Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting Acting Premier. In 1991 Dorothy Pedlar recommended that a victims' impact statement program be initiated in the province of Manitoba. I would like to ask the Acting Premier: why have we waited some six years for the government to deal with this issue, and why have we not been provided victims' impact statements as required in many other provinces in Canada?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take the details of any answer on notice on behalf of the minister, but let us be reminded of some of the discussion that we heard yesterday where, in fact, we heard that victims were not being listened to, and in fact they had been involved in the discussions around the sentencing and the trial that was under discussion at that time. So I think the opposition Leader should take some comfort in the fact that we have been aggressively working in a number of these areas, and the results will soon be evident.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice's own victims' report indicates that Manitoba is one of the only provinces in Canada--and this is 1996--that does not have a Victims' Impact Program, as allowed for by the federal government in 1991. It goes on to say that we should have Victims' Impact Programs here in the province of Manitoba, which was recommended five years earlier by Pedlar. It was promised by the government in the election in '95. It was reinitiated by the Department of Justice itself.

Why is this province one of the only ones in Canada that does not have a formal Victims' Impact Program--here in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Cummings: Well, Madam Speaker, again, I will take the details of response as notice on behalf of the minister. But I think the member should look at the fact that we have explored this area through a number of avenues in order to get the best information brought in front of the government. He references the Pedlar Commission. That was an active response to the issues that were brought forward, and the minister has--

An Honourable Member: Inactive response.

* (1345)

Mr. Cummings: Well, the members want to make comment about whether or not that was a response to a need. They know full well that that was what the Pedlar Commission was intended to do, was to respond to and raise appropriate issues.

The minister has indicated in this House, I believe, but certainly in other forums, that he and his predecessors have taken a great deal of information and put to work a lot of the good advice that came from that report.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is close to six years after this government has received a recommendation from its own commission, six years after the government said it would institute the recommendations of Pedlar. All we see from this government opposite is condemnations of the federal government and inaction on their own benches.

Kerr Twaddle, a person known to members opposite, in his response to the Judicial Council of Canada states in his defence for reducing the sentence in the Bauder case--a tragic case, in our view, in terms of a 12-year-old child who was raped in the province of Manitoba--Kerr Twaddle cites that the province of Manitoba has no Victims' Impact Program, and therefore there was no victim impact statement before the courts.

I would like to ask this Acting Premier: why has this government been so negligent on the issue of Victims' Impact Programs and statements here in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Cummings: Well, Madam Speaker, I think the response of this government was well enunciated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) in the issue that he referred to, and I do not think that, if he wants to sit here and second-guess some of the actions of the courts--this is not the only means by which we can respond.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the acting Acting Premier or to the acting Minister of Justice, Madam Speaker. Actually, they are all acting all the time, I think.

My question is: In this province, the organization established by law since 1987 to bring together victims, prosecutors, police, defence lawyers, judges to co-ordinate and fund victims' services and to evaluate victims' programs--a job that is done well--and advocate for victims and make recommendations to the minister is the Victims' Assistance Committee and, indeed, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) promised in the election that increased victims' funding would be put to work by this Victims' Assistance Committee.

My question to the minister is this. How can this committee in any way help or put money to work for victims? Because the annual reports tabled--and I suspect very reluctantly so, because they were tabled on Monday, reports going back to 1994--state under the heading "meetings" the following: The chairperson of the Victims' Assistance Committee did not call a meeting during the fiscal year. Madam Speaker, in fact it has not met since June 1993.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that the Department of Justice, under all of the ministers who have held that portfolio, has taken an active interest in those precise questions. In fact, the initiatives that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has brought forward and will be bringing forward in the not-too-distant future will respond to a number of those concerns that he is raising.

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, to the acting Acting Premier: in the interests of measuring the government, not by its rhetoric, by its actions, I ask how this quashed or I would call an imaginary committee for victims, just like what happened to the Pedlar implementation committee, is in keeping with the government's own election promise that read as follows: The Filmon government will continue to look for ways to ensure that the rights of victims are given top priority by the judicial system.

