Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon eight English as a Second Language students from Red River Community College under the direction of Ms. Christina Gryz. This school is located in the constitutency of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

We also have forty-four Grade 5 students from St. Andrews School under the direction of Mrs. Sandra Mulholland and Mrs. Judy Maryniuk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).

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

* (1345)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On October 31, 1996, the Premier stated in this House that if a favourable tax ruling was arrived at by Revenue Canada dealing with the MTS employee pension fund, that would in fact allow us to instead of having increases in phone rates, Madam Speaker--the Premier stated that that would forestall rate increases here in the province of Manitoba. In light of the fact that MTS is now applying for a $3-a-month rate increase for the province of Manitoba, was the Premier misled by MTS when he made that statement or did the Premier mislead this House when he made that statement last year?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Neither. The fact of the matter is that rate increases are being applied for right across Canada. In fact, the rate increases that are being proposed in Saskatchewan, I think, vary from something like $4.25 per month to $6.25 a month.

Mr. Doer: I am sure the ratepayers in Saskatchewan will have lower rates than Manitoba after this government has--this rate increase is concluded, this applied rate increase.

Madam Speaker, on June 13 of 1997, the Manitoba Telephone submission to the CRTC says that the benefit from the tax ruling on employee pensions should go as a shareholder entitlement to the private shareholders of MTS, which totally contradicts the Premier's promise in this Legislature.

I would like to ask the Premier: why has he not kept his word with the consumers of Manitoba, and why has he not intervened at the CRTC to say that he committed himself to having that benefit there to forestall rate increases rather than going to his friends who are the private shareholders of the new telephone system?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I believe the member opposite is misleading the House, although not deliberately, in the way in which he is putting that statement. My understanding is that the application to CRTC is asking for a small portion of the benefit to be applied to the shareholders, but even there CRTC must rule on it. They may well, in their wisdom, rule that all of it, not just 80 percent, has to be applied to the reduction of rates, to the general revenues and the benefit of the corporation.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the employee pension plan was paid for between the years of 1961 and 1996 by the consumers of Manitoba. It is our view, and the view that was stated in this House a year ago by the Premier, that 100 percent of that benefit should go to the Manitoba consumers. No portion should go to the shareholder entitlement.

When questioned about this at the CRTC hearings, Manitoba Telephone System said that the commitments made by the Premier of the province were irrelevant for purposes of making decisions at the CRTC. Will this Premier now state to the CRTC, as he should have a year ago as we asked him, that his words in this House were relevant and the benefits from the employee pension plan and those entitlements should go a hundred percent to forestall rate increases in Manitoba, not any portion of it should not go to his friends that are private shareholders, contrary to his word in this Legislature last year?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I believe that the benefit should go to the ratepayers, and I believe that CRTC will definitely take that into account.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, the Premier is aware that the former assistant deputy minister for income assistance negotiated a contract, while he was the assistant deputy minister, with IBM, then subsequently left the department and went to work for IBM and was found to be working on the same contract and in contact with government officials.

I would like to ask the Premier--who has some familiarity with IBM; he was a guest in Atlanta at their expense until he was caught and reimbursed IBM--if this is the kind of leadership he is providing to his ministers or whether he realizes that this is a conflict and a violation of The Conflict of Interest Act.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think, as a man of the cloth, the member for Burrows does himself a disservice by the kinds of allegations and false accusations that he makes here in the House.

I attended at the Olympics as part of the delegation of the Pan American Games, a matter that is well known from Winnipeg. Any portion of any expenses that was paid in Atlanta for my housing was paid by me, Madam Speaker. The member opposite can do whatever he wants to try and colour the truth, but the facts are on the record.

* (1350)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Once again, Madam Speaker, the Premier is engaging in the kinds of personal attacks--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ashton: Well, to talk about the member who asked the question, Madam Speaker, who indeed is a man of the cloth--in the end, we are all honourable members in this House. Even the Premier gets treated as an honourable member, and I would like to ask you to caution the minister about the choice of his words. Instead of answering the question, he chose to attack the member. That is absolutely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Filmon: Yes, Madam Speaker, if the member for Burrows objects to being called a man of the cloth, then I withdraw that reference.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister. The point of order has been dealt with.

