ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Manitoba Telephone System

Privatization--Rate Increase

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

Last Thursday in this Chamber we asked questions to the First Minister dealing with the consumer rates pursuant to the privatization proposal of the government for the Manitoba Telephone System. We asked this Premier a specific question about the province of Alberta and how it compared with the publicly owned telephone system here in Manitoba. The Premier said, and I quote, “it would not matter whether they were publicly or privately owned, . . . . ” and that we did not understand this issue.

I would like to ask the Premier, can he table in the House today any of the reports that he has commissioned, the $300,000 reports that he has commissioned, any substance in any reports that were conducted by the brokerage firms to back up his statements about no difference between Alberta and Manitoba on rates?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the point that has to be made for the Leader of the Opposition is that the direct comparisons are not between Manitoba and Alberta any more than they are between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, both of which have been publicly owned. There are instances in which the minister has pointed out that the same monthly rate for the same size of community in Saskatchewan is $20 and it is $14 in Manitoba.

So you cannot take the specific rates as an example that somebody is getting charged more because they are private or they are public. What is the case is that the CRTC evaluates every proposal for rate increase and it does not matter whether it is a publicly owned utility or a privately owned utility, they apply exactly the same analysis and exactly the same criteria. It depends upon the costs--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Filmon: I will answer more later when they want to stop talking, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Premier says you cannot make comparisons. In fact, in their own budget, just produced in this House within the last five or six weeks, the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) do make comparisons all across the country.

They make comparisons with all provinces for a single person at $20,000 a year, for a family of four at $40,000 a year, and for a family of four at $60,000 a year. Unlike the statement from the Premier last Thursday, the government's budget comparisons on telephone services indicates that Manitobans at $20,000 a year pay $184 per year, a single person, compared to $246 a year in Alberta. In fact, the government does make the comparisons in their own budget, a family of four at $40,000 a year pays again the lowest rates in Canada in Manitoba, and they pay the second-highest rates in Alberta.

Why is this Premier asking us to pay some 34 percent more to go to his ideological privatized proposal of the Manitoba Telephone System?

Mr. Filmon: The point to be made is that in carrying those comparisons through, Newfoundland, which has a privately operated telephone system, would have almost exactly the same rate within $1 of Manitoba, whereas Saskatchewan, which is a publicly owned telephone system, would have a rate that is $18 a month more than Manitoba. So the comparisons have nothing to do with privately or publicly owned utilities.

That is the point that I am trying to make. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would like to consider that because CRTC does not evaluate a proposal based on whether or not it is a privately owned or a publicly owned utility. They use exactly the same economic information, exactly the same financial information and they make their decision based on that information, not on the type of ownership model. That is the point.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, again, for a family of four at $40,000 a year, the Alberta model, which is the model that the Conservative Party of Manitoba is following similar to the Conservative Party of Alberta, a family of four, comparing Manitoba to Alberta, pays 34 percent less in Manitoba with the publicly owned telephone system compared to the privately owned system in Alberta. That is the model you are using. You are using the Alberta model. You are following the Alberta Conservative ideology in terms of their privatization and your communications strategy.

Again, I would ask the Premier: Why should Manitoba go from the lowest rate in Canada to the second highest rate in Canada, which you see in Alberta in terms of the Tory ideology?

* (1345)

Mr. Filmon: He still does not get it. If you look at Newfoundland, it is a privately owned telephone utility, and for that same family of four there is a difference of $4 between the Manitoba rate and the Newfoundland rate. If you look at Saskatchewan, which is a publicly owned utility, he will find that the difference is $40--in fact, it is $50 a month more in Saskatchewan, a publicly owned utility. So it does not matter whether it is publicly or privately owned, CRTC--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, he does not get it. He does not want to get it. This is an ideological-driven argument that he is making. He is blind to the reality of the situation. It is pure blind ideology that motivates the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the bottom line. Of course, the public does not care about his ideology. They just want to get affordable telephones with good service.

Headingley Correctional Institution

Random Urinalysis

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. This is further to my questions yesterday about misleading statements from the minister and her spokesperson on staffing ratios and the barrier at cell-block 1 at Headingley.

Last week the minister also told this House that she could not have announced random urinalysis for drug testing at Headingley until Monday.

My question is, when did the minister become aware of the endemic drug problem at Headingley, and why did she tell Manitobans that she was unable to announce the strategy until Monday, of all days?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I do not believe I said I could not announce it until Monday; however, I did on Monday say that it was this government's intention to introduce regulations which would deal with random drug testing.