Mr. Cummings: Well, perhaps the member senses that there are a lot of things that are happening and are about to receive some positive response from the public and he would like to lead the issue a little bit. The fact is that I stand by my statement a moment ago that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) will be dealing, I think, in a way that will be very appropriate with the issues the member raises.

* (1350)

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, again today I rise on behalf of the family of the late Carol Hastings, the parents, Ethel and Thomas Okimow, of Oxford House. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) made a statement in the House. He said that the family was comfortable with the manslaughter plan and the sentence range that Mr. Dhaliwal got in the Thompson court. I would like to correct that. In fact, in my conversation with the Okimow family last night, they were not consulted until one working day prior to the sentencing.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier to investigate this and seek advice from the Minister of Justice and report to this House exactly what happened.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice addressed this and made direct comment about his understanding of the process as it unfolded. I will certainly take the details of the question as notice, but I believe the Minister of Justice rather completely addressed this issue yesterday.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, certainly not to the satisfaction of the Okimow family of Oxford House who are very, very upset about this conviction and sentence.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I would like to ask the Deputy Premier very simply: can this government and can the minister appeal this conviction and sentence or is it a done deal?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, when the government of Manitoba forced all of the hospitals to centralize their food and laundry services, I was there at the public announcement. At the public announcement, the government did not say that hundreds and hundreds of jobs would be lost, the government did not say that they would be cutting a deal with an Ontario capital corporation that would see millions of dollars being paid to that capital corporation to build a stainless steel facility, and the government did not say that Manitoba patients would be getting frozen food from outside of the province as a result of this government's decision.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Given that none of that information was put before the public, will the minister put a hold on that plan, go back to the drawing board, talk to the public of Manitoba, talk to the patients, and say we do not want this plan to go forward that will see the elimination of hundreds of jobs and our patients in our hospitals and institutions getting frozen food from outside of Manitoba?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, to the member for Kildonan, this issue really illustrates a clear difference in priorities between our two political parties because, first of all, what the member is really saying--because I think when everyone looks at it, you will find that the quality of food is certainly there, will likely improve, that we are getting better use of public money for health care. The real issue here is this: should we continue to spend more money on food services than we need to simply to satisfy his friends at UFCW?

Madam Speaker, the priority of this administration is health care. We do not want to continue to waste $2.5 million a year subsidizing cafeterias in Winnipeg hospitals. We do not want to continue to waste millions of dollars where we do not need to. Those dollars are best spent on hip replacements and knee replacements and health care, and that is the priority of this administration.

Mr. Chomiak: Perhaps the minister--and I will ask one of the pages to pass on to the minister some samples of frozen food that are now being distributed at Health Sciences Centre of which I cannot tell the difference whether it is porridge or vegetables, or whether this frozen food is in fact pineapple or whatever. I am going to ask the page to pass this on to the minister. It came from the Health Sciences Centre.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a point of order. The well-meaning effort to use exhibits in this House is prohibited by the rules of this House, and thank goodness he did not bring feces with him.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, I point out that the member is not tabling this alleged food. I would also point out that we have precedent in this House. I sat in this House when the former member for Roblin-Russell, Wally McKenzie, did not table a dead pigeon but actually had the dead pigeon taken by the page to a minister. That was not ruled as being out of order at the time. I would suggest what was appropriate in the House I believe in 1983 would be appropriate today, because we really believe this minister obviously has not seen this stuff, and we want this to be passed on to the minister in a way that is appropriate. It is not being tabled; it is being asked to be delivered to the minister.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the acting government House leader, indeed there was a point of order. Beauchesne Citation 501 is very explicit. It says: "Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber." There is no reference specifically to tabling.

* (1355)

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

Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is unfortunate that food that is destined for the patients of Manitoba is not being able to be observed by the Minister of Health who made this bad deal. That is unfortunate.

My supplementary question is to the Minister of Health. How does the minister justify frozen food being flown in from out of province to feed Manitobans when we have perfectly capable individuals, produce and foodstuffs available in Manitoba that would provide for the patients of Manitoba, not this frozen gunk that is now being pilot-tested at the Health Sciences Centre?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat troubling that the member for Kildonan would get bought into some of the blatantly wrong comments made by his colleagues in the United Food and Commercial Workers who have their own problems in the way things have been handled at St. Boniface.

