Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members the public gallery, where we have this afternoon twenty-five Grade 11 students from Technical Vocational High School under the direction of Mr. Mike Gartner. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

* (1335)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. On March 21, 1996, when the Premier was justifying his decision to privatize all of the home care services in the city of Winnipeg, he stated to the public that this proposal, this extreme proposal to bring profit into home care would result in a savings of some $10 million to the taxpayers of Manitoba. Just this last month his own new Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) said: Generally speaking, our home care system is relatively well run on the cost side.

Who was telling the people the truth, the Premier last year when he said he would save $10 million or the Minister of Health a couple of weeks ago?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, of course the member opposite, in quoting from the news release that was put out by the union today, makes the comparison of $10 million for privatizing an entire system versus half-a-million dollars for privatizing 25 percent of two quadrants. Clearly there might be more economies of scale, but the department in its wisdom, after public consultation and various discussions, chose not to go with the full privatization, the full contracting out. I would think that the member opposite would be supportive of that.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I was quoting from the Premier's own words of last year that have been contradicted by his new Minister of Health. The government's own advisory committee, the Connie Curran committee, Dr. Evelyn Shapiro, Manitoba's seniors, all of which had examined the issue of profit in our home care system, examined costs and quality, have all come to the same conclusion that when you look at both costs and quality of services, a profit home care system is not desirable for Manitobans.

Why has this Premier approved a private profit contract that runs contrary to the advice that he received by all the committees in his Department of Health that advised against it?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, because it saves half-a-million dollars for the taxpayers of Manitoba and provides an equivalent level of service. I would think that those are things that everybody would be supportive of, including New Democrats, no matter how convoluted their thinking is.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is not convoluted at all. In fact, we believe it makes a lot of sense to keep all the money, the publicly administered money into quality of care instead of into the profit of some company. We do not have any problem with that thought. Maybe the Premier does.

I would like to ask a further question in light of the fact of the position of Manitoba seniors, and today Mrs. Duval said that you are a dictator in the way in which you are making this decision, that it is despicable that you are making this decision to go to a profit system. These are her words, not mine. In light of the fact that the Mennonite Central Committee, the Catholic Church, the United Church, the Anglican Church last year in the public hearings all recommended against going to a profit home care system, why is the Premier denying the wishes of the public, the clients and the churches across Manitoba with his ideological decision?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, without accepting the truthfulness of any of the preamble, I would say that the main reason that we would be looking at opportunities for being able to save a half million dollars is so that we can direct that half-million dollars into better patient care, that we can provide better services for the people of Manitoba who require those health care services. I cannot for the life of me imagine how New Democrats can reason that that half-million dollars not being able to be put into better services will somehow improve the quality of care in our province.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, since last year and since the Premier has changed his Minister of Health--and the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) seems to have a new philosophy; at least he now supports home care publicly--still the government has persisted in privatizing a portion of home care. The government is privatizing food services. The government has privatized the home oxygen service. The government is privatizing the public lab system and is on the way to privatizing the home care equipment.

Madam Speaker, everybody, even the mayor of Winnipeg who today issued a proclamation calling it Public Home Care Week, recognizes the importance of the public home care system.

Will the Premier not admit that Manitobans want and demand not a private system but a public, fully operated nonprofit health care system? Can he not utter the words "public nonprofit"?

* (1340)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, our government has been more supportive of home care than ever was the case under a New Democratic government in this province. We have increased the funding from--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we have increased the funding from under $40 million a year under the New Democrats to around a hundred million today. We have improved the levels of service, the comprehensiveness of the service, the extensiveness of the service. We continue to put more money into home care than ever before in our history, better home care services than are available in virtually every other province in the country.

Other provinces have followed the model that the New Democrats were prepared to accept, because they got a report from management consultants that were urging them to put on user fees. We have not done that. They got reports from a management consultant that was urging them to cut services. We have not done that. Other provinces have much more extensive contracting out of home care. We have not done that.

We have acted in the best interest of the people of Manitoba, those people who depend upon us for their home care service, and that is why we are providing the best home care service in Canada.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I will just table a copy of the mayor's proclamation recognizing the city and the mayor recognizing the importance of public home care.

