Introduction of Guests

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 morning forty-eight Grade 9 students from General Wolfe School under the direction of Mr. Herold Driedger. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Also we have forty-two Grade 11 students from Churchill High School under the direction of Mr. Ed. Lenzmann. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

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

* (1005)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in 1993 the Provincial Auditor wrote the Minister of Finance, the now Minister of Health, stating that guidelines should be developed to deal with the delineation of political ads that benefit political parties that should be paid for by political parties versus ads for the information of the public.

I would like to ask the present Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Health: where are those guidelines that the Auditor recommended on political ads, in light of the proliferation of public funding going into ads on health care?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, again, I would gladly forward the Leader of the Opposition a copy of the letter from the Provincial Auditor at the time that talked about this matter should be reviewed, and certainly the matter was looked at.

My recollection is that no provinces in Canada have the kinds of guidelines that the member is asking about. The federal government, I believe, at the time did not. I think they have since certainly been reviewing the issue. But ultimately the whole accountability of whether or not a government crosses the line with information they provide, there are opportunities like here today, there are opportunities through the public, through the media, a number of vehicles.

Certainly our government believes in providing information to the public. The public wants information about how their finances are being dealt with, about how their health system is functioning and so on. They want accurate, correct information that is incumbent on governments right across this country--we are seeing governments right across Canada of all political stripes provide information to taxpayers.

Funding—Guidelines

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, we asked the minister the other day about the number of patients in the Grace Hospital hallway. We know there are patients in the hallways at St. Boniface. People in Manitoba want the patients in hospital rooms, not government spending money, their taxpayer dollars, on PR for the Conservative Party. I guess we can file this under page 16 of the Monnin report dealing with the encountering characteristics of certain individuals opposite, because on June 3, 1994, the minister in this House, this House, said to the people on record: we will come forward with a position on the whole issue of appropriate guidelines; we take this issue very seriously. Was he misleading the House in June 1994? It was another fast and loose with the truth with the Tories on coming forward with a position.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Not at all, Madam Speaker. In fact, quite the opposite. I have indicated that we did do a review. We looked at other jurisdictions. We were provided with information, and again, to the best of my knowledge, certainly at that time all other provinces did not have the kinds of guidelines that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. Again I challenge him to go back to the letter from the Provincial Auditor and see exactly what it was that she recommended at the time, because the Auditor was Carol Bellringer at the time. I ask him to compare the information that has been provided recently on health care to Manitobans to what she suggested. I think he will find that the information is certainly of a nature that governments should be providing information on.

I remind him he did not ask me in this House in the last couple of days about beds at Grace Hospital. I do not know what he is thinking about. I want to tell him that is why we are putting in place over 600 more beds, personal care home beds, just to meet the pressure on the acute care system to take the relief and provide the acute care beds that are necessary and will be available for Manitobans.

Guidelines

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I asked the minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on Wednesday about the number of patients in the hallway at Grace Hospital because of the Premier's broken promise on personal care homes. Of course, this minister built casinos and expanded casinos before he built hospitals and personal care homes. I would suggest this minister is responsible for his own words in this Legislature. Is he going to apologize, like the Premier did, for misleading this Legislature or is he going to bring in guidelines to deal with political propaganda ads paid for by the taxpayers that should be paid for by the Conservative Party?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Again, it is interesting listening to this Leader of the Opposition, Madam Speaker. He talks about gaming. Who is the party, who is the government, who introduced the first casinos in Manitoba? The very member right across the way. So, as usual, as he does on so many issues, he tries to play both sides of all issues, flip-flop back and forth. Manitobans see him very clearly for what he is. There is no need to apologize. We are committed to providing more than 600 net personal care home beds. Those are the kinds of solutions that will create the opportunities for people in our acute care facilities along with the kind of money we are spending on our home care program. Those are the solutions to provide the kind of health system we want for all Manitobans.

* (1010)

Guidelines

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 11, during office hours, at a gala anniversary celebrating the first year of operation of the Winnipeg Long Term Care association, there were no line-ups to get in for the 250 invited guests. There was no frozen food provided to the 250 guests. There were fancy hors d'oeuvres and fountains that produced a punch for the individuals to put their cups in and get the punch. To top it off, the minister nodded his head and a cannon shot out confetti and streamers into the assembled multitude.

I would like to ask the minister is that an appropriate expenditure of funding--while people wait in line-ups, while people get frozen food--to have a gala celebration where the minister attends with a cannon that shoots streamers into the assembled multitude. Is that appropriate, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority had their one year of being in place to deal with consolidation of the provision of health care services.

