Labour Disputes
Mediation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.
On August 9 in a response to questions about Manitoba's record of days lost to strike and lockout, which were approaching record numbers in this province, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) said publicly, from time to time a strike is not a bad thing. It allows people to focus, quote, on the issues.
Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that strikes have been going on week after week in this province and lockouts are now in their second week--we are now approaching record numbers of days lost to strike and lockout since 1919--in light of the fact that the Minister of Labour in saying that strikes are not a bad thing and also crossing the line of neutrality yesterday in many of his comments, would the Premier please appoint a neutral Minister of Labour and appoint a mediator so that we can get on with settling our disputes rather than continuing to throw gasoline on the fire?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, decisions with respect to whether or not to go on strike are made by unions through their leadership and their process, and in every case the decision is not one on the part of government that causes the vote to take place or causes people to make that decision. I assume that they do not take those decisions lightly. I assume that they take the advice of those whom they elect to lead them and those whom they elect to provide them with information under which they make their ultimate choices. Those choices are not ones that government makes.
From our perspective, obviously, we would not like to see any strikes, but the fact of the matter is that when there is a conflict that results on the part of a strike vote, the consequences apply to both sides. Those who want to withdraw their services suffer certain consequences, those organizations that are being struck obviously suffer certain consequences and the people who depend upon both of them to serve their needs suffer consequences. Hopefully, those decisions are made in ways in which people look at all sides, but certainly at the end of the day the decision on whether or not people will go on strike is certainly not a decision that a government takes.
Lottery Employees Labour Dispute
Mediation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question again is to the Premier. The decision to appoint a mediator is within the responsibility and authority of the provincial government. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) has taken different positions on different days about why he is not appointing a mediator. We have gone close to a hundred days in the lottery workers strike that is taking place. This is not healthy for our economy. It is not healthy for our communities. It is not healthy for labour-management relations, and it is time that the government took a leadership position, appointed a mediator, and got this issue resolved.
We have heard all kinds of different reasons from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) of why they cannot appoint a mediator--oh, they are too far apart, or they are demonstrating, or the election of an officer in a union--none of which is a reason.
When the Premier spoke about how far apart the doctors were with the government, he mentioned 15 percent and 25 percent, yet he still went and his government appointed a mediator. Will the Premier now do what he did with the doctors in the province in the emergency wards of the urban hospitals and appoint a mediator to solve the problems, rather than finger pointing in this province and in our community?
* (1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, obviously the decision to appoint a mediator is one that will take place as a result of the best advice available. I accept the advice of the Leader of the Opposition as a former leader of the union that is now striking. He obviously has a particular wealth of experience and perspective that he brings to his recommendation.
The fact of the matter is that for the most part, when mediators are appointed, it is at a time when the issues have been narrowed. I was given even just yesterday a list of the issues that still remain on the table. I think there is something like eight, maybe even more. The gap with respect to the wage demands is very substantial, and they really are not at a situation in which we are likely to get any positive result from a mediator.
That is the best advice that we have been given, and under those circumstances we take that as the best advice. I accept that the Leader of the Opposition with his own particular perspective has a different view on this issue, but we are taking what we believe to be the best advice available.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, having been both on the management side and the union side and having even dealt with Sterling Lyon--I always trusted him for his word, which is becoming a real issue with this government, and the honesty and integrity of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and other members opposite.
Let me quote you another example. The president of the Tache Home Nursing family group, the family association committee, said he has been seriously misled by Ministers of Health, Labour and the Minister responsible for Seniors dealing with the Tache nursing home situation.
These are families talking about ministers of the Crown. They all seem to have the Premier's IBM disease in terms of telling the truth and honesty about what is going on. It took again a mediator to get beyond the mistruths of the government ministers to get a settlement on behalf of the people. All we are asking for is the Premier to not take sides with the union or the Lotteries Corporation. We are asking for a mediator to solve this strike, solve this dispute, get beyond the bias of ministers opposite and get on with the settlement in the best interests of our total community.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we heard many times in 1985 and '86 countless Manitobans talk about the value of the word of the Leader of the Opposition who went to different people and told them about his political beliefs and philosophies and his desire to run for different parties and all sorts of things, the kinds of commitments that he made publicly, and Manitobans, of course, have attempted to take the word of the Leader of the Opposition on numerous occasions and they have made their judgment as to whether or not they believed him to be credible in 1988, in 1990, in 1995. We know exactly the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition, as do the vast majority of Manitobans. So let him not attempt to give lectures about credibility and about truthfulness and honesty because he has demonstrated by his actions his lack of credibility and his lack of integrity.
