Mr. Deputy Speaker: Prior to Oral Question Period, may I bring the attention of all honourable members to the gallery where we have seated with us today the Home Educating Network and Support, twenty-five Grades 1 to 6 students under the direction of Mrs. Susan McCulloch. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).

On behalf of all members, we welcome you here today.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We have been raising the issue of compensation for the unfortunate victims of the 1997 flood. Last week, of course, we raised the issue of the limit which the government agreed to change from $30,000 to $100,000, which we think is appropriate. The last couple of days we have been raising the issue of deductibles and their relationship to the policy of dealing with items on a depreciated-value basis. Yesterday I asked the Premier this question because it is our view that the 20 percent deductible plus the depreciation policy of the provincial government are two forms of deductible. Has the Premier looked at the impact of those two policies together, and does he not agree that the impact of both will provide an undue hardship to some of the unfortunate victims of this tragic flood?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I thank the honourable member for his question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I point out that this is a program that provides payments by the taxpayer at large in circumstances of natural disasters, and as such is a payment that is made without any premiums having been paid. So if we were to compare it to insurance policies, people would normally pay premiums to get that kind of coverage.

Then, as well, people would also have deductibilities in many of their insurance coverages. Certainly we know that there are varying deductibilities on our homeowners' policies that provide for certain deductibles for glass breakage, other deductibles for other forms of peril. Under all those circumstances, we have to try to take into account the broad consideration of what this was intended to do. The program was not to provide for insurance for people when there are no premiums being collected. It was to provide an opportunity to restore people into some semblance of being able to continue their lives. It was not intended to pay fully for all of their costs or all of their losses. It never has been interpreted that way, and as such, in the past it has paid claims on a similar basis. For instance, if somebody has carpeting that is worth $105 a square yard, they would not be compensated for that. They would be compensated for what would be considered to be normal carpeting, something in a more modest range.

So it has always been that way that nobody suggests that for somebody who is paying no premiums that they should somehow be left better off after the disaster than they are before the disaster. That is why I think I would urge all members to look at it in a way that it has been before. It existed this way over decades. So, when the member opposite was in government and payments were made, it was made on a similar kind of analysis and in fact similar guidelines. The only difference is that we have now increased the maximum amount in recognition of the fact that the claims will undoubtedly be higher this year, the maximum amount has gone from $30,000 to $100,000 for payment.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand the Premier being frustrated with the federal government, that for two years has totally denied any of the disaster assistance programs here needed in Manitoba, and now of course appears with all these promises and cheques. I understand that frustration, but I want the Premier to take a step back and look at the existing policy. It has changed. The previous policy allowed for discretion in terms of the replacement of items and the discretion that officials had. We have double-checked this with the people in the disaster assistance branch.

The new policy that was printed in April of '97, which included the $30,000 which was amended by the government last week, and I think wisely so, to $100,000, makes it very clear that items will be replaced and mandatorily replaced on the depreciated value. That, in combination with the deductible, if you take a couple of examples of a five-year-old hot water heater worth $500, you will get approximately $200 to replace it with the deductible. A 10-year-old furnace would be almost one-third as much of the value with the depreciation value that is in the new manual circulated by the provincial government.

Does the Premier (Mr. Filmon) not think then the deductible is already onerous when you have the mandatory policy of depreciation? In fact, depreciation is a form of deductibility. Insurance does have the provision to replace a furnace or a hot water heater. This flood compensation package does not. Will the Premier therefore look at the deductible in relationship to the policy as it applies to people that are hard hit by this flood?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): In the policy manual, it does indicate that furniture and appliances would be valued at their cash value today. I think that, in regard to this whole policy, one has to remember that the disaster assistance program, the main mandate of this policy across this country and in agreement with the federal government--when a disaster strikes, it is the role of this disaster program to be able to repay or help out and give assistance to the level that was there prior to the disaster taking place.

