Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the hospital operating budgets have decreased by some $130 million or 14 percent, included in this last budget that was tabled by the Minister of Finance on Friday, over the last five years.

Madam Speaker, last week people were commenting on the bed shortages and the ambulance diversions that were taking place in Winnipeg as a result of this cutback and bed shortage in our communities. In fact, Mr. Stone, an ambulance inspector, stated that situations used to be rarer, now they are commonplace.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) why have his policies and funding led to this practice being commonplace.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that over the last number of years, as the requirements for services within health have changed to accommodate new technology, the budgets for hospitals as a percentage of the overall budgets of this department are going to decrease as those for community support tend to grow. The Leader of the Opposition does know that more and more services are provided on a day basis. I think Victoria Hospital now has two-thirds of their surgeries as day surgery and only a third in-house, and so there is certainly a shift in needs. The need for acute care beds in our system has constantly decreased.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to some issues surrounding emergency, and it is certainly our intention as we establish the Winnipeg Hospital Authority to make sure we are best using all of our emergency services to their full extent before we assess whether or not they are adequate for the needs of the citizens of the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I am sure the families will find cold comfort in the answer from the Minister of Health. It is the same answer we received from the previous minister and the previous minister before him.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): How can the government claim that they are putting resources in health care into our communities when in fact the community clinic budget in the Department of Health has been reduced from $31 million in '95-96 to $22 million? Is it not true that they have laid off close to 1,800 nurses, and they are also reducing the investment in our communities for preventative health? They are cutting health care at both ends.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am not going to accept those comments at all from the Leader of the Opposition. We will have a chance to get into those numbers in greater detail in the Estimates debate.

As the member for Concordia may be aware, as part of the whole evolution of this process, the development of a new primary care model which includes contracts for physicians, a better mix of physician provider or medical providers including nurses, basically the Assiniboine Clinic model that my predecessor began last year that we are now testing and hoping it will work to expand across the province, means in fact just the opposite, that we will see I think a better mix of services developed or provided at that community level than we have ever had before in the past.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, there is no answer again to the people of Manitoba in terms of the contradictions that continue daily from this government and the priorities they have.

* (1335)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Before the election campaign, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) promised capital projects to a number of communities across the province. There were sod-turning ceremonies; there was great fanfare and announcements, great pre-election campaigns. In fact, some of them were cynically reannounced from the election campaign in 1990. After the election campaign, the government froze those capital projects and now, again, some of these capital projects may or may not go ahead.

I would like to ask the Premier why did he not promise the communities and the people in those communities the capital projects would go ahead with the new funding formula that he had just announced last week. Why did he keep this secret in the election campaign? Why does he have one promise in an election campaign and another reality after he is elected?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I listen to the Leader of the Opposition speak about announcements in health care. I remember growing up in Selkirk where our former MLA Howard Pawley promised a new hospital in the 1969 election, in the 1973 election, in the 1977 election, and it was the Conservative Health minister, Bud Sherman, who ended up filling the promise for Howard Pawley and building the hospital. So let us not debate, get into debating cynicism, because there is certainly another side to that story.

There is no doubt that we faced a difficulty in our capital budget in terms of the level of programming and where it would have placed us. We now spend about 10 percent of our facilities budget on servicing capital. We did not feel we could move much beyond that, so we put the freeze in place. We have worked with Treasury Board over the last number of months, both my predecessor, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), and myself, and we have now seen a significant increase in dollars to that which will see a very significant capital program in the province over the next number of years.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, the continuing cuts to post-secondary education grants, especially to Manitoba's universities, stand in contrast to the minister and this government's rhetoric in support of a strong and modern education system. This year's budget alone to universities cuts $4 million, which means a further reduction to the University of Manitoba alone of $8 million.

Will this minister acknowledge that this year's cut will contribute to the deterioration of our education system that Manitoba students will receive?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member's figures are not quite correct. The University of Manitoba may have a shortfall, but that is not because of decreased funding in its entirety. The funding, as she indicated, is going down some 3.8 percent. She should understand as well that on a per-pupil basis the operating grants have actually increased by 8 percent and that the University of Manitoba has committed expenditures that have created a shortfall for them. It is not a revenue problem so much as an expenditure problem. I have to indicate that she should also be aware that enrollment over the last three years has decreased by some 12.5 percent.

