Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) a number of questions about the increased funding to profit personal care homes in the last annual reports of the Department of Health, which of course was the '95-96 year over the '94-95 year. The minister undertook to look at those numbers and report back to the Legislature.

In fact, he did report back to the media and to the public, and he stated that the reason why the increases for private, profit homes went up as opposed to nonprofit homes was in fact that there was, quote, an increase in beds.

Could the Premier please advise this House why his minister would say there was an increase in beds in the personal care home area when in the 1995-96 year over the 1994-95 fiscal year in the annual reports there was indeed no increase in personal care home beds?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, yesterday in responding to the media I certainly speculated on what could be the difference in those numbers, because I was working off of a very limited amount of information that the Leader of the Opposition provided. When I have had the opportunity to check back in greater details, the member may know we have a mix of facilities in this province, but there are a host of factors dealing with each one, and the member's assertions before this House that somehow there is some special deal being cut are absolutely wrong. The factors that fit into the funding for each particular facility deal with variables such as the recognition of increased levels of care, funding of special needs units, wage--

An Honourable Member: Answer the question, Darren.

Mr. Praznik: Well, the member asked me to answer the questions. I am. Because the member does not like the truth or the facts is no particular excuse not to hear the answer.

As I said, in those calculations are things like the effects of inflation, new and expanded facilities, closed facilities and reduction in interest rates. All of those factors work into those calculations, and the member for Concordia should know that.

* (1335)

An Honourable Member: You are wrong again, eh, Doer?

Mr. Doer: Well, Madam Speaker, perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would like to answer the questions about the truthfulness of his Minister of Health.

I want to table the Department of Health briefing notes that would have been available to the Minister of Health, would have been available to the Premier, were available to us, dealing with those annual reports which in fact report and record no increase in personal care home beds, belie the answers of the Minister of Health, and show that the Minister of Health was grasping at straws yesterday but grasping at the wrong straws in terms of the public.

I want to ask the Premier, how can his Minister of Health tell us there was an increase in personal care home beds when the Department of Health's own documents show the opposite? What kind of honesty and truth do we get from this kind of government opposite?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, yesterday in the House the Leader of the Opposition quoted numbers out of an annual report. I indicated to this House that I would go back and check out the factors that go into those numbers, which I have reported back today.

In the hallway, in dealing with the media, I speculated as to what those could be composed of and I indicated to the media, many of whom were there, that I would be checking back and I had to check the dates for which the Leader of the Opposition was quoting. In doing that, the factors are very clear as to what those different rates are, and the only dishonesty we have seen is the member for Concordia trying to stretch something into something it is not.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 492 clearly lists "dishonesty" as being unparliamentary, and coming from a minister who just admitted that he went out of this House and speculated on a very serious matter, that is not only something that should be withdrawn but is absolutely unacceptable. The only person in this House who should be now telling the truth is the Minister of Health.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Although the word "dishonest" appears on both lists, I previously have ruled the words "dishonest" and "dishonesty" unparliamentary on four separate occasions, and I have been advised that the former Speaker also had ruled the words unparliamentary. So I would ask the honourable Minister of Health to withdraw the word "dishonesty."

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Health.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, yesterday I asked the question about the funding in private, profit homes versus the nonprofit homes here in Manitoba. The Minister of Health said he would go back and review his numbers. He went back to his department and reviewed his numbers and went out in the hallway and speculated on why the increases were greater when he stated that the beds had been increased.

Given the fact that the numbers of beds for the '95-96 fiscal year were available in the Department of Health, they were available to members of the opposition, why would the Minister of Health speculate in the hallway, rather than putting out the numbers that were accurate which would contradict what he told the public and what he told the media? Why would he do that?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, we see again how the Leader of the Opposition will take facts and try to link them in such a way that are not representative of the true situation. When I spoke to the media, I had not yet had a report back from my department. The information--[interjection] The member for Concordia was not in my office, nor did he speak to my staff.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Premier, just having refused to answer the questions that I posed to him, used the term "dishonest" again in this Chamber which you have just cautioned all of us to be careful in terms of its use.