Lottery Employees Labour Dispute
Mediation
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Yesterday we asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) about his comments to lottery workers that he would extend the strike for seven days for every day his house was picketed and that the count was now up to 28 days.
The minister then went in the hallway of the Legislature and told the media that the public--that he would not appoint a mediator as long as the workers paraded near his house. It is my understanding, Madam Speaker, in information that I have just received that that condition has now been met.
I want to ask the Premier, can this Premier explain how the Minister of Labour can use the issue of the MGEU election of officers and the removal of picketers from near his house as conditions for the appointment of a mediator to resolve this Lotteries dispute? How can he justify those two conditions, Madam Speaker?
* (1345)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, in response to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago, I laid out my perception of when a mediator can be effective in resolving a dispute. I indicated at that time that those conditions did not seem to prevail at this point and until those conditions change, I do not believe that the advice that we are receiving would suggest that we ought to be appointing a mediator, and that is exactly the circumstance that prevails.
Minister of Labour
Replacement Request
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Then perhaps the Minister of Labour will do the honourable thing and recognize that he now has a clear conflict of interest, as the Minister of Labour, where he is both acting as the prosecutor of the government's case in these negotiations and the judge of Mediation Services and he is shown to be a deliberately vindictive and biased individual with respect to these negotiations and in his role as both of these people, Madam Speaker, and that he should remove himself from the office of the Minister of Labour and let someone else come into this position that can act in an unbiased and impartial manner.
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, Question Period is a time for questions and not a time for debate--
Madam Speaker: On a point of order?
Mr. Ernst: Yes, Madam Speaker, on a point of order--not a time for debate, such as the member for Transcona has been conducting for the last minute or so.
Madam Speaker, in addition to that, a supplementary question, which is the member's right to have, needs no preamble, and he should be brought to order.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I do believe the--
Madam Speaker: On the same point of order?
Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, I think if the government House leader cared to review the member's question, he was very succinct. He asked the minister whether he would withdraw himself given his obvious bias, given his Clint Eastwood style of labour relations in this province, and I suggest we allow the minister to answer whether he is going to, because of his bias, remove himself as Minister of Labour.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. To ensure that I review all the details, I will take the matter under advisement and report back to the Legislature.
* * *
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I have in fact received a letter from Mr. Olfert indicating that he has removed the pickets from all locations other than outside the Legislative Building and actual work locations. I think that is a very positive move in that it demonstrates to me that there is indeed an intent to arrive at a collective agreement. However, the mere fact that pickets, and not just pickets but unidentified people, have removed themselves from my house or from other locations is not a reason to appoint a mediator. The reason to appoint a mediator is that it will assist in facilitating the end to a strike.
I will review the issues and determine in due course whether a mediator is appropriate, and I will do so on the basis of appropriate legal principles.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona, with a final supplementary question.
Mr. Reid: It is clear then the minister cannot even be trusted to keep his own word.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Transcona that our rules are very clear. There is to be no postamble, no preamble, prior to a supplementary question. Would you please pose your question now?
Mr. Reid: My final question is to the Premier. I challenge the Premier that, based on the Minister of Labour's (Mr. Toews) statements yesterday, if he does not want his government to be known as a biased, vindictive, ruthless bully, he replace the Minister of Labour and immediately appoint a mediator to solve the Lotteries dispute in this province.
If the Premier does not want his government--
* (1350)
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The hypocrisy of New Democrats on this issue knows no bounds. I remind them of the days of the Pawley-Doer administration when the then-Minister of Labour, Al Mackling, in the midst of a dispute between Eaton's and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union publicly cut up his credit cards to demonstrate which side he was on in the strike. That is the kind of hypocrisy you get from New Democrats.
Children's Special Services
Funding
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Family Services and this government profess to support families. In spite of their rhetoric they cut the budget for Children's Special Services this year by $277,000.
Can the Minister of Family Services tell the families of children with special needs how she can justify making cuts to their respite care and at the same time support her government's policy of travel for cabinet ministers' spouses and senior civil servants, or are there two sets of rules, one for family preservation for cabinet and their spouses and senior civil servants or another for families of children with special needs who are confined to their homes?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I do not thank my honourable friend for the tone of his question, but I do thank him for his question because it does allow me again the opportunity to tell Manitobans that in the area of Children's Special Services since we became government the budget has been increased by 113 percent.
Madam Speaker, it is the one area within my department that has received increases year after year because we as a government believe and I believe that the most vulnerable people in our society are those who need to be supported. Every extra dollar that has been available in my budget has gone towards services for those with disabilities. Although the demand is increasing and we are having difficulty meeting those demands, there is more money and there is more service, more families being served.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to table page 60 of the minister's own Estimates book, which shows that the budget on this line was cut by $277,000 this year.