When I spoke to USSC recently, they told me that they have not yet tendered any food purchase contracts. In fact, in their preliminary analysis of where likely their suppliers are going to come from--for example, in the case of their potato suppliers, most likely it is the Carberry plant.

Madam Speaker, the only people who are talking about food and toast and other things coming from Toronto are those who oppose the plan. Let us get right back to first principles in Manitoba. Yes, we want high-quality food, but who can stand here today and tell us that hospital food currently is wonderful and delightful food? When my daughter was in hospital, I can tell you it was not the most appetizing food that she received regularly.

Secondly, let us look at the use of our resources. Last year in our Winnipeg hospital system $2.5 million of money that should have gone to health care was diverted by those hospitals to subsidize cafeterias, and that is wrong.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, the minister illustrates the problem with this government in not taking responsibility for its own decisions. The own director of USSC has said that food is going to be flown in from out of province. The minister is contradicting the person that he appointed in that position--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am sure there is a question.

Mr. Chomiak: --and he is trying to play politics with the issue when he knows--my question to the minister is: How does the minister justify $3 million a year going to interest payments to build the stainless steel facility and at the same time importing food from offshore and at the same time not addressing the issues and concerns of Manitobans as it relates to the food? How does the minister justify those decisions made by USSC?

* (1400)

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member for Kildonan should listen to himself for a moment. When his party was in power, they had no problem with continuing to borrow money year after year after year. How did they justify $600 million of Manitoba money going to banks and financial institutions and a variety of pension funds to pay for interest on debt, many of them based in Toronto?

Manitoba's hospital kitchens, particularly in Winnipeg, if we do not do something soon, will be in need of a $35 million-plus--if I remember my numbers correctly--major retrofit of our kitchens. Where is that money going to come from? It will likely be borrowed and be financed. Would they object to that? Absolutely not, Madam Speaker, I would imagine. But it has to be financed.

Madam Speaker, what we have here is not a privatization--a consolidation of those kitchens with a new facility being built in St. Boniface. It is being financed through a financial organization in Ontario, not unusual for governments to finance through banks or organizations based out of province or other public organizations.

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is this saves money that will go into hips and knees and our hospitals and health care, and that is where we stand.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, today we learn that the Filmon government's secret, 20-year deal to contract out hospital food services will cost many more Manitobans their jobs. In fact, a study that was commissioned and done by Statistics Canada indicates that the job losses will not be 182 as this government indicates but will be at least 357 and could go as high as 450 jobs lost as a result of this government's decision.

The Statistics Canada study was done and used the same formula that this government used to talk about the job spinoffs and direct jobs in the Brandon plant just yesterday.

I want to ask the Minister of Health to explain why his government is now in the business of exporting over 400 Manitoba jobs, many of them, at least 50 percent of them in the private sector, to another province. Why are we exporting our private sector jobs to another province?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am, first of all, surprised the member for Transcona would act so surprised about this issue about job loss. It was last spring in fact in this House when his own colleague, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), along with CUPE invited me to a meeting with CUPE workers. We discussed this issue. In fact, I met with Paul Moist. UFCW, by the way, was not interested in the issue at that particular time. They have got on board since, but at that time and in conversations that I had with Mr. Moist there was a recognition that everywhere else in the country is moving to this kind of consolidation because it works efficiently, delivers a quality product and saves money.

The concern brought to me by the member for Kildonan, brought to me by those CUPE workers was that we have a fair plan in place to deal with the transition issues, and I held up USSC at that time to ensure that in fact happened, and that is now underway. But the member acts surprised as if he has learned something. It was discussed in this House six months ago.

Mr. Reid: The minister said he was going to freeze the plan, Madam Speaker. [interjection] Unfreeze the food, right. Instead, he did just the opposite.