Further to that, I have asked on three occasions for the Minister of Health to do the honourable thing and correct the public record on his statement to the media and the public that the bed issue had increased. He knows the facts now. What he should do is the honourable thing, answer my question and state that he was wrong in his statement to the public and apologize to the public for being wrong to them in the hallway with his so-called speculation.

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

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): On the same point of order, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Leader of the Opposition distinctly called the Minister of Health a liar from his seat. Now he thinks that is acceptable, but he sets rules for other people that he is not willing to abide by himself. That is what is unacceptable in this House, the kind of hypocritical, two-faced approach that he takes to this. He thinks he can say anything from his seat, but then he can jump up when he feels that somebody else has said something that is unacceptable. That is what we need, one set of rules that the opposition obeys as well as the government.

Mr. Doer: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I did say that that is a lie, and I withdraw it. I did not call the minister a liar, but I did say that is a lie; I withdraw it.

But I would like the minister to withdraw the facts that he speculated on yesterday, and I would like the Premier to withdraw his comments and do the honourable thing.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. Having heard the member abide by the same set of rules that we all agree we should, I will withdraw the term "dishonest" as well.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister. That then concludes the matter regarding the point of order.

Mr. Praznik: As I indicated yesterday, I would report back. There are a host of factors, as I have said in this House in answer to the questions, that affect the difference of funding of those beds, and it is clear from the numbers that I have before me. One factor, for example, that works into that that the member seems to ignore is that our proprietary homes carry a higher level proportionately of three and four care than our nonproprietary homes. There are a host of factors. Each one will affect each facility differently, which will give the cumulative total.

If the member would like to come to the Estimates debate on this matter, I would be pleased to get into intricate detail with the member for Concordia for each of the facilities involved.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the difficulty here is that we have major problems in the private personal care homes. We have the private personal care homes getting a doubling of the grants since '92-93. We have them giving over $50,000 in 1995 to the Conservative Party, and we see that every single private personal care home in Winnipeg received an increase since 1992-93, whereas the public ones, 15 of them, received a decrease.

My question to the minister or the Premier is, why have the private personal care homes been treated better than the public personal care homes? What is the difference, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): When you try to stretch facts to create the appearance of truths that are not, you always get into, I think, the wrong kind of debate that the public would expect from us.

The member's information is wrong. In fact, I am pleased to share with this House that the cost of care in our proprietary facilities is actually, on a per-bed day basis when all the factors are taken into account, less than the other facilities.

* (1345)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, perhaps then the minister can explain why last year when the province provided $2.6 million in addition to personal care homes--that is '96-97--the private homes got $1.5 million of that and over a hundred public homes only got $1.1 million and the 19 privates got $1.5 million. What is the difference from last year? And can the minister explain that difference?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the personal care home system in our province, both proprietary and nonproprietary, is an evolving system. There are a host of factors that fit into it each and every year, things that I have mentioned, changes in levels of care, funding for special needs units, wage settlements, inflation, new and expanded facilities, facilities that may be closed, and that is going to affect the funding for each facility. The lines in the budget that the member referred to, I believe, are on totals. We will get into the detail, but for '96-97 our funded proprietary homes at Levels 3 and 4 cost us $99 a day compared to $102.30 per day in the nonproprietary. That is less, not more as the member would indicate.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister can try to explain to this House why, in 1992-93 when the Kildonan and River East private nursing homes, both great contributors to the Conservative Party, were opened they received a special increased rate for the per diem to pay off their mortgage of $12 to $14, which is greater than had ever been done in Manitoba, allows them to pay off their mortgage, end up owning the home and have a guaranteed clientele from the government.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, as the member may be aware--I would hope they are; I suspect perhaps not and still ask the question--in the funding for nonproprietary homes we do not calculate in that cost the cost of capital, and that is why in fact arrangements are made for capital. If you look at the straight cost of providing the service, as I pointed out before, in the proprietary homes that the member is referring to, the information that I am provided by our financial people says $99 a day compared to $102.30.