In relation to comments from yesterday, I reviewed the tabled piece of information, and he knows very well that I was unable to complete my answer because the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) stood up on a point of order.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, could the minister possibly explain how she could tell this House that she was unable to take action with random drug analysis until Monday, given--and I will table this document--that the federal government passed its drug strategy, its random urinalysis regulations not last Monday but way back in October of 1992?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I will check the number of cases. It is my understanding that there had been some challenge, and now we had some more definitive reason to believe that within these circumstances, we could now do the random urine testing, and that is exactly how we intend to proceed. This government will be passing regulations which will allow us to deal with drug issues within the institution and that will be one way in which we will do it.

Minister of Justice

Resignation Request

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My final question is to the First Minister.

In light of a string of misleading statements from the Minister of Justice, would the Premier--who, by the way, will not be using this law-and-order pamphlet with these prison bars anymore--now remove this Minister of Justice so that Manitobans can get some straight answers?

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

* (1350)

Home Care Program

Privatization--Public Hearings

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, it is clear that the government has not listened to the experts, to their own committees or any of the studies on their decision to privatize home care. Care continues to deteriorate and we continue to spend half a million dollars a day in Manitoba to provide care that the government could provide if they would only back off of privatization.

Tomorrow, an independent group will be holding public hearings for the first time in Manitoba, supported by a nonpartisan independent panel to talk about--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, members laugh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Chomiak: That is part of the problem.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan, to pose his question now, please.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister--who has only listened to his small circle in the government's group of friends and who laughed when we talked about the hearing--tomorrow, promise and commit that he will visit and attend the hearings so he can hear first-hand what Manitobans have to say about the government's privatization plan?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the fact that we are moving to make improvements in the home care service in the province of Manitoba is evidence that we have been listening. We have been listening for a number of years. A number of important improvements have already been made in the Home Care program and there will be further improvements as per the present initiative. All the way back to the NDP-commissioned Price Waterhouse report, we have been told of shortcomings in what is a very good program. It is simply our wish to improve on what is already a very good program that prompts us to want to be responsive to all of the consultations we have undertaken in the last number of years.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister, who has not listened to the Connie Curran report, who has not listened to his Home Care Advisory report, who has not listened to the public or any of the reports that say, do not privatize, will he at least have the courage and an open mind to do something this government has not done, listen to the public of Manitoba on home care?

Mr. McCrae: There is one report I will not follow, Madam Speaker, and that is the NDP report that calls for user fees and cuts in services. We do not think that is necessary. The NDP does; we do not.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Premier.

The Premier is ready to attend anywhere in the world to deal with Manitoban issues, anywhere in the world. Will the Premier at least commit, since his minister will not, that he will attend at the public hearing starting tomorrow and Thursday to listen to what the public of Manitoba has to say, finally, on his privatization plan by an independent panel, an independent group? Will the Premier attend, Madam Speaker, if the Minister of Health will not?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, what we need in this province in home care is the assurance that it will be provided for the people who require the service, when they require it, as they require it, how they require it.

The only way we can assure that is if we have sufficient competition within the system that we can never have those people most vulnerable held hostage to private interests, to special monopoly interests that are represented every day in this House by the members opposite. They do not care about the people who need the service. They care only about their friends whom they gave a monopoly to, whom they want to retain a monopoly for, and we, Madam Speaker, will change that to ensure there is competition, flexibility and assurance of service for the people who need it.

* (1355)

Regional Health Boards

Budget Surpluses

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, hospital boards across the province have worked very hard to live with the cutbacks that this government has imposed and some have been able to build up surpluses to deal with their unfunded costs. However, the government is proposing to claw back those surpluses.

The Manitoba Health Organizations conducted a survey and there is a lot of disgruntlement out there. For example, the people out there are saying that the Manitoba Health process is alienating facilities, boards and administrators across the province. There is no trust or partnership and the previous consultation appears to be deceptive.

Since the rural hospitals that I have contacted have not heard from the Minister of Health about their concerns, can he tell this House how he proposes to address this department's bungling of the process and lack of confidence in the minister that exists across the province in health facilities?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Well, Madam Speaker, that is very strong language to describe an issue that is being discussed between the department, the Manitoba Health Organizations and various facilities across the province.

It is true that a number of boards and administrations did not take too kindly to the suggestion that part of their surpluses ought to be used to finance the development of the regional boards, and we are sensitive to that. We have met with the MHO and we have been meeting to try to resolve that problem to everyone's satisfaction.