Madam Speaker, the Premier did not answer the question. I will repose the question perhaps in another way. The question is: Will the Premier or the Minister of Health today, in light of the public concern, in light of what the tendering process showed, in light of the privatization, say, and in light of the need for quality of care, ensure us that there will be no further privatization of our home care system?

The Premier talked about the past but no further privatization in the future. Will the Premier commit to that today?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we have been over this issue many times in this Legislature, both in my tenure as Minister of Health and certainly in many, many Question Periods and debates under the previous minister.

The program of putting out to tender four quadrants in the city of Winnipeg was designed to test our system, to see if it can improve in service and in cost-efficiency. The results are known. We had, I believe, five companies, approximately, who met the quality level, and one had a price that gave us a saving. We are in a one-year test period to see what the result is. As well, our provincial home care employees on April 1 in rural and northern Manitoba were transferred to the RHAs as they try to improve again the delivery of service.

The issue really here, as we increase our budgets for home care, is ensuring--because it is such a needed service--that we continue to improve and have a good, excellent home care service to the people in Manitoba. That is really the fundamental issue. That is where we are.

Mr. Chomiak: The fundamental issue is using patients as experimental monkeys.

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

* (1345)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister assure this House that one of the major concerns about the privatization and contracting out, which is the selling of additional services to patients, will be prohibited by law and by regulation from Olsten corporation, that they will be denied the right to sell additional services and make more money at the expense of patients during the duration of this contract. Will the minister assure this House that will not happen?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member flags by way of his question one of the challenges that has to be addressed in the home care system in the years ahead. The member sits here as a Winnipeg member, and I take somewhat offence to that as a rural member of this province because in my constituency today we have home care services, we also have support services for senior programs that are run by volunteers and funded through the Ministry of Health, and they provide some services for fees. The regional health authorities consider combining those services to have that balance or a better delivery mechanism. Yes, I would share the same concern as other members. We do not want to have a system where people are forced to buy services they do not need or want, but there is also a demand, in part, of this province to combine that service. So it is a balance, and one that we have to work through, but members should be very careful how they pose the question; there are parts of this province that are looking for that.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). A dangerous street gang member, a person who was in jail for alleged first-degree murder was released last Friday by the Winnipeg Remand Centre. I would like to ask the Premier: Has he investigated with his Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) why this has happened, and can he explain to the people of this province why a situation like this has developed in our community?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I have had an occasion to speak to members of my staff in respect to this particular incident, and I can assure the House that this was not the fault, if fault is to be attributed, of people in the Remand Centre. The Remand Centre acted in accordance with the documentation that was before them, and they released the prisoner on appropriate legal authority.

I do not want to get into the specific details of the case, but in fact there are some concerns in respect of how the Criminal Code is interpreted, and there are certain deficiencies in our Criminal Code which we believe must be addressed. I have discussed this with my staff, and we have taken certain administrative steps to ensure that we can overcome the deficiency in the Criminal Code, but in fact we will be raising this matter with my federal counterpart to ensure that the process is appropriate.

Mr. Doer: Last week, when I asked the Premier and the Minister of Justice about the report, the gang report that they had not released to the public, where it cited a lack of co-ordination in Corrections in the Department of Justice was leading to potentially dangerous situations--and I have the Hansard--the minister responded: We are clearly working very closely with the Winnipeg Police department.

I would like to ask the minister why this happened in terms of the Justice department, a lack of co-ordination. Why do they have to put in a backup system now? Should they not have had it in place before, and secondly, why did it take five days with this so-called co-ordination system to notify the Winnipeg City Police of this release that took place last week?

