Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon twenty Grades 5 and 6 students from Holland Elementary School under the direction of Mrs. Shelley Wallis. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan).

Also, thirty Grades 1 to 9 students from the Woodland Colony School at Portage la Prairie under the direction of Mrs. Carol Lasota.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Premier on May 2, 1996, stated in this House in Hansard that rates could go up with the new private company or they could go down, and as we have seen with the $2 increase on January 1 and another $3 proposed in 1998, the rates go up and up. Can the Premier inform this House and the people of Manitoba what is the rate of return that is being requested on the new private company and what is its impact on the consumers in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The member knows full well that the $2 increase had been approved under the public ownership of MTS, so he should not attempt to mislead the public on that. I will take that question as notice and bring that information back to the member.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, of course the Premier knows--it is on public record, not on his record but the public record--that he hired brokers in July of 1995 to break his election promise that was made a couple of months earlier in terms of the rating increases that flowed. In a CRTC submission by the telephone system, it states that the new private telephone system will need a 12.75 percent rate of return for the new private shareholders for the new private MTS company. They say that their financial advisers had issued this analysis prior to the submission.

Can the Premier advise this Chamber how much beyond the $3 basic increase will the 12.75 requirement for the private shareholders for the new private company--what will that impact be on our consumers here in Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member should know as a former minister responsible for the telephone system that the rate of return is set by CRTC, and there is absolutely no certainty that any rate of return that is asked for would be complied with by CRTC.

Mr. Doer: The Premier also knows that this rate of return has been established by five other Stentor private companies. The Premier would have known that when he broke his election promise; he would have known that when he hired his brokers; he would have known this when he stood up in the House and said the rates were going to go down. He would have known this, but of course he denied telling the people of Manitoba the basic truth about the telephone system, and of course some of this stuff is now coming out in the CRTC submission.

Can the Premier confirm that the 12.75 percent rate of return will mean at minimum a $3 rate increase in 1998, and we will still have a shortfall, according to the CRTC presentation, of $20 million that will have to be made up by the ratepayers in Manitoba to pay for the private shareholders' rate of return, contrary to the promise made by this Premier?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

* (1340)

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, with a new question.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, when we asked about the new private company and its rate of return and its impact on consumers, and when Ross Nugent said that this would be a massive rate shock to the consumers of Manitoba, and he further went on to say it would be a further rate shock to rural members and northern members of Manitoba, the Premier said that Ross Nugent was wrong. Well, it looks like Ross Nugent was right, and the Premier owes him a big apology, along with the people of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, can the Premier confirm that the $20-million shortfall is proposed to have further rate increases in the next four years beyond 1998, which will have a dramatic increase in rates, based on the new private company, totally contrary to what the Premier said to the people of this province, probably to his caucus--I would hope to his caucus; if they voted for this, he would have had to mislead them to get this through--totally contrary to his promise here in Hansard all last November?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I repeat that rates of return that are asked for are not necessarily complied with by CRTC. CRTC executes the same analysis for rate increases, whether it be a public or a private company.

Mr. Doer: A public company does not need 12.75 percent for private shareholders to keep the stock prices up and going up on the backs of ratepayers here in Manitoba, Madam Speaker. That is the difference, and he knows it.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Premier: The telephone system, beyond the massive rate increases that are being proposed on the basis of the new privatized company--and it is right here, saying there is a $36-million shortfall for a new private company. The phone system also is asking to rate rebalance the deal with cost recovery in rural and northern communities. Did the Premier inform his caucus about this reality? Will the Premier now admit that the Manitoba union of municipalities was right when they said that the cost of privatization would be borne more heavily by people living in remote and rural communities, as predicted by the UMM, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as we have talked about on numerous occasions in this House, rate rebalancing was instituted by CRTC for more than a couple of years now. That was a matter that was in progress and will continue to be in progress, because CRTC of course wants to protect the telephone companies from the shock that would occur if competitors were able to pick off substantial parts of their market, and so they say that in order to protect them from that, there has to be a reasonable balance between cost and revenues in all sectors of their operations.

Those are matters that CRTC has put on the record, has been dealing with for several years, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On October 31, 1996, the Premier again put another "whopper" on the record when he said that the pension tax ruling would be used to forestall any "rate shock" increases of rate increases, Madam Speaker.

In the CRTC submission, the new Manitoba Telephone System, the new private phone system, asked that a portion of the tax ruling--in other words, the pension money from Manitobans, workers' money--would go to reward the private shareholders of the new private company. Why did the Premier tell us one thing on October 31, and why is the Manitoba Telephone System asking that these pension dividends paid for by the workers would go to the new private shareholders in the new private company, Madam Speaker?

