Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the 2,000 litres of discharge into the river system from the federal lab with the other public issues of the Ebola virus and the hantavirus and other issues that are of concern to the public, there is obviously a lot of public concern about the revelation yesterday that this amount of litres went into our water supply on June 23.

I would like to ask the Premier what action did his minister take on June 24. Did we write the federal Minister of Health, Mr. Rock, on our concerns, and could the minister table that in the House today?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for the question, and I am presuming he did receive material on the licensing that I forwarded to his office earlier today as requested yesterday. I should indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that on the 24th of June the department itself was just being notified. The member may recall that both the deputy and I were at the international environmental conference with the federal minister on another issue at that time. The department, though, when they did receive the notification on the 24th, immediately contacted the provincial health authorities and the city health authorities. The city had been alerted the day before. The health authorities then made the determination as to whether or not there was a safety hazard and made a determination as to there being no health hazard, and what kind of notification needed to be made was, of course, in their purview.

For our part, Madam Speaker, the department then began to immediately look at the environmental aspects of the incident which, of course, is their mandate, and subsequently when the deputy and I returned, I was notified. By then, of course, corrective action had been put in place by senior department officials, as they are mandated to do.

Communication has taken place with senior federal officials, in answer to the member's question on that.

* (1335)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is in the public now that they have been notified, but the considerable concern and the danger that people feel about these 2,000 litres that were discharged into the river system, why did the minister not write the federal minister upon immediately knowing of this? Why did we not take our concerns directly to the top? Surely the public urgency of this matter and the public considerations and ramifications indicate that we should be communicating at the highest level. Why has the minister not and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) not done that with the federal government?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member should know, I believe I did indicate, that communication began immediately the province was notified between the province and the federal government and between the city and the federal government. There has been a tremendous amount of work going on between and amongst the engineers at the city and provincial levels in terms of examining processes. Indeed, senior officials have been taking a look at processes, and no work will be proceeding in the higher level lab until those procedures are verified as being pure.

Madam Speaker, I would expect that at the meeting that is scheduled to take place next week between the city, the province and the federal government, which was established some time ago, a meeting to come together to take a look at all of the ramifications of that incident to ensure that there can be no repeat, I think is quite in keeping with the rules and processes laid down, given that in this incident there was no health hazard.

We are also taking a look, as well, at perhaps having quarterly reports or something like that issued by the lab just to keep people up to date as to the types of things that are happening there for interim information in the absence of hazard but just for information.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the 2,000 litres of material released to the river would have indicated the intervention with the federal government at the highest level, minister to minister, on June 24, not when it becomes a public issue that we make public statements. I am disappointed that the minister has not taken more urgent action with the people who opened this lab and gave us guarantees at the time that we would be safe and that this facility was absolutely safe of human error, was failproof.

Madam Speaker, a further question to the minister. When I read Sections 19 and 20 of the licence, it does provide, in my view, a permissive authority, the licence issued by the province, to discharge materials to the river system subject to the monitoring of the facility itself and the treatment by the facility itself.

So is the minister not in agreement that the statement made by the former minister that these materials would be contained–the licence is permissive and the authority to do so is with the lab itself.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member asked a question like this yesterday. It was worded a little differently, but it had some of the same content that I took as notice. So I will maybe answer both with my response now.

In terms of discharges from the lab, as the member knows or as citizens do know, there are three kinds of water. There is sterile water that is absolutely sterilized; there is normal water that would have things in it but not of a health hazard; and then there is contaminated water which will have a variety of contaminants from mild to serious. Any wastewater coming out of the lab is to be in the sterile category. It has to be disinfected; it has to go through a series of steps; it has to be sterilized. What happened in this instance is that ordinary water came out instead of sterilized water. That water, even though it was just water from washing, et cetera, has to be sterilized, and that is the point of concern here. It is a concern, I believe, that is well aware of at the senior levels in the federal government, certainly is at the senior levels in the federal laboratory. I see my time is up, and I will continue on with the next question.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is this government–

Madam Speaker: Order, please, with a new question.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: New question, yes. This government and this minister or the previous minister issued the licence, and the licence says: the licensee, i.e., the lab, under Section 20, shall ensure that the waste management systems are fully commissioned prior to the operation of Level 3 and Level 4 of the laboratory which is the Ebola virus and other very serious viruses. This is a self-monitoring licence.

I would like to ask the minister if she is satisfied, given the human error already, that a self-monitoring licence that has been given by this government to the lab is sufficient for the public safety in Manitoba.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I think perhaps the member is misinterpreting which director is being referred to in the No. 20 that he is reading. If he is looking, he will see that this particular licence is in fact signed by a director of environment not of the lab.