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I do not think the First Minister understands The Conflict of Interest Act, so I would like to table three copies of Sections 19(2) and 19(3) which specifically state that no former civil servant is to have any contact or act on behalf of a company--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Burrows that on a supplementary question, there is to be no preamble. Would you please pose your question now.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to repeat the same question to the Premier and get an answer this time, and that is: does he understand and appreciate that this former civil servant, who now works for IBM, attended meetings, meetings that have been confirmed by the deputy minister on the same topic, the one-tier welfare system, that are clearly a violation of The Conflict of Interest Act, whereby he is supposed to have no dealings with the government for a one-year period. Is this the kind of leadership that this Premier is providing to his ministers?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank the honourable member for the question because it allows me to clarify the record and indicate, Madam Speaker, that it is the Civil Service Commission that has the conflict-of-interest guidelines and manages those. The Department of Family Services checked with the Civil Service Commission for recommendations on how to deal with Doug Sexsmith, and those rules were followed.

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to table pages from the request for proposals--[interjection] I am tabling pages from the request for proposals which say that the proposals are to be mailed to Mr. Doug Sexsmith--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Thompson--

Madam Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr. McCrae: On a point of order. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) rises daily to remind the House of the rules of this place and some of the appropriate texts that go along with that. The guidelines that Speakers have followed with respect to the putting of questions in Question Period are well known but often breached, that being: the first question, there is more latitude; the second question is straight question with no preamble or anything else, and that certainly would not include a tabling in a subsequent question. If the honourable member--the appropriate way, if he wants to table something at a time when the rules do not allow for that, would be to ask for leave for that to happen.

The reason I rise has more to do with reminding honourable members opposite, who rise so often on points of order, that they are quite capable of breaching the rules of this place and do so more often than anybody else around here.

* (1355)

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

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, we are getting used to this government denying our ability to operate in this House. We were denied our ability to speak on the sale of MTS. Now they want to deny us the opportunity to table documents which are relevant to the very important question raised by the Minister of Family Services.

While on my feet on this point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you once again to call the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) to order, who talked about a member on our side being such a little man. I am wondering if I can raise that. I know we may not get him to withdraw it for another year or so, knowing his track record on this, but we expect this minister to stop making those kinds of abusive comments. We also expect that we should have the right to table documents, something that has been a long-standing tradition in this House, on any question that we ask in Question Period.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, there is nothing that precludes a member from tabling a document. However, I would remind the honourable member for Burrows that he should not be reading from the document he is tabling when he is about to pose a second or third supplementary question.

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to table another document, a page from Hansard, and ask the minister--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask for the co-operation of all honourable members to not interrupt once a member has been recognized to either pose or respond to a question. The honourable member for Burrows was recognized to pose his question and was rudely interrupted.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services or the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who apparently has not learned anything from the Mike Bessey affair, whether or not they understand and whether either of them can explain why Mr. Sexsmith received the proposals, worked on the proposals, went to work for IBM, attended meetings with department staff, even though the minister, in Estimates, said he is working across the country for IBM and he is not doing anything with the province of Manitoba. Can the minister explain that?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I will indicate to all members of this House exactly what did happen. Mr. Doug Sexsmith tendered his resignation on November 25, 1996. On November 29, 1996, the Civil Service Commission provided direction regarding the provincial government's conflict-of-interest guidelines regarding Mr. Sexsmith. He began attending some one-tier welfare project meetings in a resource capacity on July 2, 1997, following conclusion of negotiations with IBM and the signing of a term sheet that was dated on June 26, 1997.