* (1345)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The member opposite, of course, does not have a great deal of credibility as it is, which is why, of course, he is where he is for three straight election campaigns, because people know that they cannot rely on him to tell the truth. So as a result--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Point of order, Madam Speaker. For this Premier, of all people, to talk about anybody not telling the truth in the context of MTS is absolutely incredible. I would like to ask you to have him withdraw that remark and admit to the people of Manitoba that he is the only person that did not tell the truth on MTS in the election. He did not say he was going to sell it off, so let us have some honesty from this Premier.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I would remind not only the Premier (Mr. Filmon) but the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) that "to tell the truth" or "not telling the truth" has been ruled out of order by the former Speaker Rocan on several occasions, and I would appreciate if all honourable members would pick and choose their words carefully.

Mr. Filmon: When the Leader of the Opposition asserts that somehow it is pension money of individual employees that is being used, it is an absolute bald-faced misrepresentation. It is a tax ruling. It is a tax ruling that allows the corporation to avoid paying taxes as a result of their corporate contributions to the tax--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, it is impossible to speak against the chirping of the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and all of the members opposite. If they really have any interest in this matter, they ought to be keeping quiet and listening to the answer.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): We have just recently obtained a copy of the submission to the CRTC, and it might as well just be subtitled, Honey, I blew up the phone bill, because Manitobans under this government's legacy are already faced--if this is approved, some people in Manitoba will have had their phone bill doubled since 1995; many will have had 70 percent and 80 percent increases, and indeed this is not the end of it. Even with the $3 increase, this document points to the fact there will be further increases, including to pay for the cost of privatization.

I would like to ask the Premier: Will he now admit that what he said on May 2, 1996, when he announced the sale of MTS was not true, that indeed this document confirms that Manitobans are going to be paying much, much more for basic phone service in the province because of his legacy of broken promises on our phone system?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Ashton: I will ask a further question to finally try and bring the Premier into telling the truth to the people of Manitoba.

Will he explain to the people of Manitoba what his government appointees on this board--because the government has four people appointed to the board--whether they supported this dramatic rate increase and whether indeed this government supports the rate increase?

Mr. Filmon: I firstly make note of the member who had just gotten up on a point of order with reference to the use of the term "telling the truth" who then uses it in his own preamble, Madam Speaker, to show his lack of credibility and to show his own lack of integrity with respect to the use of the rules of this House.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that answers to questions should relate to the matter raised. Madam Speaker, if the Premier wants to get into a debate about credibility, I will have a debate with that Premier any time, because he has no credibility with the people of Manitoba.

He should not avoid our rules; he should answer the question that was asked.

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

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, what I will confirm for the member for Thompson is that we as a government trust the integrity of the system that allows for independent third-party analysis of the proposals for rate increases, as opposed to the situation that used to occur under members opposite when they were in government that allowed for the increases--and I might say that in a period of time of 50 years, prior to their taking office under Mr. Pawley, there had only been three rate increases to telephone rates in this province in a space of almost 50 years. They came into office and instituted a program of rate increases that were almost annual, rate increases that they put through at the cabinet table. In addition to that, they made decisions such as investing in telecommunications in Saudi Arabia--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Then, Madam Speaker, at that same cabinet table, they made decisions to invest Manitobans' money in Saudi Arabia that cost Manitobans $30 million that had to be paid for by the taxpayers of Manitoba, as a result of their desire to play business with the money of the people of Manitoba. That is the kind of shame and that is the kind of disrepute that they continue to live with, because it is their choices that resulted in Manitobans having to spend $30 million of money that they threw away on the sands of Saudi Arabia. That is the kind of thing that we do not need in this province.

Mr. Ashton: I would like to table a document which outlines the rate shock, which is the legacy of this government's policies on MTS. I would like to ask the Premier, since he refused to answer the question I just put to him, will he now confirm that this government not only set up this situation by privatizing MTS, but they will not even use their four positions on the board to oppose it. Will he do the honest and responsible thing and oppose this rate shock that is going to be imposed on the people of Manitoba if approved by the CRTC?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat that when that group was in office, they not only put through--

An Honourable Member: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Filmon: --increases year after year after year--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Madam Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, as I indicated earlier, Madam Speaker. Beauchesne's Citation 417 indicates: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

Madam Speaker, I patiently waited for the Premier's response during the second question from the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), wherein he asked the Premier if the cabinet approved the increases, the board appointees to cabinet approved the increases. The Premier spent several minutes talking about the 1980s and the 1990s attempting to deflect attention away from his government, did not deal with the question.