But, at any rate, what I indicate to the member is that the lab itself cannot discharge contaminated water as a condition of its licence out of the contained lab. That is the bottom line; that is the heart of the matter. It is something that the province, the federal government and the City of Winnipeg will not see happen. I think that he is misreading that particular section.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, given the fact that this lab is error free, and that was stated when the federal and provincial representatives attended a press conference to cut the ribbon, and given the language of permissiveness in this licence, is the minister saying then that their director did approve the discharge of these 2,000 litres into the river system?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, no, nobody approved the discharge of nonsterilized water into the water system. That is the point that our environmental officials are making now. The environmental officials are currently enforcing the act now as we speak and as of last week and the week before. When the member says that the licence is permissive, then it begs the question, if the licence is permissive, why are the environmental officials enforcing a breach of the licence? The reality of what is happening proves the inaccuracy of his premise.

But the water coming out of the lab, and I will say it again because this is the point that needs to be recognized, is to be sterilized. In this instance it was not, and so they are going to have to change their procedures before they can repeat that process and before higher level lab work contaminants enter there.

Mr. Doer: On the one hand you say it is not self-monitoring, on the other hand you say the director did not approve the discharge. Given the fact that the discharge could deal with human error with items such as the Ebola virus, Madam Speaker, surely to goodness the minister: (a) would be concerned about her own system of licensing; (b) she would want to halt the issuance of this licence immediately and ensure that there is some other inspection measure in between the licensee and the river system and the people of Manitoba. Why can we not have that change in the licence?

Mrs. McIntosh: I indicate–[interjection] The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), from his seat, has said that I should not have been in committee yesterday. I should have been here rather than in committee. Madam Speaker, I indicate to the member for Thompson that–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Environment has been recognized to respond to the question.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I guess the member is again asking a question when reality has already answered it. The department officials, the Department of Environment, the City of Winnipeg, the public health officers, both provincial and city levels, the city engineers, the provincial engineers, and the people from the federal government have been working together on this very issue to see that the very things that he asks happen, happen.

So, Madam Speaker, the member is either saying that he does not have confidence in the scientists who work for the department to know their work or he is saying that the processes that we are going through right now are not happening. They are indeed happening.

* (1345)

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Environment.

Under The Environment Act, the minister has the right to call Clean Environment Commission hearings on any proposed development in this province. In fact, the government held hearings on the licensing of the BFI waste disposal site. Presumably this project is just as serious and requires vigorous investigation.

My question to the minister: why did this minister not call Clean Environment Commission hearings when the federal government applied to operate this laboratory?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I will indicate, of course, that I could not have called anything; I was not minister at the time, but that is beside the point.

Madam Speaker, the fact is there was a very strenuous licensing process. A Lab 4 licence goes through a very vigorous and rigorous assessment. There are standards that are national and international in scope for a facility of this type. It is much, much more than merely a provincial undertaking. It is a standard it has to meet. There are only a handful of labs of this stature in the world that have criteria that they must meet.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that he was the Leader who pressed for a faster and earlier delivery of this lab at the time, when he would rise in the House and say: build it faster, build it sooner. Hurry. In fact, I will quote, if the member opposite is saying that this process was too speedy, that we have the Leader of the Opposition saying: why are we having to wait so long? When will we see the subject of this environment licence? When will we see the approval of the capital projects this year for the federal government? Let us have the shovels in the ground right now rather than have this disease lab delayed and delayed and delayed, et cetera.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition was saying, putting on the pressure to speed through the licensing process, which we did not do. We did not do that as a government. We took the time to do it properly, despite his pleas to do otherwise. It shows the wisdom of our department that we did it that way.

Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the minister.

Does the minister think that this issue is not important enough, not serious enough to have been reviewed by the Clean Environment Commission?

Mrs. McIntosh: I am being given a lot of advice, and I appreciate it. I guess I say to the member that the process gone through for this particular enterprise was rigorous, was vigorous, was held to international standards, was beyond the standards of other simple labs like hospital labs, for example, hospital labs and even high school chemistry labs that every day put contaminated water into the sewer system. We have a much higher standard for this type of lab.

There was a lot of public information available at the time, a lot of debate at the time, a lot of public input at the time, and I have confidence that the process gone through at that time was a process that will put in place safety and security for the people of Manitoba.

