4th-36th Vol. 32B-Oral Questions

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 forty-six Grade 9 students from Robert Andrews School under the direction of Mrs. Shanley Harper-Nick. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I would like to present to the government and to the Acting Premier some 13,000 signatures, people who have signed this petition from across Manitoba in terms of the killing of Jeff Giles and their sense that each of us in this Legislature should do our part to make our streets safer and make our communities places where people feel they can live without fear.

I would like to pass this over to the government, if I could, please. I would like to ask the government, the Acting Premier--in this case, people are very concerned about the release of one of the accused, Mr. Norman Guimond, who was released from custody. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or Acting Premier: who released this individual, this accused, and why?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member of the opposition for transmitting to me on behalf of the people of Manitoba the petition. I certainly look forward to receiving that petition and to make my federal counterpart aware of the concerns of the people of Manitoba. I indeed have been doing that on a regular basis.

The member for Concordia, of course, is treading on very thin ice here. He is commenting on a case that is presently before the court. The Supreme Court of Canada has given us very clear and specific directions that neither the Attorney General nor any member of the Legislature or Parliament shall comment on any case that is pending before the courts. So I need to assure the people of Manitoba that we take their concerns very seriously, and I know the federal Justice minister does as well, but the member for Concordia knows of the impropriety of the request that he has made.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we are not commenting on the case before the court. We are commenting about the justice system and its decision to release an accused and the circumstances under which a person who has been convicted of being unlawfully at large in the past, who is presently charged with a serious offence, is released.

We want to know from the government: have they investigated the circumstances of that release of a person in custody who later became accused of this senseless killing, in our view, of Mr. Giles? Have they investigated this issue, and is this not a case where an investigation should proceed by the Attorney General's department because individuals like this should not be released from custody, as has happened in our justice system, regrettably, in Manitoba?

* (1335)

Mr. Toews: Again the member has referred specifically to a specific case which is before the courts, and I cannot express my deep, deep concern that he would do that. I want to assure the public of Manitoba that every step taken in respect of criminal investigations is properly conducted, and if they are not, they are brought to my attention to ensure that there is some accountability or an answer. But the question that has been raised causes me a deep amount of concern, knowing that to answer it in the way he has requested would in fact put me at odds with the Supreme Court of Canada.

You know, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) constantly referred to a case that was also before the courts, the Bauder case which is now no longer before the courts, and his comments may well have had a direct effect on our ability to successfully appeal that sentence in that particular case, and so we will never know of the prejudice that those comments from the member for St. Johns caused, but I certainly cannot afford to have any prejudice in this respect in this particular case.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice is responsible for the administration of justice here in Manitoba. We asked him who released the individual, the accused, and why. Those are questions completely within his jurisdiction to answer and completely within the public interest to give accountability and answers.

We want to know the answers to the questions because we want to know whether there are adequate Crown resources in place dealing with release of prisoners in custody. We want to know whether there are adequate magistrates in place in our community dealing with people in custody before they are released, and we want to ensure that there are proper backups for our police forces in terms of the application of the decisions we have to make within the administration of justice here in Manitoba.

So I would like the Premier today to answer the question of who released Mr. Guimond and why, and can we do a better job of backing up our police forces with Crown attorneys, with resources in magistrates, resources in other resources so police officers have adequate backup from this Justice minister and this Justice department.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice. Many Manitobans have a bit of Jeff Giles in them. They are furious and, like Jeff, want to do something to stop the violence and street gangs. This helps explain why thousands upon thousands have signed this petition which calls for provincial action.

My question to the minister is: rather than send this petition to the federal government as he earlier vowed--I cannot believe it--and again said it in this House, that this minister do something, take responsibility and put in place a vigorous antigang strategy for bail, prosecutions, corrections, probation and prevention, areas that this minister is responsible for, that this government is responsible for.

