Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier.

This week delegates to the 71st annual meeting of the Manitoba Pool Elevators are meeting in the city of Winnipeg. Like many Manitobans, they have passed a resolution to request that the provincial government conduct public hearings in rural Manitoba before further steps are taken by this Conservative government to privatize the Manitoba Telephone System.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, in light of the fact that in the committee hearings, in the past, they have rejected the proposal of the New Democratic Party to have regional hearings, would they now listen to the Pool delegates and give people of rural Manitoba public hearings throughout rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba, as requested by the Manitoba Pool delegates at their convention in Winnipeg this week?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, as I indicated yesterday and I will indicate again to the Leader of the Opposition today, the legislation dealing with Bill 67 was tabled in the Legislature this spring, when it had the full period of time to be viewed and be reviewed by the people of Manitoba, rural, northern and the cities of the province of Manitoba. They had the opportunity, because this was the first opportunity in a long time that members of the Legislature had the opportunity to be in their constituencies throughout the summer to discuss and to talk to their members as it related to a legislative package and other issues.

As it relates to the Manitoba Pool Elevators, they are an organization that have assembled to do business as it relates to their corporation. This particular resolution, as far as I am concerned, is one which they are quite free to present.

Again, when one looks at the purpose of what this legislation is going to carry out on behalf of the people of Manitoba, I think that the executive of that delegate body, if given the opportunity to fully discuss it with a meeting with ourselves, if that is what they would like to do, they have had the opportunity to do that, pre this meeting at which they presented this resolution.

I would be most pleased to meet with that organization, their executive, to discuss that with them. But what we are preparing to do is pass legislation that is in the best interests of the people of Manitoba based on fact, not philosophical belief.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in an independent poll yesterday, 78 percent of rural and northern Manitobans are against this decision of the Conservative government to break their election promise, 78 percent of the people, in spite of the $400,000 advertising campaign paid for by the ratepayers under direction of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and others who are involved in this issue.

The delegates at the Pool convention go on to say that in discussing this resolution, delegates express concern that rural Manitobans have not been adequately consulted on the privatization of Manitoba Telephone System. This announcement was made on May 2. Many delegates to the Pool convention would have been actively involved in a late start on their crops. Many people have been involved throughout the summer in farming and harvesting the crop. They want to be involved in this decision.

Will you listen to the Manitoba Pool delegates and put this decision on hold so they can be adequately consulted about a long-term decision affecting their communities?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise that there was an election promise broken, first point. I do not accept that.

Secondly, as it relates to discussions with the Manitoba Pool organization or any other rural bodies who want to speak their minds, they have had the opportunity through the summer to contact their members of the Legislature to express themselves, because this legislation has been on the table, has been on the Order Paper for some several months now. So I believe the opportunity has been there for them to express themselves to their elected representatives who represent them in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Of course, Manitoba Pool is joining the Manitoba union of municipalities and other organizations across rural and northern Manitoba. Of course, I would just refer the Deputy Premier to the May 2 Hansard, where the Premier (Mr. Filmon) admits that they promised during the election campaign that they would not sell MTS.

Gordon Ryz, the candidate in Dauphin, said it is the Filmon team position that they will not sell the Manitoba Telephone System. I just had a call from the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Stefanson) riding where he said at the doorstep, the Minister of Finance said they would not sell the Manitoba Telephone System. And we are getting calls from numbers of Manitobans in your constituencies that said, you promised us that you would not sell the telephone system if you were elected. The Deputy Premier knows that. He was the co-chair of the Tory election campaign team.

I would like to further ask--the Manitoba Pool delegates expressed concern about the possible impact of privatization on services and rates in rural Manitoba. Can the Deputy Premier today table any impact study they have on rates and service in rural Manitoba, taking in mind the consideration of what is going on with the cost recovery proposal in Alberta? Can they table in the House today something beyond the brokers' analysis, those brokers that stand to make tens of millions of dollars and, in the opinion of rural Manitobans, they stand to make tens of millions of dollars on the backs of rural and northern Manitobans? Can he table the independent analysis here today in this House?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): I am not going to table any of the information the member requested, but I am quite prepared to tell the people of Manitoba and reiterate again, it was this government under Premier Filmon that put individual lines to every Manitoban, rural Manitoban in this province of Manitoba. It was this government, not the New Democratic Party, who pride themselves on being everything to all people, it was we who did that so the people of Manitoba--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Deputy Premier, to complete his response.