The fact that we are pausing now, Madam Speaker, to look at a breach of the protocols is, I think, a very significant indication of our concern as to the importance of this issue, that we have said everything has to stop while this is investigated indicates that we are taking it very seriously indeed. This is not a light or a laughing matter, nor is it one that should be played politics with. It is far too serious for that.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, asking questions here about public involvement, how was the public involved? How was the public consulted in the licensing of this project?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I will obtain for the member a detailed outlining of the input that was provided by the public. I will provide that to him. I am surprised that they would not know, given that it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) who felt this was a very good enhancement to his neighbourhood and said so on the record in Hansard, that it was much better than the asphalt plant. Given the intense lobbying by the opposition at the time to press ahead with the project and take shortcuts to get it up and running quickly, I am surprised he does not know that we annoyed them by taking too long to allow the information to come through for proper assessment of this project.

I think it is a passing-strange commentary they are making now after the fact, but I will get that information for him so he can be reminded of who it was that tried to hold this project up by doing a proper assessment. Who was it that tried to ram it through in order to get the political points that they tried to claim credit for, by the way? They tried to say it was their project.

* (1350)

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): My questions are to the honourable Minister of Environment. As the facts are known as of this time, there are at least two breaches, two violations of the licence, the fact that notification was not presented within the 12-hour period, and the second violation is that the liquid effluent and the waste were not sterilized in a separate heating facility separate from that of the city's waste disposal unit. These are the two violations and breaches of the licence.

Why did the honourable minister not temporarily suspend or revoke the licence because of these breaches?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, with apologies, I heard the second question but not the first. I tried very hard to hear the first question, but there was quite a bit of noise in here. I wonder if the member could repeat the first question, and I will answer both of them. If everybody could be quiet so I could hear it, I would appreciate that, too.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway, to quickly repeat the question.

Mr. Santos: Madam Speaker, I can only ask one question at a time.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway, to clarify the question asked.

Mr. Santos: I am obedient, Madam Speaker, so I will pose the question again.

Despite the two violations of the conditions of the licence, namely the lack of instant notification within a 12-hour period and the lack of separate sterilized treatment facilities of the waste separate from the heating treatment of the city, why did the minister not temporarily suspend the licence of the licensee?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I would think the fact that no work can proceed until the situation is rectified is an indication that we do not want to see any work proceeding until the situation is rectified in that particular area. We are doing what the member has asked. It is a virtual suspension, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) says, because they cannot do the work. [interjection] It is true. I thank the Premier for the use of the right words there because they can continue with the lower level work. But any higher level work has to wait now, and that is the same as a suspension. They cannot proceed until the city and the province are satisfied that it is safe to proceed.

So, Madam Speaker, he is asking me to do what I have already done, and I presume he is asking because he is concerned about the people of Winnipeg, which is why we have done what we have done, because we are also concerned about the people of this province.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have not yet recognized the honourable member for Broadway.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, according to the conditions of the licence, again, there is supposed to be an emergency response plan in place in case of accidents of leakage like this one. If there is such a plan, can the minister table it for the benefit of this House?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I do think this is a very serious topic. I know we have heckling that goes back and forth on subjects of lesser importance sometimes, but I think on this topic it belittles the issue itself to have the opposition doing what they are doing while the serious topic like this is being discussed. This is not something to play politics with. It is a serious–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1355)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, this minister is doing it again. Her comments might have perhaps been appropriate on a point of order. She was not recognized on a point of order. She was supposed to be answering a question, and, incidentally, all we were doing from our seats was asking the minister to give a real answer to a very serious issue.

So I would like to ask you to have this minister called to order, and under Beauchesne Citation 417, answer the very serious question asked by the member for Broadway about the evacuation plan, not the rambling nonsense that we just heard from this minister.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Environment, on the same point of order.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I hardly think asking that this matter be treated seriously to be considered rambling–whatever he called it.

An Honourable Member: Rambling nonsense.

Mrs. McIntosh: "Rambling nonsense" is what he said. Madam Speaker, I think asking that a matter like this be taken seriously is not rambling nonsense.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to go straight to my answer, if he is concerned that I am drawing observations to the attention of the public he does not want the public to know about.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I would remind the honourable Minister of Environment to respond to the question asked.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. There are emergency procedures in place obviously. With a lab of this sophistication, they are very precise, and they apparently all went into action immediately, so the reports tell me. I was not there, but the reports have indicated that when the tap was accidentally turned on, before the sterilization process was complete, all of the alarm systems and everything else that is in place there immediately signified that to the people working in the facility.

