Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). During the election campaign, all parties, including the Premier, talked about the safety and care of children as a paramount concern. In the Healthy Child report, the primacy of meeting children's needs for protection is again articulated in the report conducted by Dr. Postl and others.

I would like to ask the Premier why his government is eroding the rights of children who are abused. Why are they eroding the rights of abused children under the policies articulated in their Child and Family Services Act, under the Child Abuse Registry?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition for that question, because it does allow me to clarify exactly what the intent of The Child and Family Services Act is. Indeed, the intent of that act is to ensure, first and foremost, that children are protected. There has been some concern about the Child Abuse Registry and the manner in which it exists. It was not our decision. It certainly was an opinion taken by our government as a result of broad, extensive public consultations that asked for a change in the focus of the Child Abuse Registry to ensure that children, first and foremost, were protected through the legislation and, secondly, if in fact there was a question about where the case should be heard once it was determined that a name should go to the Child Abuse Registry, only in certain circumstances, that indeed that would happen through the courts. That is an amendment that is coming forward. We believe that children will be protected through that process.

Mr. Doer: I would like to table a letter for the Premier's attention and the attention of this Chamber, written by Dr. Charles Ferguson, on behalf of a number of child abuse committees in the province. Charles Ferguson, of course, is the director of the Child Protection Centre which deals with 600 to 800 children a year, half of them, regrettably, sexually abused. Some 250 children a year are injured, unfortunately and regrettably, at the hands of their adult caregiver.

Dr. Charles Ferguson states that this bill will erode the rights of children for protection from the abused. I would like to ask the Premier: Why are we going backwards in terms of protecting children who are dealing with very, very traumatic and painful abuse cases? Why is this government going the opposite direction of what they stated during the election campaign?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Indeed, the process that we will be undertaking, whereby upfront, at the local level, the experts that form the child abuse committees for every agency will have the opportunity to determine in certain circumstances, where the courts have not charged someone with abuse, to determine whether in fact that name should be forwarded to the registry.

The registry, Madam Speaker, will remain the same. The process for determining how those names will get on to that registry will go to the courts rather than to a quasi-judicial process. We believe that, through that process, the same test will be used. I might add the test of probability will be used at the court level rather than at the quasi-judicial level. We believe children will be protected in the same fashion or even better than they have been in the past.

* (1450)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this is a total disgrace. Dr. Charles Ferguson, speaking on behalf of the abuse committees in Manitoba, police officers, child guidance clinics, child protection units, schools, public health people, has said this bill has serious problems with it. It is going in the opposite direction for protecting abused children. Furthermore, it states that the child's trauma would be repeated when they go to court, as the minister is alleging.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Will he listen to the people who are on the front lines of dealing with protecting children of child abuse or involved as victims of child abuse, rather than his minister who has obviously missed the mark dramatically with this bill that is being introduced in this Chamber?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, again, I think my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition is having difficulty understanding that the same process will be followed. Children do not appear before the quasi-judicial committee today and they will not be appearing before the court, so they will not have to go through any additional process. It will be the same test. It will be dealt with through the Court of Queen's Bench rather than through the Child Abuse Registry Review Committee that presently exists.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, the social workers on the front lines of Winnipeg Child and Family Services have said, in speaking out against Bill 48, and I quote: The changes are weighted in favour of giving alleged offenders a greater voice in the process but do not give the same rights to abused children. If fewer abusers are named on the registry, children in the general public will also be at risk because there will not be a way to warn organizations about offenders.

Given the remarks of these people who work in child protection, who are on the front lines of Child and Family Services agencies, I would like to ask the minister: Will she repeal these sections of the legislation? Will she not proceed with the sections of the legislation in the interests of giving greater protection to children instead of giving greater rights to alleged abusers? Will the minister do the right thing?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Again I repeat for my honourable friend, because there seems to be some misunderstanding that children will not be protected through this process, there are several different aspects to the Child Abuse Registry and several different ways in which individuals get on that registry. If, in fact, someone is convicted of child abuse, they are automatically placed on the registry. It is not a recommendation from the local committee. It is not a recommendation from the Child Abuse Registry Review Committee. It is a recommendation from the courts, and those people are automatically placed on the Child Abuse Registry. There is no appeal process and there is no process or no role for the Child Abuse Review Committee, as it presently exists, or for the courts in the process that will take place after the amendments come into place to deal with those, so those people that are convicted automatically go onto the registry.