* (1340)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): This government is committed to ensuring that violent crime in our streets is stopped, is concerned about any act of violence that is committed against any of our citizens. Our government has embarked over the last number of years on a vigorous antigang policy, on a vigorous prosecution of violent crimes and gang offences. We have a comprehensive program related to the containment of gangs, the containment of violent criminals, and we are constantly looking at those issues in order to improve our delivery of service so that the people of Manitoba are protected.

I have asked the member to come to my office and speak to my officials about exactly what we are doing. It is a complex, it is a long answer, but we in fact are confident that what we are doing is the right thing. I invite him to come to my deputy minister's office, and he will get a full briefing on that.

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

Mr. Mackintosh: Manitobans prefer I do my business in public, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would this government, while it does not so much as even mention gangs in throne speech after throne speech and budget speech after budget speech, admit that Manitobans under this government have suffered the worst violent crime rate of all the provinces since 1993, in fact, the highest such rates ever in the history of Canada?

* (1345)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, well, let us deal with that part by part. First of all, I am very proud of what this government has done in the area of abuse and violence against women. During the NDP years when I was a prosecutor, the policy was very simple. When women would not testify, they were thrown into jail. That was the NDP policy, and that is clear. You know, there have been thousands of cases on an annual basis now where they were never brought to justice.

Now women are feeling secure and safe because of initiatives that my predecessors have taken and that I am proud to continue on in respect of the Lavoie inquiry commission. I know members have criticized the people on that Lavoie commission and the community members, and I know the amount of work that they have been doing in respect of that. I want to make sure that the people of Manitoba know we are taking care of what I consider a very important issue.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate.

Our Justice critic and our Leader (Mr. Doer) have been asking very serious questions about a very serious incident in a whole series of violent crimes that Manitobans are being subjected to. The answer that the minister is giving may give him some political satisfaction but is not related in any way, shape or form to any of the questions we have been asking.

Given the very serious nature, Madam Speaker, of this matter, I would ask that you call the minister to order and ask him to answer the questions we are asking on behalf of thousands of Manitobans.

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

Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, indeed, I thought I was responding to the question.

From her seat, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) asked me to give a full expansive answer, and that is what I was doing.

On the prior question--[interjection] If I could finish my point of order--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. All members will be recognized but one at a time, please. The honourable Minister of Justice had been recognized and had not completed his statement.

Mr. Toews: On the prior question, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) had indicated that she did not think I was giving a long enough and expansive enough answer, and so I attempted then to answer the concern that the member for Wolseley had about what she perceived as an answer that was not expansive enough. Now the member for Thompson stands up and says I am being too expansive. Madam Speaker--[interjection] Well, I am prepared to give a full expansive answer.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley now, on the same point of order.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I am not sure if it is the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to correct the information that the Minister of Justice put on the record about what I said from my seat. I do not want to let that stay, because it is wrong. The minister is, as usual, using his time to attack individuals.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley was not speaking on the same point of order, nor does she have a point of order. She was trying to make clarification on the record.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and spoken to by the honourable Minister of Justice, I will take the matter under advisement so that I can very clearly listen to Hansard, read the record and determine whether indeed the minister was or was not giving a specific answer to the question asked.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a new point of order.

Ms. Friesen: On a new point of order, I do want to correct the information that the Minister of Justice wanted to leave on the record. What I said from my seat was that there is a difference between the minister inviting members of the House into his office to speak behind closed doors, a very common practice in this government, and the public record which I was asking him to speak to. He had been asked by our Justice critic to speak to the House on a particular issue. He used his time, as usual, to attack individuals.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wolseley, the honourable member for Wolseley, with the greatest respect, does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. I would ask for the co-operation of all members in not extending unnecessary points of order.