Then, subsequently, when the member for Thompson stood up and again asked the Premier the same question, the Premier began his resuscitation of history again in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that this government was dishonest with the people of Manitoba and did not listen to the people of Manitoba.

* (1355)

I urge you, based on section 417, to call the Premier to order. If the Premier does not want to answer the question, he does not have to, but he ought to deal with the matter raised--

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

Mr. Filmon: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I know that it is very, very sensitive to the members opposite to be reminded of their incompetence and their misdeeds when they were in office, but I took very careful care to point out to the members opposite the difference between the approach that we are taking with respect to having independent third-party analysis and review of the proposals of the telephone company for rate increases, versus their direct actions at the cabinet table as they chose to control increase after increase year after year and a $30-million squandering of public money.

There is a difference, and it is important to note that difference.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

The motion before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 29, Nays 24.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, will the Premier confirm that throughout this submission from MTS, which presumably his cabinet approved of--or at least knew of, his board members approved of--privatization appears in Sections 63 to 69, shareholder entitlement appears from Section 70 to Section 88? Will he not finally admit that privatization is driving rates and that Ross Nugent was right; rate shock is what Manitobans are experiencing, and they are experiencing it at over 100 percent by the time they are finished from their basic phone costs before this government decided to privatize?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the Premier explain to the seniors of the inner city that I visited lately during a certain event that we all took part in, I presume--maybe he did not, but a lot of us did--that are saying to me now, I cannot afford a phone today, when they are paying $14.75 in January of '97? They are going to be paying $17.75 in January of '98 and over $20 in January of '99 and thereon. Will he meet those seniors and explain to them why their phone rates have gone up like that?

* (1410)

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I do meet with seniors on a regular basis as part of my responsibilities as a member of the Legislature. I have many within my consistency who I speak to at church, who I speak to in the community centres, who I speak to when I am grocery shopping. Those seniors are aware of the issues. They are aware of the fact that they are making substantial savings on long-distance calls, for instance, and that their rates in a significant part of their phone bill are going down. They understand the costs and consequences of the shifts and changes that are taking place within the telecommunications field.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Will the Premier confirm that MTS and his government-appointed boards of directors' members want to create an "E" group of rates for rural and northern subscribers, that this will force rates, if MTS has its way under privatization, to double and triple, not just go up by a hundred percent but to double and triple? That is new Rate Group E. Did he support that, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is also for the First Minister. It is with respect to the provincial Ombudsman's office.

With the passage of Bill 51, there is going to be a heavy reliance, an additional reliance on the Ombudsman's office, when the government should have come through and materialized on a privacy commissioner. In 1990 there were 3,362 cases before the provincial Ombudsman with 14 staff years. In 1995 it was increased to 4,141. Will the government acknowledge that there is a need to give additional resources to the provincial Ombudsman's office, because if they fail to do that, the whole act of Bill 51 will turn into a farce?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Yes, Madam Speaker, I believe that we have acknowledged publicly that there is a need for additional resources. Regrettably, because of their attempts to disrupt the workings of this Legislature, the members of the official opposition refused to have the Legislative Assembly Management Commission meet so that it can discuss that issue and so that an evaluation of resources could be made that could address this issue. We have said very openly that we want to address this issue. The Ombudsman's office, of course, is dealt with by the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, and the members of the New Democratic Party want to prevent that kind of situation from being addressed. We think it is most regrettable.

Mr. Lamoureux: Given the Premier's response, will he then give the guarantee that there will be an increase in staff years in order to accommodate the passage of Bill 51 for the provincial Ombudsman's office? Will he give that guarantee today?

Mr. Filmon: I cannot give that guarantee, because that is a matter that is the responsibility of the Legislative Assembly Management Commission. What I can tell him is that my colleagues on the government side of this Legislature will support that issue to assure the public that the Ombudsman will have sufficient resources, but as long as we are being stymied and blocked by members of the New Democratic Party, it would be impossible for me to give that guarantee.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier acknowledge that there is an agreement, I believe, between the Liberals and the New Democrats that there is a need for additional staff years at the Ombudsman's office? What we are asking for: Will the Premier also join with the Liberals and the New Democrats and acknowledge that there is that need? Without those additional resources, they are not going to be able to enforce Bill 51.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we do not have to join with the Liberals and New Democrats. We have been ahead of them on this issue. We have indicated that we recognize and acknowledge the need for additional resources, and we have been attempting since January of this year to have the LAMC meet to provide those resources. But, regrettably, just as the New Democrats would not allow for provision of resources to the Liberal Party in this Chamber, they will not allow for the provision of additional resources to the Ombudsman's office. We know that they are into their narrow self-interested mode of attempting to utilize those kinds of things at their disposal to prevent this from happening. One of these days they will grow up, and those kinds of things will be able to be provided for.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe the question was very specific from the Liberal member about whether the Premier would support resources, and apart from the fact that the Premier is not responding directly to the question, he is inaccurate. The last scheduled meeting of LAMC was cancelled by a joint agreement of all parties, and indeed, perhaps if he would just care to talk to his House leader, he might get a clearer picture of what has been happening in terms of the Ombudsman.

