* (1015)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). In dealing with the Home Oxygen Program, the government ministers across the way have put up a number of questionable answers about their rejection of the recommendation made by their own experts dealing with this program. Today we see the Minister of Health has stated that he was absolutely shocked that there was no analysis, no information, they had no idea of the cost comparisons in dealing with the decision to privatize the majority of this service which is presently being run, in terms of service, by home care staff of the Province of Manitoba.

I would like to ask the Premier: can the Premier tell the House today whether his current Minister of Health--and he has had three ministers of Health and he has had now I guess at least three deputy ministers of Health--is the Premier saying today that the Minister of Health is correct when he says there is no analysis and they have no idea of what they are doing in terms of the cost quality of this decision?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, the Leader of the Opposition makes reference to three ministers of Health, but there has certainly been more than one Health critic in the time I have been here in the House, so whatever results in change happens on both sides. [interjection] Well, if there have only been two, I am sure a change may be due.

The fact of the matter is the Leader of the Opposition again, who is prone to exaggeration, has exaggerated the point that I made. The prime purpose for putting out this tender, as I discussed with the Free Press reporter yesterday and my new deputy minister, Mr. DeCock, also was part of that interview at one point--I point out that the plan was to go to a one-stop shopping method. Currently the equipment and the supplier of the oxygen come from two separate points. I believe there are two points of access. Under this new particular system, there is one point of access, including a toll-free line. So, Madam Speaker, the prime issue is one of service.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I have asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in the past to indicate to the people of Manitoba, to the public and to this Chamber whether they in fact have done any analysis at all in the government, in the health care department, in the Treasury Board, of the cost analysis of moving from a program that is delivered with backup from the private sector in service from a home care nonprofit service to a system that they are now embarking on.

I would like to ask the Premier today will he table any study of cost comparisons with this new proposal they are looking at and compared to the existing program in terms of client services in the home oxygen service here in Manitoba.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, the prime purpose for this particular move was to be able to deliver better service. We would hope that there will be some efficiency. In talking with the officials in the Ministry of Health who have been part of this project for some time, one of the difficulties in getting exact numbers--and I know the Leader of the Opposition will have had that experience in his days in cabinet, and it is sort of common to all governments--is the way in which costs are allocated to various programs pose difficulty in getting a true cost analysis of any programs.

Indeed, when we came into power in 1988, the cost of space, for example, was not allocated to departments. Benefits were not often allocated to the true cost of process. So, over our period in government, we have been working to improve those cost-accounting methods so we can get very true and accurate cost accounting for our programs. One thing for certain is, with this particular tender, it gives us over the next two years a chance to have a true evaluation of our costs of delivering this program.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we find, whether it is in privatization of home care last year or privatization and putting profit into any part of the health care system, that the Tories want to proceed on the basis of ideology, not on the basis of what is best for Manitobans. In fact, they hide and cover up the fact that they have studies.

I would like to table today a copy of a study conducted in the Department of Health which totally contradicts the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health, which analyzes the cost of proceeding from an existing system that is run by home care nonprofit staff with a backup from a private company. The cost in Manitoba is $854 on a client year. The cost of going to the private system and the profit system that they are proceeding with in Alberta is $3,264 a year, and a similar cost in Ontario is $4,700 a year.

How can the Premier maintain this cover-up position that they do not have any numbers and they do not have any facts and figures when the facts and figures they have recommend against proceeding with the privatization of the oxygen home care system?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I detect a really shallow analysis from the Leader of the Opposition. He quotes a cost of this program--and remember, there are two parts to it now. There is the supply of equipment which government has traditionally done through home care and the purchase of oxygen. I do not know if he has combined those figures, which is now the case, and then he quotes the prices in other provinces. Well, this is not Alberta, it is not Ontario, and in so many cases the New Democrats are just wrong.