If members opposite would grant me a little bit of extra time, I will read into the record what the Civil Service Commission did say when they contacted the department after November of 1996: Mr. Sexsmith is precluded for a period of one year from using his influence to secure new business for IBM. Mr. Sexsmith cannot involve himself in ongoing contractual discussions between IBM and the Manitoba government with respect to one-tier and better systems for a period of one year. He could, however, be involved in internal IBM discussions regarding these matters. Number 3, Mr. Sexsmith could also play an internal advisory role with IBM on how it may conduct its affairs with the Manitoba government. Number 4, Mr. Sexsmith would be permitted to play a more visible role with IBM in its dealings with the Manitoba government with respect to implementation of one-tier once negotiations of these matters have been concluded. Madam Speaker, negotiations were concluded when he became involved.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question regarding the shortage of physicians up north in The Pas. I have sat here and I have listened to the minister talk about his plans to recruit physicians for rural and northern Manitoba, and every time I listen to him I get encouraged for one day and then, of course, the next day I see that nothing is happening.

I would like to ask him specifically--The Pas, people in that community have been working very hard in the last little while trying to recruit doctors. Apparently they have three doctors from South Africa who are willing to relocate to The Pas, but they are running short of money because apparently the regional health authority does not have any money to pay for some of the relocation costs, and now they are stuck. I would like to ask the minister: will he come to the aid of The Pas and put some money into the regional health authority or instruct the regional health authority to help pay for the cost instead of relying on the community financially to help with the recruiting process, as the CEO of the Norman Region apparently told the community?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, my understanding is the same as the member's, that as a result of some of the initiatives in recruiting physicians to fill a variety of gaps in our system, some doctors have been identified to fill positions in that area. With respect to relocation costs and those types of matters, it has always been, going back many, many years in this province, a responsibility of a local community or institution to provide funds and assistance to bring doctors into their communities. That is not a new policy; that is not a change. In fact, the only change that has probably happened in our recruitment policy is that the ministry is now taking a more active role indirectly moving towards recruitment and dealing with the college.

So that has been a part of the traditional practice in our province going back over a number of governments over many decades in the recruitment of physicians to communities. I know that the mayor of The Pas has very publicly expressed interest from time to time in involvement in the health care issues, and so I would hope that there is a willingness there within the community to be part of that strategy to recruit and, very importantly, retain physicians.

* (1400)

Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, the point I want to make to the minister is some communities are in a position to pay for the cost of recruiting doctors; some communities just do not have the means with which to do it. I am asking the minister to help The Pas by way of financially supporting the recruitment process.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, we have been very much involved in assisting in the recruiting process by putting some resources into--rather than leaving communities, as has traditionally been the case. Going back over a number of governments, the recruitment issue by and large has been left to communities, so we have put a variety of resources recently into recruiting and identifying physicians to come here. We have also put in place with our new emergency services agreement I think a better tool to help finance doctors when they arrive in providing them with a better income.

We are also working on some new models with the Manitoba Medical Association in making it easier and faster to get doctors into communities with an income that makes it attractive to stay there, but there is an obligation. We do appreciate that some communities are in different financial situations than others, and as we develop and work through this, we certainly want to pay heed and attention to that. But I know the mayor of The Pas has actively expressed, on many occasions, his desire to be involved in health care issues, et cetera, and I would hope that he and his council now have an opportunity to play a positive role in recruiting and retaining physicians, and I would hope they would be there when their services are in fact required by their community.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, last week three days running I asked questions with respect to the murder of Carol Hastings of Oxford House to the Minister of Justice. Unfortunately, the minister had business out of the province, something I do respect. I did table a letter last week from the Okimow family of Oxford House and how they were outraged about the lack of communication that came their way with respect to the eventual conviction and sentencing of Mr. Dhaliwal.

I would like to ask the minister today if he has read that letter from the Okimow family and if he is prepared today to apologize publicly to the Okimow family and also appeal the sentence.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, of course, as we know, that was a very tragic death, and we certainly feel for the Okimow family. Being in Thompson, however, yesterday, I had occasion to speak with a number of people, including the RCMP, including victim services, and they expressed deep concerns about the misrepresentations that the member was making to the House here. I certainly think that he should be getting his facts correct before he makes the types of misrepresentations that he has been making.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker. Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear, that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

The member for Rupertsland asked on behalf of the family for the minister to apologize for making statements in the House last week which misrepresented the family's position. This was a misrepresentation by the minister, nothing to do with the member for Rupertsland. In his answer, there was not one reference to the family, not one reference to the fact they were not happy with the disposition of the case and not the most appropriate thing, which was an absolute apology from that minister to the member for Rupertsland and the family for raising legitimate concerns about the case--the way it was dealt.

