today?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, before the honourable member continues to put false information on the record about my comings and goings and with whom I am meeting, he might want to ascertain the facts before he does that. The honourable member says he is getting nowhere. He is right. He is not going to get anywhere if he wants to continue to turn his back on the clients of our home care system by failing to use his powers of persuasion with senior members of the union movement to bring about an essential services arrangement. He is getting nowhere because, according to Lesley Larsen, executive director of the Canadian Home Care Association, and I quote: In Manitoba I think government should be involved in setting the policies for care, who should get what service and the funding levels. It also has to monitor the service to ensure quality of care. Then it does not matter who provides the service.
These are the reasons the honourable member is getting nowhere. He relies on false information to help make his case and then expects to be believed, Madam Speaker.
Privatization--Moratorium
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, this morning at the hearings we heard numerous cases about the failure of private companies to provide proper service. Yesterday in the Estimates, the minister indicated that he does not have an agency or a body or a group of individuals to monitor these companies. How can we expect the government to actually operate this system when in fact they do not even have an agency, a system or a group of individuals, as the minister indicated in Estimates, to monitor these bodies, and will they put this plan on hold finally and try to get their act together?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I do not suppose the honourable member would like me to put words in his mouth, Madam Speaker, and I can tell you I do not think it is appropriate that he put words in my mouth. I just finished quoting someone who should be knowledgable, the executive director of the Canadian Home Care Association who has said that service delivery model does not matter if you have the proper controls in place. We have spent dozens of hours now, I think it is, in the Estimates review process talking about home care and all of the safeguards there are.
I mean the honourable member wants to suggest that we should go back to the system we had in the first place. That is what he has said in this House, as the Health critic for the New Democratic Party putting forward his party's policy, go back to what we had before. I ask him to reread his own report put out by Price Waterhouse that talks about the shortcomings in what is otherwise a very good program, Madam Speaker.
Privatization--Public Hearings
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Premier.
Will the Premier, if he is so convinced about his plan, have the courage to attend the hearings like all of the others and make the government's presentation as to why they are privatizing home care? The only thing we have supporting the government's position is Ron Hoppe's--from We Care--presentation, Madam Speaker. Let the Premier have the courage to go down and make his presentation and try to convince Manitobans.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we are elected in government to protect the interests of those who depend upon government for services. We are elected to ensure that the services are available to them when they need them, as they need them, and in the manner in which they need them.
The only way we can do that is to ensure that we have competition and flexibility within the system. The only way we can do that is by the method that we are choosing, to get away from the limitations that are put on us by a bureaucratic monopoly situation in which people can arbitrarily withdraw services from those people who most desperately need them, and with the aid and assistance of the members opposite, deny the most vulnerable in society of their rights and their needs. That will not happen in future because of the decision we have taken, Madam Speaker.
* (1400)
Rural Hospital Boards
Budget Surpluses
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, hospital board administrators and board members continue to be very frustrated with this Minister of Health and his department that is moving to recapture half of their retained surpluses. I am sure the Minister of Health is aware that under Section 60 of The Health Act, which I will table, it says that hospital boards are allowed to keep 2 percent of their surpluses, and I am sure he is aware that these funds are very important to the hospitals in light of the cutbacks that they have been facing.
I want to ask the minister why he is acting in direct contravention of the act by trying to take these funds back from hospital boards.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I only wonder why the honourable member did not raise these concerns at the time the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council made its report which recommended just what we are talking about. Nonetheless, I acknowledged yesterday that that particular proposal is not, as I said yesterday, one of the most popular proposals that has come out and that working with the Manitoba Health Organizations we are working to resolve the issues.
The frustration the honourable member refers to is not something that lasts very long with me or with my department. We are very responsive when people have issues and raise them with us.
Ms. Wowchuk: Since the minister recognizes that there is a problem and he said he is responsive, when is he going to communicate with rural health boards on this issue because they have not heard a word since February 9 when they were told that this money was going to be recaptured from them? When are you going to communicate with them?
Mr. McCrae: That will happen soon, Madam Speaker, as we have finalized our discussions with the representative of the facilities in Manitoba, the Manitoba Health Organizations, with which organization we have been working very closely.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health, since during the budget discussions he was not able to tell us whether rural health boards were going to be having any cuts, can he tell rural health boards today they will not be having cuts to their budget because of this government's plan to recapture their surpluses which they need for their operations to deliver services in rural Manitoba?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member cannot on one day support the rural regionalization that is going in Manitoba and then not support it on the next day and expect to be believed.
The facilities themselves were represented on the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council which brought forward recommendations regarding regionalization of health services in rural and northern Manitoba. There will be a large number of issues to be worked out over the next year or two. This is one of them. We will continue to work closely with our partners in health who represent the facilities throughout the province, and we will be doing that with the assistance and co-operative partnership of the Manitoba Health Organizations. So the work will go forward. The quality of health services for Manitobans is the bottom line.