* (1345)

We have that format and that policy taking place at all levels of government in this province. For example, a municipality loses a bridge; they will get compensation based on putting that bridge back in as it originally was. A lot of municipalities are saying: We would like to put an enhanced bridge in that is better than the last one. They have to pick up that cost themselves. So, with regard to appliances in a house that are destroyed by flood, it behooves the program to be able to say to those people: We will replace the value of that furniture and appliances at the value that they were so that you can at least replace those with the same kind and be no worse than you were prior to the disaster.

Also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the quote from the Winnipeg Free Press on Thursday, May 8, where "Insurers wholeheartedly agree that paying replacement insurance would be a mistake.

"'If the government gives replacement insurance, it would be the best thing that happened to those homeowners. It would be a windfall, and that's wrong,' said the broker." That is the answer to that question.

I would further like to ask the government: What is the government's policy to deal with the tremendous generosity that we have received all across Canada? In the guidelines that were circulated, it mentioned that their policy would be articulated on page 8 for these contributions. Unfortunately, in the manual, we could not see a policy on the treatment of these tremendous, generous donations that came from all across Canada. Can the government specify today how those contributions will be used in terms of its application for flood victims?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to make the point that Autopac, if you were to insure an automobile--certainly, having had some experience with it, I know that if you have a 1990 automobile and you have a total loss of that automobile due to the accident, they do not replace it with a 1997 automobile. They give you the depreciated value less the deductibility. So that is precisely the same circumstance that we are facing in this instance. That is exactly what the Autopac insurance does. They give you the depreciated value less the deductibility.

An Honourable Member: You can get insurance for that.

Mr. Filmon: But these people have paid absolutely no premiums.

An Honourable Member: Wrong analogy.

Mr. Filmon: It is a great analogy. These people have paid absolutely no premiums. In the Autopac case, you pay premiums to boot--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members to refrain from entering into debate. At this time the honourable First Minister is attempting to answer the question, and I would ask the honourable First Minister to put his answers through the Chair.

The honourable First Minister, to continue.

Mr. Filmon: With respect to the flood relief funds--and I believe it was announced today that there is a committee that has been set up under the aegis of the Red Cross, chaired by the Canadian Red Cross Manitoba branch president, Blair Graham, who is a solicitor in the province. There are people, including, I believe, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church and many others, and they will be making decisions as to the utilization of the funds. One of the considerations, I believe, that they will have is with respect to hardship cases for people who are unable to be able to make ends meet with the payment of the money that is available to them through the disaster assistance program. All of those things will be reviewed, and they will certainly be looking for appropriate cases in which that funding that was so generously provided by people from across Canada will be put where it is most needed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we continue, could I bring the attention of honourable members to the gallery, to the loge to my right where we have with us today the former member for Minnedosa, Mr. Dave Blake. On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here today.

* (1350)

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the flood disaster assistance program was signed last week, it included payments for farmers who are unable to seed. Compensation at a similar level is available through Manitoba Crop Insurance, and many farmers have protected themselves against such a disaster by purchasing insurance.

Can the Minister of Agriculture indicate what the implications of this announcement of payment will be on Manitoba Crop Insurance clients? Does it mean that those people who took insurance will get a double payment, or does it mean that those people who chose not to take crop insurance will be the ones that will be compensated under this new program?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe the honourable member for Swan River clearly puts on the record the questionable problems that arise when fast, ad hoc, perhaps election-driven decisions are made with respect to compensation. As I indicated before, upwards to 90,000 acres of land that are currently underwater have unseeded crop protection--and I might say, considerably better than that offered in a province like Saskatchewan. Our payments are of the order of $40 an acre, whereas in Saskatchewan they range from $25 to $30 an acre.