In the case of a certain number of individuals who, for instance, might--Madam Speaker, I know that you are asking me to finish very quickly but I think it is important that the House understand that, indeed, if a case is thrown out of court because certain evidence is inadmissible in court but the local child abuse committee honestly believes that person should be placed on the registry, that name was referred in the past to the Child Abuse Registry Review Committee. It will be referred to the courts, and the same tests will take place through that process. Children will not be put through anything additional to further burden them or put them under any undue pressure. The same process will take place, only through the courts rather than a quasi-judicial appeal process.

Mr. Martindale: Will the minister listen to the front-line social workers, and will she listen to Dr. Charles Ferguson, who wrote to her on June 19 saying: Furthermore, the child's trauma would be repeated when and if he or she has to tell his or her story in the Court of Queen's Bench. We know that alleged offenders have the right to go to Court of Queen's Bench. Will she listen to the experts in child abuse and not--

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

Mrs. Mitchelson: I know that Dr. Ferguson will be presenting at committee tonight and I will have the opportunity. We have received that letter, too, and we will have the opportunity to explain to him that in fact his comments that say children will be put through another hurtful process will not happen with the changes that are going to be made, because children will not have to go before the courts in the process that will replace the Child Abuse Registry Review Committee. So, unfortunately, he is not understanding what will happen. We will have the opportunity to explain at committee to him the process and what my honourable friend--the scenario that he is painting is wrong, dead wrong.

Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of Family Services listen to Dr. Charles Ferguson and to the child protection, child abuse committees of the areas in the city of Winnipeg--30 individuals who signed this letter, along with Dr. Charles Ferguson--and withdraw the offensive sections of this bill, because we need to put the interests and the protection of children and their rights first and not give more rights to other people, with the possibility that they will be traumatized in court?

Will she listen to the people who are giving--

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

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I do not know how often I have to repeat to my honourable friend the answer so that it sinks in, but children will not be traumatized any further as a result of this process, because they will not be appearing before the Court of Queen's Bench. If, in fact, my honourable friend would like to take that message back to Dr. Charlie Ferguson, he might do that, or I will be able to clarify that for him, because he is misunderstanding completely the process that will be followed.

The fearmongering that my honourable friend is putting on the record is extremely distasteful, and it is extremely harmful to those children and those families that will not have to suffer unduly as a result of the change in process.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

There has been a disturbing pattern of very difficult staff relations, but more importantly, serious allegations about the procedures and practices of the Chief Medical Examiner, and because of the nature of the concerns, we have called for an impartial open and independent review of that office. I now understand the government has finally ordered a review by the Exchange Consulting Group.

My question to the Premier: Would the Premier tell us whether Hugh Goldie, an associate of this group and the person doing the interviews, is a close associate of the Premier, in fact, his campaign manager?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I know that the member opposite does not have issues of substance, so he chooses to look for substance of slime when he comes to Question Period. My--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I find it absolutely amazing that I have to rise on this point of order to refer to Beauchesne Citation 484. It is absolutely clear that, even though the First Minister would like to be able to resort to personal attacks if he does not like the question that is being asked, that is not only not appropriate, the comments he made are clearly unparliamentary.

I would ask you to ask him to withdraw those comments and address the very serious question that is being raised by the member for St. Johns--in a very responsible matter, I might add.

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

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I just suggest that, if the member for Thompson wants us to play by certain rules in this House, he ought to ensure that those rules are played by people on his side. The nature of the question was a personal attack on an individual who cannot defend himself here in this House and--[interjection] No, the allegation, the insinuation that someone was given a contract on the basis of a relationship, as opposed to on the basis of competence, and that is clearly a personal attack. If the member for Thompson does not want personal attacks to be the order of the day, he should get his own members in order in this House.