I had a chance to speak to a gathering of several hundred people who are providing quality health care services to Manitobans right across Winnipeg. Certainly I do not know if the member for Kildonan has had a chance to speak to those people, in terms of the kinds of services they are now able to provide as an example, because we have taken a home care budget that back in 1988 was about $45 million, and today that home care budget is about $130 million, tripling the home care budget alone in Manitoba to provide the kinds of services to Manitobans in their home where they want that service and need that service.

Similarly, Madam Speaker, there has been increased funding for personal care homes, increased funding for personal care home beds, more than 600 net personal care home beds being put in place. Those are the kinds of initiatives that have the support of the hundreds of health care workers that attended that forum and that session that day. Those are the important issues for Manitobans.

Mr. Chomiak: I would like to ask the minister if he will answer my question and tell me who paid for the rental of the Italian Canadian Centre for the hundreds of people, for the punch fountain bowl, for the fancy hors d'oeuvres and not frozen food and for the cannon that shot out the streamers and the confetti. Who in Manitoba paid for that, while people wait in hallways, while people have to pay user fees for home care? Who paid for that?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I had the chance to attend for a portion of that day and to speak to 300 to 400 to 500 health care workers from all across Winnipeg who are providing the kinds of services that we all want and need in the health care system. Again, I encourage members opposite to talk to those people about the positive changes they are seeing in terms of the entire health care system.

In terms of the events of the day, obviously those were put on by the WCA, the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority. In terms of the specific elements of what happened for the entire day, I am certainly prepared to get that information for members opposite. In terms of the part of the presentation that I saw, it was a presentation to all of those workers in terms of what is happening in the system. It was also an opportunity for us to talk about the many changes in health care. Certainly those people that were in attendance, I think, should be complimented for the job they are doing in providing outstanding quality health care for all Manitobans.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I am glad the minister confirmed that it was paid for by taxpayer dollars.

I would like to ask the minister if he thinks it is appropriate. Does the minister, given the circumstances in our health care system, given the controversy over providing frozen food to our seniors, given the fact that our seniors today are sitting in Grace Hospital in hallways because you did not build the beds, think it is appropriate to spend $500,000 advertising the Tory propaganda, to put TV ads on, to send out a pamphlet and to spend taxpayer money on hors d'oeuvres, a fountain that provides punch, and a cannon that shoots off streamers. Does he think that is an appropriate expenditure for our government under these circumstances?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I certainly think it is appropriate for governments to provide quality, accurate information on what is happening in their province, whether it is in health care, whether it is in the area of how their money is being spent, whether it is in the area of education or whatever, and I believe that is something Manitobans want.

When I was out during the budget consultation process and other forums that we have been in, Manitobans want information on their health care system. It is incumbent on governments to provide that kind of information. It is also incumbent to bring together the people who are working in the health care system to talk about the changes, to get their ideas for improvement and so on. Those are constructive things.

I know the NDP do not like to get out and listen to people. They do not like to see the fact that there are health care forums being held here in Manitoba. Those are all very important things to do. They pull together people who are either using the system, working in the system, have anything to do with the system to hear what their ideas are, to continue to build and improve a quality health care system here in Manitoba, Madam Speaker.

* (1015)

Taxation

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I know this government likes to brag about tax freezes, Madam Speaker, but the reality is that in the province of Manitoba the burden of property taxes has escalated enormously since 1988 and, as all should agree in this House, property taxes are the most regressive form of taxes that we have. Indeed, school tax increases since 1988 are equivalent to about an 8-point increase in provincial income taxes, all due to restraints and cuts in education by this government.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance why in the pre-budget consultations Manitobans were not given the option of reduced property taxes when they were asked what kind of tax decreases they would like to see.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased the member for Brandon East recognizes the public consultations that took place right across Manitoba and gave Manitobans an opportunity to give ideas and advice to the government. Certainly they came through and said that they believed in reduced taxation; they believed in a balanced budget; they believed in a stabilization fund; and that they believed in our priorities for health care, family services and education. Individuals who attended those meetings had the opportunity to express themselves on any topic they wished that would bring advice to government and help with the upcoming budget.

Mr. L. Evans: Very specifically, Madam Speaker, will this minister acknowledge that the $75 cut in property tax credit by this government in the 1993 budget alone added another $53 million into the property tax burden, which I understand is equivalent to an increase of 2.4 points in income taxes, and when you add it to the school division increases, it is equivalent to about a 10.1-point increase?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, I think we certainly have a defining issue here on taxation that our government has frozen major taxes for 11 budgets. We have brought taxes down, and I think that our commitment in the throne speech is to further reduce taxes, a very defining issue. I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) wanted to talk about taxes yesterday. The only taxes that we ever identify with the NDP governments is to hike taxes. I am sure that is what they would do if they ever form government again.