These are issues that obviously are being looked at very seriously by the co-ordinating committee that will be looking at and assessing all of the damage. I am satisfied that the agreements that my Premier (Mr. Filmon), the government of Manitoba and Ottawa have with respect to overall damage in the agriculture field are outside of the crop insurance program and it is certainly true that there will likely be or could be instances where a special review of the programs available to farmers will have to be considered. But it is too early--even I say this today, although the weather is not all that great out there today--to write off the Red River Valley crop. Farmers in the Red River Valley have shown a tremendous capability of surviving disasters of this nature and getting the bulk, if not a major portion, of the cropland sown.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Speaker, since the federal government has been so quick and so generous with their money during this flood, will the Minister of Agriculture be looking at the possibility of addressing the many outstanding issues of flood compensation, such as we had in the Assiniboine Valley and the Swan River Valley where they could not get compensated because they had the insurance program under the provincial government? Will he be looking at addressing those outstanding issues and looking at compensation for those farmers retroactively, since they also suffered very great losses and the federal government appears to be quite generous?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Speaker, again, my honourable colleague the member for Swan River asks responsible questions. These are very much on my mind and of concern to this government. In addition to those that she mentioned of farmers suffering loss in the upper Assiniboine in 1995, we know and she knows that we have upwards of 400, 500 cattle producers who have been hurt because of high levels of water in the Lake Winnipegosis and around Lake Manitoba reaches that have equally suffered. Particularly with the use of Lake Manitoba and the Portage diversion, certainly it was made plain to me that we are contributing, as we save other areas of the province, to those high levels of water that have inundated many thousands of acres of native hayland.

So these are all issues that we have to deal with. I am looking forward to working with my colleague the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), looking at whatever support the federal government is providing, and we welcome it all--into longer-term resolutions of the difficulties that agriculture faces under these circumstances. Hopefully, within a relatively short period of time, we will be able to announce some of those programs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, allow me also to welcome, while I am on my feet, the action of our principal farm organization, the Keystone Agricultural Producers organization, that have just today announced the creation of an additional fund specifically dedicated to agriculture. I am pleased to see that some of the major stakeholders in agriculture have commenced contributions to that fund. Again, that will be, as those other funds that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) alluded to, specifically used to fill in some of the gaps, some of the cracks maybe that governmental support programs will have difficulty in covering.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the Minister of Agriculture is so generous and so supportive right now of our ideas, I want to ask him then whether he will also consider the importance of outreaching to the many farmers and rural Manitobans who are in need of supports, emotional supports, and need of having a way to reach them, and whether he will consider ensuring that the stress line that was once in place will again be in place so those people can get the supports they need.

* (1355)

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Speaker, now the honourable member for Swan River is taking advantage of my inherent good nature. I acknowledged that she does ask responsible questions on behalf of agricultural concerns from time to time, but I think the issue that she now raises has been very thoroughly and properly addressed to the question that she directed to the First Minister just yesterday.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Speaker, in areas affected by the flood, there has been considerable disruption for teaching, for days in school and for school buildings. The Minister of Education has issued some guidelines to schools and divisions dealing with exams, dealing with counselling and a number of other issues.

I wanted to ask the minister today if she could tell the House what changes she anticipates to provincial funding for school divisions which have been directly affected by the flood.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): At this time we have not received any formal requests for adjustments to funding due to the flood. We are anticipating that we may receive a request for some additional assistance regarding transportation, which we are quite prepared to address when that comes in, but aside from that we have not been given any indication in terms of damage to buildings, et cetera.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us whether she is keeping track on an overall provincial basis of the extra costs to school divisions, those not affected by the flood but which have had students involved in assisting in fighting the flood, costs such as the minister mentioned, for transport, for supervision, for gasoline and ones which certainly will have an impact on already tight budgets of many school divisions?

Mrs. McIntosh: In answer to the first question, I was referring to divisional expenses where they have had flood damage, and I understand the second part of her question is a legitimate question as well.

We have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, been given indications so far--we have had one division ask if they would be able to submit a bill for additional costs. We are taking a look at that, but by and large the majority of divisions have assumed this and have stated to us that they are assuming this as part of their opportunity to be of service to flood victims. So we do not expect that there will be a request from divisions that have taken in host children, because they have indicated very clearly and through the president of MAST that this is not an obligation, this is an opportunity to be of service.