* (1500)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that indeed one of the matters that determines whether unparliamentary language has been used is the context within which the words have been used. I will take the point of order under advisement and check carefully the comments made by the honourable First Minister.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the First Minister who did not answer the question then answer this one? Can the Premier confirm whether the principal of the Exchange Consulting Group is Peter Wintemute, the trustee of the Premier's business assets, business associate and a partner of Janice Filmon?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we have certain conflict-of-interest rules in this House, and those conflict-of-interest rules require that any member of the Executive Council, if he or she has anything to do with an issue that involves something in which he may have a personal interest in any way, shape or form, cannot, must not participate in the discussion and the decisions. I have said in response to the last question, I will repeat in response to this question that I knew absolutely nothing about the assignment until I read about it in the paper. I had absolutely no involvement in any discussion or any decision involved with the assignment, and that is as it ought to be under our rules and under our conflict-of-interest legislation.

I take it further, and I challenge the member opposite, instead of operating in the gutless fashion that he does consistently by standing up and creating innuendo and slime in this House, that he challenge it under the conflict-of-interest legislation as is his right and responsibility.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I would point, on a point of order, Madam Speaker, to the fact that the Premier used the term "gutless," which I am sure anyone would recognize as not parliamentary. I find it interesting that the Premier, who expressed concern about taking the high road, et cetera, would resort to this. It is our right as an opposition to ask questions, and whether it deals with matters that the First Minister does not like, particularly when it comes to political connections with this government, the minister should answer the questions and not indeed try and discredit the messenger.

The person asking the questions in this case has every right to expect answers from this government without that kind of term, "gutless," which the Premier should withdraw.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable First Minister to indeed keep his remarks a little less personal and pertain explicitly to the question asked.

Mr. Mackintosh: My final supplementary, perhaps more appropriately then, to the Justice minister. This is not a question about patronage but is this question: How can Manitobans have any confidence in a review conducted--and it is not just about business or trade possibilities or government organization or policy options, but conducted into another serious justice matter, including literally matters of life and death, when it is conducted by people so beholden and so tied to political interests of this government and this Premier? It reeks, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I appreciate this opportunity to clarify some of the misstatements spoken by the member for St. Johns. In fact, the Exchange Consulting Group was interviewed along with a number of other corporations that wished to provide their services in respect of this particular issue, this organizational review of the Chief Medical Examiner's office. The deputy in my department and the associate deputy minister interviewed the relevant corporations, and it was their decision that this was the most appropriate corporation to provide those services, and indeed then the Exchange Consulting Group was retained through the organization and staff development of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Last Thursday this government lost another court case in its continuing attempt to cut funding from the Access program. This is a very meaningful program, as all members know. It was created by the NDP--we are very proud of that--for disadvantaged Manitobans, aboriginal people and ordinary people who would not ordinarily have an opportunity for a post-secondary education and opportunities for the future.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education whether or not she will accept this Court of Appeal decision.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): In response to the preamble, I would indicate how very pleased and proud we are of our Access program. It has grown consistently, especially over the last three or four years, where every year we have a higher intake, more graduates and a greater number of people being able to utilize the services that we provide. We no longer cap the bursary amount as the NDP did. It is an unlimited amount that could be achieved after the government loan has been taken, the federal government providing the loan, the provincial government providing the bursary. So, in response to his preamble, it is an excellent program. We are very pleased with its continued growth and prosperity. As far as the court case is concerned, our legal counsel is presently reviewing the judgment handed down and will be reporting to us with advice in the very near future.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I would like to ask the minister whether or not she could indicate to us whether or not she will be compensating the students who were cut off funding midway through their courses or were forced to make great financial sacrifices to complete their courses because of this government's actions.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): As I indicated to the member, we will be receiving our analysis from legal counsel who will be providing us with advice in that respect. I indicate that we have more and more students being able to take Access. We have gone from 750 intake three years ago to, I think it is 870--I may have that number a bit wrong--this year, with increased graduation every year. That, Madam Speaker, and the changes we made in response to the federal withdrawal of funding in order to broaden the scope and to make, for students who have the ability, their loans through the federal government to replace the federal money, our bursary is now far more generous than it was for those who really do need it. It is now for those who need it. Thank you.