Madam Speaker, I am trying very hard to speak loudly so I am not so distracted by the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) who is making quite a lot of noise from her seat, making it hard for me or anybody else on this side of the House to hear the proceedings going on here today.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1410)
Headingley Correctional Institution
Hughes Inquiry--Terms of Reference
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
Since the Headingley riot, the Justice minister has had her mind made up, all was tickety-boo, staffing levels were great, security was great she says, which, of course, flies in the face not only of the riot itself but what the guards say and what the agreement acknowledged yesterday.
My question for the Premier is, because the Justice minister and officials behind the closed doors of the Hughes review can be expected to press this spin on Mr. Hughes, would the Premier agree to give Mr. Hughes at least the ability to compel documents and witnesses and require evidence under oath as Mr. Hughes sees fit?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we see now of course the real position of the member opposite, and that is that he is not really interested in the concerns, the legitimate concerns of those who work in the Corrections system because they, through their union, agreed not only with the appointment of Judge Hughes but also with the terms of reference, and they believe that it is satisfactory to meet their needs and their legitimate concerns. It is not, of course, satisfactory because it does not create a political grandstand for the member opposite, so that is his criticism today. That is the kind of nonsense, of course, that puts him and his party into disrepute.
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, given those sad remarks to a tragedy in this province, would the Premier, given the Justice minister's accountability for what happened and her blind eye to security and safety, staffing, require the Justice minister to submit herself to examination under oath by Mr. Hughes to tell Manitobans when she became aware of the problems at Headingley why she turned a blind eye and to explain her so-called--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Filmon: The only sadness, Madam Speaker, is that this member opposite would stoop so low as to try and profit by a situation in which people's lives were at stake and people suffered. That sadness--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne's Citation 484(3) is very clear that it is out of order for members to “ . . . impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case; . . . .”
Madam Speaker, all our Justice critic is doing is asking questions and asking for accountability on a very serious incident that took place. The Premier had no right to make that comment and should withdraw that immediately.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order, I will take the point of order under advisement and review Hansard and, if necessary, report back to the House.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member's interests, of course, were definitely shown when the union themselves kicked him out of the room last week when he was trying to interfere with their right to have their legitimate concerns looked after, and we know how that works. Even those who are close friends of his cannot put up with his grandstanding.
The fact of the matter is that this inquiry will address all of the legitimate concerns of those who work in the Corrections system and it will get to the bottom of the answers. Mr. Hughes, Judge Hughes, will not be in any way constrained from achieving the things that he needs to achieve in order to assure those who work in the Corrections system that they can be in a safe environment in future.
Minister of Justice
Removal
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, would the Premier, who refuses to deal with the questions and the issues, also deal with the Justice minister who has turned a blind eye to several reports on Headingley, to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry recommendations, to the Pedlar recommendations, the Summit on Youth Crime, her own War on Drugs report? She has a thing against recommendations. Would he remove the Justice minister so that Manitobans can have at least some hope that the Hughes report will actually be acted on?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, that is the point; we are dealing with the issues. That is why the guards accepted the recommendations and the terms of reference of the Hughes inquiry and all of the conditions and terms that were put in place to satisfy their legitimate needs. We are dealing with the issues, unlike the member opposite.
Manitoba Telephone System
Faneuil Corp.--Status Report
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for MTS.
Back in August of '94, the government issued a press release in which it talked about Faneuil and the future prospects of Faneuil and a thousand jobs and provided indirectly through loan guarantees millions of tax dollars--guarantees.
My question to the Minister responsible for MTS: We understand, and I ask the minister to confirm, is Faneuil owing today MTS in excess of a million dollars or approximately a million dollars outstanding?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Telephone System signed a multiyear contract with Faneuil to deliver certain services over the course of--I believe it is seven years, if I remember the number of years right. That contract is in place and will continue to be delivered by Faneuil in a process.
To the specifics the member mentioned, I will check into the detail, but it is a contract between MTS and Faneuil. It is a seven-year contract, and I expect both sides of the contract to be fully fulfilled. In fact, Faneuil is well in excess of its job targets over the seven-year period.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, in fairness to the Minister for MTS, maybe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), is the government aware, or can the government confirm that Faneuil is behind on payments for toll charges?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, MTS is only one of the agencies that has a contract with Faneuil. Several other firms have contracted for delivery of services in the telemarketing area.
I can confirm to the member that they are well above their job targets in the agreement signed with the government, and they are doing an exceptionally good job in terms of increasing the market access and penetration of MTS in this competitive industry that we are in. So in that context everything is going very, very well.