The honourable member's harsh condemnation does not seem to reflect the partnership that we have developed through the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council process which has recommended how we should be proceeding with the regionalization process. So the problem the member refers to is being worked on with a view to resolving it.

Ms. Wowchuk: Then can the minister explain why in this document from MHO it is spelled out very clearly that rural facilities are not happy? They do not want their surpluses clawed back, and, in fact, the grab-back of surpluses is money that has already been spent and approved for 1993 funding. The funding has been approved. How can you deny the comments in the MHO document?

Mr. McCrae: I do not deny that the Manitoba Health Organizations representing the various facilities have brought forward this concern, but I do not quite understand the honourable member's math. If you read her question over, it simply does not make any sense. So it makes it really hard to be responsive to a question that does not make any sense, but I will try anyway to be responsive to those people who do have legitimate concerns. We have had concerns raised by facilities in the past. For example, what happens to monies raised in the community? Will it be for our facilities that perhaps Manitoba Health has not funded? Will we be given some comfort around that, that it will not be snatched up by the rural health organizations, the regional health boards?

Of course, we gave them that kind of assurance, and we have said, if necessary, we will put it in the legislation. You want to donate money to your local health facility, well, that is where your money should go. We have given comfort to faith-based organizations that have made such a significant contribution throughout the history of our province about their goals, their missions and their ethics. Those are the kinds of things we will stand by as we proceed with the reforms in health care.

Ms. Wowchuk: If the minister says he is listening--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose her question.

Ms. Wowchuk: If the minister says he is listening, will he listen to the recommendation that says that the regional health authorities should be taken out of the Manitoba Health portion of the surplus, which is 98 percent of the surplus, rather than the 2 percent that the local hospital boards are allowed to keep? Will he listen to the local hospital boards on that recommendation?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I listen a lot, and I think it is frustrating to the honourable member that that is exactly what I do. It is foreign to the way of doing business on the part of the members of the New Democratic Party. Listening is a new concept for them. That is all I have been doing for two and a half years, will continue to do, resolve problems that come up. There is no question but that problems do arise, sometimes disputes, and I try very hard to make sure those things get resolved in an amicable way.

* (1400)

Manitoba Telephone System

Privatization--Questionnaire

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I would like to pick up on the word the Minister of Health said and that is one of “listening.” My question is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister responsible for MTS. What is very clear is that in the last provincial election and since the last provincial election this government's position on the privatization of MTS has been not, that there will be no privatization of MTS. We found out last week in fact that would be the case. They do not have a mandate in order to do this.

The Liberal Party believes that Manitobans should have a say and to that end, my question to the Premier or to the minister responsible is, will he include a questionnaire in the next MTS billing asking whether Manitobans support the sale of MTS? I table a copy of the suggested questionnaire.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that telephone bills are for relaying information to the telephone users as to what their bills are. It is not a political instrument; it is not something that the government should use as a means of determining government policy.

I think the member is clearly aware that some dramatic changes have happened in that industry. There is technology-driving change; there is competition; there are regulatory issues. I think the public of Manitoba has actually spoken fairly clearly in the last number of days. If he reads the headlines, he will see such things as: A good thing, employees see advantages of selling the telephone company--they call it pragmatic-- MTS share issue makes good sense.

The positive comments go on because I think the public of Manitoba see that in balance we have been very respectful of the role of MTS in the economy of Manitoba. We have been very respectful of the employees of that institution in terms of Manitobans' desire to invest in their own telephone company to be sure that it stays in Manitoba and serves the telecom needs of Manitobans today and into the future.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, to the minister responsible: If the minister is so sure of himself, then why will he not allow the users of MTS services to be able to exercise a mandate or exercise a ballot, send it over to the minister responsible and see, in fact, if he does have the users' support of MTS onside on this particular issue?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I have already given the member the answer in the broadest possible way. He, as a representative of the Liberals of Canada, stands up here and says we are doing something wrong in dealing with a public-share offering for the Manitoba Telephone System when his counterparts in Ottawa did the biggest public-share offering in the history of Canada, called CN, which actually has gone--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Findlay: I am sorry the member wants to stick his head in the sand and ignore the realities that are going on today, Madam Speaker. I am very pleased--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with the positive response of Manitobans and MTS employees to this very positive initiative. We have confidence in them, as Manitobans do, and these members opposite obviously have no confidence in MTS. I find that a deplorable position for both opposition parties to take.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister responsible assure this House today that MTS through its billing will not, in essence, send out propaganda to MTS clients through the mail espousing the benefits of the privatization, that that will not occur?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the employees of MTS have spoken very clearly that they feel it is a good initiative. The member opposite has no confidence in them, and I am disappointed in him in that particular respect, but we have given Manitobans a glorious opportunity to invest in themselves. We will do whatever we can to be sure Manitobans know of the pros and cons of making that kind of investment. We will use various means of getting the information out. There will obviously be a process of informing Manitobans as they reach--

An Honourable Member: We call it propagandism.