* (1510)

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I do have a final question for the minister. I would like to ask her whether or not she could explain how cutting the funding to the Access program fits in with the official position that she has stated previously, that the government is attempting to make it easier for disadvantaged Manitobans from the inner city and also from remote communities in Manitoba to obtain post-secondary education.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Perhaps the member, if he would like, I would be very pleased to provide him with an in-depth briefing--I offer that most sincerely--so that he can see how by utilizing our money more wisely we are able to provide unlimited, nonrepayable loans to students in need of bursaries--they do not have to pay them back--up to $26,000 a year, whatever they need. It does not have to be paid back, which was not the case when the party he represents was in power. They capped that around $10,000. Because we have done that, we are able to service more people, and those graduates have an incredibly good success rate in finding employment. In the high 90 percentile were able to find employment. Like other Canadians, like other Manitobans, they will pay back the loan portion the federal government provides, the federal government, as you know, having pulled $4.5 million out of the program.

Madam Speaker, I do offer that briefing to the member. I would be pleased to sit down with him to give him the details I do not have time to provide here, because I am being cut off right now from further answer.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week the tobacco industry announced billions of dollars in compensation in terms of a settlement with antismoking forces in the United States. We now have British Columbia, which is leading the way in terms of trying to get some sort of recourse with respect to the amount of provincial tax dollars going in to assist in some of the negative consequences of smoking.

My question to the Minister of Health is: Is this government currently looking at bringing in legislation that will hold the tobacco industry more accountable for the negative side effects of tobacco smoke?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Inkster for that question. As I indicated publicly last week in response to the announcement in British Columbia, we obviously want to see the effects of the detail of their legislation. We have just received a copy of that. I know I will be speaking with Health Minister MacPhail later on over the summer when we meet as Health ministers.

We want to assess exactly what they are, in fact, doing and what their chances are to achieve the bottom line, which is to ultimately reduce the numbers of people who smoke.

I can tell the member that we have done some preparatory work with respect to the costs associated with smoking to our health care system.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that it has proven very successful in the States in terms of holding the tobacco industry accountable for their actions? Will the minister commit by the end of the following session that we will, in fact, have some sort of a plan that will address this issue head-on so the tobacco industry is paying for some of these health care costs?

Mr. Praznik: One difference between the United States and here--and it varies across the United States--has been the level of taxation. We found in Canada generally over the years we have had a much higher level of taxation on tobacco products, and that has been a contributing factor to, I believe--and if I am correct, the number was some years ago, decades ago, about 51 percent of our adult population smoked. Today, I believe it is around the 30 percent mark or less approximately.

So we have done those things, whereas in the United States, in parts of the U.S., that has not been the case. We are currently assessing what is going on, assessing the success of those who are trying some of these new methods and, if they prove their value, we certainly would consider them.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my final question is again to the Minister of Health. I am sure he has seen the legislation that B.C. is proposing. Can the minister explain what Manitobans have to gain by not passing similar legislation?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I received a copy of it late last week. I must admit to the member I have not had yet the opportunity to thoroughly read it. We are looking at it within the department.

It is very important, I think, if you are going to strike out on a new venture, particularly when British Columbia is leading in this particular endeavour, to get a sense of the response. I know one part of the British Columbia plan was for Health Minister MacPhail to write to three of the presidents of tobacco companies based in Canada, and that letter, I understand, will be going out shortly and we are interested to see the response. So there is a sense on the part of provincial ministers of Health to see how this moves, and if there is value to be had here, we certainly would consider it.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Chief Medical Examiner's office.