An Honourable Member: Plus $14 a day for capital.

Mr. Praznik: Well, Madam Speaker, yes, but in every case, the other homes, the capital is also covered by the Province of Manitoba.

An Honourable Member: It is not apples and oranges.

Mr. Praznik: Well, Madam Speaker, we can debate this in Estimates.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, school boards across Manitoba are faced yet again with many disheartening and even unconscionable decisions to cut programs and raise taxes, and every one of those tax increases must be laid at the feet of this government. Minus two, minus 2.6, zero, minus two and zero, cut after cut to public education. I would like to ask the Minister of Education why it is that she continues to ignore the advice of her own Educational Advisory Council, which says the value of provincial support as a proportion of actual total Manitoba pool public school operating costs should not be allowed to decline further.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member had a lengthy preamble which I do believe needs to be addressed in the answer because, if she is saying that the amount of money divisions have to raise depends upon the amount flowed to them by their provincial government, may I with respect point out that this year for example, in Winnipeg No. 1, they are having to raise about $3 million on their special levy as an increase from last year, and while they were flowing abundant money to school divisions, "they" being the NDP government in power, sufficient supposedly to meet their needs in '85-86 for one example--and I will give them all if she would like--they had to raise $13 million, an increase on the amount needed to be raised by the special levy of 28.9 percent.

I would table for the House the percentage change in the provincial average special levy. The amount that school divisions had to raise when the NDP were in power, in 1984 they had to have an increase of 10.6 percent; in 1985, 11.6 percent; in 1986, 15.7 percent, then compared to ours of 3 percent and 5 percent, Madam Speaker. I table that for their edification. Maybe they are more cautious when they say all the money that flows is reflective of what the province provides.

* (1350)

Ms. Friesen: To the same minister: Could that same Minister of Education confirm that the bottom line for Manitobans is that when her government came to power in 1988, the provincial grant to public schools was 15.6 of overall expenditures? Today it is 14 percent and it is going down, and what that means is a long-term deficit for Manitoba children.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member knows that the percentage will reflect the expenditures as well. The member knows that between '85 and '95, which is the last year we have the full stats available, the funding for education went up from the government to the school divisions by some 38.6 percent. Inflation, at the same time, was 39 percent, running roughly parallel through that time. School division expenditures, on the other hand, climbed by 54 percent, 15 percent higher than the rate of inflation. School board spending outstripped inflation by 15 percent. So, naturally, the percentage of the money funded by the province will show as a lower amount.

The fact remains we are currently funding education to $115 million more this year than the year we took office, and school divisions have been able to hold as a result--you can see by the paper I tabled--their tax increases and their percentage changes on the special levy down for their taxpayers compared to the massive increases they were compelled to impose upon their public when the NDP say they were flowing enough money to them to meet their needs. They were not, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, has the minister, who is now facing resolutions at conventions, deputations and petitions from very, very concerned parents on a daily basis, something I do not think we saw during the NDP years, has she considered the long-term consequences of her double attack on Manitobans, the cuts to public school funding and the long-term deficit for children and her increases to property taxes leading to serious injustices across the province for those people who are on declining incomes under this government and those people who are on fixed incomes?

Mrs. McIntosh: I do not accept the preamble as I accept very little of the member's preambles in most questions. Sometimes I accept them but not often, and that is usually because they frequently contain incorrect information or insinuations or allegations that do not hit the mark.