If my time is up, Madam Speaker, I will continue with the next question.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, to continue on this line of questioning, will the minister acknowledge now that this budgetary cut to universities will actually mean a continuing of the declining enrollment in post-secondary institutions given that tuition fees have more than doubled under this government? What this does is guarantee that fewer students will go to university and post-secondary institutions.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member is conveniently neglecting to mention the extra money, the five point million that is going into the University of Manitoba for building upgrades and the $400,000 into the University of Winnipeg for Wesley Hall, et cetera, et cetera.

However, I can indicate in terms of students that we have in Manitoba the third-lowest tuition rates in Canada, that we have brought in the learning tax credit, that we have increased the amount of money for that learning tax credit which will see students being able to reclaim at income tax time a sizeable amount of their tuition fee. We have also now brought in $1 million towards a scholarship fund which universities can match two to one, and that was a direct request from students. We have a number of things like that in place that will offset any potential increases that might occur. I would indicate to the universities, however, that they should make sure that they prioritize their spending and look for increased co-operation with other institutions to address their shortfall because of increased expenditures.

* (1340)

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: how can the minister support a budget that decreases accessibility and increases tuition fees, a burden for Manitoba students and their families?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, we are actually reducing the burden. We are encouraging accessibility to universities. You can see by the addition of some 40 percent more for the learning tax credit that we have expanded opportunities for students. I would also indicate we have put in place a number of things, such as the ability for the university to now begin to negotiate age-relating policies with their professors' union on campus, that we will then maximize opportunity for many more millions to be realized from the university to help it in its attempts to get its spending under control. I reiterate a very important point, and that is enrollment has gone down by 12.5 percent but the operating grants for standard students have actually increased by 8 percent in addition to all the other incentives they put in for students to attend post-secondary education in Manitoba.

* (1345)

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, in 1992-93, we had the largest deficit in the history of our province, but because the government took $200 million from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, it reduced the bottom line that year. It reduced the bottom-line deficit from about three-quarters of a billion dollars to $566 million.

In 1996-97, the government put $260 million from the sale of MTS assets into the fund instead of general revenue and therefore showed a surplus of only $55.7 million. In '97-98, the government has shown a surplus of $26.8 million because $100 million was moved into general revenue from the fund. Without that transfer there would have been a deficit of about $73 million.

My question to the minister and the question put by the people of Manitoba is will this minister now admit that the government is engaged in a big shell game--now you see it, now you don't--instead of straightforward, honest accounting.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the short answer to the question is no, I will not admit any such things. Even if you want to accept the approach of the member for Brandon East to compare apples to apples, he should be factoring out the debt repayment then of $75 million which still generates a surplus and even if he is reading the comments of any of the investment dealers or the economists.

I think what is the most important to Manitobans is that we now have three budgets in a row where we have not added one cent to the debt of Manitoba, and for the first time in 40 years we are starting to pay down that debt in a very sustained way. That is what counts, unlike what happened for eight years under their administration where we ran nothing but deficits each and every year and our debt quadrupled. Unacceptable.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I have a supplementary for the minister and, in asking it, remind him the idea of a budget stabilization fund came out of the Socred government in B.C., and they call it the budget stabilization, the B.S. fund. It is a good name for it.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, to pose his supplementary question.

Mr. Leonard Evans: How can this minister refer to the announced debt repayment as a milestone when the government could have used $56-million surplus in 1988-89 available from the previous NDP administration and paid down the debt at that time but instead chose to reduce revenues arbitrarily by $200 million and put them into the so-called Fiscal Stabilization Fund? You had a chance and you did not do it, 56--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, try as the member for Brandon East might to sort of revise history, I think Manitobans know very well how well the Fiscal Stabilization Fund has served us and will serve us. It is something to be proud of today. It gives us the opportunity to deal with the pressures from significant reductions in funding from Ottawa, pressures that might come forward in terms of any of our spending requirements.

I encourage the member for Brandon East, along with his Leader, along with all members opposite, to read the kinds of responses that are coming from the community at large, from the people in the financial communities.

I will cite him one example. One of the investment dealers: A winner in Winnipeg, Red River turns to black ink, flood of surpluses in store--unlike the 1980s under the NDP with nothing but deficits and debt.