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

Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, I was simply giving the member from Churchill an opportunity to correct the misrepresentations that he has been making on the record. I certainly have given him the opportunity to do so, and I trust that he will.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I think it is totally disrespectful, the comments that I hear from the Minister of Justice towards the Okimow family and aboriginal people in general.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for the latitude. Sometimes we do not have an opportunity to respond to these silly statements that are sometimes made on the government side.

Obviously the government has not read the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to launch an external inquiry to examine the circumstances around this case.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I certainly have looked into this entire situation, both the involvement of the victims' services workers since July of this year, indeed the RCMP were involved with the family from the day of the discovery of the deceased's body, and indeed as late as December 4, the RCMP advised that the mother and the father of this deceased were upset about people coming to see them and putting words in their mouth. They indicated to the RCMP that they were not interested in an appeal, that they are satisfied with the sentence, and indeed even the Oxford House council indicated that they were not supporting Mr. Robinson's attempt to an appeal of the sentence.

Now, I have given this individual opportunity. I can tell you that the victims' services branch and the RCMP were very upset that members in this House called them racists. They were very upset about that.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. With the indulgence of the honourable member for Rupertsland and for the record, I would like to address the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I apologize to the House; I neglected to make a statement.

I would remind all honourable members that this is a very sensitive issue and to use extreme courtesy and caution when both posing questions and dealing with responses. I would also remind the honourable minister to respond to the question asked and not provoke debate.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your ruling. Obviously, the minister has not read the letter that I received from the Okimow family, so I will ask him to indulge in reading that letter. I get my information directly from the victims.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his question now.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I will table that letter again for the minister to read.

Simply, my question is: will he launch an independent inquiry, an outside, an external inquiry to examine the circumstances? Obviously, that was not done.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that this is a very sensitive issue. I think some of the facts should be placed on the record in terms of the constant input by the RCMP, the victims' services office and indeed the Crown's office in respect of this particular case. Indeed--[interjection] Now, I know they do not want to hear the answer, but I am prepared to give the answer in any event.

The information that I have received is that the police updated the family daily upon the discovery of the deceased's body, and after Mr. Dhaliwal was returned to Manitoba the RCMP contacted the family on a weekly basis, sometimes several times a week. On July 17, 1997, was when victims' services became involved in this matter. On November 28, there was a meeting with 22 people--22 people to discuss this issue.

* (1410)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker. I will again appeal to you to call the minister to order. He is violating Beauchesne Citation 417.

The question that was asked was a call for an inquiry. What the minister is doing is putting events which--we welcome the information placed on the record, but I get the feeling the minister does not even recall the initial questions from the member for Rupertsland, because the basic concern that was raised a week ago was whether the family was satisfied with the sentence and the plea bargain, not whether there was contact between the family and the RCMP and victims' services.

I would suggest that the minister answer the question and not try and question the integrity of the member for Rupertsland, who is the only one who has taken the opportunity here, not the minister, to talk to the family and is speaking out on behalf of that family.

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

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I was simply trying to clarify the facts here. It appears that the facts that the member from Churchill put on the record yesterday--

An Honourable Member: Rupertsland.

Mr. Toews: Rupertsland, I am sorry--were not correct. I was simply putting the discussion into a context. So, Madam Speaker, there were allegations made in respect of a letter that was tendered in the context of the question, and I was simply responding to that aspect of the question.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed there is a point of order. I would ask that the minister respond specifically to the question asked.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Earlier this afternoon I had lunch with actually a volunteer for Meals on Wheels, and he indicated that one of the things that Meals on Wheels do is they go to the local community hospitals and they pick up meals to bring to individuals that are unable to otherwise have those meals.

My question to the minister is: can he in fact tell us how his decision to have hospitals no longer cooking meals will impact the good work and the efforts by many volunteers in delivering those meals?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): First of all, Madam Speaker, Urban Shared Services was a creation of the nine Winnipeg hospitals and is part of their efforts to streamline their operations. I am not saying I do not support their efforts; I do. This was a decision made by them, as opposed to one that was directly made in the Ministry of Health.