Mr. L. Evans: Well, Madam Speaker, I would like to know what this minister or perhaps what the Minister of Education has to say to constituents in Brandon, where property taxes for education added 14 percent to the burden of taxpayers in that city this year and 9 percent last year. What have you got to say to them? That is real tax increases.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): The honourable member for Brandon East should be very careful if he wants to raise questions related to taxation in Manitoba. While the taxpayer at the local level and the provincial level, we are always mindful of their needs, the honourable member should be reminded that during the past 11 years on average the special levy for education has increased something over 8 percent on an annual basis. During the NDP years, when the member for Brandon East and the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) were in the cabinet of the government of Manitoba, increases averaged 14 percent per year for that special levy, in addition to all of the other taxes that that party imposed on Manitobans.

We ought not to be taking too many lessons from the honourable member for Brandon East when it comes to the pain involved in paying taxes in Manitoba. No one is more mindful of that pain than members on this side of the House; no one is more careless about that than honourable members opposite.

Employment Termination

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we now know from the Monnin inquiry that one Jules Benson was involved in preparing the Tory election budget in 1995 and negotiating with advertisers and preparing over a hundred cheques during the campaign, a campaign that was co-chaired by the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) and the future ethics co-chair of the Conservative Party, the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), but the Premier and these co-chairs apparently saw nothing wrong with what was a clear violation of Mr. Benson’s position as the chief civil servant of the province.

I would just like to ask the Premier why he allowed Mr. Benson to remain in his position for a full three and a half years after he had clearly violated his oath as a civil servant.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as the member knows, that information did not come to the attention of anyone in this room until the Monnin inquiry.

* (1020)

Mr. Ashton: Well, Madam Speaker, if the two co-chairs and the Premier did not know that, will the Premier then explain, when he became aware of Mr. Benson’s involvement in the vote-splitting scandal July 30, 1998, something he confirmed under oath, why it was not until October—I think he initially referred to him as a liar and told him not to attend meetings—but then in December when Mr. Benson left his position, the Premier claimed that he had retired when it turns out that Mr. Leitch had asked him to leave?

Why was he so concerned about his political friend Mr. Benson that even when he was removed for violating ethics and morality in this province, he still tried to defend Mr. Benson?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, rather than try and manipulate the information of the report, I suggest that the member do what he ought to do, which is to use the resources of the Monnin inquiry and the conclusions of the Monnin inquiry, and he will know, if he does, that information came out step by step by step, and each step led to different decisions that were made ultimately and, again, I believe that the information that he puts forward is contradicted by the news reports that covered the issue. Mr. Benson was reported on one day to have said that he was forced to resign. On the next day he said that was not true, that he had indeed retired.

I have the letter from Mr. Benson in which he did indeed present his retirement to the government.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, will the First Minister explain how Mr. Benson, who was cited for improper behaviour in the Monnin inquiry, behaviour that the First Minister confirmed in the transcript of the Monnin inquiry, page 3254, that he was aware of as of July 30, will he explain why even today the Premier is now saying that this person who lied, who was involved in unethical behaviour, why he still insists that he is somehow retired, when in fact Mr. Benson, if he was not fired, should have been fired a long time ago by this Premier?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, appropriate decisions and actions were taken in accordance with information that was available, and it is all well and good with the benefit of immense hindsight to be able to say all these things should have been known or should have been done. But the fact of the matter is we could only act based on the information that was available to us at the time.

Agricultural Community

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, my question is for the First Minister.

Any throne speech is meant to communicate the government's vision for all Manitobans. Liberals understand why the Tory vision on health care and on education is unclear. Its poor performance over the past four years shows that it has no clear vision, but we are surprised that the throne speech fails to completely make any reference to Manitoba's agriculture community. Our primary producers and farming community also need to be included, particularly with all the economic adjustments and threats facing them.

Why has the government failed to include the mention of the agriculture community in its vision and throne speech?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, our government has worked diligently with our agriculture and rural community for 11 years that we have been in office. We have diversified to a greater extent the agriculture community than ever before in our history. I was just telling a group of people last evening about the tremendous diversification in our province where the value last year of the production of both canola and pork exceeded wheat, where we are now the largest edible bean producer in all of Canada, the second largest potato producer. We ship over 700 million pounds of French fries out of this province. We have canola crushing. We have all sorts of value-added diversified farming to the extent that this province is not being impacted nearly as much as it was under previous downturns in commodity prices because of the work that has been done. We put forward back in 1993 a vision for rural development in this province that included two goals; one was value adding and the other diversification, and we have made tremendous strides on both.