Mr. Toews: The particular situation, without getting into any details, is that the usual course of events is that an information is laid charging an accused. From time to time, an accused will take a bail application in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court of Queen's Bench then notes its findings in respect of the bail on the information. When an indictment is entered in respect of any particular individual, under the Criminal Code there is a specific provision that says that the bail conditions on the information are then transferred to the indictment. In this particular case, it involved a process which is very rarely used in Manitoba but a process that we are beginning to use more, and that involves the situation with the direct indictment. That same process and the transfer of bail application conditions do not occur in the same way that it occurs between an information and a regular indictment and so it is that specific technical issue that needs to be addressed, and the best way to address that is through an amendment to the Criminal Code. The prosecutors in this case assumed that was the case in respect of direct indictments as well.

* (1350)

Mr. Doer: The minister can go through all the legal arguments he wants to, but the public is not satisfied with his answer today, nor should they be. You are responsible for the Crown attorneys; you are responsible for the Remand Centre--[interjection]

If the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would like to answer the question, he is quite able to answer the question.

He has the responsibility to implement the gang surveillance action task force that would at minimum have notified the Winnipeg City Police when a known gang member was released. Why was that protection not provided in his justice system, and why were the police not notified immediately when a gang member was released even though we believe that was an illegal release to begin with?

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which is something you will have noticed I do not do very often. I think we are called upon and reminded from time to time of the rules around asking and answering questions, and there are appropriate times, like now, when members of the opposition ought to be reminded about the rules with respect to the putting of questions and the use of preambles in this House.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the government House leader rose after the Premier (Mr. Filmon), of all people, was yelling from his seat about abuse of the rules. This Premier, of all people, talking about abuse of the rules.

I want to suggest that if the government House leader and the government are concerned about the operation of Q Question Period, they might want to start with some of their ministers, including the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), who only a few moments ago stood up and refused to answer a very important question asked by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). The rules apply both ways.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I would remind all honourable members that according to Beauchesne's 410(7): "Brevity both in questions and answers is of great importance."

Mr. Toews: I note the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that, in his opinion, the order was an illegal one. Perhaps he knows more about the law than others do. In this particular situation, the Remand Centre had in its possession documents which would indicate that the prisoner was entitled to be released. That document, in fact, they acted on. The real issue here is to ensure that there are administrative steps in place pending any amendment of the Criminal Code to ensure that this situation does not occur again.

The issue here was not a lack of communication between the Remand Centre and the police. I believe they are working together very closely, and we do consult the police and advise the police in the appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): A question to the Minister of Justice. We know that rule No. 1 in the Justice minister's guidebook, how to respond to matters that put the government in hot water, is to blame the federal government. Blaming Allan Rock I think is a stretch.

My question to the minister: Would the minister not--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, to pose his question.

* (1355)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister not recognize that the increasing pressure and strain of caseloads on Crown attorneys and court officials, the increasing complexity of the kinds of cases that are coming has affected morale, put a strain on the system, particularly with chronic understaffing, and it results in mistakes like happened in this case?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, in respect of any criticism of Allan Rock, I do not think that is appropriate. I was not criticizing Allan Rock.

I think this is a problem in the Criminal Code itself. I have had a number of discussions with the federal Justice minister, and while we do not agree on everything, in fact, in certain cases such as the year and the day limitation on charges of murder, the Justice minister has in fact indicated, yes, we should be repealing that particular section, and I am thankful to him for that. I believe that we can work together, and we want to work together.