But, Madam Speaker, he should not leave a false impression on the record, and I would suggest that he should not only not leave a false impression on the record but perhaps talk to his House leader, because I think that might assist in making sure the Ombudsman's office gets the resources that we all agree at least.

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

Mr. Filmon: Thank you, Madam Speaker, on the same point of order.

If the House leader of the opposition is now suggesting that his colleagues have abandoned their spoiled-little-child approach to things and are going to act like adults and attend the LAMC, then we would be happy to make the commitment to deal with this issue forthwith.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order. A point of order is not to be used to get comment on the record or debate.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. It is ironic that at a time we are talking about broken promises and government secrecy and not providing information about MTS, at the same time this government is putting through a Freedom of Information bill and a privacy bill that in five hours of presentation, almost unanimous condemnation of those bills--to the extent that presenters were saying with Freedom of Information the government has, by virtue of this bill, narrowed the application of the rules and prevented people from getting information, and that is a great irony in the light of the MTS debate.

My question to the Premier is: Would the Premier not do the right thing and consider what all groups indicated at the presentation, and that is put a delay on the proclamation of those aspects of the act dealing with Freedom of Information to allow individuals to make proper representation to this government and improve the ability of this Chamber to get information from the government?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, we on the government side were very pleased with the public interest in this bill. We paid a great deal of attention to the presentations. I met yesterday morning with a majority of the people who presented last evening and at committee last evening prepared and introduced amendments that dealt with many of the issues.

This bill is of importance to the people of Manitoba. Members opposite continue to ignore the important parts of this bill which are, No. 1, that it extends the Freedom of Information access and protection of privacy to all public bodies. That is in no way a restriction; that is an extension, and this bill now protects the privacy of Manitobans. Manitobans expect to have the personal information held in trust for them by public bodies protected, and that is what this legislation will do.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the government, if this bill is so favourable with respect to privacy, proclaim those sections of the act that deal with privacy to protect citizens and those that extend their rights, and with respect to those parts of the act that restrict access to information that the government is doing and with respect to the recommendations unanimously by all groups to have a privacy commissioner--to take a look at that?

Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said before, on the access side, the bill is not more restrictive. It does, however, clarify issues which have been unclear in the past, and it does introduce the privacy section. It is in the interests of Manitobans to introduce and to pass this legislation so that there is consistency for access through all public bodies and that their private information is protected.

Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House have several times answered our position of extending the current jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to allow the Ombudsman to go to court, because the Ombudsman in Manitoba has an extremely good record. The Ombudsman uses an approach which is of negotiation and conciliation to deal with the questions asked, so it has been a decision of this government, which we believe is the best decision for Manitoba, to move ahead with the Ombudsman.

* (1420)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health explain why the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Manitoba Medical Association, the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties, the Manitoba Library Association, the Manitoba consumers' association, all who have participated in the government's quasi-consultation process, have all stated that the bill should not be passed without the inclusion of a privacy commissioner to protect the rights of Manitobans and why these groups, including the MMA, say they will not co-operate with the SmartHealth initiative unless this provision is put in place?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): The member for Kildonan has listed a host of organizations who addressed the committee last night. What is interesting to note is that those organizations, generally speaking, were very supportive of our bill, contrary to the information that the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) brought to this House. They were very happy with the process to develop it.

There was a disagreement on the role of the privacy commissioner versus Ombudsman, and we have recognized that this is an opportunity to see how it works, Madam Speaker. We have advanced the argument that it is better to start with a known office and build up, and if there is a workload that justifies a privacy commissioner or if the current method of resolving disputes proves inadequate, that is why we have provided for a review. I have said publicly that if that review suggests that is the way to go when we review the legislation, which is part of the statute, I would be one of the first to support that.