We are fortunate that we can finally stand up in this House and talk about surpluses and talk about paying down the debt in Manitoba, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Leonard Evans: How can the Minister of Finance indicate once again in this budget document that we had a true surplus in 1995-96 when he used lottery revenues accumulated over several years, then transferred them into a lump sum into that year, contrary to good accounting practices, and which caused the Dominion Bond Rating Service to say that those revenues should have been spread over years and 1995-96 should have showed a deficit if they were honest with the people of Manitoba?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, try as they might, Manitobans know the real story. They know that for three consecutive budgets there have been no additions to the debt in Manitoba. For the first time in many years, we are going to be paying down that debt in Manitoba, starting this year in a very sustained way, unlike the kinds of government that we had in the 1980s under this administration. So try as they might to sort of revise history, I stand before them today and say how proud we are to be able to talk about surpluses, something we never had the opportunity in their days in government and never would have had the opportunity had they stayed in government.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice. The government is so insensitive to safety concerns that neither the throne speech nor the budget so much as even mentioned the two most threatening developments in this province, and those are gangs and motor vehicle theft. We have now obtained the latest statistics on motor vehicle thefts, and just when we thought the rate could not get any higher, it jumped 6 percent last year, Madam Speaker. That is over 8,300 victims, one year alone in one city; 246 percent increase, four years.

My question to the minister is why will the government not recognize that we suffer the worst motor vehicle theft rate in all of Canada, likely North America, and will they just do something about it?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The rate of motor vehicle theft in Manitoba is a great concern to us, and we certainly do want to work with the police forces to stem that problem. I noted with interest that this is not simply a problem related to Manitoba but, indeed, Saskatchewan now is experiencing a similar problem, as is British Columbia, which my understanding now has the highest rate of motor vehicle thefts. [interjection] That is not something to be proud of, who is the first. The fact is we do have to take steps to work together with our police to bring that down.

* (1350)

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister, who knows darn well that Manitoba has the highest incidence of motor vehicle theft, explain to Manitobans, if the government is indeed so concerned, whatever happened to their big election promises on auto theft? I count six of them that have disappeared, Madam Speaker. Is that how much they care?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, we care about that problem, and as I indicate, we want to work on that issue, we are working on that issue.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister then explain why it is this government's most recent response to this worsening epidemic of auto theft to blame the victims, to put a tax on these victims of auto theft with a $500 deductible? Is that what they meant in their throne speech by their promise of new programs for victims?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, using the honourable member's own figures, one has to conclude that there is an alarming rate of car thefts going on in this province. What the honourable member needs to understand is that almost half of the vehicles stolen in Manitoba are vehicles that are left either unattended while running and have the keys in them, or the doors unlocked, and these are all reasons why the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation has engaged in a public-education, public-information campaign to try to address this very problem in our society.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Health. Madam Speaker, MS is a devastating, crippling disease that affects many Manitobans. As they try to have reason to have hope as new drugs are found that could address some of the pain that is endured, there is a new drug that is on the market known as Betaseron, which is a drug which the provinces of B.C., Ontario and Quebec have accepted.

My question to the Minister of Health: is the Department of Health and this government prepared to accept this as a drug to allow Manitobans that have this crippling disease some comfort?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster raises a very important issue for people who suffer from this particular illness. I know at the current time the Ministry of Health is assessing the medical value of this particular drug. It comes at great expense, as the member can appreciate, and the question that one has to consider is does it produce a result that contributes to the health of those patients. The information that I have been provided to date is one of very, very mixed reviews or very limited result. I am certainly considering at this time the information that is coming to me, and I do not have today a definitive answer for the member for Inkster.

* (1355)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Health at least make a commitment to do what Mike Harris in Ontario has done, gone by a case by case? For example, I spoke to an individual today that had a doctor recommend the use of this drug but does not have the finances because of the cost.

Will the Minister of Health make the commitment at the very least that his department will go case by case like Mike Harris in Ontario?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, that is certainly one of the options before me at this current time. That recommendation is included. In fact, in asking staff to canvass what other provinces are doing, I understand some of the provinces that he has mentioned that have approved it have not approved it in an entire way but only on a very, very limited basis, because again the matter at hand is whether or not it makes a significant or even a contribution to the quality of life or health improvement of the individuals who take it.

I would be more than pleased to share a greater discussion in detail with the member for Inkster. This is not a simple matter; it is a very complicated one.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Health provide some sort of a concrete, tangible time frame of when we can anticipate that there will be an answer from this government, because we have so many individuals that would like to know in terms of whether or not they are going to be able to use this drug?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I think if this particular drug was a cure for the illness or provided a very significant improvement of the quality of life, the answer would be a very simple one to give, but the debate of those who study this--and I think both he and I, the member for Inkster and myself, are not experts in this field; we only act on the information provided to us by those who are experts. The information that I am being provided is that this drug, in fact, has very, very limited effect on the health of the people who receive it. It is an area in which I have asked for more information from my staff, and I would be prepared to enter into a discussion with him in order to share the information I have with him.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, when this government announced drastic increases to park fees last year, it promised that the money would go towards, and I quote from the government news release, costs of developing, operating and maintaining our parks campgrounds and the various services provided in each campground.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. In Friday's budget we learned that of the $1.6 million raised in fees, of that money, only $300,000 would go back to parks. That is a $1.3-million tax grab by this government.