In respect of the other allegations, I reject that in this situation that had anything to do with it. I believe that the situation has been clearly explained, but I will go into it in some more detail if the member wishes.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who should recognize that a mistake here was made which is not the problem so much as it has gone undetected for five days at least, not explain his understanding that this matter comes as no surprise given that the Youth Secretariat 10 months ago warned the minister that the lack of current technology resulted in serious gaps in knowledge and the Secretariat strongly recommended a computerized network linking police, prosecutions and courts.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, my colleague from St. Johns has totally taken that quote out of context. In this context it was not in any problem a matter of the communication. There was an assumption by the Crown attorney that certain bail conditions would apply to a direct indictment. A direct indictment is a very rarely used mechanism for proceeding. Indeed, of the tens of thousands of charges that we proceed on on an annual basis, I am led to believe by my officials, in the last number of years, perhaps we have had six direct indictments. This problem has not surfaced, and, therefore, as we use this mechanism on a more regular basis, we have to assure ourselves that as these problems occur there are answers, whether they are administrative or legislative.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister not acknowledge that there is a serious shortcoming when the Winnipeg police are not notified for five days about the release of an alleged gang member, particularly in light of the minister's statements in this House that his department has now instituted an institutional gangs management strategy? Does the gang unit not know when alleged gang members are being released from the corrections system?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, for the Remand Centre to assume anything other than this was an individual who was entitled to be released and therefore entitled to go about his business as any private citizen is not justified on the documentation. The documentation in fact indicated that this was a citizen who was entitled to be released. Perhaps the member opposite has no respect for the law, but the Remand Centre in fact and the officials there saw the document and acted on it. If there is a specific--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister in his response made reference to the member for St. Johns having no respect for the law. That is completely out of order. Given the fact that we are asking this minister to show concern about the law and about this particular situation where someone was out for five days before the notification took place, I would ask the minister to not only withdraw that but to apologize to the member for St. Johns, who is trying to uphold the law in this province.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable Minister of Justice that in his response he should not provoke debate and pick and choose his words carefully.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Toews: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I indicated, I have reviewed this situation with my staff to ensure that all the appropriate mechanisms and safeguards are in place. They have assured me that the steps that they have taken will address this particular problem, and I am satisfied with their explanation.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Health with relation to the home care issue. Last year it was a very hotly debated issue in which the government created a great deal of controversy and uncertainty in the minds of home care clients and home care workers.

We are asking the Minister of Health: Given that it appears as if they are softening on the privatization for profit, will the Minister of Health make a commitment that any future changes in home care services will be based on nonprofit models as opposed to private, for-profit models?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the process that was embarked upon last year was to open to proposals and tenders part of the home care service in the city of Winnipeg to test, quite frankly, to see if other methods of delivery provided equal or better service at better value, better cost. In conducting those proposal calls and the tender process, we had one company who could provide the same or better level of service at a half-a-million-dollar savings. The commitment in that contract was for a one-year period in which to assess that.

The agreement we have with the Manitoba Government Employees' Union, many of whose members are here today, was to do an evaluation at the end of the year. We will at the end of that particular year have the evaluation. It will be a matter, I am sure, of public debate and at that time we will have a better idea of where the future lies, to some degree.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: What I am asking the Minister of Health is to acknowledge that there are nonprofit models, such as what is happening in the province of Quebec with community health clinics that are indeed quite successful. Will the minister make the commitment that any future changes to home care services will be based strictly on nonprofit delivery of service as opposed to privatization for profit?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, we will want to see the results of this particular pilot at the end of the year. I know in rural Manitoba where we have transferred our staff to the regional health authorities, they will be looking at ways of improving service delivery. I know, from my own area, probably the great percentage of home care in this province, particularly in rural Manitoba, is still going to be delivered in a public way through the regional health authorities, simply because it makes the most sense. I think what we have been trying to do through this whole process is not commit to delivery mechanisms on the basis of ideology but ensure we are delivering the best service that we can in an efficient manner.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Health then prepared to instruct or request that the super regional health boards then play some sort of a role in facilitating public input in terms of how that service should be delivered, with a special emphasis put on the nonprofit organizations' participation?

Mr. Praznik: Given the economics of home care and the fact that in our tender process of the companies that met the quality rating, only one was able to provide the service for less than the cost that we estimated it does for government to do it, I would suggest that there is not going to be a rush of private sector deliverers in the profit sector wanting to provide care. I mean, that is one of the things that we learned in the tendering process. By next year, I gather part of the plan will be for home care services in the city of Winnipeg to be turned over to the authority of the Winnipeg long-term community care board, so they will have flexibility. Again, if you just look at the tendering process, I think it has confirmed what many have thought, that we did have one provider that was able to meet the quality at a reduced price. We did not have others, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro. Last July, the federal government cut welfare rates in this province by 21 percent, and following public pressure, they agreed not to pocket the money but instead use that money to go towards new housing. Of course, we heard about the so-called new federal housing strategy for the First Nations communities. Little housing has actually been built despite the promises.