Privatization
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I will look forward to the response.
My supplementary question is, does the minister have any intentions on selling off MTS in any of the groups that were created back in January?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I think the member should look at the information that we released last week. We are offering in a public-share offering the entire entity of Manitoba Telephone System with preferential consideration to Manitobans, employees and retired employees.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, in case the member for Inkster is not aware, MTS is being privatized, the whole thing, and the--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson is imputing motives. It is legitimate to find out whether this government is going to, in any way, try to piece out MTS. It is a legitimate question. The member for Thompson and the NDP might not care about that, but the Liberal Party does care about it, and it is a legitimate question.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, to pose his question.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I apologize for attempting to inform the member of what was happening, but the provincial government is privatizing MTS with no mandate. Probably the best summation of what they are doing was summed up by the Premier who dismissed Manitobans of a real close affinity in connection with their phone company by saying that we are all shareholders in name only, which raises some serious questions about what new entity will replace MTS.
I would like to ask the Premier if he can confirm that the experience in Alberta, which this is modelled upon, and the experience in every other jurisdiction when this kind of privatization has taken place has shown that fewer than 10 percent of the population end up having any stake afterwards, whereas currently 100 percent of Manitobans are owners of MTS.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, what the member opposite does not recognize is that Manitobans only own debt. They own $840 million of debt--debt--and they have never yet received a dividend from that company.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Manitoba Telephone System has never returned anything to the Manitoba taxpayer in the way of--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: They have never declared a dividend. They have never returned to the taxpayer anything other than what they are getting with a corporation that will be owned by the shareholders, which is service, reliability and affordability. They will continue to have that, and they will continue to have that under the new ownership structure.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, now I am really concerned about this.
I would like to ask the First Minister how anyone can have any confidence in the ability of this government, the same government that has also been responsible for the Faneuil deal and the sale of Cablevision for one-fifth of the book value, how they can have any confidence in the ability of this government to deal with MTS when this minister, the First Minister, has the gall to stand up and say that we do not own anything in MTS when we have, according to the books of MTS, more than $200 million in equity, net equity, because of our building up of the phone company in this province since 1908.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we will get more than that back from the sale of it. So Manitobans will then benefit because our total debt will be reduced by this process, and they will therefore save something in the range of $30 million a year in interest payments on our overall government debt. They will be the beneficiaries in every way. They will get service. They will get reliability. They will get affordability, and they will get a paydown of their debt so that they can in fact enjoy more public services by virtue of the money that they will be saving on interest on that debt.
* (1420)
Privatization--Rate Increases
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister, based on his last comments, is he then saying, as he did at the press conference, that unlike Alberta where rates increased dramatically under privatization, where service has deteriorated, that there will be no increases in rates and no reduction in service because of the privatization of MTS?
Will he put that on the record, something he did not do in the election when he said that he would not privatize MTS?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): As I pointed out yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), the fact of the matter is that rates will go up or down in any way that they are adjusted in future based on exactly the same analysis by CRTC whether they were owned publicly or privately. They will need to receive rates that are commensurate with their costs of operations and that--
Mr. Ashton: You said there would be no increase in rates at the press conference.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, there will be no difference in the rates that are charged, whether they are public or private. They will be awarded by CRTC, rates based on whatever their costs are. I pointed out yesterday to the members opposite that you have in Newfoundland a privately owned system whose rates are virtually the same as Manitoba's, a publicly owned system. Manitoba's rates are substantially less than another publicly owned system in Saskatchewan. It does not matter whether it is public or private, the rate setting is based on exactly the same economic and financial analysis.
Access Program
Court Decision Appeal
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My questions are for the Minister of Education.
Two years ago both the federal and provincial governments cut the Access programs, one of the few programs which offered some hope to disadvantaged Manitobans. In October '95 those students received a judgment from Mr. Justice Schulman which told the provincial government that it had indeed broken a contract with those students. In the last minute of the last hour this government has chosen to appeal that decision.
I want to ask the minister to tell the House why she has chosen to spend thousands of dollars in legal costs on this appeal rather than funding the disadvantaged students in post-secondary education.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I indicate, for the finer detail on this, we have plenty of time in Estimates to go through the detail. I believe she raised a whole series of questions yesterday that she would like to have a lot of detail on. In the time allotted to me here I cannot go through the whole thing, but I will try to give a cursory response and indicate that first of all we are not denying Access students anything.
We are saying to Access students that they will still have access to bursaries according to their needs to unlimited amount, no cap, provided they first get a Canada Student Loan. We are doing that because the federal government has pulled out its share, as she knows. We are doing that so we can provide more money to more students and increase the number of students able to take advantage of Access, more students able to take advantage. The success rate of those students is such that their ability to get jobs in their field of endeavour is statistically much higher than those who do not get unlimited support with no cap. They are well able to pay back a student loan, in fact better able than most.