The throne speech talks about the fact that we are now going to take that rural development strategy, and we are going to modernize and upgrade it through consultation with the farm and rural community of this province. That is the most important thing in that throne speech for rural Manitoba, that extension, and putting into the new millennium the new and extended version of the rural development initiative for this province, and I am very proud of that.

* (1025)

Centra Gas Purchase

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, why did the throne speech not mention the purchase of Centra Gas which could have a significant impact on the agriculture community but will mean additional debt of several hundred million on the citizens of this province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, that particular issue has already, of course, taken place, the purchase of Centra Gas by Manitoba Hydro. We believe that it will indeed have long-term huge benefits for the people of Manitoba in an economic development sense, as well as in an opportunity to make Manitoba Hydro even stronger than it is today and better able to meet the needs of the future.

So we believe that that is well known, and we have certainly talked about that publicly. I am glad to have the support of the member for The Maples in that matter.

Mr. Kowalski: What part does the purchase of Centra Gas play in any Tory plan to further the interest of our agriculture community?

Mr. Filmon: Well, I believe that there is a better opportunity in future for Manitoba Hydro to be able to offer a diversity of products to the farm community which may include, of course, electricity and it may, obviously, include gas as an alternative. There may be a whole host of ways in which they can give better options to their customers, whether it be on the rural farms or throughout the province. It will be of course much more economic in many ways for them to offer both alternatives. I believe that every customer, but particularly rural Manitobans, will be beneficiaries of this more efficient combined approach that can be offered now by a merged utility.

Jules Benson

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I want to ask a follow-up question to the Premier, because we are starting to see just how hollow the Premier's words were recently, that he did everything in his power to take responsibility for his top aides. We are now seeing that certainly from July until December Mr. Benson was allowed to continue in his position collecting further pension credits on his gold-plated pension plan. We now have confirmed from the Premier that this same individual, who the Premier knew by then had been involved in what was later described as improper behaviour by Mr. Monnin, behaviour that should have resulted in his being fired, but this Premier let him resign I assume in order for him to be able to continue to collect his severance pay.

I would like to ask the Premier why he did not do the appropriate thing and fire Mr. Benson, why he was more concerned about protecting his friend than doing the right thing for the people of Manitoba.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I would like to make a number of comments in response to that, Madam Speaker. Number 1 is that neither I nor the Monnin inquiry knew in July the information that ultimately formed the--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, secondarily, there is no gold-plated pension. Mr. Benson will receive no further benefits from the people of Manitoba in terms of any pension benefits. Finally, the third part of the question was as to a severance, and there was no special severance given to Mr. Benson. I believe that he was entitled to receive his accumulated holiday time, and in accordance with civil service practice he received 15 weeks severance or retirement allowance for the number of years that he put in—15 weeks.

* (1030)

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to get again to the question of the fact that the Premier knew in July. I would like to ask the Premier how his statements today reconcile with the fact that under oath we now have it established that Mr. Benson had indicated at the end of July that he was involved somehow in getting the money into the Tory campaign account, the answer to which was yes, proven at the inquiry, and that we know that he had been involved and he had done so at the request of Mr. Sokolyk and that the Premier certainly was aware of this when the transcripts were available in October at the initial inquiry.

Why is it he allowed Mr. Benson to remain in place and why he still refuses to say what he should say, that Mr. Benson's behaviour was unethical, improper, and in fact he should have been fired in July?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, as I indicated before the inquiry, back in July there was some question as to whether or not the account to which the deposit was being made was identified. It was not until later that it was identified what that account was.

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

Mr. Ashton: Once again, Madam Speaker, will the Premier confirm that the gold-plated pension plan I referred to was the 12 percent RSP contribution. By the way, MLAs have 7 percent. Will he also indicate that by allowing him to resign rather than the appropriate thing, to be fired, that he not only protected Mr. Benson for at least six months, including the allowance that was in there in that sense, but what he did is he allowed Mr. Benson to walk away from his position in government, one of the highest paid positions, without having what should have been on his record the fact that he was fired for improper and unethical behaviour.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the difference between the pension contribution that the member opposite refers to and those of members of this Legislature or other people who have an ongoing pension obligation is, once they retire, they get a pension forever from the government. We see it in the Public Accounts year after year of the amount of money paid out. In his case, no further money will be paid out to him, and that is the difference.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, in June of 1997 the government rushed through passage of Bill 60, which grandfathered 17 life-lease condominiums to receive an exemption on their property tax or their school tax portion. This bill was intended to stop luxury condominiums in the future from qualifying for an unfair exemption on their property taxes. I have been informed that since then at least six condominiums have received a licence under the passage of Bill 60, and three of these are in the riding of the minister responsible, the Minister of Housing.