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

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, again to the minister. Would the minister, who does not get it--Manitobans do not feel safe and secure--would he at least explain why he refused our call to investigate why a person who happens to be an accused in the Giles murder, apparently a textbook case of someone who would need denied bail, was released on a weapons offence and in breach of probation, and specifically, though--and this is very important and timely--why the police thought they had to release him, when they say they relied on, and I will quote, guidelines handed down from the provincial Justice department?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): You know, Madam Speaker, this is a member who constantly misrepresents the facts. The Crown attorneys' union have had to stand up and have had to correct him by sending out a press release asking him to quit misrepresenting their position, and again in the House he is doing the same thing. At no time have I ever said that any investigation into any issue related to that matter would not be done by the appropriate authorities.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, this afternoon in front of the Legislature, thousands and thousands of Manitobans put their names on cards to demonstrate to this government that they are against privatization of home care. It was something that was achieved after a massive battle, when the only people in Manitoba who were in favour of privatization were members opposite, and the vast majority of Manitobans were opposed. It took a strike and it took much fighting on behalf of these people to get the government to change at least partially its mind.

My question to the Premier: have you heard the voices of Manitobans, and will you now make it clear that you will not--you do not agree and you will not allow the privatization of any portion of home care in Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, unlike the member opposite, our government does not just simply make knee-jerk reactions as policy decisions, nor does it base all of its decisions on blind ideology as we see from the member opposite. We have said before that, having instituted a pilot project that involved alternate delivery mechanisms for home care throughout the province, we will then have a review of that pilot project and we will evaluate just what strengths, advantages, disadvantages or weaknesses that it offers to us. In that respect, we will come up with an information-based, evidence-based judgment that will guide us in our future policy decisions.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how does the Premier reconcile that statement that he just made in the House, a very clear statement, that privatization can be on, that they are going to evaluate it, with the definitive statement of his own Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), repeated on many occasions, that the experiment, the privatization plan was over? How does he reconcile those contradictory statements?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the Minister of Finance making that statement.

* (1350)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, the Premier is well aware that I was referring to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik).

How does the Premier reconcile his statement in the House today and his previous statements to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and his claim that privatized home care would save $10 million, and his obstinate position on this issue, with the statements of his Minister of Health, that the privatization experiment was over? How does he reconcile those two contradictory statements in this House and outside, Madam Speaker?

Mr. Filmon: They are not contradictory, Madam Speaker. The tender process is part of the evaluation.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, yesterday in this House the minister responsible for Manitoba Telecom Services finally confirmed that, indeed, as required by MTS by-laws, he was present by proxy at last year's annual meeting when the stock option plan which made his brother a potential millionaire was approved, that he had a separate vote to elect four directors and a regular vote on all other issues before the meeting, including approval of a stock option plan. Will he now confirm, in this House, as he did outside the House to members of the press on Tuesday, that his proxy, Mr. Benson, voted with the common shareholders after they had voted in favour of the stock option plan?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I think, first of all, just to be absolutely certain for the member's benefit, as I said in this House yesterday, we have three significant rights as a result of our special share. One is to appoint, to nominate and elect four directors to the board of MTS. One is to effectively vote separately as a special share, a separate class for various issues primarily outlined in Sections 10 and 11 of the legislation. And as I indicated to this House yesterday, the only instance where that applied at the annual meeting in 1997 was for the nomination and election of the four directors. It did not apply for any of the other votes that took place at the annual meeting. And the third significant right we have is we, along with the other 70 million shares, have one vote for what we would call normal operational decision making of MTS. Our nominee at that meeting did not exercise that one vote for any of the normal operational decisions that were made at the annual meeting.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, then is the minister changing his story from what he said on Tuesday in which he suggested to members of the press that in fact his member, his proxy did in fact exercise his vote, and if he did not, why did he not exercise his vote?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, our nominee did exercise the vote on the special share, the separate class, which he was authorized to do when it came to nominating and electing our four directors, which was also outlined very clearly in the proxy.

On the other operational decisions, they virtually more directly affect the people who hold the 70 million common shares, the people who invested their own money in MTS. As a result of that, we felt it is appropriate that those operational decisions are in fact made by those individuals who have become the common shareholders of MTS, and therefore we are not exercising our vote on those kinds of issues.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Will the minister, who has now confirmed that he has changed his story from Tuesday, explain to the House that in fact he withheld his vote on that particular matter, perhaps because he finally recognized the ethical dilemma he is in, and will he now do the right thing and withdraw as minister responsible for Manitoba Telecom Services?