One of the questions that we have put to Urban Shared Services was the Meals on Wheels program, and it is my understanding that the meals for that program will be provided through the centralized operation of Urban Shared Services. So it will continue, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Health then assure this Chamber that in fact there will not be any interruption to those individuals that need and rely on those meals?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, one of the benefits of this whole plan that Urban Shared Services has put together is by building a new centralized facility in the St. Boniface industrial park, it allows them to get that facility in operation and have a smooth transition before the current system of providing meals is phased out.

If we had proceeded to rebuild, and I think the estimated cost is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35 million of new capital that would have been required to refurbish existing kitchens, Madam Speaker, capital that we would much rather see invested in other places, during courses of renovation, it would have been more difficult to ensure continued services. So one of the benefits here is the smooth transition that this allows.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what I am hearing is an assurance of a firm yes, that that will in fact occur.

Can the minister indicate to this House that he will instruct or request the Urban Shared Services Corporation to facilitate the community volunteers' desire not to have to go to a particular central location? This way we do not lose our volunteers in having them circulate the meals to people's homes.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the exact detail of how that will work out, but given the fact that I understand there will be regular deliveries to facilities throughout the day, I am sure that these matters can be worked out amicably between those who are delivering the service and running the program and those who are providing the food.

I thank him for raising this matter. This is one of a number of details for which people have, I think, very legitimate questions that require answers, and I will ensure that one is provided for the member with the specifics. I thank him for the question.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

I would like to table a legal opinion on the federal government's negotiating position on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. This opinion is registered by a New York-based law firm that specializes in international law. It concludes that the Canadian government's reservations on the MAI are inadequate. It shows that the provincial government's commitments to protecting our health care, education, culture and the environment could in fact be undermined by the federal government's position on this treaty.

My question is to the minister: will he instruct his negotiator to reject the treaty in its current form, given that it undermines the province's ability to protect our environment, our health care, education and culture?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): It is my understanding, Madam Speaker, there is no final agreement reached.

We have clearly indicated that we do not want anything that would jeopardize the province of Manitoba in any negotiations the federal government is carrying out, and we have basically used the NAFTA agreement as the guidelines as to which we are prepared to accept what is in the NAFTA agreement, nothing more.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) then, will he review that legal document that I provided them? Would he seek an independent legal opinion, and would he table that in the Legislature?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I am prepared to have the department look at the document that has been tabled.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, people of the Netley Creek area are very concerned that a hog barn is being built in a very sensitive area. They are concerned about the ground water, they are concerned about the natural habitat in the Netley Marsh, they are concerned that the area where the barn is being built is very low and floods every year. Given that this area is classified as a cautionary area on the Selkirk and District planning map, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will assure the people of the area that the project will be put on hold until all proper environmental impact assessments are done and the sensitive areas that they are concerned about are protected.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I want to indicate to the honourable member that it is my understanding that that area is covered with a planning program, a planning district. It is very much in the hands of the local government, the local administration where it ought to be, the decision as to what should or should not be built within their municipality and their jurisdiction, and I am assuming that all of these things will come into play.

If I were being asked for some advice, I would certainly advise the proponents and the council to undertake to find out specifically from the technical review team that consists of expert people from the Department of Environment, from the Department of Natural Resources, from the Department of Agriculture who will review the proposal for the municipality and provide their opinion as to whether or not it is appropriate to be built in that particular spot.

* (1420)

Ms. Wowchuk: Given that the technical review committee is still doing their work and the ground is being dug up at this time and the barn is being started to build, is this Minister of Agriculture prepared to put the hog industry in Manitoba here at risk by allowing operations like this to be built in sensitive areas and causing condemnation of the industry right across the province?

I will table an article from the Portage Graphic which tables just that, that we have to be very careful on how this industry expands.