Mr. Findlay: The member opposite does not like to have the facts given to the public at large. He wants to cover it up and manipulate it. We are in a process which will ultimately bring in legislation. A prospectus will be done, and the details of how the share offering will happen will come through the legislation and the prospectus.

The member opposite--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hugh Goldie

Untendered Contracts

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, last week the Premier could have taken the high road and admitted that his friend and campaign manager had more than one untendered contract, but he did not do that. Instead, he tried to minimize the damage to his credibility with a half-truth.

Will the Premier now explain to the House why he did not tell the whole truth when he had a chance to do so in regard to Mr. Goldie?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, in the course of Question Period, I was sent in a note that anticipated, I guess, the question of the member for Crescentwood. Although from time to time I give the member for Crescentwood credit for being an honourable person, my staff anticipated what his line of questioning would be.

I looked at the three contracts, and I saw that two of them were tendered and I referred to that. The third one, because it was the same value as the one that had previously been talked about that was not tendered, I assumed was the same contract. It turned out to be a different one.

The member has the full information now, and I apologize if in any way he was misled by that.

Mr. Sale: I thank the Premier for the apology.

What then is the complete story in regard to Mr. Goldie and the Exchange Group? How many contracts does Mr. Goldie and the Exchange Group have, tendered or untendered? What is the total number?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the information that has been put out is to the best of my knowledge the information on the contracts that he has. If he would like me to delve further, he was previously employed by KPMG. They, of course, do get work on a regular basis as do almost all of the management consultants within this province who have had work from government--reorganization, financial analyses.

We have certainly had work done by KPMG. We have certainly had work done by Price Waterhouse. We have certainly had work done by Coopers & Lybrand, the Exchange Consulting Group, the whole gambit of all of those who are in management consulting. He can get that information either through the Public Accounts process or he can get that information in Estimates. He can get that information in the process of us publishing as we do, I believe it is quarterly, the untendered contracts. All of that is open to him. There is nothing that is hidden from him, and he can draw whatever conclusions that he wishes to from it.

* (1410)

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the Premier now make a commitment to this House and to Manitobans that there will be no more untendered contracts to friends in high places in the Conservative Party?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, you know, the hypocrisy of that question just begs an answer, and the answer, very specifically, is that every government that is in office, that has been in office, works to try and do the best job they can and they hire people, obviously, on the basis of their qualifications. At least, I assume that.

The member opposite should be the last one. He had a job paying him $60,000 a year by the former New Democratic administration that was done because of, of course, his close political alliance with social activist groups like Choices and so on and so forth. That is the basis upon which he may well have--well, we assume they saw some qualifications. We assume, too, that they saw some qualifications in him when they made that decision, but the fact of the matter is that he is now embarrassed because I have identified his hypocrisy. The fact of the matter is that he was seen to be qualified by that government when they hired him. I would disagree with that, but that was their decision.

Sustainable Development Unit

Executive Director--Conflict of Interest

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger).

Last year alone, the Premier's Sustainable Development Unit spent close to a quarter of a million dollars running around the province promoting a new sustainable development act. Today there is no white paper, no act and the executive director has resigned to work in environmental protection and intergovernmental affairs for a forestry company. It is no wonder this government got a grade of D-minus from the World Wildlife Fund.

Given that this Premier preached about getting tough on conflict of interest, does the minister not see a conflict with an executive director, making an ADM's salary, becoming the head of environmental protection and intergovernmental affairs for a forestry company? Where is the cooling-off period?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am tempted to adjourn the debate on that matter, but, again, the member opposite sitting next to his friend in the back row has exactly the same scruples and exactly the same attitude towards this House.

The fact of the matter is that the question has been fully answered. The individual in question, (a) is not covered by the conflict-of-interest legislation, and, (b) has absolutely done no business with that particular private sector company that would put him in a conflict position even if he were under the act. If the member has a charge to be laid, let him do so on a formal basis instead of resorting to this kind of mud digging. It is not appropriate and it does not enhance his stature in this Legislature.