Why is this government taking the $1.3 million and using it as a tax grab when it promised to put it back into the parks?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, not only are we making sure that we are returning monies to our parks to improve them and provide quality of service, but we want to make sure that, in all aspects of service that we provide in the area of natural resources and the assets that we are responsible for, we provide adequate funding, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, why is this government charging seniors a park entry fee and not rolling that money back into the parks?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, the member conveniently ignores the fact that the Natural Resources budget for the forthcoming year is up $1.5 million.

Mr. Struthers: Why not use this recreation tax then, this $1.3 million, to improve parks and make them affordable for average Manitobans instead of using this as yet another Tory tax grab?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, does the member for Dauphin suggest that we should be using revenues that we want to put into health care, that we want to put into education, to make sure that those dollars are going where they are needed? He conveniently forgets that Manitoba's great parks rates are very much in line with the rest of the country, that our rates are such that our parks are very accessible. When the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) chirps from his seat that we like to put people on waiting lists in health care, maybe he should look at where the money is going in this budget.

* (1400)

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

In 1989, this government first promised an urban aboriginal strategy. I was around then; I was chief of my reserve, and I had heard about the strategy. Following a conference in May of '89, that promise unfortunately evaporated just like those promises that were made on the AJI, the Northern Economic Development Commission, the Postl report and now the Royal Commission on aboriginal affairs.

I would like to ask the Premier just what is the current strategy of that particular urban aboriginal strategy. If you have abandoned the strategy, why do you not just say so?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, since an urban strategy workshop in June of 1989, there have been a number of projects which have been introduced. In the field of education, there was a preschool program supported by the Manitoba government and the Winnipeg School Division. There was a Children of the Earth High School, Winnipeg School Division. In economic development, there was the Aboriginal Centre of Winnipeg, the development of that CPR building on Higgins. Social development: Ke-Ki-Nan Centre, the housing for aboriginal seniors, funding sources both federal and provincial; and Ni Tin Away, the Native Women's Transition Centre, two other examples; in health, consultation and study to determine the viability of the Aboriginal Health and Wellness Centre, which has come into being just recently and was mentioned in the budget, involving $1.3 million of provincial funding.

Those are some examples, and emerging again and again are more to be announced shortly.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my second question to the Premier is since the throne speech for the first time has acknowledged that much damage has been inflicted on aboriginal people, their families and children by government policy, is this government now willing then to restore funding to what I call people development programs like the friendship centres and the New Careers and the Access programs and the children's dental program?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, the Partners for Careers program, which has just been announced in the budget again involving $1.4 million over the next three years, is the kind of thing which is going to set an example. These are the mentors that show and give hope to the young people coming along.

Other programs which are working at a more basic level are included in the $300,000 nutrition program and the $500,000 program which is directed at children in the urban area, the basic needs in the urban area of this city of Winnipeg. A large number of those are aboriginal children who are going to benefit from that.

Mr. Lathlin: My final question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is I would like to ask him why his government so far has refused to make any commitments to work with the aboriginal people of this province and their organizations to develop First Nations communities as a vital part of the Manitoba economy, much like what industry has done already or is trying to do.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I am glad that question has been put, because there has not been enough public attention directed at this through the media. This is an opportunity to indicate that in our multicultural society of Manitoba, with the wonderful framework and environment created by the budget and the heritage of no tax increases, this being an attractive place to do business, the aboriginal people of this province are going to be beneficiaries just like everyone else and, I would submit, even to a greater extent because they are now gaining an interest through their leadership and a knowledge and understanding through training, which has been given by this government, which is going to allow them to access things that they have not been involved in traditionally, like mining, like oil development, like elk ranching. There is a whole variety of new areas, like agriculture.

As the treaty land entitlements come to a conclusion and the Northern Flood Agreements are implemented, I would suggest that the aboriginal people in this province are going to be positioned like never before to become part of the emerging developing strong economy of Manitoba and benefit from that.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, on Thursday I took a question as notice from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) regarding some of the features of gaming machines in Manitoba. I want to put some facts on the record. First of all, there are no deceptive features in any of the slot machines or video lottery terminals operated by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.

An Honourable Member: Wrong again.