The last point I make is that the organizations that represented trustees, like both the Manitoba Nurses' Union and the MMA, have not really canvassed their members on the issue of whether they wanted binding orders.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, an environmental scan for Winnipeg Child and Family Services identified the use of apartment hotels, apartment suite hotels for the temporary care of children as a commonly used but expensive solution, and no wonder. At $168 a day for the room only--$2.3 million a year. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why the government is willing to spend--and the true cost is more like $400 a day or $12,000 a month--to keep a child in an apartment suite hotel but will only pay an extended family a rate of $300 a month or a regular-rate family $486 a month. Would it not make sense to compensate families adequately for the care of children than to spend money warehousing children in hotels?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. Indeed, the issue of children in the care of Child and Family Services agencies that are having to be housed in hotels is one that we are extremely concerned about. There are too many children in hotels. I know we have asked and have worked with the agency to try to encourage them to seek out foster parents.

It was just interesting. I have had the opportunity to be on an open-line talk show this morning, and I had three different foster parents call with issues. One foster parent--and we will look into these issues. I do not know what the answer is, because I do not have both sides of the story, but they indicated clearly that they had been approved and licensed as foster homes but had not received any children yet. I would certainly like to assure members of this Legislature that if in fact the agency is out there aggressively pursuing foster homes, they would be the placement of choice, not hotels.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): If the minister is concerned, will she work with Winnipeg Child and Family Services and provide support to foster families and reverse the previous decisions of her government that cut 11 percent from foster rates in 1993, cut extended family rates by 50 percent in 1994 and 6 percent cut to special needs children in 1994 as well? Will she provide adequate supports so that foster parents will come forward?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Indeed, we are trying to work in a very proactive way with all of the agencies, specifically the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency. That certainly is the agency that has the most difficulty, mainly because of the high numbers of children in care. We want to assure that wherever possible--and alarmingly enough, we have some statistics from the agency that indicate that some very young children are in hotels for very extended periods of time. It is something that disturbs us as a government. It is something that we are trying to work with the agency on trying to resolve.

Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of Family Services take action to get children out of hotels and motels, 40 to 80 children a day according to her own figures, and address the adequacy of foster parent rates and support to foster parents, since the environmental scan also said the supply of foster parents is falling because of reduction in daily allowances?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Certainly the foster parents that I have had the opportunity to meet with, and I have met with some just over the last few weeks, have indicated quite clearly that there are some issues around fostering. I have not had the issue of--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Family Services, to complete her response.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If in fact the issue of finances for foster parents was the only issue, I think that we might be able to very readily find a solution by working co-operatively with the agency. That is not the only issue, and the opposition can take a very narrow view of the whole issue, but in truth--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the member for Wellington (Mr. Barrett) chirp from her seat on a regular basis. I find it very distasteful to have to listen to that kind of activity when I am trying to inform the public--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister of Family Services that the only distasteful thing in this issue is her lack of taking responsibility for the years and years of cuts to foster families that have led to this disgusting situation.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington definitely does not have a point of order.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I certainly note the sensitivity of the member for Wellington, which I also find very distasteful, but I want to--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Family Services, to quickly complete her response.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think my honourable friend should recognize when he asks questions that, yes, there is a basic foster rate, but many, many families within the fostering system receive additional funding for special rates for special needs children, and if my honourable friend really looked into the circumstances around the children that are in hotels, those are children that would be receiving additional support through the foster care system. They are not children that would be in foster homes at the basic rate, so I think he is all wrong in the way he is coming at this issue. In fact, we need to work very proactively to try to fix the problems for children.

* (1430)

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when natural gas was expanded in the southern part of the province, the government set a precedent for other gas projects when they implemented a three-way infrastructure proposal with the federal government, provincial government and municipalities joining with Centra Gas to cover the cost of capital. However, the same rules do not apply in the Swan River project.

Can the Minister of Rural Development indicate why, in this project, Louisiana-Pacific is required to be a partner in the capital project and then further required to guarantee consumption?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, it almost seems a contradiction from the member for Swan River. First she condemns the company, now she tries to be on their side. Let me say that--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Derkach: Our government has been on record in supporting the extension of natural gas to Swan River right from the very beginning. We made it known to the community that our money was on the table. We called on the federal government to come forward with their money. In the agreement that was reached with the Swan River community, it was well known that this was going to be a partnership approach to extending natural gas to that community. Yes, the province and the federal government are coming in with a substantial subsidy in extending that service to that community, but because of the users in that community, not only do the residents who live in Swan River have to contribute to natural gas but so do the users like Louisiana-Pacific have to contribute something to the service that is going to be provided to that community and to that particular facility.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.