Executive Director--Resignation

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Can the minister inform the House as to the reasons for Mr. Sopuck's resignation after spending tax dollars to promote the nonexistent sustainable development act?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the information that I have is that the individual in question resigned because he prefers now to get some experience in the private sector, that he has done a yeoman service for government. He is seen right across this province and beyond, right throughout North America, as one of the foremost authorities on sustainable development and he has been lauded by people of much higher stature and competence than the member for Dauphin, I will tell you, for his work.

Status Report

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): It was not the member for Dauphin that got the D-minus either from the WWF.

Can the Premier inform the public or can the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) inform the public as to whether the sustainable development unit that was supposed to increase environmental protection in this province is going to be absorbed into his department or the Department of Environment or dismantled altogether?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, given that there was no concern for sustainable development when the member's party was in government, he should be the last one to ask that kind of question. Clearly that will be a matter we will have to consider as time goes on, and it will be a matter that government will deal with in due course.

Capital Investment

Decline

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Investment spending is critical for the future economic development of this province or indeed any jurisdiction, and yet we now have information from Statistics Canada showing that total capital investment for 1996 is forecast to decline by 8.9 percent, placing Manitoba in the second-worst position in this country, only next to Newfoundland, and bringing us down to a lower level than we had in 1988 when this government first took office.

My question to the Minister of Finance is, can the minister explain why total capital investment is expected to decline in the year of our Lord 1996 to a level lower than 1988?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I know the member for Brandon East consistently rummages through all of the economic indicators to try and find a negative one, and I know it has been a challenge for him over the last year, year and a half because on an overall basis the economic indicators are very positive for Manitoba. In fact, if he wants to look at that same issue that he has just raised, if he looks at 1995, the province that performed the best in all of Canada is right here. It is the province of Manitoba. If you look at the period of time, 1992, if he wants to look over a longer period of time, the period 1992 to 1995, again, the province of Manitoba outperformed the national average. In fact, if you want to look at private sector capital investment, the true test of confidence in our province, for the last four years private sector capital investment has gone up in the province of Manitoba, the only province in Canada that has four consecutive years of private sector investment growth.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Can the minister explain why private investment that he has been boasting about--why is private investment spending to forecast a decline by 7.2 percent in Manitoba this year, again placing Manitoba nine out of 10, with only Newfoundland doing worse? Why is private investment expected to decline if Manitoba is supposed to be such an attractive place to invest?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I just pointed out to the member for Brandon East that in the last four years in a row, private sector investment has grown in Manitoba, the only province in Canada to have four years in a row of private sector investment growth.

He need look no further than the action around his home community of Brandon in terms of the confidence that the private sector is showing in the province of Manitoba, the $233-million investment by Simplot in Brandon, the $75-million investment by McCain in Portage la Prairie. Throughout our province, private sector investors are showing confidence in this province, investing their dollars in this province to create jobs.

In fact, I encourage him to look at the Conference Board of Canada that forecast for 1996, Manitoba will have the second-best growth rate in all of Canada. They also predicted that Manitoba had the second-best growth rate in all of Canada in 1995. In fact, they called Manitoba's economy, steamrolling ahead.

Mr. Leonard Evans: The minister still cannot deny the fact that you only created 12,000 jobs compared to 35,000 jobs under the previous NDP government, and you cannot deny that. It is in the book. You cannot deny it, you cannot.

My last question is--[interjection] Three to one, and you want to deny the fact.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, to quickly pose a very short supplementary question. Time has actually expired.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, I would trust the minister will finally answer a question. Why is manufacturing investment expected to decline by 18.1 percent in 1996, again placing Manitoba in the weakest position of all the provinces except Newfoundland?

Mr. Stefanson: Once again, Madam Speaker, I encourage the member for Brandon East to look at 1995, when Manitoba's manufacturing investment grew by 58 percent here in Manitoba, four times the national growth rate.

Madam Speaker, the member in his preamble referred to job growth under the NDP government from 1982 to 1988. Even during that period when they were spending taxpayers' money with reckless abandon, only twice out of six years did they exceed the national average in job growth here in Manitoba, whereas out of the last six years, during more difficult economic times, governments downsizing, because of the confidence in the private sector we have exceeded the national rate three out of the six times in the last six years.

Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

* (1420)

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I wonder if there would be leave to revert very briefly to tabling of documents.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to revert to tabling of documents? Leave? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: I thank my colleagues, Madam Speaker. I am tabling Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the 1996-97 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Manitoba Health Addictions Foundation of Manitoba. Thank you.