Will the Minister of Family Services assure the Romanchuk family, who have had their respite cut--a condition that was brought to the minister's attention by a letter on October 28--that all of their respite will be restored so that this family is not forced to put their son into the St. Amant Centre at a cost of $56,000 a year? Will she restore their respite funding?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I have met with many families that have children that need services in the break in the session, and I understand the concerns and the issues that they raise.
We, as a result of those meetings and discussions with families, are doing a complete review of services for those with special needs to look at how we can use the dollars that we have in the most effective manner to ensure that the majority of families that need our services will be supported. Madam Speaker, that is happening as we speak, and we hope to be able to deliver the services that we need to deliver in the most appropriate and most comprehensive fashion in the very near future.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask this minister if she will take a request to Treasury Board to restore the funding, not just to the 21 families whose situation has been brought to the minister's attention but to all the families who had their respite care--or does she believe that her government's policy of family preservation only applies to cabinet ministers and spouses and not to families with children with special needs who are suffering as the result of this budget cut? Will she do the right thing and restore it?
* (1355)
Mrs. Mitchelson: I have indicated clearly and I will say again that there is more money for families with special needs children today than there ever has been in the past. We do know that the issues and the demands on the program are increasing in major ways year after year. Madam Speaker, we are going to try to address those issues on an individual basis.
I want to indicate to you that the one area within my department that I am working--and I have talked to many families and have indicated the one area in my department that I believe needs to be preserved and enhanced is the area of support for families with children with special needs. There has not been a reduction, and I will continue to work on behalf of those families that do need our support and that all Manitobans believe need to be supported.
Home Depot
Omand's Creek Protection
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Urban Affairs.
Last night we learned that the newest plan from the hardware chain, Home Depot, involves construction of the new store on the properties between St. Matthews and Empress in my riding. The new plan calls for the property line and part of the building foundation and wall being within the flood protection line and partway down the riverbank. The plan also requires a new roadway to be constructed over Omand's Creek. This roadway would be in addition to the roadway that already exists near the velodrome site.
My question: Given that Omand's Creek is recognized as a provincial waterway, will the minister inform this House which level of government has the authority to approve construction into and over Omand's Creek?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, as to the particulars regarding the zoning and the application of the zoning, the member must be aware that that falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Winnipeg.
The reference in regard to building over or on the riverbank of Omand's Creek, I would have to check as to the ramifications and implications before I could give a more complete answer on that. I will certainly get back to her as I get that information forwarded to me from the City of Winnipeg as to what their exact plans are and what type of implication it does have on that waterway.
Public Hearings
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, will the minister assure this House and the people of Winnipeg that hearings will be available for members of the public, particularly those in our local community, so that we will have the opportunity for input into this proposal?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I believe under the zoning applications, all go to a public hearing within the neighbourhood district there, so I am sure that once signs are posted and the indication of where the meetings are, the public and the member can make representation.
Omand's Creek Protection
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, given that the construction is scheduled to begin in three weeks and there have been no public hearings, what action will this government take to ensure that Omand's Creek is protected?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I can only reinforce and reiterate to the member for St. James that, within the application to the City of Winnipeg and their zoning application, there is a provision for public hearings and that has to be adhered to before things go before decision making. I believe the posting of the signs and I believe the notification in the newspaper outlines where and when the public hearings will be, so it is just a matter of keeping on top of it.
Minister of Labour
Bias
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
In response to one of the questions from the New Democratic Party, the Premier said, in trying to point out hypocrisy on the NDP's behalf, that Al Mackling, the Minister of Labour, ripped up his Eaton's card, giving the perception that Al Mackling was indeed on the management side.
Madam Speaker, I would argue--or, I am sorry, on the union side. [interjection] That is right. Perception. It talks about the importance of perception.
My question to the Premier: Will he not agree that the perception, because of the remarks from the Minister of Labour, is that the Minister of Labour is not on the side of the unions, that in fact, he is quite clearly on the side of the casino and the management on this particular issue?
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I want to just summarize my former answer very slowly so that the member for Inkster gets it.
The perception was, of course, in a conflict between Eaton's and their workers that in cutting up the Eaton's credit card the Minister of Labour was on the side of the union. That was the perception, of course, that was being created. Having said that, Madam Speaker, one could take, I think, from the actions of ministers at any time in almost any situation a perception of bias.