My question for the Minister of Health: Is this Minister of Health not worried about giving an unelected, nonaccountable body, the USSC, a blank taxpayers' cheque to spend millions of taxpayer dollars in an irrevocable, secret 20-year deal that will cost nearly 400 Manitobans their jobs to create private sector jobs in Ontario? Are you not concerned as the Minister of Health?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, without trying to be too unkind to the member for Transcona, the flaw in his logic is he has bought into this propaganda by UFCW that all of this food is going to be brought in from Toronto.

Madam Speaker, the centralizing kitchens--the food that is going to be purchased could be tendered. Manitoba companies are very capable and very competitive in tendering on that food and supplying it. Both members opposite seem to imply today that there is no processed food used in our hospitals. That is ridiculous. I think if you look at any kitchen, any commercial kitchen, any restaurant kitchen in this province, you will find that the vast majority of food is already precooked or processed in some way and often supplied, very often supplied by a Manitoba company.

So, Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that many, many of those spinoff jobs in terms of supplying food to the central commissary are still going to come from Manitoba companies, are still going to be there, and what we are ultimately seeing I think is a more efficient system that allows us to spend money on health care and not on the friends of the members opposite. We know where their priorities are. We know where Manitobans want them, and it is in health care.

Mr. Reid: My final supplementary is to the Minister of Health. Because the Minister of Health obviously fails to recognize that a lot of the food is grown here in the province of Manitoba, and it is the farmers in Manitoba that are also going to be impacted, I want to ask this minister, how is it in the best interests of Manitobans, all Manitobans who have a stake in the quality hospital services, people who live and work here, people who have a vested interest in the hospital food services and other hospital services to now, what Statistics Canada indicates will be the loss of 400 jobs exported to Ontario, how is this in the best interests of Manitobans to have these jobs lost and the opportunities lost to the producers of this province for those particular products and the families that are going to be impacted by your decision?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, for the third time, the member has made this assumption that all of the food will be purchased outside of this province. Tenders will go out. Manitoba companies are very, very capable of efficient tendering. That is how it works now, and you know what is very interesting? I would think if you toured most of the commercial or most of the kitchens in our hospital, you will find a wide variety of products, many of them processed, many of them produced in other provinces.

Today, the fact of the matter is USSC will be going to an open tendering process to do its purchasing. Manitoba companies are highly efficient, and they will compete and they will win those contracts, and as has been pointed out to me, the most likely contract for potatoes, for example, is the Carberry plant with a capacity to supply that.

So the analysis on jobs loss that the member raises is just fundamentally flawed on that basis, but let us remember what the New Democrats are saying. It is better to take a dollar out of health care and spend it on food service than spend it on a hip replacement, and that is wrong.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Last week I was driving on Leila and McPhillips, and I saw a construction of a building at the corner there where we have the beautiful jewel of the north end of Winnipeg known as our Seven Oaks Hospital. I thought maybe there was some sort of expansion that was going on. That is what I had personally thought. This morning I found out that in fact it is a bank that is going up, and I have been led to believe that in fact the hospital was leasing it out for the bank to go up.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Are there guidelines that are out in place in terms of what limitations might be there in terms of how we can use or how land is used that belongs to our hospital facilities?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster surprises me somewhat as well today how short memories are. I remember being in this Assembly in my first session as Minister of Health and the member continually raising the question of our regional health authorities, the power we were taking away from local boards, the need to ensure that those local boards continue.

Well, today Seven Oaks Hospital is a facility that is operated by its board of directors, to which we are not the appointing body. They make decisions with respect to their property and the way they manage that. I do not now always necessarily agree with that, but that is part of independence. So the questions he asks about the specifics going on, they should be properly directed to the chair and members of that board of directors.

With respect to the fact that ultimately it is public money that funds these sites, one of the things that we did last year in some of the legislative changes that we made was empower us as a government to ensure that we do put rules and regulations in place around the use of capital, sale of assets and those types of things, to give the protection that the member now requests.