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, I would invite her and indeed representatives from the municipality involved to provide me with any of the information that she is now in bits and pieces providing to the House. I am somewhat at a loss to explain why anybody is doing anything unless they received permission from the appropriate jurisdiction to do it. Has a conditional permit been provided by the municipality? If so, then the conditions obviously have been met.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey). My question concerns his lack of due diligence and proper credit checks on applicants for government grants under his department. When he discovered that the strategic planner and controlling mind of TeleSend Gateway Inc., John Ishmael, was in jail for fraud during the time of the application and the approval process, why did he overrule his department and send the final $90,000 cheque? The minister had a choice. He could have refused to release this $90,000, but he overruled his department and he sent him the money. Why?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the member tries to bring information to the House that is inaccurate. I did not overrule my department as it related to any activities in this regard. It was under the advice of the department that any monies would be released, and it was not to the individual to whom he is referring.

Mr. Maloway: Well, Madam Speaker, on February 20, 1995, Mr. Jim Mickelson and Gary Albo of his department were apprised of the situation regarding this grant, and yet he went and proceeded to order them to send or sent the $90,000 to this company. Now I would like to ask the minister: why does this minister continue to claim that the grant monies were used for their intended purposes when credit card records show that the Ishmael family spent thousands of dollars using the TeleSend Gateway credit card for personal items such as cosmetics, suits--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, I do not accept any of the preamble or the premise that the department was instructed to do anything. All of these activities come through the department from individuals who are responsible for carrying out the program activities. Again, I have no way of knowing how individuals spend their credit card money or how they use their credit card. That is not my responsibility. Our responsibility is to assess, as we did, the individual, which is not the one he is referring to as related to the program or which they were applying for the resources for.

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

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to know how it is that $308.95 spent in a perfume shop on January 14, 1995, constitutes proper expenditure of money.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Elmwood definitely did not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Elmwood, to pose a final supplementary question.

Mr. Maloway: On May 22, 1997, the minister promised to tell us how many employees other than members of the Ishmael family were hired under this $200,000 grant, and after six months, would the minister tell us who, other than John and Helen and their daughter Shalesa Charron, were hired under this grant?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, again, I have provided the information that is necessary to answer what the department has done. I will take under advisement the further question that the member refers to.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): We have more examples of mismanagement under this government, this time in the Department of Housing where they have an unstated liability of more than a hundred million dollars. They tear down perfectly good public housing to build a hardware store. They have an unacceptable length of time to fill vacancies, some 1,300 vacant units. I want to ask the Minister of Housing how much money they have been losing per month because they have been inept in developing a strategy to fill these high vacancy rates for eight to nine years.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, I guess what we have to look back to a degree is the history of some of the public housing and how the construction and the application of the public housing, when it came about in the '60s, '70s and '80s under the previous government, where there was a high concentration of housing that was in the bachelor-suite end of the spectrum. This is where the majority of our vacancies are in our housing portfolio. We are working very hard in trying to fill that void in the vacancies of the bachelor suite, because we recognize too that there is a need sometimes, but the demand for bachelor suites is not there. We have tried successfully at the prices to market these in some of the areas, so we are working continuously to try to fill those vacancies. I agree with the member that the vacancy rate is high, and we are working to try to bring it down.

Ms. Cerilli: We would like to ask the minister--considering their vague statements in the throne speech about changing the management as they negotiate to take over 17,000 or more homes managed in Manitoba, I want to ask him to table plans to fill vacant units, including the cost for those plans, including the cost for continuing to do nothing, and to explain to us how they can fill these vacancies now, in desperation, with people who really should be in other health care facilities.

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, there were a multitude of questions there, and I will try to answer a few of them in some sort of sequence.

The member mentioned the vacancy rate and what we are doing to try to combat the vacancies. One of the ways that we are looking at is, like I mentioned earlier in my previous answer, the marketing, in a sense of going out and canvassing the areas. We have designated two people in the department to do some canvassing in certain areas to try to get people into the areas. We have advertised in some of the local community newspapers. We have put signs on some of our buildings, trying to encourage people to come in and take a look at them. We have brochures that we hand out to people in the area to try to get them to recognize that there are vacancies in some of the areas, and we have had some degree of success in this.

We will continue to do that, because we recognize that there is a need for it. But at the same time, as I pointed out earlier, when you have bachelor suites and people do not want to live in them, you really cannot force the people to move into these units.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.