Winnipeg No. 1, for example, has an average operating expenditure that is 13.2 percent above the provincial average, so we have those kinds of anomalies for spending. I am not questioning how they are spending their money or why they are spending their money the way they do, I am just stating that as a fact. The member, I think, has to acknowledge that school divisions have been able to contain their tax increases, their special levy changes far more admirably under our governance than they were ever able to when her government was in power. The record is clear, a 28.9 percent difference, increase in the amount having to be raised by special levy the last year they were in full governance. That is a disgraceful record. Ours compares very well by comparison.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, the Urban Affairs minister has announced a $6.3-million increase in unconditional grants to the City of Winnipeg. As I estimate it, this is a 19 percent increase over last year and comes from a program set up by the Schreyer government back in the 1970s whereby--based on 2.2 points of personal income tax and one point of corporate income tax and indicates that income tax revenues are up considerably.

Would the Minister of Finance confirm that his revenue increase for 1996-97 is much higher than he has been willing to admit so far and that the government's draconian cuts to health and education programs are not justified?

* (1355)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I will admit to part of what the member referred to, and that is that our revenues are up. I am sure he has taken the time to read our Third Quarter Report, which was released several weeks ago, which does show that our revenues are up by in excess of $100 million primarily because our economy is performing very well here in Manitoba. We have over 20,000 new jobs; we have amongst the highest growth in retail sales, amongst the highest growth in exports, amongst the highest growth in many aspects of our economy. Our revenues are up.

We are the only province in Canada that shares our personal income tax and our corporate income tax with our municipalities, and that is good news for our municipalities because, as announced today, the City of Winnipeg will receive an adjustment of in excess of $6 million and the rest of the municipalities in Manitoba will receive an adjustment of about $4.4 million. So all municipalities are sharing in the growth in our economy.

Mr. Leonard Evans: More specifically, will the minister confirm that his revenues could be close to $200 million greater than forecast and that the minister really seriously has understated the provincial revenue situation in this province?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, obviously the member has been reading Frances Russell and listening to the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) too much. No, I will not admit that. It certainly would be nice for all Manitobans if what he is suggesting does come through to be ultimately the fact. I think we all take pride in exceeding our budget targets, unlike what happened during the NDP days when the news was always progressively worse each and every time a budget came out.

We were budgeting a surplus of $22 million. The good news is that we are going to have a budget surplus of about $56 million. Even though our revenues are up $118 million, there are some pressure points on expenditures. We are putting $80 million more into health care for the Home Care program, for the Pharmacare program, meeting the needs of Manitobans. That is something we should all be proud of in this House, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Leonard Evans: With my final question, Madam Speaker. In spite of the fact that we had the biggest deficit in the history of this province in 1992-93, the biggest that we have ever realized in one year--at any rate, now that is behind us. Will the minister admit that he can no longer plead lack of funds as a reason to continue cutting health, education and social services, and that it is time to call a halt to undermining the quality of life of the people of this province?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I think what Manitobans will never forget is that the NDP quadrupled the debt in Manitoba, took Manitoba to the highest taxed province in all of Canada, took it so our debt servicing was crowding out our ability to provide quality health care, quality education and services to families. That is why we are proud that we have balanced our budget two years in a row in spite of, at this point in time over the next five years, $1.1 billion less in funding from the federal Liberal government. That is a major accomplishment on behalf of all Manitobans.

* (1400)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Health. This government now has been in office for eight and a half years, and this government still today has been unable to recognize the importance of managing change in health care. In fact, Madam Speaker, when they had the action plan, the great Action Plan for Health Care Reform, it talked about community health clinics and the importance of expanding that role. Recently it has been reported in a few media outlets I had the opportunity to visit in Montreal and while in Montreal--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member for Inkster have a question?