* (1410)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what I am looking for, are there any sorts of limitations? Can we see, for example, Victoria Hospital and other facilities use up 90 percent, for example, of their greenery around their facilities for a commercial landlord or as a commercial landlord? Are there any limitations whatsoever?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, up until recently my understanding was that there have not been, and that is because those independent boards that ultimately own those facilities, that the member supported and wanted this government to continue, have that power. Now I am of the view that since the public is the funder, since we are the trustees of the public, we ultimately have to have more control over those decisions. That is why this government created the Winnipeg Hospital Authority that the member opposed. That is why we, in fact, have changed some legislation, giving us greater power over how public monies are spent on those types of assets.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington. Oh, I am sorry. The honourable member for Inkster with the third--

Mr. Lamoureux: With my final supplementary question, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I apologize.

Mr. Lamoureux: Given the Minister of Health's response, then, will he indicate to us in terms of what the government's position is with respect to land usage for our hospital facilities, not only in Winnipeg but throughout the province?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the position that has been in place for numerous years, obviously, is that those boards have had the power to make their decision on their own, and that is a position the member I gather supported last spring when he opposed the changes we were making. Obviously, as we create regional health authorities--the fact that these facilities have a significant public investment, it is important that major land-use decisions on their property have the concurrence ultimately of a regional health authority and Manitoba Health, because we want to ensure that sites maintain sufficient space for other expansion and other particular needs. That becomes very important in urban settings in particular. So we have moved to give ourselves greater power and involvement in those decisions, but let us not forget that the member for Inkster opposed that.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): My question today is for the Minister of Urban Affairs.

I would like to ask him if he has perused his records and can confirm for us today that the Speaker of the House was a participant in a meeting of the Urban Affairs committee of cabinet on November 3, 1997.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Yes, and yes.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Would the Minister of Urban Affairs further confirm that the agenda of that cabinet committee meeting was a discussion of the government's political and legislative policy regarding the proposed amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, the minutes of the conversations are not for public disclosure. I cannot give her an answer on that.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs. The minister will recall that in an interview that was widely reported in northern newspapers, Glenn Schneider, public affairs manager for Manitoba Hydro, stated that, quote: Earlier this year we were holding back water in South Indian Lake and that Hydro had been diverting water away from the Nelson channel in an effort to allow the Nelson system to swallow the Red River flood surge and as such Hydro kept the lake at 257 metres, namely the optimal level.

My question to the minister is: does the minister accept that the flooding that occurred in South Indian Lake this fall was at least partly due to the Red River flood?

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Northern Affairs): No.

Mr. Jennissen: Is the minister then saying that the province and Manitoba Hydro does not bear any responsibility whatsoever for the flooding that occurred at South Indian Lake and other northern communities this fall?

Mr. Newman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, a yes or no answer will not do on this one because it is a very complex set of considerations which have to be adverted to in responding. There is no question that humankind made decisions about levels, within permitted levels by way of licence and by way of the regulations governing water levels which contributed to the surge of water moving in unexpected, sudden waves into the downstream of the dam in question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My final supplementary question is to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Given all the concerns regarding flooding in northern Manitoba this fall, will the minister recommend that the Water Commission hold hearings as soon as possible in South Indian Lake and other affected northern Manitoba communities?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have charged the Water Commission with very specific responsibilities in the appointment of the commission and the direction that they were asked to review, and the areas the member refers to are not included.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the report by the Social Planning Council on poverty shows that more families in Manitoba are having problems renting affordable housing. Under this government, in the last five years, we have gone from 46 percent to now 50 percent of families in poverty in core housing need, which means that they are spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. This is a dangerous trend, and it is directly related to the low minimum wage in Manitoba, with an earning of just over $10,000 a year.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) if he is aware that someone earning minimum wage in our province has only $270 a month under this guideline to rent an apartment, and is he aware of the lack of availability of apartments in that range and the condition of apartments in that range?

* (1640)

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Mr. Deputy Speaker, public housing is available to individuals based on a formula of income. Affordable housing, in a sense of being available for people of need, has always been one of the priorities of this government. If there is a problem regarding not being able to get into public housing, I would like to know about it, but there is a vacancy rate. There is the availability of public housing for people in need, and it is based on a percentage of their income. The member is referring to a specific amount. We have people that are in public housing that do not pay that amount of rent, yet the availability of housing is there for them.