* (1430)

Mr. Downey: A clear demonstration that this government believes in providing the services through telephones to rural Manitobans, the services have been provided as we believe it is the responsible thing not to further burden the people of Manitoba with further investment in the Manitoba Telephone System when we are in such a changing world, where we will be called upon to put millions of dollars into a telephone system to put it in the competitive marketplace worldwide.

We are not going to do the irresponsible thing such as the members opposite did in the spending of some 28 or 7 million dollars in Saudi Arabia. They had the mandate to do that, and they did. We have the mandate to do what we are doing.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I thank the Deputy Premier for once again making the case for keeping public ownership of MTS--the investment in rural and northern Manitoba.

Following the reading of that very detailed bill, Bill 67, probably the biggest bill in this province in decades, the bill that they wanted to pass through at 3:22 in the morning last Wednesday, now that we see the complexity and detail of this bill and the fact that the vast majority of Manitobans do not want MTS sold off, I want to ask a very simple question to the Deputy Premier.

What does it take to get the message through to this government that the only correct thing to do is table Bill 67?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, we are very prepared to bring Bill 67 onto the table, onto the floor of this Legislature and debate it and pass it. When are he and his party going to stop playing silly games of frustrating the process? Let us get on with the merits of the bill which we believe will stand the test of what this Legislature can put to it and pass the bill as we have intended to do all along.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): A supplementary question: If the Deputy Premier would perhaps care to consider who moved the adjournment motion yesterday, I am wondering if he would like to answer the question as to whether the government will be prepared today to debate the Opposition Day motion which is on the very question that we think is most fundamental to the issue of MTS, and that is putting the decision of the sale of MTS to a vote of the people of Manitoba, the shareholders of MTS.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, if one were to recall, I believe the vote on Bill 67 should have been brought to the House last Thursday evening as per the rules, as to the rules that were agreed to by all parties and all members of this Legislature.

Yesterday, it was the opposition party that denied leave to bring the bill to the House for debate yesterday. That is what we are here to do, to debate Bill 67. That is what we are prepared to do, and that is what we will do as soon as the opposition quit trying to play their silly rules game.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." I asked whether they would be prepared to call the Opposition Day motion, and I find it shameful that the Deputy Premier called the rules of this Legislature silly rules. He may not understand this, but the rules of this Legislature and the rules of democracy are important to the people of Manitoba. We have a democracy in this province. We have rules for a good reason.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Deputy Premier, on the same point of order.

Mr. Downey: Yes, Madam Speaker. I may have used an inappropriate word by using the word "silly." What I should have referred to was that the opposition are playing an irresponsible rules game which is demonstrated time and time again. We would like to get on doing business with the substance of the bill and debate it. That is what we are here for. That is what we would like to do.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I was just awaiting your ruling on the point of order, and then I was going to ask my third question or allow the Deputy Premier to continue.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order on the first issue. However, I believe the honourable Deputy Premier clarified the second issue raised in the point of order for the honourable member for Thompson and, as I understand, did apologize for incorrect use of a word.

This government does not have a mandate. They have no right to sell off MTS. It is not theirs to sell, Madam Speaker. When will they come to reality and listen to the people of Manitoba?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, as I said yesterday, I can appreciate the philosophical approach the member for Thompson has taken. He is one of the few socialists left in the world that is in that dogmatic position. In fact--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to debate my political affiliations, but by that definition I guess 78 percent of rural Manitobans and 68 percent of Manitobans as a whole would be socialist, according to the Deputy Premier.

The fact is, everybody in Manitoba understands that they do not want MTS sold off. When will the government realize this is not a question of politics anymore? It is the will of the people, Madam Speaker. They do not want MTS sold off.

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

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, after a considerable amount of time, after the bill has been tabled in this Legislature in the spring of this year, fully available for the public to look at, to understand and to discuss with their members, after the consideration that we would, in fact, turn $800 million in backing that this province has put forward to the Manitoba Telephone System, that we will turn some of that debt to equity, that we will not have to add additional hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in a telephone company that will be out in a competitive world--70 percent of the business, the telephone company, the business they have to do is a competitive area, and the fact is that the rates that the people will have to pay will be adjudicated, judged by and approved by the CRTC before any change can be made, as they are today.

When one, Madam Speaker, takes it out of the philosophical arena as the member wants to continue to try to debate it in and deals with it on a factual basis and asks the total question of the people of Manitoba, whether or not they want more money to go into MTS or whether they want that money to be used in other areas, I think that they would agree with us. They want to maintain the health and education and essential services of this province.

* (1440)

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Despite what the Deputy Premier stated yesterday, that the privatization of MTS was not high on the agenda of the people of Manitoba, the vast majority of Manitobans want a say in the future of their telephone system. They want to be consulted prior to a decision of the magnitude being foisted upon them by a Premier and government which stated unequivocally during the election that Manitoba's telephone system would not be sold.