I want to talk about Shamattawa. Despite its severe housing shortage, only 12 new houses were built in that community after media pressure and meetings held here with Indian Affairs in Winnipeg. Now the Shamattawa First Nation has been required to pay $1,200 a pole for 18 hydro poles just to be delivered to the community.

Why did Manitoba Hydro not pay for the delivery themselves since it is Manitoba Hydro who will be getting new customers and not Shamattawa?

Hon. David Newman (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Madam Speaker, this is a very unusual kind of situation which related to the thawing, if you will, of the winter road situation. Every effort was made by Manitoba Hydro to get 21 hydro poles to Shamattawa. The difficulty was that the thaw did take place. Shamattawa then took upon itself the contract to arrange for those poles to be delivered and the 12 new houses and water plant requiring the hydro line to be built. They took responsibility for that.

Hydro tried to co-operate with them to get the poles to them, co-operating with that private contractor. Manitoba Hydro in fact loaned the contractor the pole trailer, and fortunately the contractor was able to deliver the poles to Shamattawa in accordance with the original intent but in a different way.

So the matter, I believe, is in hand. In terms of the charging for it, Manitoba Hydro staff suggested that Shamattawa band hire the private contractor with the larger equipment. They went about it their own way, and at the moment the band is seen to be responsible for that particular charge, but that is under review.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the same minister why Manitoba Hydro themselves did not take the alternative measures. Instead, it was the band that wound up hiring somebody else to bring in the poles.

I would like to ask the minister whether or not the band will be reimbursed for their efforts for the cost incurred for the poles to go up to the community.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I already answered that question.

Mr. Robinson: I did not hear the answer to that question I posed previously, Madam Speaker.

Since the winter road is still operating as of this day and in fact another water truck is expected to be on the road tonight, why did Manitoba Hydro not make another effort to ship the poles to the community?

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I am informed that Manitoba Hydro went to extreme measures to try and accommodate this particular difficult situation, and the ultimate resolve is in accordance with I believe what is reasonable.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and deals with the ManGlobe project.

Things are going from bad to worse in the ManGlobe case, with one million of taxpayers' money lost with nothing to show for it. The company has virtually no revenues from sales or liquid assets and owes $600,000. The management is earning hundred-thousand-dollar salaries with lots of worldwide travel. The company has only 10 employees rather than 175 that are projected and now ManGlobe's two partners, the Royal Bank and MTS, have backed out of their partnership.

I would like to ask the minister: Has the minister checked to see why ManGlobe is in default of its Manitoba business registration, as it is currently not registered in this province?

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would thank the honourable member for that question. I will take it as notice, and I will bring that information back to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that ManGlobe's two partners, the Royal Bank and MTS, have withdrawn from the partnership and MTS Advanced President Bruce MacCormack resigned from ManGlobe on March 25, 1997, after serving only 11 months, why has this government not reviewed this situation and got on top of this situation that has developed?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood was asking some detailed questions about this yesterday of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey). He took aspects of those questions as notice, and he will certainly be reporting back to this House.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the same minister is: Given the serious allegations of mismanagement by the former General Manager Karen Alcock, what actions is this minister and this government prepared to take in this situation?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, without accepting any of the information provided by the member for Elmwood based on his past practices in dealings with the former Minister of Government Services and other members of this House when he brings information forward, without accepting any of the information he provides, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) is prepared to respond in detail to this particular business.

* (1410)

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, there are a number of errors in the Minister of Housing's news release issued yesterday regarding the demolition of approximately 20 units of social housing and public housing in St. Vital so that Home Depot could build a parking lot. The first error is that the units were vacant, because in the summer of '96 the government forced those tenants to move against their will so that they could, in turn, sell the property to Home Depot, and he confirmed that yesterday in Estimates.

Can the minister explain to the House why this news release claims that those units were vacant when he knows that it was his department that forced the tenants to move against their will, disrupting their families?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, the member is referring to the news release yesterday in which Habitat for Humanity is in the process of disassembling these public houses. The houses are vacant now. I am not too sure whether the member is referring to the fact that people are still in the accommodations now.