* (1355)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, there is no ethical dilemma whatsoever. My responsibilities as Minister of Finance are to ensure that the conditions outlined in the legislation are met. They are being met. It is to protect the debt back to the taxpayers of Manitoba, the debt that on January 7, 1997, was originally at approximately $430 million. To date, almost $200 million of that debt has been repaid; in fact, it is being repaid at a faster rate than originally anticipated, so that is good news for the taxpayers of Manitoba.

When it comes to the issue of the establishment of the stock option plan back in 1997, I think it is very important to recognize that the people that are directly affected by the establishment are the people who have invested in MTS, the common shareholders, because there are 70 million shares. The common shareholders, by a vote of 93.7 percent of those who voted, ratified the establishment of a stock option plan, and that does allow for the issuance of up to a maximum of 3.5 million more shares. That has a direct impact on the economics of their investment because they are providing for more shares being issued. Therefore, it is the kind of decision that should be decided by those common shareholders. It does not affect our debt. Our debt stands ahead of equity. Our debt is secured. Our debt is being repaid, all because MTS is performing very well today.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. When we had the ordeal of privatization for profit of home care services being dealt with with this particular government, there was in fact overwhelming chaos when you had the clients and the workers that were really at odds in trying to understand what it was that the government was doing, and today it appears as if we are revisiting that issue, and I think that saddens a lot of people.

My question for the Minister of Health is to indicate very clearly to this Chamber whether or not this government would be in favour of the privatization for profit in home care services.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member for Inkster has raised the issue of public information and knowledge because one thing that contributes to concern of the public more than any other issue is when members of this Assembly or members of the media take forward a story and portray it in a manner that is not accurate.

As the Premier has answered in earlier questions, the reason in fact we embarked on this was to evaluate our own service. Part of that evaluation is the result of the tender. I have commented on the result of the tender. We have agreed with the union, which represents those home care workers, to an evaluation process, which is now going to get underway to see what we learn out of that particular process. We have always said as a government that we have to test the way we deliver services. This and any other government should continue to do that. But surely if you look at the results of the tender process, the results that were garnered, one can draw their conclusions from that. The fact of the matter is that we will complete that evaluation process. I understand the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority, because the Olsten contract is coming to an end, is geared up to take over that service.

Mr. Lamoureux: Maybe the Minister of Health can then acknowledge that in order to clear up some of these inaccuracies that are out there, a part of the responsibility for that is the Minister of Health himself. What the Minister of Health has to do is he has got to indicate very clearly as to what direction this government, in particular this minister, wants to take the future of the delivery of home care services for Manitobans.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we had a bout of confusion is because in the whole case of a transition, with the conclusion of the Olsten contract and the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority taking over that service, some 800 clients needing service, was his colleague in the opposition the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) continually wanted to have me say would the contract end, yes or no, on a particular date, knowing full well that if there was a transition, members of the New Democratic Party would say: whoa, the whole contract is continuing again and it is terrible. And that is just untrue, and it led to a great deal of confusion, and it was carried by some of the media inaccurately.

We have committed to a review process. Obviously, the results of the tender that we have discussed from last April point to the economic issues. There are service issues that will be reviewed. The member is asking me to make a definitive policy statement that will carry on forever and a day. We have not even completed the review process yet, and surely to goodness we want to see what we learn from that, but common sense, when one looks at the tendering process, should dictate the course.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what I am asking of the Minister of Health is to make a commitment to a concept of home care service delivery which is based on public delivery, as opposed to private-for-profit delivery.