Will the government now recognize the illegitimacy of its decision to sell MTS, do the proper thing and have a referendum so the people of Manitoba can decide?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, there appear to be some major inconsistencies with the policies of the New Democratic Party. When it comes to giving the people of Manitoba a say as to whether the sales tax or any of the major taxes are increased in the province of Manitoba to run this province, the New Democratic Party are absolutely opposed to it, as expressed by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) and several others. They want to deny the people of Manitoba when it affects every Manitoban in the way in which it is.

When it comes to the Manitoba Telephone System sale, as I pointed out, Madam Speaker, those individuals are still protected as it relates to the rates they have to pay for their telephone service. So I think there is a major inconsistency, and I believe the people of Manitoba when they see the total picture--and that is why it would be important to get on with the debate. The members want to debate it.

Let us get on with it so we can fully lay out the total package of which the members feel the people of the province have not heard sufficiently. Let us get on with it. We are quite prepared to do so.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, speaking of inconsistencies--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, what gives the Deputy Premier the right to say, as he did in the House just this afternoon, that we have a mandate to do what we are doing--speaking of inconsistencies--when they clearly stated throughout the province of Manitoba during the last provincial election that they would not sell the Manitoba Telephone System?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, again I do not accept the fact that there was a broken election promise. I do not accept that. Secondly, this legislation was introduced in the spring of the year. I will repeat it for the members again. Members of the party, this party, the governing party, had the opportunity throughout the summer to have people meet with them and discuss issues with them. That is what we in a parliamentary democracy have to be guided by.

Members have made their decision as part of a government, as part of a mandate of government to govern the province, and in the information and the facts presented we have taken the decision that it is in the best interests of the province of Manitoba to proceed on the path that we are proceeding on. So that is why we would like to get on with the bill. Let us get on with the debate so we can further express to the members how our constituents feel and what has been presented to us. Thank you.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, will the Deputy Premier promise on behalf of his government that if it can be proven that they did make an election promise saying they would not sell the Manitoba Telephone System and have therefore gone against their election promise, will they then withdraw Bill 67?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, given the facts that are before us as it relates to the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System, as it relates to the total picture and the interests of the people of Manitoba, we believe that it is in the public interest to sell the Manitoba Telephone System. Yes, Manitobans will have the opportunity to buy that company and own that company and it will continue to provide services to the people of Manitoba that will, as I have said many times, be regulated by the CRTC and the protection given to those constituents.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My questions are for the Acting Premier.

As the minister knows or should know, MTS is a Crown corporation and has legal, binding agreements with First Nations in Manitoba in regard to the installation of service distribution lines and microwave towers.

I would like to ask the minister to tell the House what consultation has taken place with First Nations over the potential sale of MTS and provisions of service distribution lines and other such infrastructure on reserve lands, because those are contained in agreements.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the agreements that have been entered into by the telephone company, as owned by the taxpayers of Manitoba through the structure which is there, will not change under the change of ownership, that the legal agreements that have been entered into are the same as they are previously under a Crown-owned system.

Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, I would like to table some legal documents here. One is a permit and one is a standard commercial lease having to do with OCN reserve lands.

I would like to ask the minister, given that MTS agreements which are legally binding with bands such as OCN state unequivocally that MTS will not assign, sublet, mortgage, pledge or apothecate or encumber the lease without consent in writing from the federal government and the band, why is this government choosing not to take the view of First Nations but instead has chosen to violate the terms of those agreements?

Mr. Downey: I said it before and I will say it again, that legal agreements that have been entered into as it relates to the operation of the telephone company transferred to a new owner through the public, the legal entity is intact and remains.

Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, my last question to the same minister is, since the local rates will rise the most in remote and northern communities, particularly on Indian reserves, by as much as four times the current rate, I would like to ask the minister--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

* (1450)

Mr. Lathlin: --what information he has that makes him think that First Nations would support selling MTS?

Mr. Downey: Again, Madam Speaker, I cannot accept any of the preamble or the presumption or the speculation the member puts on the table that the rates will automatically go up. Again, I believe strongly that the leaders of the aboriginal community, all the members of the aboriginal community do not want to have any benefits that would be derived from the sale of this denied those people.

With new technology and changes that potentially could be brought forward with new capital injections through a private issue, I cannot accept that the rates will automatically go up.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Finance.

