Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, yesterday I was amused while the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) quoted from his top 10 list. Today, I would like to invite members opposite to participate in what could be called Jeopardy, NDP style.
The first one: The NDP, without referendum, increased this tax 2.25 percent. Answer: What is the payroll tax? The NDP, without referendum, lost $40 million of taxpayers' money on this aircraft company, leaving taxpayers with old, used uniforms and matches. Answer: What is Saunders Aircraft? The NDP, without referendum, lost $27 million of taxpayers' money on the sands of Saudi Arabia through a venture called this. Answer: What is MTX? The NDP, without referendum, spent $30 million of taxpayers' money so tourists could sit in their lawn chairs to watch the ice go out of the Red River on this bridge north of Selkirk. Answer: What is the bridge to nowhere?
Madam Speaker, I sit here in complete bewilderment as to why the NDP party did not involve the people of Manitoba in these financial decisions. Given their unbridled enthusiasm for referendums, one must ask, where was this enthusiasm when they increased taxes 22 times in five years while in government? One can only wonder. Perhaps they should speak to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) who very reasonably agreed with a statement made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that declared, we are in office with a mandate to exercise our judgment and to make decisions on a whole range of issues under new and changing circumstances. This is clearly what the situation with MTS is.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Despite the huffing and the puffing of the members across inside the Legislature, they do not have the courage to go out and say these kinds of things to Manitobans. This government has no mandate to sell off the Manitoba Telephone System. They told the people of Manitoba in the election of '95 they would not do it and here we are; they are doing it now against the people's wishes. It does not seem to matter to this government that 78 percent of my constituents and theirs do not want you to sell MTS. It does not seem to matter to this government that 67 percent of the people of Manitoba say, do not sell MTS. It does not seem to matter to this government that 182 out of 185 presenters opposed what they are doing.
A couple of weeks ago, Madam Speaker, I challenged the members across the way to join me in Grandview to debate the MTS sale. Not a single member across the way had courage enough to leave this building and join me there. I want to find out how confident this government is in their word. I put out another challenge to each and every one of you across the way. If we can show you that you broke your word in the 1995 election, will you put MTS privatization on hold? Will you have the guts to do that? I do not think so. You will not keep your word and you will not take me up on this challenge again because you do not have the courage to do it. You will not face Manitobans. Thank you.
Mr. David Newman (Riel): Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend a community group which has taken up the initiative to help make our streets safer. Manitobans deserve to be safe in their communities and in their neighbourhoods. As you know, Manitoba brought in the toughest drinking and driving laws in Canada, laws which have been emulated in other jurisdictions and laws which we intend to make even stronger. Our laws can only do so much.
* (1430)
We need the support of the community to make our streets safe and that is why Operation Red Nose is so important. Using volunteers, Operation Red Nose is going into its second year to help Manitobans reach their destinations without posing a danger to others or to themselves. Instead, driving a vehicle when they should not, the individuals will be able to make a phone call to Operation Red Nose and be provided a ride home for themselves and their passengers.
This sort of community partnership which helps make Manitoba a safer place needs further support from all of us. We all need to work together for the common goal of ensuring a safe place for ourselves and our families. In addition to helping make a road safer, donations to Operation Red Nose go towards the Manta swim club. Our government appreciates the volunteers at Operation Red Nose and the Manta swim club for taking this initiative. I am sure, for the many Manitobans who took advantage of the program last year, they will--all the provinces benefit. I encourage Manitobans this year when appropriate to utilize this service and donate generously when they do so.
Madam Speaker, very briefly, moving to another subject, MTS, which we can call operation red face by the members of the opposition in the way they have conducted themselves, I wish to record my disappointment at the tactics of the official opposition with respect to the sale. I had expected them to conduct themselves in a more respectable fashion. The end justifies the means has no part in a democracy. Thank you very much.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I have to say that it is a sign of a desperate government when the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) has to stand back and bring up issues that go back 30 years ago of things that the NDP did. It is a desperate government that is trying to cover up their tracks. What the member for Turtle Mountain should be talking about is the money his government lost and wasted--$4 million on Connie Curran; $50 million that they have lost on the Winnipeg Jets; $100 million that they gave to the Royal Bank only last year.
The member for Turtle Mountain should raise some of those issues. CFI? Why will he not raise this CFI and the money that they lost on that? What the member for Turtle Mountain should really be telling the people in this House and the residents of Manitoba is that he was one of the rural candidates who told the people in his constituency that his government, the Filmon team, would not be selling MTS. He was one of those candidates, so let him not try to come off so squeaky clean. This government misled Manitobans during the election, but we should not be surprised. They misled them on many other issues. They told us that they were going to save the Jets. Where are the Jets today? This government and the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) is just trying to raise issues because he is ashamed of what he is hearing from rural Manitobans. He does not want to accept the fact that 68 percent of the people across this province do not agree with this government on selling MTS. Seventy-eight percent of rural Manitobans oppose. You should be ashamed as a rural member that you are saying you support the sale of MTS when Manitobans are telling you that they do not want it. Stand up on your feet and go out to rural Manitoba, hear what the people have to say and give people an opportunity to have a say. Hold a referundum on this issue; do not be afraid to go out to the people of rural Manitoba.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): It was interesting listening to the member for Swan River, the member for Turtle Mountain. I anticipate on Monday, it will be David Letterman's top 10, and who knows what the New Democrats will come up with? But we wait with bated breath. It shows that there are a lot of games that are played inside the Chamber, no doubt about that. We, no doubt after the Members' Statements, are going to be seeing the government House leader request some form of leave so that debate can continue on inside this Chamber with respect to MTS and the sale thereof. We do not necessarily oppose allowing for that debate to occur, but, having said that, we do not support the government House leader adjourning this Chamber.
There are substantial other bills, private members' bills, resolutions and so forth that can in fact be debated. In particular, I will give a little bit of a plug for Bill 200, a bill which the Liberal Party has on several occasions brought, in different forms, into this Chamber, which has really never been debated in this Chamber, and it is most unfortunate. Here we have a golden opportunity to be able to have a good debate on that particular piece of legislation. That is one of the reasons why we do not believe that it is a responsible way of dealing with taxpayers' dollars when we adjourn the House as we have done in the last couple of days. We want to be able to allow ongoing debate inside this Chamber.
We are also very concerned about the potential of the government bringing in a closure motion. We have dealt with different forms of closure from the New Democrats in the past. We are very concerned that this government does have intentions of bringing in a closure motion, and we would suggest to the government that they start wheeling and dealing with the New Democrats and try to come up with some sort of a compromise that would not see closure brought into this Chamber.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.