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker. My question to the Minister of Health is: what is this government doing to ensure that the community health clinics are going to be expanded into the future? If you compare what Manitoba has to the province of Quebec, we have nothing to a far superior class of community health clinics. This government has been failing at delivering health care services into the communities. When is the government going to in fact enhance community health clinics?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I think many of the changes that we are working on the health system would be much easier to bring about if we had not had his federal colleagues in Ottawa reduce our transfer payments for health to the degree that they have. Besides that, as the member knows, as we move to the regionalized health delivery system in this province, the opportunities to develop more primary care clinics in a host of forms are certainly there, and we are working towards that goal. I can tell the member from the reports that I have had from many of the regional health authorities that I have met with over the last number of weeks, that is certainly a goal they are incorporating in their planning. I think over the next couple of years we are going to see a very significant expansion in that particular area.

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

Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the Minister of Health is actually fairly specific. What we are looking for is something that is tangible. In the last eight and a half years we have not seen that. The question is, to what degree is this particular minister prepared to commit to the future growth of the community health clinics? That is how we are going to be able to deliver better quality health to all Manitobans. When are we going to see action, not talk, from this government when it comes to health care services in this province?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, as the member may be aware, there has been a great deal of effort in the planning process as we move along. The Assiniboine Clinic that was created by my predecessor, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), is one of the, I think, first pilots of that in terms of a primary care model. We are following that very diligently because the numbers and the information we garner will become the basis on negotiating that model across the province. I can tell the member that we are detecting a considerable interest from people in this field to look at this model and expand it across the province. I suspect it is going to take off with great support.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, will the minister acknowledge and follow what the Quebec health clinics are doing where they are now actually providing home care services through the clinics? The government is on the road of privatization. Will this minister acknowledge that these health clinics should be playing the primary role of delivering home care services to our seniors and others who require it?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I think if you look at the model that is quickly developing across this province with respect to home care, as of April 1 our provincial services will evolve under the regional health authorities. Part of their plan is obviously to incorporate that into the complete structure. [interjection] The member yells privatization. No, not at all. I would suggest as we look down the system that that is not likely to be the general case across the province.

I would also suggest in Winnipeg, as we create the Winnipeg long-term community care board, the same type of evolution in combining those functions is going to take place, and I think it is going to happen in relatively short order as these authorities get up and running and are able to amalgamate and integrate those services.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, on June 17, 1994, the Minister of Health promised a new health facility to Shoal Lake, a promise which was included in a huge pre-election capital announcement in March of 1995 and then cancelled after the election. A recent letter signed by the mayor and reeves of Shoal Lake indicates our present facility is time-expired, and we would appreciate your consideration on this critical matter.

In light of the fact that dozens of people from Shoal Lake have called for the construction of this facility, I would like to ask the Minister of Health, when does his government plan to live up to its promise to build a new health care facility in Shoal Lake?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I know members opposite have followed some recent announcements by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) with respect to an additional $150 million that this government has committed to our capital expenditures. I am sure they will listen with great interest on Friday as he delivers the provincial budget.

One comment I would add to the member for Swan River, I think it is going to be very, very important for communities working with their regional health authorities to be looking at and assessing the true needs that they have in communities as these projects in the future will be considered.

Ms. Wowchuk: Since this government has changed the rules and is now waiting for communities to come up with money for their health care facilities, can the minister tell us whether this is going to have any implication on delaying the construction of this facility at Shoal Lake?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I believe the member for Swan River is referring to some discussion that both my predecessor and I have had in public forums about the possibility of a community contribution policy. I would suggest the member wait until Friday for any comment that might be on that subject in the budget.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since the people at Shoal Lake are desperate for a new facility, I want to ask the minister whether the people of Shoal Lake should maybe start making some political donations to the Conservative Party and help them along to ensure that this facility is built, or is this the way private health care homes are treated?

Mr. Praznik: Those types of comments may seem to add to public debate, but I do not think they do. I mean, I could get up and talk about the $20,000 that CUPE gave the New Democrats. Does that influence their policy or the positions that they take in the House?