Mr. Stefanson: I would think the members want to hear this. The near-miss feature which was highlighted on ABC prime time news was a game feature that was manufactured in the late 1980s for a period of 18 months. This feature was not manufactured by IGT, the supplier of Manitoba's VLTs. This feature is not manufactured in any gaming jurisdiction in North America and was never available in Manitoba. ABC PrimeTime Live was erroneous in its allegation that IGT manufactured this game feature. All slot machines and VLTs in Manitoba are tested by an independent gaming laboratory, Gaming Laboratories International, to ensure the integrity of play prior to being placed in the marketplace.

In summary, Madam Speaker, I can assure the honourable Leader of the Opposition and all members of this House that all slot machines and VLTs in Manitoba are tested by an independent gaming laboratory and do not have any deceptive features.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, Mr. Bernard Fehr, a WCB claimant awaiting spinal fusion, had his wage loss benefits cut off by the Workers Compensation Board in June of '92. Mr. Fehr appealed based on support by his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Birt, who opposed the WCB doctors. A medical review panel comprised of two private-practice orthopedic specialists, one chosen by the employer, one by the claimant, and a general practitioner acting as a chairperson ruled unanimously in Mr. Fehr's favour that the effects of the compensable accident continued and he was unable to work.

My question for the Minister of Labour is can the minister who is responsible for the WCB explain now, since he would not when I wrote to him some months back, why the WCB refused for three years to honour the unanimous decision of the medical review panel and appears instead to be doctor shopping for another opinion opposing the claimant?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): My honourable friend knows that I cannot discuss individual cases in the House. I would assure you that there is a process in place for cases to be reviewed. This case has been before the Workers Compensation Board, and there are still some issues surrounding it that have not been finalized. I will assure you that this individual will get fair treatment.

Mr. Reid: Since the unanimous decision of the MRP has never before been overruled and if the WCB is not now doctor shopping, why has Mr. Robert MacNeil of the WCB Appeal Commission struck a new medical review panel with different doctors instead of referring to any outstanding issues that the minister just talked about to the original MRP which was comprised also of orthopedic surgeons? Why not go back to the original instead of doctor shopping for a new panel?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Many of the cases that come before the Workers Compensation Board are very complex. I have already assured the member that the cases before them are in process and that I will ensure that all people who apply for compensation through the board do get fair treatment.

* (1410)

Mr. Reid: If the minister believes in fair treatment for Mr. Fehr and others, if the second medical review panel finds against the original decision, which was unanimous in Mr. Fehr's favour, will the minister order a third medical review panel to oversee the differences in medical opinions between those two panels? Is that the policy of your government, to have another medical review panel?

Mr. Gilleshammer: My honourable friend, who sometimes poses as the deputy House leader on the opposite side, knows that hypothetical questions are not allowed in this Assembly. I have already indicated that there are complex cases before the Workers Compensation Board and that I will assure him that this individual will get fair treatment.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, indeed it is not in order to ask hypothetical questions, but the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) asked a very specific question about the policies of this government. It is very clear to anyone looking that workers are not getting a fair break in Manitoba under Workers Compensation.

I would like to ask the minister responsible for Labour to answer a very serious question, asked on behalf of someone who has clearly been shafted by Workers Compensation.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, the opposition House leader has acknowledged the impropriety of asking hypothetical questions and wants to bring into his point of order some further political points to be made.

The point is that the honourable Minister of Labour has responded that there are processes and appropriate processes. His job, as he has pointed out, is to ensure those processes work properly, not to interfere politically, as New Democrats would suggest.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did not have a point of order. Even though the minister attempted to portray that it was a hypothetical question, he did respond to the question asked.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): The Speech from the Throne said that more services such as cardiac surgery rehabilitation will be provided closer to home. This is only the case if your home is in Charleswood or River Heights because I have information, including a letter from the former Minister of Health, confirming that postcardiac surgery rehab is being transferred out of St. Boniface Hospital to the Reh-Fit Centre.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health will the Department of Health continue to fund this pilot project at the Reh-Fit Centre, or will the postcardiac patients now have to pay for the program which includes physio, supervised exercise, nutrition and lifestyle counselling?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat ironical that the member would try to leave on the record that there is some great problem, because one service that is now being offered in one facility, in the city of Winnipeg and St. Boniface, may be offered at another. I would suggest, given what rural members--there are constituents that have to travel to find facilities. A few minutes more of travelling time into Winnipeg is not exactly a great difficulty. As to the detail that the member asks, I will take that as notice and get the detail for her.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.