The Liberal caucus opposes Bill 67 but unfortunately feels that the government is not going to back down from the selling off of MTS. Having said that, we are greatly concerned with the amount of revenue that is going to be generated by the sale of MTS and want to know from the Minister of Finance how much revenue is going to be generated and is his government prepared to invest that revenue that is being generated into some of the shortcomings on this government's behalf on the funding of health care and education in particular?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Just like previous issues, I am not surprised to hear from the Liberals that before the final amount is even determined or the proceeds are received that they are out there spending money already.

I think the member knows that the final pricing of the issue will not be determined until a prospectus is released. That cannot happen until this Legislature passes the legislation, so that has obviously a determination on the total proceeds. Some of those proceeds will go to retire the debt that will be converted to equity and the residual proceeds will come in as income to the government of Manitoba in 1996-97.

The first allocation will be to the Fiscal Stabilization Fund as provided under our balanced budget legislation, and any other allocations will be determined once we see what the net proceeds finally are after the issue can be priced and sold to Manitobans.

Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the Minister of Finance is to recognize, he might classify it as a fiscal stabilization fund, Manitobans look at it as a political slush fund. The fear is, that slush fund is going to be used--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the honourable member has a question, was recognized for his supplementary.

Mr. Lamoureux: The question to the Minister of Finance is, will not the Minister of Finance acknowledge that there is a need to finance health care, in particular the capital expenditures in which the Filmon government broke its promise from the 1995 election and start living up to some of those promises and making those commitments today to allocate those funds as opposed to building up the slush fund?

Mr. Stefanson: It is an interesting question coming from the member for Inkster, on the one hand leaving the impression--and I think their party did a press release a week or two ago, I believe opposing the sale of Manitoba Telephone System. Now he is the first one up in the House here, Madam Speaker, wanting to rush out and spend the money, spend it any way, spend it on any program, but get out there and spend that money before you have even determined how much it is going to be, when you are going to receive it and so on.

I think that is the prudent thing to do. I think the issue of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, as the member knows, is there just like any home or any individual or any business would do, that you should set aside money when you have an opportunity to provide for any reductions in your income or your revenue, to provide for any unforeseen expenditures.

That is a responsible, prudent thing to do, and that is exactly what we will do.

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

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what I recognize is that this arrogant government is not going to back down from the selling off of MTS.

My question to the Minister of Finance is, is the Minister of Finance prepared to commit that general revenues are not going to be squandered away into a Fiscal Stabilization Fund or a political slush fund to re-elect this government in the next provincial election and invest for Manitoba by investing in health care, by investing in public education today as opposed to trying to destroy Manitoba's social fabric?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I find the logic of the member for Inkster hard to understand. He says the money would be squandered away by putting it in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which is exactly the same as an individual setting it aside in a savings account or a business setting it aside in a savings or a reserve account to deal with any pressures that you might have on your spending.

I do remind him when we deal with our spending, 34 percent of our spending goes to health care, more than any provincial government anywhere else in Canada. So for him to suggest it is being squandered away is absolutely foolish. It is a responsible thing to do. We will wait till we know the exact amount of proceeds. We will set them aside and I tell him to wait for the 1997 budget in terms of seeing how we move forward with this entire issue.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, at a recent national meeting of all charitable organizations who raise money for hospitals and for health care in their provinces, health reform was discussed by all of the regions and all representations from all provinces. Not surprisingly, the Manitoba group was the only one to say, and I quote, their foundations were not involved or informed about health reform.

Will the minister, who recently signed a letter to health care institutions in Winnipeg saying that the superboard concept was non-negotiable, will the minister, who completely destroyed credibility in terms of the home care mess, and will this government, who has not listened to Manitobans on MTS, finally at least give the citizens of Winnipeg an opportunity to have their say about the creation of superboards that are going ahead in Winnipeg?

* (1500)

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Just as recently as early last week, Madam Speaker, I had occasion to attend a national discussion forum on health issues and was reminded again that in Manitoba we are dealing with reforms in our health system in a much more evolutionary way than we are seeing in other jurisdictions.

For example, I was reminded that in the city of Toronto alone 15 hospitals are being closed. In the city of Montreal, seven hospitals are being closed. In Halifax, five hospitals are becoming one. Of course, we know about NDP Saskatchewan, where 52 rural hospitals have been closed.

Yes, I was reminded once again at that forum just how fortunate we have been in Manitoba, thanks to the work of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and his predecessor in the development of a Fiscal Stabilization Fund to protect Manitobans from tax increases, from deficit spending and from the drastic kinds of cuts that we have seen in other jurisdictions, and I was pleased to be a Manitoban that day, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Can the minister explain why, of all of the delegations attending at this national conference, the only delegation that raised concerns about fee for service, about user fees was the Manitoba delegation?