I would like to table in the House today their press release in which they indicated and stated as a matter of fact that Rimer Alco did not have a bond in place. The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) issued this press release. He talked about integrity of the program. He says on the 18th of March that there was no bond in place, categorically. I would like to table the bond dated the 7th of March. So, Madam Speaker, they are always wrong.

* (1020)

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, with a new question.

Mr. Doer: Yes, a new question, Madam Speaker, a new question to the Premier. He has been in charge while these studies have been conducted. He has been in charge with previous ministers of Health. He has been in charge of the existing Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) who went out in the hallway yesterday and made various comments and the day before.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did he, was he--[interjection] That he did not care about quality of health care was the essence. He said that both bids were similar when in fact his own health experts said the opposite, contrary to what the Minister of Finance said in this Chamber.

I would like to ask the Premier will he table today any other study that the government has that would contradict the fact that Manitoba's existing system on a cost-quality basis is much superior to the other systems which they are moving towards, that the recommendation from their own health experts is to improve the existing system, not to privatize the existing system with the private contracts. I would like to ask the Premier today does he have any study refuting the study we have tabled in this Chamber today that comes from his own Health department recommending against this privatization.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, although I do not have the exact math in front of me, there are some 800 people on the program. The value of the contract over a two-year period is somewhat just over $1.4 million. I am not the greatest at math, but that certainly does not add up to the thousands of dollars the Leader of the Opposition is proposing.

The member refers to this study. I am just getting a glance over it. It does not appear even from my quick reading that it supports the position in detail that the Leader of the Opposition is advancing.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the conclusion is not mine. It is the Department of Health's own committee that recommends that the existing system be improved but it not be privatized, as the government has proceeded to do. It is the government's own cost analysis between Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario, and it shows the cost per client sufficiently cheaper here in the province of Manitoba. It further goes on to say that no one company could take over or should take over and establish a monopoly.

I would like to ask the Premier why has he again gone against his health care experts and proceeded to go with the monopoly, as they proceeded to do in the government without any study to back up their position.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, just the cursory math from the information we have tells me that the numbers the Leader of the Opposition is using of $3,000 in Alberta and $4,000 in Ontario are wrong.

An Honourable Member: They are your numbers.

Mr. Praznik: Well, they may be the numbers of the department, Madam Speaker, but they have not borne out true in the contract. I mean, the contract, as we have indicated, is for some 800 Manitobans. We will work on those particular numbers.

Madam Speaker, what I find most interesting is the member here talks about not having a monopoly. For how many days in this Legislature have we heard him, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) supporting an industry, a traditional industry, taking their view because they did not win a contract, an industry, generally speaking, that has overcharged the people of Manitoba and Canada for oxygen for a number of years?

I cannot believe that I am standing here today hearing the New Democrats defending big corporate interests.

* (1025)

Mr. Doer: My question is to the First Minister. His Minister of Health has stated that there is no study in the Department of Health. He is wrong. We have again tabled reports from his own Ministry of Health, from his own experts that do the comparison and make recommendations to the government. We have maintained all along and it is very, very clear that we believe in the principle of nonprofit in our health care system. That is absolutely clear throughout all of this debate.

This recommendation recommends to maintain the current system due to the cost-effectiveness of $854 per client per year versus the $2,400 in the private sector. I would like to know on what health care reasons and what cost-effective reasons the Premier (Mr. Filmon) rejected his own health care experts and proceeded to privatization of the Home Oxygen Program for the 800 people that rely on that program.

Mr. Praznik: For the third or fourth time, Madam Speaker, in just looking at this analysis, very clearly, they refer to Alberta and they refer to Ontario in the document tabled by the Leader of the Opposition.

What we have been saying in this House for the whole week, and one of the great benefits of Rimer Alco in Manitoba, is that they have brought a competitive force to the oxygen business that has brought down the cost of oxygen. All we have seen that party do across the way for this week is tear down a small Manitoba company that has done nothing, nothing but reduce the cost of oxygen in Manitoba hospitals, we would expect in our Home Care program, which frees up other dollars for patients in Manitoba because that is what this is about.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, Manitoba jobs are the jobs we are speaking about here, Manitobans who have provided high-quality services over many years to vulnerable people, those are who are being laid off.