That is a statement coming from the president of MAST and the kind of indication we have had from school divisions who deserve praise and commendation for going that extra mile for flood victims who are students.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, with her final supplementary question.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services--who I know would want to join with us in acknowledging the tremendous role that Manitoba students have played. Their cheerfulness, I think, their discipline, their sense of accomplishment is very evident on every sandbag line, and I wonder if the minister could tell us whether those school divisions which have incurred extra and unanticipated costs as a result of sending those students to the sandbag lines, whether they will be able to apply under the public sector provisions for compensation.

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the specifics that the member asked for with regard to students, I do not have specific information on that part of the disaster assistance funding, but I will get that information for you.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Family Services appointed a committee to review The Child and Family Services Act, and one of the major changes is a new adoption act. One of the significant issues that was addressed by presenters was the length of time for processing adoptions.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why she chose to contract out adoptions instead of adding more resources to existing adoption staff in Child and Family Services agencies, given that there is a surplus of $400 million in the rainy day fund. Why did she choose to contract out this service instead of augmenting existing services?

* (1400)

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question. I want to offer to him the opportunity to sit down with both opposition parties, in fact to go through in detail some of the changes to legislation that will be made so that they are completely up to speed on what we are doing and why we are doing it. I want to say that many, many Manitobans who are on the waiting list for adoption, that want to increase the size of their families or have a family if they are unable to, use the private system of adoption through nonprofit agencies today, and they are finding that the arrangements they can make through that system, along with the work that is done very proactively with birth parents and with the prospective adoptive families, is a very positive experience for all. Many Manitobans who made representation to the committee indicated that they preferred this kind of a service, and they wanted to expedite the process. I think in the best interests of the children that need permanency planning and permanent homes that this is a very positive option that has been adopted in many provinces right across the country.

Mr. Martindale: I agree that there should be given more priority and a speedier process, but why has the minister and why has this government chosen to privatize adoption? What is possibly the rationale for going that route, when the minister did have other choices? Why is she privatizing the adoption of children?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again I thank my honourable friend for that question. I want to indicate to him quite clearly that we are moving very much in the direction that New Democratic British Columbia adopted when they modernized their adoption legislation. So it is being recognized by governments of all political stripes right across the country that things need to be changed, that adoption needs to be modernized.

I want to commend the government in British Columbia, the New Democratic government in British Columbia for sort of giving us some insights into the direction they have taken and how positive it has been.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why this major change in this new adoption act from a previously free service provided by the government, paid for by taxpayers, why this major change to a user-fee system? Why is this minister privatizing, contracting out and introducing user fees for the adoption system?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again I thank my honourable friend for that question. I do want to indicate that the changes we are making to the child and family services legislation are in fact to ensure that there are early permanent plans for children so that children have the benefit in the most efficient and effective manner of a permanent, loving home.

An Honourable Member: Why user fees?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think that if my honourable friend and his colleagues took the time to look at and examine very carefully what his cousins in British Columbia have done, they have in fact gone the same direction and have in fact the very same fees in place to allow easy and very quick opportunity for children to be matched with permanent, loving homes.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): My question is for the First Minister. With the amount of money coming in from federal taxpayers in the form of disaster assistance into the province because of the need for all of the home renovations, the infrastructure programs and stuff, I imagine there will be an increase in provincial sales tax revenues. Has the Finance minister looked at the increase in the surplus that will result from the additional provincial sales tax that will be going towards the renovations, the infrastructure programs and the other things that have been used to fight this flood disaster?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I think that the member should be careful to look at, in a balanced way, all the potential impacts. We know, because we have a number of companies that have had to shut down as a result of the flood circumstances, some of them have been made public here in the House: Motor Coach Industries, Maple Leaf Foods, Westfield Industries in Rosenort and so on and so forth, that there will be a loss to the GDP of the province and, indeed, to the income of the province by virtue of these people being unemployed and unproductive for, in some cases, I would think as much as a month or more. There will be other instances in which, on the agriculture side, if people even are given minimal compensation for inability to produce crops, there would be a loss of the total crop production value in this province as a result of this, and that obviously will impact on the provincial Treasury in a negative way.