Madam Speaker, several years ago in this Chamber during the issues surrounding the baby deaths at Health Sciences Centre, we raised very serious concerns about the role and function of many agencies surrounding the baby deaths. One of the concerns we raised and one of the reasons we called for an independent judicial review, rather than an inquest, was because the Chief Medical Examiner's office ought to have been looked at in terms of how it dealt with the baby deaths.

My question to the minister responsible is: Will a review--we prefer an outside, independent, judicial-type review--be conducted of the issues surrounding the Chief Medical Examiner's office as it relates to the baby deaths at Health Sciences Centre?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): As the House is aware, there is a review being conducted at this time in respect to that issue, and I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on that now.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My supplementary to the minister: Will the minister then indicate whether or not the role of the Chief Medical Examiner--and we also raised this previous--with respect to deaths at personal care homes and other institutions will be examined as part of a review that ought to be undertaken with regard to the operation of that office?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): As I have indicated, there is an organizational review going on in respect of the Chief Medical Examiner's office right now, and I think there were certain issues that were raised in respect of the operation of that office. I think the government took the appropriate action in retaining a consultant, an outside consultant to review the Chief Medical Examiner's office. Once we have had an opportunity to review those results, we can look at other issues that might be relevant.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My final supplementary to the minister: Will the minister undertake--because we have asked for it before, and we are asking for it again today--not an internal, not a review of a review, but will he undertake to put before an independent, impartial body, a review force, the concerns that we have had about the relationship between the Chief Medical Examiner and the Health Sciences Centre concerning the children's deaths, as well as the Chief Medical Examiner and personal care homes concerning deaths in personal care homes? Will he do that today?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, if one reflects on the long history of this government in terms of reviews of its activities, I think that this government has been very forthcoming in respect of reviews where there are appropriate--[interjection] I believe the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has something to add; perhaps he can add it now.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My questions are for the Minister of Environment. Madam Speaker, northern Manitobans increasingly are seeking policy decisions of this government in which fee hikes in services primarily affecting rural and northern Manitoba, such as the park fee hikes, result in increased revenue to this government's revenue while services are reduced. Now we have the situation in which Manitoba, northern Manitoba and rural Manitoba drivers will directly contribute toward a special police unit operating only in Winnipeg investigating auto thefts. My question is for the Minister responsible for MPI: Could the minister advise this House what special programs MPI will initiate for northern communities like The Pas, Flin Flon and Thompson in terms of policing services?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): No matter where they live, Manitoba Autopac ratepayers have an interest in reducing a very, very problematic trend with respect to auto theft in Manitoba, but specifically and particularly in the city of Winnipeg where the vast majority of car thefts in Manitoba are taking place. There is no doubt but that the question the honourable member asks certainly crossed my mind as we continued to look at this matter about, what about crime and what about car thefts in other parts of Manitoba. Like the honourable member, my constituency, my residence is outside the city of Winnipeg as well, and I want to ensure that all parts of the province are treated in a way that is equitable, one region with the other. But we certainly have a specific and important problem which is costing people throughout Manitoba, and the problem is most acute right here in the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my second question is to the same minister. Would the minister in his role as Minister of Environment conduct a review and report back to the Assembly here on what percentage of the special environmental levy--for example, the revenue of the 2 cents per bottle--actually goes back in any form to northern Manitoba? Would he table that report to the Assembly as soon as he is able to?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Any municipal level of government is entitled to come up with programming and to seek funding which flows from that particular levy. I am very happy with the number of municipalities in Manitoba that are taking advantage of the levy so that recycling activities can go forward. We have reduced very, very significantly the amount of materials in the waste stream and put them into the recycling stream.

Again, the honourable member--I think his question--wonders whether a certain region of the province is getting its share of the levy, and the fact is that we look to municipal levels of government for leadership in their areas as well and hope that there will be a high participation rate in all parts of the province. If there is any suggestion that there is a lack of equity in that, I would like to review that in detail, and perhaps the honourable member can make sure I am asking all the right questions.