Can the minister explain why the minister, who is proud of his 1,000 bed cuts, his laying off of 1,500 people, his user fees in home care and the like, can he explain why the Manitoba group was the only one that raised the concerns about fee for service and user fees being imposed on Manitobans, of all the delegations in Canada?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Whichever delegation the honourable member is referring to must have been briefed by him before they went to the meeting, because he gets all his facts wrong.

I can show you that services provided without charge in Manitoba cannot be replicated everywhere else. Manitoba has a menu of services that are covered by government that is greater than the menu of services covered in other jurisdictions in this country, so the honourable member must have been the one filling that delegation's ears with the kinds of untruths that he is raising in the House today, for example, like--[interjection]

Did I say something wrong? [interjection] Well, he referred to user fees in home care, for example, and I do not know what user fees he is talking about unless it is fees paid by people for services that are not covered by the provincial program.

The problem with the question raised by the honourable member is that, I suggest, he was the one that briefed that delegation, because many of the things he said are simply not true.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Can the minister, who obviously did not speak to the representatives from Victoria Hospital and Riverview Health Centre who attended the conference on behalf of Manitobans, explain why that group also said the only future for fundraising or one of the only things that the fundraisers in Manitoba can do in the future is to align themselves with for-profit companies in order to raise money?

That is the only delegation in Canada that said they had to align themselves with for-profit companies in order to raise money.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Well, no doubt the honourable member will want to make what he is saying clearer for me and for anybody else who would like to hear what he has to say, but I have met with the boards of all the hospitals, I have engaged in an understanding with the faith-related and the other hospitals about how we will implement the regional board system here in the city of Winnipeg.

The agreement the honourable member refers to, I remind him, is an agreement. He said so himself. The signatories to that agreement are the four Winnipeg faith-related hospitals and the department, so it is true that the regional health authority system is not something that is negotiable. That is something that has been the subject of consultation for years now in Manitoba and something being brought about by Bill 49. That is not new; it is something with which the participants in the memorandum of understanding all agree.

So all the honourable member is doing is wailing away about something everybody else agrees about.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last week, I tabled a letter of resignation from the minister's chief enforcement officer who left in disgust over this ministerial interference in the John Reimer case. The case involved seven enforcement agencies, thousands of pieces of evidence, the opening of 50 new files and was potentially the biggest wildlife investigation in Canadian history. It had implications for international trade in illegal animal parts. Mr. Reimer launched a civil suit against the minister, challenging his charges under The Wildlife Act, and the minister stopped the investigation just days after he was named in this civil suit.

My question to the minister is, did the minister have discussions with the Crown counsel to influence the timing or substance of the charges?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Absolutely not, but the member continues on a witch hunt, as he has done from time to time in this House, and I wish he would have certain his facts before he starts making irresponsible statements. He has had to virtually retract many of the accusations he has made in this House before, and he will have to do it again in this case, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. Struthers: I can understand why the minister might be a slight touchy on this.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question.

Mr. Struthers: Why was the Crown counsel then, who followed this case for over a year, replaced just before the start of the trial?

Mr. Driedger: I have no idea what happens in the AG's department. Basically, if I could outline and take a minute to explain to the member, when my NROs, my people in the field, feel there is justification an investigation is taking place and they are prepared to lay charges, they get together with their people from the Attorney General's department, discussions take place and charges are laid.

That is what happened in this case. To correct the record, Mr. Purvis is still working for the department in the same capacity as he did at that time.

Mr. Struthers: Why did this minister just say now in the House, as he said last week, that his chief enforcement office resumed his position before he resigned, when the special investigations unit was actually taken over by Grant Baker, former special assistant to the current Agriculture minister? You get your facts straight.

Mr. Driedger: I find it despicable some of the accusations and comments that the member makes without knowing what has been going on. If he wants information, if he would come and ask me in a proper manner, I would give him the information that is required and give him a whole case history what happened with the John Reimer case instead of making false accusations in this House that he cannot verify or back up.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): The normal process when an individual applies to purchase a piece of Crown land is that the block planning committee has the opportunity to review the application and, if the application is rejected, the person can then apply to the Crown Land Classification Committee.

I want to ask the Minister of Natural Resources whether this process has changed or whether the local committee still has input into the decision as to whether or not a piece of Crown land should be sold.

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): I am not aware that there have been any changes taking place. We have agricultural leased Crown land that basically goes through the Minister of Agriculture. There is a process in place when people make application. Ultimately, my department, the Department of Natural Resources, which basically is administrator of Crown lands, then takes and administrates whatever comes out of the agricultural committee that the Minister of Agriculture has established.

Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.