I want to table this list. I want to ask the Minister of Housing: has your department given out licences for these life-lease condominiums as described in the list I am tabling?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): It appears that the member for Radisson has asked me to comment on a list that I have not seen, so I am not too sure. If the member would like to rephrase the question, so that I can answer, then I will look at this list and ask her to rephrase her question so that I can answer it.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to give the minister a chance to read the list. Three on the top are in his riding. Has your department issued a life-lease licence to these condominiums under The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Act which exempt them from paying their property school taxes?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, The Elderly and Infirm or EIPH Act that the member is referring to is an act that is used when nonprofit associations appeal for the school tax exemption.

They have to meet certain criteria. The criteria have to be met before the licence is issued. It would not matter where the licence is issued. If the member would like me to find out how many in her riding have got licences, I can certainly provide that to her. I can also provide the list for the members that are—whether it is in Concordia or any of the other areas. These life-lease associations and the exemptions are throughout all of Manitoba.

The intent of the legislation though was to plug a loophole in regard to the applications that some of the units were using. They have been renewed, and some of them—they all have been renewed on a three-year program. They will be reviewed during this three-year-program for the eligibility and the criteria that they have to meet. If they do not meet the criteria, their licences will not be renewed.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, this is a very serious question. I want to table for the minister copies of advertisements for Villa Beliveau in his riding for luxury condominiums for seasoned citizens, where the square footage for a two-bedroom is 1,335 square feet.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is there a question here?

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I am also tabling the criteria for the licence where the maximum square footage for a two-bedroom is 840 square feet, so obviously these condominiums should not qualify. Did the minister's department issue a licence to Villa Beliveau in his riding?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, the member has to realize that when the regulations were brought in on November 15, 1997, there were projects that had qualified under the previous criteria. We were not in a position to cancel that licence because of the timing and the completion of these buildings because a lot of these buildings take over a year to complete. This is why the licences that have been issued to these units are on a three-year time frame. They will be reviewed. If the criteria are not met for the eligibility, the licence will not be renewed.

Ms. Cerilli: I will keep it very simple for the minister. Did your department issue a licence to Villa Beliveau since 1997?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I have said that this unit did get a licence. It was licensed under the criteria at that time. It is a three-year licence. It is reviewed at that time because of the fact that when the application was made, it was made under the rules that were at that time. We tightened up the rules during that process, but the building was being built. The building was completed under the old rules. We grandfathered for a three-year period. It will be reviewed. If it does not meet the criteria, the licence will not be renewed. It is as simple as that.

* (1040)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday when I asked him why almost two years after the Lavoie commission of inquiry had recommended that bail for domestic violence cases be moved into the Family Violence Court, and the minister has failed to ensure that, the minister said the following, and I will quote: "We are committed to taking every reasonable step to ensure, within the limits of the law, that women in this province are protected in whatever case . . ."

My question to the minister is: If this were true, why has The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendments Act not yet been proclaimed, not yet put in force by this government, legislation that the government said would meaningfully add protection to the victims and survivors of domestic violence, almost one year after the law was passed?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I will certainly ensure that the member has a full understanding of the status of that particular situation, and I will get back to him. I take that as notice.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with one very short question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, would the minister admit that--he has not been sitting in here the last nine months, Madam Speaker, and he has had plenty of time to move this bill--almost one year after the bill has been passed, almost two years after this legislation was recommended, would he admit that the government is simply waiting for election season to make a press conference on this matter?

It is putting its own political interest ahead of the safety and well-being of Manitoba women and children.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I can indicate that this government has been a leader in Canada in terms of stalking laws. It was this government and the former Attorney General who lobbied the federal government for stronger stalking laws so that women in this country would not be harassed. We were successful in convincing the federal government to change the law to protect them in hundreds of situations where previously they had not been protected. This government takes no back seat on that issue. This government has been a forward-thinking, progressive government committed to the safety of all Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Madam Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the loge to my left where we have with us this morning Mr. Herold Driedger, the former member for Niakwa.