*(1520)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): The Minister of Culture repeatedly defends Bill 50 as a careful balance of freedom of information and the protection of privacy, and yet she is determined to ram this bill through the House without proper time for reflection. My question is: What is the hurry? If she truly believes her legislation does indeed reflect its purposes, why not give the public the opportunity for the input which it is currently demanding and also give experts the time to scrutinize this very complex, detailed piece of legislation?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, the member knows that our intention to move ahead with legislation such as this was announced at a news conference. There was a great deal of input during the discussion process and the formulation of this bill from the public, as well as our own experience as a province, as well as our reviewing of legislation across the country, but there is a necessity to ensure that there is privacy legislation in place for Manitobans. As I said to her when I answered the same question last week, public bodies do hold large amounts of personal information in trust for people, and it is very important that there is legislation which is there to protect that privacy, particularly in an information age where the requests come very quickly.

So I did meet with some of the concerned individuals this morning. I had the opportunity to review some of their concerns. I have taken a number of the points that they raised very seriously. I am looking to see if in some way there may be some accommodation, but this legislation--it is very important on behalf of Manitobans for this government to proceed and to meet its promise.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): In view of the remarks that the minister has just made, I wonder if she would be prepared to proclaim the privacy aspects of her bill and withdraw the freedom of information sections until the public does have the opportunity for proper input and consultation.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): As I said in my first answer, the public has had an opportunity to have input in the development of this bill through the discussion paper. I have also said that the access side of the legislation does maintain the access provisions as they were in the past under the FOI. There have been some clarifications in that area. So it is important for us as a government and for the people of our province to have information in place which reflects the newest thinking, and we believe very important thinking in terms of both their access and their privacy. We believe this bill is in fact a very good balance.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Housing. The minister has, after a week, finally provided me with a list of 17 seniors apartments that are going to be protected under The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Amendment Act and retain their exemption from property school tax. However, there are a number of issues that need clarification regarding this matter. I want to ask the minister why none of these properties, their boards or management were notified or consulted and neither was the social housing managers association notified or consulted that there will now be two standards governing this issue. Why do none of these people know about the legislation proposed before the House?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, I look forward to the debate on this bill as it goes into second and third readings and some of these matters that the member is bringing for consideration and discussion. I should point out to the member that one of the provisions in the bill is that for the existing units, there is no change in their applications as to their status. If the member is advocating that there should be a change in that, why, that is something that we will have to take into consideration, but there is no change under these listings that I give to the member for any type of tax differentiation.

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

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. There is a change. There will now be--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Radisson that she has been recognized for a supplementary question which requires no preamble.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, can the minister tell the House how many of the properties listed on his list of 17 seniors blocks have units that are over the new standard for square footage and how could this affect them in the future?

Mr. Reimer: The member, in discussions for the legislation that is being brought forth, asked for a listing of the units that are under the existing EIPH Act. I provided the list to the member with the understanding and her knowledge that these units will not have any change as to their status in regard to their tax exemption. We have indicated that through the legislation, and we feel that to change something in midstream as to something that would affect their taxation and indirectly their rental that they would have to pay on these units is unfair. This is why the legislation will not have any effect on these units. They will still enjoy or still have the advantage of a tax-free portion of their property regarding the educational tax, so there will be no change in the status.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Perhaps the minister can answer the other question that I asked, which is: How many of these apartments on this list have units that are going to be above and beyond the square-foot guidelines that he is introducing to be the new standard under The EIPH Act?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, a lot of units when they were built in the period when provincial governments were involved with building public housing were built under certain standards of modesty standards in their square-footage basis. There was the standard for the one-bedroom, there was a standard for the bachelor, and there was a standard for the other units. Those are the types of units that were given under The EIPH Act, the status of tax exemption from the educational portion of their taxation.

For me to know particularly what the square footage of unit regarding St. Michael's Villa or Transcona Place or Prairie Rose Apartments, I would have to have staff go in there to find this, but for me to know this on an individual basis for--I believe there are 1,155 units. I just cannot provide that information.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

.