That is not the issue. The issue is that when there are conditions that would allow for the probable success of a mediation process, then those circumstances would result in the minister appointing a mediator. Those circumstances, we do not believe from the advice we are being given, prevail today, so therefore the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) is not making that appointment because he does not believe--we do not believe, given the advice that is available to us--that there is a probability of success that will result from the appointment of a mediator. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Lamoureux: What I am asking the Premier to acknowledge is that there is a perception that the Minister of Labour has taken a side, and by taking that side he is saying that he is not in a position--
Madam Speaker: The honourable member has been recognized for a supplementary question. Would you please pose your question now.
Mr. Lamoureux: Does the Premier agree that the statements by his Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) have created the perception that the minister is taking sides in the casino labour dispute?
Mr. Filmon: The member for Inkster is entitled to whatever perception he wants to adopt in this circumstance. What I am saying is that the Minister of Labour, on the best advice of those who are experts in the field of labour relations will give him and the best advice available to us is that, with about eight different items and a significant gap in terms of wage demands, there is no likelihood of a mediator being successful in the circumstances, so under those conditions he is not appointing a mediator. Should those conditions change, then obviously he will re-evaluate the situation.
Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Premier, at the very least, acknowledge that the manner in which the Minister of Labour has handled this particular dispute is going to have a long-term negative impact on any future negotiations with MGEU regarding any other sort of government services being provided by government?
Mr. Filmon: No, Madam Speaker.
Laurier School
French Governance
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My questions are for the Minister of Education. I have raised before in this House the dispute at Laurier School between the Division Scolaire Franco-Manitobaine and the Turtle River School Division. The minister has taken a hands-off approach. I think her memorable contribution was that she could not make cousins love each other, and although a mediator did meet briefly and separately with some parents, the situation has continued to deteriorate with children being educated in private basements and with the government facing the prospect of a legal challenge from the parents of the DSFM.
My question for the minister is: What long-term plan does she have to ensure that her department is carrying out the government's mandate to provide an equitable French governance education to the families of Laurier?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, just before I provide my answer, if I may, I had risen to table some information that was requested before. I believe the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) is particularly interested. He has something to table as well. This is the information requested by the member for Wolseley on the employment development centres, so I provide three copies.
In response to the question, Madam Speaker, if I may begin that now, this is a very serious issue. The member is absolutely dead wrong when she says we have adopted a hands-off approach, and I think it is not good to treat an issue like this with sarcasm and the implications when I had indicated my concern that this issue had divided families and that, try as I might with mediators and so on, I could not make the people become fond of each other and settle their issues out of a desire to help each other. This is not something we should be playing around with as trite comments. They were not meant as trite comments.
Madam Speaker, we have been dealing extensively on a daily basis since somewhere around mid-August with the situation in Laurier. The deputy minister and I travelled to Laurier, met with the two bodies concerned, both of the factions there, which are both Francophone peoples. This is not English-French; this is French versus French. This is Section 23 parents who want français teaching and Section 23 parents who want French governance having a dispute amongst themselves.
We met there for a half-day with the two parties in an attempt to bring resolution to the issue in August. We since then have had a variety of constitutional lawyers, legal counsel from both divisions and the province working together as a trio with the people, the superintendents and the board members of both divisions, and I am still hoping and optimistic that they can come to an agreement with the measures we are now using to help resolve that situation, but it is not being ignored by any stretch of the imagination.
Ms. Friesen: Une question supplémentaire à la ministre de l'Éducation. Est-ce qu'elle pourrait déposer le coût de sa solution temporaire, les trois classes portatives? Est-ce que la ministre peut nous assurer que les élèves vont avoir accès à la bibliothèque, aux chambres de bains, au gymnase et aux autres facilités nécessaires pour une éducation équitable au Manitoba?
[Translation]
A supplementary question to the Minister of Education: Could she indicate the cost of her temporary solution, the three portable classes? Can the minister assure us that the pupils will have access to the library, washrooms, gymnasium and the other facilities necessary for an equitable education in Manitoba?
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member's question indicates absolutely that not only does she know that I have been meeting regularly with these people, she knows what the lawyers are talking about with each other. In her first question she attempted to make an insinuation that the minister had a hands-off attitude and was doing nothing. She then in her second question reveals that she knows all the details of the things we are talking about out there to try to resolve the situation, putting a misperception on her first question that can only be called deliberate and that is, I believe, not entirely in keeping with the honour with which members should conduct themselves in the House.