The units were sold in a package that was presented to the City of Winnipeg and the province through the Housing department to establish a Home Depot retail outlet in that particular area. What it involved was the negotiation of the sale of these two complexes through Manitoba Housing. It is a project that is going to create approximately 250 jobs in the area. It is going to generate also the opportunity for these people who were in these units to apply for the jobs in that particular area that Home Depot has made. So it is a winning proposition, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Cerilli: This is truly remarkable, Madam Speaker.

Will the minister admit that, contrary to what the news release claims, the unjustifiable loss of the 20 units in public housing will not be replaced by the two homes constructed by the scrap material, and what the government and the minister are trying to do is put a positive spin on their bad decisions and their abandonment of maintaining their responsibility for public housing for low-income Manitobans?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, let it not be said that this government does not keep its responsibilities in regard to public housing. We have been committed to the fact of supplying housing to people who found themselves in difficult situations, and we will continue to do that. The member is referring to a situation in the St. Vital area where there is still, even with the relocation of these individuals in these homes, a vacancy rate of family units of well over almost 12 percent here in Winnipeg. There is room for the absorption of any type of relocation that took place on Behnke Road, and it was just a matter of filling units that were vacant. The people had the opportunity to move to other areas of St. Vital; they had the opportunity to move to other places in Winnipeg and at no cost to themselves. All costs were picked up by the company Home Depot in the moving of these individuals.

Ms. Cerilli: To the same minister: Was a condition of sale of the Behnke Road property to Home Depot that they would indeed ensure that the used building materials would be reused for housing? If that is the case, they are in violation of this agreement and condition of the sale because they have not given enough time for Habitat to remove all the building materials.

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I find this very ironic. We have a situation here where Home Depot and the Manitoba government, when we were in negotiation, we put in a stipulation and a clause saying that when the dismantling of these units comes about, that Home Depot has the opportunity to participate. It is a tremendous opportunity for Habitat to recycle almost 90 percent of these units back into the utilization of materials. They would have the ability to sell some of these products, to reuse them in the two homes that are being built for the two people that were there that took part in the ceremony. I do not know why the member is so upset that we are recycling public housing back into public housing through the Habitat for Humanity.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): My questions are for the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism. The head tax and immigration fees of the federal Liberals have caused great damage to this province. The recent drop in Winnipeg's listing to eighth-largest city is but one example of this. Now as part of their pre-election posturing, the Liberals have said that their head tax will not have to be paid up front.

Last week I asked the minister for a report on how much the head tax and other immigration fees brought in by the Liberals have cost this province. Does she have this information and could she table it today?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): We have seen a lot of surprising announcements from the federal government. I am very pleased that our government, the work of the former Minister of Culture in dealing with the head tax, concerns about the head tax to the federal government, letters which I have written on behalf of the government and also the member opposite's concern for the community relating to that tax and the destructive effect and very difficult effect that it had on our immigration has in fact led to a change.

I do not have the numbers. I believe I said when I answered in Question Period that I would attempt to have that available during the Estimates discussion, so I do not have it for distribution today.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Since the federal government also broke a major election promise with their restrictions on family reunification, I want to ask this minister what data her department has collected on the impact of this action to our province?

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, as we get closer to the federal election, the temptation to ask questions with respect to the federal government and federal policy no doubt is going to be greatly enhanced. What I was prepared to do in order to accommodate maybe some questions that might be posed--as opposed to maybe lofting these lofty nice questions to the government, maybe one of the members of the Liberal caucus would be interested in answering the question direct. It is not necessarily to belittle the question, but I did want to--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Inkster, the honourable member definitely does not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on a new point of order.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On a new point of order, Madam Speaker, being an apologist for a federal government that breaks an election promise is not a point of order in this Chamber and never should be. We should all be proud to raise issues on behalf of our constituents no matter who the federal government is. Whether it is the former rotten Mulroney government or this government, we should be proud to raise these issues on behalf of our constituents.

* (1420)

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Opposition did not have a point of order.