So the reason we are going to court, Madam Speaker, is obvious I would think to anybody who understands the law. We believe the judge erred in his decision, and we believe that we can make a case to show that.
Ms. Friesen: Is it the minister's policy to argue, as she did last October, that if her appeal fails she will see this as a reason to terminate an entire program, one that has opened the doors of education to hundreds of First Nations students as well as to rural Manitobans and to people in the city of Winnipeg?
Mrs. McIntosh: I would be very surprised if that is my quote. However, the member has been known to take words said by most anybody and twist them a little bit so they sound different than they were when they were said.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response.
Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Of course, I think there are ample evidences in Hansard where we could take quotes made by people on this side and then the twisted version by them and show categorical proof that what I have said there is accurate.
I would say that we have not denied students the ability to access this extra funding. We have made it possible for more students to be able to take advantage of unlimited, uncapped, nonceiling bursaries providing money to students over and above a Canada Student Loan to their needs, in some cases, $26,000 a year as a gift for their needs to be met to get through university. That is a very rich program, and if in fact we find ourselves without money, obviously we cannot continue to do all that we are currently doing in terms of generosity and assistance to students without money.
BFI Landfill Site
Licence Revocation Request
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, several years ago the provincial government intervened on behalf of the Sagkeeng First Nation regarding their water problems--if I can use that term--with the Abitibi-Price plant at Pine Falls, this intervention going against the Clean Environment Commission recommendations.
I would like to ask the Minister of Environment, given this precedent and in light of the very serious economic and environmental concerns raised by many presenters at the Clean Environment Commission hearings, will the minister now reverse his decision and revoke the licence granted to BFI for its landfill site in Rosser?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, as I have indicated on numerous occasions, we try to make sure that the work of the independent commission and the format that is structured for decision making regarding environmental licensing is carefully adhered to. I am presently receiving appeals to the licence that was granted to BFI and in the interim I think the best way to deal with it is to receive the appeals. If the member wishes to mount one as well, that is perfectly in order.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, if the minister will not reverse his decision based on the precedent that he has done in the past, will he then reverse the decision based on the fact that the Clean Environment Commission recommendations do not incorporate, consider and directly reflect the principles and guidelines of sustainable development as stated in the terms of reference for the BFI hearings? They did not address what they were supposed to address; he can revoke the licence.
Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, first of all, as I was attempting to say a moment ago, this is not my licence. The licence was issued by the director. My office is the appeal to that licence. If the member wishes to attempt to show that that is some sort of a precedent, then I suggest we should review the conditions under the act that we are operating.
Madam Speaker, furthermore, I think it would be quite appropriate to remind the member that the recommendations of the commission were adhered to by the director and, not only that, the director increased many of the areas of responsibility and protection that were requested and therefore enhanced within the licence, and I will continue to hear whatever objections there may be to the existing licence.
Public Library System
User Fees
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, above the doorway of the William Street library is an embellished stone carving of Manitoba's crest with the words, and I quote, free to all, written in stone overhead and so conveying the cornerstone of Manitoba's beliefs about libraries, that is, that the word is open to all. Now we hear that the City of Winnipeg may end this freedom by imposing a $5 user fee for library cards.
I want to ask the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship if this government intends to stick by its June 1993 decision and not introduce the enabling legislation which would allow the city to impose the $5 user fee for library cards.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I can confirm that we will not be introducing that legislation.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization--Rural Hearings
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) does not understand about the Manitoba Telephone System is that Manitobans get dividends of low rates every month because MTS does not try to make large profits. It concentrates on service to Manitobans. What he also does not understand is that people in the Parkland have demonstrated their opposition to this government's plan. During the election we were criticized in this House for raising concerns about the sale of MTS and now, a year later, there is another broken commitment on the part of this government.
Given that this government has no mandate to--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am certain the honourable member for Dauphin has a question. Would he please pose it now?
Mr. Struthers: Will this minister come out to rural Manitoba and allow the true owners, the people of Manitoba, to vote on the sale of our telephone system?
* (1430)
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of the Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the member still fails to realize that when they left government the actual equity in MTS was 9 percent. Today it is 22 percent, and through the restructuring and the public share offering, the equity will move up to close to 60 percent. So we are making this a very well-managed, well-financed corporation, and Manitobans appreciate that because they will have the same level of service, the same low rates subject to the CRTC, the regulator. There is no change in the rate-setting structure no matter what the ownership.
The member also fails to realize that across Canada there are nine telephone companies, only one of which will remain a Crown corporation, in Saskatchewan, who at this very moment is analyzing what their future should be in terms of how that telephone company is owned in the province of Saskatchewan.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.