As well, the only area in terms of communication that was breached was that–and it is a serious one and we are taking it seriously; we are consulting with legal counsel to see if in fact it should be pursued through the courts in terms of an infraction in enforcement–they are then to notify immediately the city and provincial authorities with a maximum time limit of 12 hours. They did not notify the province till the next day, and that is a breach of the protocol that should not have occurred. Having said that, though, once the notification to the province did take place, the health authorities were immediately contacted, et cetera, and all of the emergency processes kicked into place. The flaw here was that there was not immediate notification, and that we are working upon.

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

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, given that all governments are stewards of the people, particularly the residents surrounding the area of the microbiology laboratory, that kind of responsibility calls for reporting to the residents themselves as to the state or nature of the condition. Would the honourable minister be willing to call a public meeting and pacify the anxiety and fear of all the residents in the area?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because I quite understand what he is saying about people and their feelings on this issue. We are having a meeting next week, and one of the subjects I have asked my officials to discuss at some length with the people from other jurisdictions is the whole process of communication. As you know, the Department of Environment is concerned with the environmental aspects to ensure that safety is there, that there are no health hazards. That is why we said no work to continue until this is corrected, et cetera.

The health authorities, in this instance, were the ones to decide whether or not a public communication was required, not that it was secret, but they decided they did not need to make a public announcement because there was no health hazard. However, we are having public discussions about it now, and I think that there might be some merit in having some form of standard communication available, whereby reports on a regular basis go out to the public indicating what is happening in the lab, that this type of thing could be covered by, et cetera. What form that process could take to be really effective I am not certain, but I think it is something that we should talk about because part of having confidence is to have knowledge. I think the member has made a good point there that part of the confidence is knowledge, and we will look at that seriously.

* (1400)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Every year for two weeks of the summer Manitobans are provided the opportunity to tour the world through our world-renowned Folklorama, which has been hugely successful over the years. Due to the Pan Am Games, it is no longer two weeks, it is eight days, which has resulted in a number of the pavilions looking at losing, from what I understand, money. In the past the government has assisted pavilions.

My question to the Premier is: is the Premier prepared to look at giving financial assistance to our pavilions to ensure, because of the shortening of the two-week period, that there be some form of compensation?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, my department does work very closely with the organizers of Folklorama. It is a little bit too early to determine whether or not there will be any losses or any concerns in that area, so I would think that we should, in fact, let Folklorama, which is very successful–I participated last evening as did many others. Let us see how, in fact, things go. To my knowledge, of the festivals that have been organized to accommodate the Pan Am Games, the two which are complete have been highly successful. We have every reason to believe that Folklorama will be very successful, as it always has been.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I look to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship–and I must say I agree, it will be successful because of the volunteers–to have the minister acknowledge the fact that in the past the government has assisted Folklorama, that in fact the numbers are considerably down, as high as up to, as I have been told from some, 30 percent. Would the minister not acknowledge that, yes, there could be a need then to assist our pavilions to ensure the long-term viability through some form of assistance, just for this year?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, the member's question is purely hypothetical. We are barely halfway through Folklorama now, and for my part I would like to continue to have confidence in its ongoing success. We will look at the very end to see if, in fact, there is any need required.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, on a new issue to the Minister of Education. It has been leaked that the Department of Education will, in fact, be conducting an independent investigation. My question for the Minister of Education: will he now formally make it public that there will, indeed, be an independent investigation, and does the minister know who is going to be heading that independent investigation?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, as I have told the honourable member, I was very, very carefully considering the steps that should be taken in light of the matters that have been made known. I believe that it is important that there be public confidence in a system of standards and standards examinations in our province-wide system. I believe that damage has been done to that public confidence.

I believe that an independent review is needed in this matter, and I am making that known today. But I am also saying to the honourable member that details about the mandate of the review and the person selected for that review will be made known in the very near future.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, during Estimates last month I asked the Minister of Mines to provide a precise location of abandoned mine sites in Manitoba, sites which are potentially hazardous to our environment. Today I received a letter from the minister, and unfortunately, precise locations of old abandoned mine sites were not indicated.

Will the minister admit that his government does not know where the exact location of these old mine sites are, where companies drilled, blasted and extracted metals and ores, where those wastes remain, that this minister does not know where there are or what the potential environmental risk of metal leachates, which include copper, lead or arsenic, where those leachates are or what their potential environmental hazard is? Will this minister admit that he does not know where those sites are?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I will not so acknowledge.

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

An Honourable Member: MaryAnn, you were the inspector; you know where they are.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Mihychuk: The Minister of Mines should know where they are.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain why he has not taken a serious review of where these old abandoned mines are located and ensure that the environmental condition of these abandoned mines is safe? Is he willing to assure Manitobans that those sites are environmentally safe or not?