I indicate to the member that in response to her question--she probably already knows the answers to it, but I indicate to her that I do not have the costs in front of me right now. I can get them, but I do not know what the ultimate costs will be because I do not know what the ultimate agreement will be between the school boards. I do believe, and the member knows I believe since she knows all the dealings we have had extensively on a regular basis with two divisions, that it is always in the best interests of all parties if those two groups together could come to a consensus, each taking ownership for the decision rather than having a forced imposition put upon them that one or the other will never feel true allegiance towards. For long-term solution, in answer to her concern, I believe that a mutually agreed upon solution is best and I believe that we will achieve it.
Port of Churchill
Shipping
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Since the '93 federal election, during which the Port of Churchill was promised a million tonnes of grain, per year shipments have averaged less than a third of that level. This year is not much better, with likely less than 10 ships, even though the season lasted until the end of November last year.
Now, given this dismal result, I would like to ask the minister to inform the House what progress this government has had in trying to ship other commodities other than grain through the Port of Churchill.
* (1410)
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, there has been a long sequence of activities carried on by this government working with all the stakeholders to try to be sure that the future of Churchill becomes better than the past has been. We are certainly disappointed that the federal government made promises in the last federal election that they have not lived up to. That is disappointing.
With the federal government and with stakeholders, the task force on Churchill took place over two years ago. From that, Gateway North was formed for which both federal and provincial contributions have gone towards making it work. Appointees have been put there with the initiative to try to bring to fruition opportunities for people to do commerce through the Port of Churchill. It is an ongoing process. There has not been the level of success that the federal government promised would happen, but we work together with them to try to achieve some level of success through the private sector.
Rail Line Abandonment
Northern Manitoba
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, there was a meeting over three weeks ago with the president of CN who, at that time, indicated that this government was prepared to sell for scrap virtually all rail lines in northern Manitoba.
I would like to ask the minister whether or not he has told the federal Minister of Transport that the province believes that a system line that includes the bayline, the Sherridon line and the Flin Flon subdivision is in the best interest of farmers and the northern economy. Has the minister also received any response from the federal minister on this issue?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, the member is right. We met with the CEO, Mr. Paul Tellier of CN, and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was with us in the meeting. We stressed very strongly the economic need for a viable rail network in the North. We stressed to him that if CN was not prepared to carry on that network, it was imperative that they offered it to those people or interested parties who saw an economic advantage in running that railroad.
I have been very encouraged by Gateway North Transportation in their effort to put that economic unit together. We also told CN that it would be very important that they sought out other interested parties that might see an economic opportunity to haul ore, pulp, grain or whatever other commodity on either or any of those lines in terms of an economic unit. Madam Speaker, we have strongly stressed that they must pursue an economic unit and find the people who are prepared to operate that.
Arts Industry
Employment Opportunities
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, on Monday when I asked the Premier about the CBC financial cuts and job losses, he told the House that he was in regular communications with certain well-known politicians and CBC officials, but he failed to say exactly or specifically what actions he would take to protect or aid about 150 local CBC employees who will likely lose their jobs in November.
I want to ask the Premier, who over the weekend and certainly on Monday said he was a patron of the arts, what specifically he will do to keep this pool of talented, highly skilled and creative employees working in Manitoba.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as a direct result of the efforts of this administration in ensuring that we supported, for instance, the development of a film, video and music industry in Manitoba through what was initially a federal-provincial program, Cultural Industries Development Organization, that, of course, as was typical, the federal government withdrew all their funding from, this government continued its funding in it and converted it into a provincial organization, the Manitoba film and video--I cannot remember the final name of it--organization.
As a result of continued support throughout the last eight years, we have gone from a situation in this province in which we had about $1 million of film production in 1987 to being on course to reach $50 million of film production in this province this year or next. That is, I think, an example of the kind of industry and economic opportunity that we are developing for those who are in film, video and other production areas, obviously sound-video-film areas that might be of course an opportunity for people who are with the CBC. We are very strong supporters of developing this kind of industry and will continue to show that support and continue to put our efforts behind it rather than just the empty rhetoric that the opposition member puts forward.
Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, two weeks ago it was 275 jobs at the Weston Shops; today it is Richardson Greenshields and also the CBC. Who knows what is next, but my real question is, is there a specific strategy to keep these highly skilled, creative, talented CBC employees in Manitoba and working at real jobs in Manitoba?
Mr. Filmon: I guess the member for Osborne has the question written and so she does not listen to the answer, but I told her of the growth and development of an industry from $1 million a year to $50 million a year and I happen to know because I have taken specific interest in it, that many of the people who are employed in these productions, writing, filming, editing, performance in these films are people who formerly worked with television stations and radio stations, so indeed this is exactly the kind of employment development that they ought to be interested in because it is right in line with their skills and talents.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.