It is possible that there will be some impacts on the other side with reconstruction and all of that, but, looking at provincial values here and provincial responsibilities here, we are in the tens of millions for sure that will come out of the Treasury in order to help in the recovery costs of infrastructure and so many things, even after there is some federal sharing and other ways in which that might be mitigated.

We have to look at it in the total picture and until our costs are known--and we certainly do not know how many bridges are going to have to be replaced until we see the water levels go down and we can examine those and have them structurally analyzed. So I would say that we do not want to start counting blessings at a time when I still think that there are many, many areas in which the province will be suffering, and we want to try and have an analysis of this and try and be able to do the right things in the circumstances.

Mr. Kowalski: Can the First Minister provide us with that analysis as soon as possible so we know if the coffers of Manitoba are going to increase as a result of this disaster while private individuals suffer from this disaster? Will we receive that analysis that shows whether the province has had a net gain or net loss in its coffers from the provincial sales tax and the income tax, provincial income tax that will come from a result of the increased economic activity from fighting this flood?

Mr. Filmon: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many Manitobans will be interested in the analysis of how the flood will affect us in the long term, and so, when that information is available, we would be happy to share it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for The Maples, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Can the First Minister tell us why the analogy of insurance has been constantly used for flood as opposed to charity from people from across Canada being used for helping Manitobans, and why we are using the analogy of insurance as opposed to helping those in need as a form of charity?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we are attempting to do is demonstrate that there are various ways in which a person could look at it. We recognize that this is, in effect, through the disaster assistance program, an ex gratia payment by all of the taxpayers of Manitoba being transferred to individuals who suffer significant loss as a result of a natural disaster. What we have been saying, though, is that these payments should not be more generous than they might have gotten if they were taking insurance for that protection, and that is the kind of comparison that we are making.

As I have said before, there are choices that are made by people with respect to lifestyle, moving outside of the protection of the works that have been constructed with hundreds of millions of dollars of investment for ring dikes, primary diking systems, the Red River Floodway, the Portage diversion, all of those things that were invested in to provide for that security for people at taxpayers' expense, and then other people have chosen, for their own purposes and with I think the full knowledge of some of the risks that they face, to go outside of that flood protection and are then saying, well, that this is the responsibility of somebody else to pay.

So I think you have to try and be balanced and fair in making those analogies, and that is all that we are attempting to do. We certainly are listening to all points of view, and I accept the advice that is being given by all members opposite.

* (1410)

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier.

This government has a double standard when dealing with ManGlobe employees. In addition to large salaries and liberal travel allowances, management employees were given shares in this company. Can the minister confirm that when Karen Alcock left her job in Lloyd Axworthy's office to become the ManGlobe project director, in addition to her salary of $7,500 per month plus GST, she was also given share options in the company?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, that question would be well asked of the management of ManGlobe and/or of Mr. Axworthy, whom he has referred to, and/or of Mr. Alcock or Ms. Alcock. There is certainly a wide range of people, but we were not involved with the management of the company.

Mr. Maloway: Well, since the province did require a management team of its--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Can I ask the honourable member to pose his question. There is no need for a preamble on his second question.

Mr. Maloway: Will the minister check with the board of ManGlobe and determine what other perks and considerations Mrs. Alcock got with this job?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have made reference to over the past number of months on the preambles that I have heard about this question, again it would be important that the member ask the management of this company.