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, the Department of Environment has the responsibility to deal with the environmental inspections and the consequences relating to the Department of Mines, and operating mines in the past. We, of course, have just during the past few months approved and put into place environmental rehabilitation regulations which are second to none, approved of by the industry, and ensure that there is a proactive way, including an up-front deposit or security, to ensure that mining rehabilitation is done appropriately.

Over a long history of previous governments, there have been situations which were not subjected to the kind of scrutiny or the kinds of proactive approaches by the regulatory schemes we have. We have mounted a process to deal with orphan mine sites which are identified as being problematical, and a multidepartmental strategy, a process for addressing that is underway as we speak.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Today we set a new standard for announcements by the minister when the minister announced a floor plan for a centre that is going to open up a year from now.

I would like to ask the minister, since he is trying to garner publicity: will the minister now give us a precise list of all of the summer closures, including the psychiatric summer closures, the summer closures for drug treatment so Manitobans can know where the government is shutting down facilities, since the minister has time to announce a floor plan, as he did today, for a facility that is going to open up a year from now?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Well, Madam Speaker, I am extremely surprised at the member for Kildonan mocking an announcement today that is very important for the Health Sciences Centre here in Manitoba, very important for cardiac surgery, for cardiac patients, an issue that I have addressed on many occasions right here in this House.

I had the opportunity to be there with doctors, with nurses and so on at the facility. Today's announcement of a state-of-the-art step-down unit for cardiac surgery to the Health Sciences Centre, with eight beds being identified for that procedure, was very well received, and is something that is extremely important to that facility, to those doctors, to those nurses and to the cardiac patients.

I am really surprised and disappointed with the member coming here and mocking that kind of an issue that is that important for cardiac surgery, where today we are doing about 1,100 cardiac surgeries. You go back several years and we were in the few hundreds. That is all part and parcel, because of the significant commitment of additional resources that we have made in this budget that he stood up and voted for, I am sure in large part because we have $194 million more in funding for health care to address a number of very important issues to our government and to Manitobans.

* (1410)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I am asking the minister to explain why the minister, who had the time to announce the floor plan today of a facility that is not opening up for a year, cannot tell us what contingency plan is in place for the closure of Sara Riel for two weeks, cannot tell us what is going to be done with the closure of the chemical treatment unit at the Health Sciences Centre, cannot tell us what is being done with the closure to rheumatology and all the summer closures that are taking place because of this government's poor handling of health care in the province of Manitoba. Yet he has time to do an announcement about a floor plan for beds that are opening up in a year.

Mr. Stefanson: Again, Madam Speaker, I continue to be amazed by the approach the member is taking on this very important issue. I can only believe that he has not talked to the doctors in the cardiac surgery ward of the Health Sciences Centre. He has not talked to the nurses. He has not talked to any of the patients.

This is a state-of-the-art facility. We in Manitoba were amongst the pioneers in North America in terms of the establishment of the step-down unit at the Health Sciences Centre in terms of the quality of patient care that unit provides and also freeing up additional intensive care unit beds. So it is a very important initiative for that facility and for cardiac patients in the province of Manitoba.

Again, on the issue of summer schedules, the member knows full well summer schedules have been in place in Manitoba for many, many years under our government and previous governments. It is nothing new in the province of Manitoba, and the WHA and the other regional authorities work with all of the facilities in terms of their summer schedules and ensuring that the services are still there to meet the needs of Manitobans in our hospitals and other facilities.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, the minister was there and heard the vice-president say that the pace of the building of this unit went in glacial proportions; that is what the vice-president said. It took that long to build this facility.

Will the minister outline for us today what contingencies are being put in place for the closure of the Sara Riel centre for two weeks this year, when we know that community mental health and psychiatric services are in short supply in this province, have been ever since the government closed a number of facilities and did not put in place adequate or properly funded community-based services?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, if the member wants to look at capital projects, he can look at facilities like St. Boniface and the record pace that was set in terms of the emergency room redevelopment, which, again, is something that is very important to that facility, to Manitobans, and I assume members across the way support.

In terms of Sara Riel, because of staffing issues, that facility did shut down their crisis stabilization for two weeks. It opens up again on Monday, but throughout that period services continue to be available through the Salvation Army and other facilities.

But, again, I continue to be amazed at the member's cavalier attitude toward a very important initiative at Health Sciences Centre that was well received by the doctors, by the heads of cardiac surgery, by the nurses, by everybody with that project, and how delighted everybody was to see this announcement today and this project moving forward with a state-of-the-art facility in an area of Manitoba which is not only a Canadian leader but one of the world leaders.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.