Is the Minister of Health prepared to make that commitment?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, just for example, in looking for the very definitive answer--if I were to give the member today--we use a number of private providers and--even the New Democrats used when they were in office for a variety of purposes in the home care system, sometimes to fill in relief. The trouble here with this is, given the politics around this particular issue, any statement I made is, I am sure, going to be twisted and used to create an issue that really is not there.

The real test of this process--just to apply some common sense for a moment--was the tendering process that took place last April. We know the results of this process. One thing for certain is this government is very pragmatic. We do the things that need to be done to provide the best care for Manitobans. We do not base our decisions on the ideology of members of the New Democratic Party.

* (1400)

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways.

For years the deteriorating condition of PR 391 has been of great concern to northerners, particularly those dependent upon the stretch from Leaf Rapids, Lynn Lake to Thompson. I would like to table a letter from Mrs. Barbara Bloodworth who, together with the PR 391 committee, has worked hard to improve this road. Yesterday, Mrs. Bloodworth, president of the Leaf Rapids Chamber of Commerce, said in a CBC radio interview, quote: we have worked with the department in setting up priorities and then to have them totally ignored, it just is not acceptable.

I would like to also table that.

My question to the minister is: why was the PR 391 base and AST project on the 21.2- kilometre section west of PR 280 not included among the 1998-1999 capital projects?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Well, Madam Speaker, the member is tabling letters. I would maybe like to inform him to give credit where credit is due--as significant support to what we are doing on 391 from people who travel 391. A letter came in February of '97 from the Local Government District of Lynn Lake congratulating the government on the projects it carries out on 391. Year after year, we do projects on 391, as we do on 373 and Highway 6. As the member full well knows, we have committed and lived up to that commitment of 11 percent of expenditures on the highways of northern Manitoba, because there is 11 percent of the network up there. It includes 391, 280, 373, Highway 6, Highway 39, Highway 60, a lot of length of highway.

Major projects are happening, in the budget we just announced, on Highway 6 and Highway 373, but there is a project on Highway 391 this year that was announced last year for some approximately $3 million, which is going to happen in 1998. So commitments are happening on a continuous basis that come out of the committee of 391.

Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, will the minister acknowledge something that all northerners know, namely, that PR 391 needs far, far more than spot grading and repairs?

Mr. Findlay: Well, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the government has been doing over the last few years project by project, grade and gravel and surfacing of roads on sections of Highway 391, which is a very long road. Everybody understands it takes a long time to do the whole length of the road, and we have committed to it. We are working on it step by step, but not every road gets everything they want every given year anywhere in Manitoba.

Mr. Jennissen: Would the minister be prepared to leave his government car safely at home and drive his personal car from Thompson to Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake and back so that he can ascertain exactly the nature of the road conditions that northerners face on a daily basis?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I am almost embarrassed to have to say this to the member opposite, but he does not read the press clippings from northern papers. I will read from the Northern Star of March 17, 1988, and this is the editorial comment talking about Highway 391, the one that the member is talking about, which he just referred to.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Findlay: The members do not want to hear this quite obviously.

I quote: The road, meaning Highway 391, was good. Not just good, it was excellent. He goes on to say: I would hate to think that the minister might read this because he would find out that the traditional political process of always complaining does not necessarily always happen. The headline in this editorial: Give credit where credit is due, and: to the Department of Highways and Transportation for the good work they have done on Highway 391. I would recommend the member read it.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Findlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would not want to bring misinformation to the House. If I said '88, it is 1998.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation did not have a point of order. It is a clarification of the record.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Culture (Mrs. Vodrey) confirmed that she and the Minister of Industry, Trade and commerce did indeed spend $41,500 on their October ballet trip to London. Today I want to ask the Premier the questions that the Minister of Culture failed to answer yesterday.

I would like to ask the Premier which Tory cabinet members, MLAs and staff, in addition to the Premier and, I understand, Mrs. Filmon, attended the ballet in London? Could we have a list of names? Was there a Tory quorum? Were there more cabinet ministers than esprit de ballets? Would the Premier tell us?