We have participated in support of the ManGlobe project, of which the management team was appointed and assembled through the discussions and agreement with the other financial partners, of which one was the Manitoba Telephone System, the Royal Bank, Canada Post, and make no apologies for the fact that the company was supported and is still operating and is hiring and employing people and doing the work that it was anticipated to do.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My final supplementary is to the same minister. This minister approved the board appointment, it approved the management hiring and the government ordered Duncan Jessiman to, quote, see that this deal gets done. Will the minister table a copy of the multilateral agreement drawn up by Duncan Jessiman?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I do not accept the comments that were made by the member that Mr. Duncan Jessiman was ordered to make sure that the deal was done. I have indicated to the member--[interjection] Well, if the member has all of this information, what is he taking the time of this House for in asking the question? I guess it is a matter of the House deciding how much of a priority it is when he has this information in his own caucus when he continues to bring this before the Assembly. I have no difficulty in answering questions, in dealing with a matter; in fact, I will be quite prepared to not only deal with this issue but a lot of the loans that were made and never paid back under the previous administration, of which he was a part. We will get into that as well as we get into Estimates.

Disaster Assistance

Deductible

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my understanding that the deductible for disaster assistance used to be a flat rate, and my question is for the Premier, if he could advise the House: What was the flat rate? Could I ask: What was the flat rate? When was the minimal deductible amount for disaster assistance changed and by whom?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for that question, and I have here an article from the Winnipeg Free Press dated April 3, 1987, in which it is announced by the then Minister responsible for Disaster Assistance Board, Harry Harapiak, I think who is known well to the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). It announces changes to the previous practice of setting the maximum deductible on all disaster claims at $250, and the amended policy provides for one deduction of either $250 or 25 percent of approved costs, whichever is greater.

So as a result, a claim that was worth $10,000 previously had carried a $250 deductible, now carried a $2,500 deductible. Similarly a claim of $30,000 which had a $250 deductible was raised then to $7,500. Furthermore, the then Minister Harapiak announced that the amendment was retroactive--this was April of '87--all the way back to May 1 of the previous year so that it took into account the flooding that had been experienced in the 1986 spring flooding. He retroactively reduced the compensation that was eligible to all those people. He said at the time that this was to make a fairer system, fairer compensation.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The members opposite may think it is funny, but I have the old policy which requires replacement of essential items like fridges, stoves, heavy clothing. The new policy signed by this Premier does not make it mandatory to replace essential items like fridges, stoves, hot water heaters and allows for depreciation.

Can the Premier please tell us: Why is he misleading the public and not having people get replacement of essential items like fridges, stoves, hot water heaters? Why has he changed the policy and misrepresented the past policy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on a point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, under the circumstances, I can readily understand the sensitivity of the Leader of the Opposition, but that is no excuse for suggesting the Premier has misled anybody. That is clearly unparliamentary and ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order.

Mr. Doer: On the same point of order, I think it is incumbent upon any government backbencher who is asking a question to their own First Minister, having exchanged conversations before they ask the question, to quote the actual policy on essential items versus the changed policy that he made. I would ask the Premier to answer questions about representing properly the past policy and the present policy. That is all the people want to know, and what they really want to know is: How does this affect their daily lives now? Will their fridge be replaced, will their stove be replaced? How will this affect them because there used to be a difference between luxury items and essential items?

* (1420)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Now before we continue, the honourable Leader of the official opposition had risen to speak to the same point of order which he did not speak to. I do believe he had another point of order which was not a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts.

The honourable government House leader rose to speak to the point of order on the use of the word "mislead." It is a point of order if he had said this deliberately, but he had not. So you did not have a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to answer the question.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The Leader of the Opposition is embarrassed in getting caught in his own web of hypocrisy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is precisely what this indicates, is that there used to be a policy of a flat $250 deductibility and they increased it to 25 percent deductibility. Their minister, Mr. Harapiak, increased it to 25 percent deductibility which he said was in the interests of more fairness in the program. So they ought not to be talking about the deductibility as being an issue. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time for Oral Question Period has expired.