Ms. Cerilli: If the Minister of Housing is going to get on his feet to answer the questions to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), I will give him a question.

The report from the Social Planning Council also recommends that this government would develop nonprofit and co-op housing and incentives to encourage affordable private market rent. I am wondering if then he will follow that recommendation in our private members' resolution and reinstate the cuts that they have made to the co-op loan program, to SAFER and to SAFFR. Will you support that resolution and follow the Social Planning Council's recommendation?

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member is referring to cuts in the SAFER and SAFFR programs. There were not cuts. SAFER and SAFFR is governed by a need. If there are less applications and less need for the program, naturally the funding will not flow or will not be allocated to it, but the program has not been eliminated. The program is still in force. Applications are sent out as requested, and if there is a need for SAFER or SAFFR subsidies, they will be met, but it is not a cut in the program. What has happened is there have been fewer and fewer applications. Naturally the funding between what was allocated two years ago compared to last year is down because the applications are down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson, with her final supplementary question.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the minister is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member that this is not a time for debate, nor is there a need for a preamble in your third question at this time.

Ms. Cerilli: The budget for this year on SAFER and SAFFR is reduced by $500,000. Will the minister reinstitute that money and follow the recommendation by his Youth Secretariat to better promote those programs so there is a complete uptake of all dollars in the program?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Mr. Deputy Speaker, when budgetary considerations are brought forth, there is a guideline set as to approximately how much should be allocated to certain projects and certain programs. Now the SAFER and SAFFR program has an amount that is allocated to it. However, if there are more applications than the money has been allocated for, we will continue to fund that. We will still go over and above that amount because it is driven by applications. If we do not get the applications, the funding does not flow. So there is an amount that has been set as a budgetary consideration. However, as I stated, if there are more applications, if there is more demand for it, the flow of funding will be to that level and beyond if there is a need for it. So to say that we are cutting back has no relevance at all. It is strictly programmed by the applications and the allocation of funds that way.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Health. As the minister is probably aware, the people from the town of The Pas and the surrounding area have regularly raised this issue, particularly during the past three years, as the area has been experiencing a critical shortage of doctors. It appears that the Norman Regional Health Authority did not budget for doctor recruitment in its expenditures in spite of the fact that this issue of doctor shortages has been in the forefront while regionalization was being implemented. At the moment, as I understand it, two doctors are needed immediately in The Pas and probably up to 10 because the five that are there now are getting to a point of burnout, as they would say.

I would like to ask the minister if he indeed will support the local health authority in The Pas in supporting doctor recruitment.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I thank the member for Rupertsland for that particular question. I think this is an issue that has been ongoing over a number of years, if not decades, in our province with greater or lesser severity from time to time. I am pleased to tell the member that we have a major initiative underway now, a number of different fronts in which we are trying to increase the number of doctors available to our province: some foreign recruitments; one part of that working with our foreign-trade medical doctors to assist them in meeting the qualifications here; and also some retention issues.

I am aware of the specific issues in The Pas. I know that they are very, very important, and we are attempting to address that as we recruit a batch of physicians to fill some immediate needs, and if we are successful in doing that over the next very short while that they will be high on the list to receive those physicians.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps--I would like to thank the Minister of Health first of all for his answer to my question. I wonder if he would clarify--the department that he is responsible for--their policy in funding doctor recruitment and come to the aid of the people in The Pas who are anxiously awaiting word from this government in their predicament at this time.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, physician recruitment, there are obviously a number of players in the scene who have responsibility: regional health authorities; communities, with respect to, certainly, the retention part of this and the ministry in co-ordinating that. We are currently attempting to recruit a number of physicians to the province to fill some of these immediate needs in our province, and if we are successful in doing that, as I have indicated, we will have a pool of physicians available to fill some of these immediate needs, and those identified in northern communities are certainly very high on that particular list. I appreciate the concerns of communities for recruitment. At the current time, if we are successful, I think that will lessen the need for that particular community to go out and recruit on its own. So we may be able to assist them with doctors if our recruitment initiatives are successful.