The fact of the matter is this government is very much committed to ensuring that the capital infrastructure in our health care system is efficient and adequate, and I would suggest that she wait until Friday for more detail in the budget. She may be somewhat surprised.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My question is to the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro. Will the minister confirm that the massive restructuring program that Manitoba Hydro has undergone in the past year is actually a form of being prepared for deregulation, that the restructuring and the merger with Centra Gas is to prepare Manitoba Hydro for a deregulated environment?

Hon. David Newman (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): All changes that are recommended or take place at Manitoba Hydro are to protect and enhance its interests in the Manitoba community and in the international marketplace where they export sufficient service, that 25 percent of the revenues come from the United States, which is used to keep the prices down for the benefit of all Manitoba consumers.

* (1410)

Ms. Mihychuk: Will the minister agree that the changes to The Manitoba Hydro Act coming forward, that Manitoba Hydro will be able to compete aggressively in the new energy marketplace as described, as quoted by president of Hydro, and that this new energy marketplace is actually deregulation?

Mr. Newman: The challenge that Manitoba Hydro faces is how to maintain and indeed increase its marketing ability in the United States. It is deregulation in the United States on a federal basis that is impacting very significantly on the willingness of the United States to allow us to enter into their marketplace. If we do not make adjustments to make that possible, we are interfering with the ability to keep rates down in the province of Manitoba for the benefit of Manitobans.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My final supplementary to the same minister: Will the minister now confirm that what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said last Friday, that Hydro was safe as long as it is in a totally regulated environment, means that this new deregulated environment coming very shortly will allow the Premier and this government to sell Manitoba Hydro and break their promise?

Hon. David Newman (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): The people of the province of Manitoba, through this government, own Manitoba Hydro. That fact remains unchanged, and there is no contemplation that that will change in any proposed reforms to the legislation sought by Manitoba Hydro in order to enhance their ability to be successful in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would like to, first of all, congratulate him on his ascension to this appointment.

The minister attended a cabinet meeting this morning in which the Elmwood Cemetery situation was to be discussed. The minister has agreed that the problem could have been alleviated by his government over the last nine years and that future such problems could be avoided by changing the regulations to increase the percentage of monies a cemetery owner must collect for perpetual care needs from the current 30 percent to 35 percent figures to a higher amount. Does his cabinet agree with him that this is a viable way of preventing similar problems in the future with other cemeteries?

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member for the opportunity to tell my colleagues this afternoon the fact that we have spent a considerable amount of time, not in cabinet but in my office and with some of my colleagues in the House, discussing the difficulties of the Elmwood Cemetery. This is a matter of paramount importance to us, and I would point out to the honourable member that our government has donated a significant amount of money to assist in the exhumation of bodies to put them in a safe position so that they will not be washed down the river with the anticipated flooding that we will have this year and the giving way of the riverbank.

I would also add to my honourable colleague that I am surprised at his knowledge of our agenda in cabinet this morning, and I would suggest with the greatest of respect that that would not pass a severe test of probity in this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister is this: Is the minister satisfied that the current perpetual care funds have been properly handled over the years by the current owner?

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I am told at the present time that there is approximately $1 million on deposit in the perpetual care fund for the Elmwood Cemetery, which has been donated by the families of the deceased who are interred in the cemetery. By legislation, this fund is monitored by the Court of Queen's Bench, and I believe a biannual report is made to the Court of Queen's Bench to account for the funds that are placed there.

At the present time I feel very secure that these funds are in place, they are properly invested and they are producing the highest level of income which is allowed by law. The difficulty, of course, which I am sure my honourable colleague is aware of, with current interest and rising costs in the cemetery, the owner of the cemetery is not able to meet current maintenance needs for the cemetery, but I can assure my honourable colleague that the funds are intact and that we are confident with the controls that are in place.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On a point of order, the honourable Minister of Education and Training would like to table a document, and I would ask for leave to revert to tabling of documents.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Education have leave to revert to tabling of documents? [agreed]

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to table the Annual Report for the year ending June 30, 1996, for the Public Schools Finance Board. Thank you.