* (1410)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Yes, I certainly will acknowledge with great pleasure that I was able to stop in at London on my way back from a trade mission to Poland and Ukraine, a very successful trade mission, I might say, in which we made a lot of very important contacts for business expansion in Manitoba. I was delighted to be at the opening of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet's performance in London that was attended by Prince Edward, as well as many other people, business people and people who have a lot of interests in Manitoba.

I wanted to just table for the member opposite, because I think her question smacks of envy and all of that sort of thing--I want to tell her that these are important issues that she should not treat so lightly and that she should look at the long-term implications of being represented by a company that is as widely acclaimed as the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, our greatest ambassadors I might say for culture. It is something that really has such positive long-term impacts for the province of Manitoba.

Here is a series of over 30 press clippings from newspapers from all over Europe and particularly the United Kingdom covering the Royal Winnipeg Ballet's performance. This is the kind of thing that results in our having more than $400 million a year of culture industry, having acknowledgement worldwide of the kind of quality of living that we have in this province and the very attractive environment that has been created in this province. She should not look at it so narrowly from her own envy point of view but look at the broader implications of what this does for our province and the way in which it is portrayed worldwide.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): On a point of order, we on this side support the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. We listened very patiently to the Premier's answers, hoping that eventually he would get around to answering the question from the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) which he is supposed to be doing. He is not answering the question at all, and I would ask you to bring him to order and ask him to answer the question. Thank you.

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

Mr. Filmon: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I know that the member opposite is embarrassed because of the lack of support that they have shown for the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and their attempt to gain some cheap political credit for opposing this kind of support for one of the jewels of our performing arts in Manitoba who bring us credit worldwide. I say that we on this side are very proud of the ballet and will continue to promote them throughout the world.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I will take the point of order raised by the honourable member for Burrows under advisement to review the specifics of the question asked by the honourable member for Osborne.

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

Ms. McGifford: I see the Premier is testy today.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Ms. McGifford: And a very simple question. I wonder if the Premier would tell us, please, exactly what this London junket honestly cost the taxpayers. What was the cost of all government members and their staff? What was the cost of this junket?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I know that for each member of government that was there, there were significant business interests being pursued. I personally met with a number of different corporations. I know as well, so did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), and I know that the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey) did as well.

There was a long list of different contacts that were made and opportunities for business development, opportunities that are proving to provide investment and job creation in this province, and that is the kind of investment that is important for governments to make. I might indicate that all good governments in Canada are making those investments in ensuring that our province is promoted and that opportunities for investment are being pursued at every opportunity. I say to the member opposite, she should get her head out of the sand and learn about the real world.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, last year this government, along with the federal government, announced the Canada-Manitoba Flood Proofing Program. The government document indicates that this program is separate from disaster assistance and that the flood program was expanded to include all areas outside the Red River Valley. It goes on to say that the program is available for all Manitobans whose homes, businesses and properties are threatened by flood anywhere in the province.

I would like to ask the minister responsible for the flood-proofing program why applications from other parts of the province that are coming in are being denied assistance under this program.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, we have been accepting all applications from communities that are concerned about flood-proofing opportunities. There is, of course, prioritization of all applications. I believe we have some 17 applications in the Red River Valley alone.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, given that there are other parts of the province where people, other than the Red River Valley, suffer from flooding, and people in other areas such as the Shellmouth area, the Swan River area, Cowan, Ethelbert, Pine River want to take preventative measures to flood proof their homes, will the minister indicate whether these individuals can qualify for assistance under this program?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I was referring to community protection works, and there is of course a second partner to this. I am not sure if the member has entirely interpreted the conditions of the agreement. I would have to reference the agreement specifically for the wording that she referred to, but I would make it very clear, we have been accepting applications, and we are seriously looking at situations, for example, that have contributed to the water levels in the Red River Valley, no matter where the community was located.

But remember that there are other individual situations that may arise that would be somewhat different from what we have envisioned within the flood-proofing program, which we signed last year with the federal government.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.