More than 20 times this week the Finance minister and the Health minister said that the home oxygen committee recommended either of two companies as satisfactory, when the final minutes, which we have tabled and they have read, unequivocally and unanimously recommended a three-year contract to one company at a cost saving.

Will the Minister of Finance finally admit what everybody else knows and what has been admitted, in fact, all over the place except here, that basically he has misled the House in regard to the committee's recommendation on both quality and cost and that the preferred bidder was VitalAire, not Rimer Alco, that Rimer Alco was not even recommended as a second choice? Will he finally confirm that?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, no, I will not admit to any such things, especially coming from a member who is the master of misleading this House, the member for Crescentwood. He does it time and time again. He comes with misinformation, wrong information, and he is wrong again on this one.

The committee clearly recommended there are two firms that have the quality to perform this work. Rimer Alco is one; VitalAire is the other. On the basis of a two-year contract, Rimer Alco was the lowest cost. It was on that basis that the contract was awarded.

I remind all members opposite of the importance of issues like performance bonds. Rimer Alco has a $1.75-million performance bond and to get a performance bond, the bonding company obviously has to be assured that you can provide the service, that you can provide the quality service and that you have the financial wherewithal to do that. So to get that kind of a bond, that bonding company is also standing behind the ability of Rimer Alco.

* (1030)

Mr. Sale: Will this Finance minister, who has to be able to be trusted by companies and the people of Manitoba, finally acknowledge that the date by which that bond was to be in place was Friday, October 5, 1996, not March 7, 1997, and that by allowing this company to not have a bond in place as the other bidders had to do, he basically skewed the bidding process and undercut the integrity of government tendering? He knows that is the case. Will he acknowledge it to the House?

Mr. Stefanson: The last person that I need any lessons on trust from is the member for Crescentwood. This company has their performance bond. It is a performance bond for $1.75 million, in excess of the total value of the contract. Often the norm in the industry is for 50 percent of a contract.

This company has bonding in excess of the total contract requirement, and I encourage members opposite to understand what a bonding company does before they actually issue a performance bond. They go through the capabilities of the company, their ability to provide that service. Obviously, to put at risk $1.75 million, that bonding company has an awful lot of confidence in Rimer Alco to provide the service. It is based on the combination, that the evaluation committee said they are one of two firms that have the capability and quality to do it and they are the overall lowest cost to government over that two-year period.

Mr. Sale: Is the Finance minister, by awarding this contract to one company, then speaking in favour of monopoly contracts, putting at risk the long-term viability of an industry, when his own committee recommended that no one company be given a monopoly precisely because once the sunk costs are paid for, any new entrant into the field is going to have a very hard time bidding competitively? He has given away a monopoly. Is that his policy?

Mr. Stefanson: That is an interesting question coming from the masters of monopoly across the way. I think everybody in Manitoba can acknowledge that usually competition is healthy. Usually competition drives quality in terms of services and the best price that you can get.

That is exactly the process that we have gone through here where we have gone through a request for proposal. Five firms bid on the work. This firm was deemed to be the most appropriate based on quality and cost, and that is why the contract has been awarded to Rimer Alco.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, there has been talk lately leading into this weekend's Liberal meeting on gangs about what the federal government can do to reduce the growth of street gangs and youth crime. One recommendation that we have is to stop charging the GST on community club programs like Park City West in my constituency which has been sent a GST bill for more than $10,000.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance, who is also the Minister for Sport, if he has had any discussions with the federal government for them to stop charging the GST on youth programs at community clubs. If not, will he consider doing that?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, I have not, but I will certainly look into the issue and consider doing it as requested.

Ms. Cerilli: For the Minister of Justice: does this minister not agree that there is a case to be made for the work done in youth services, in community crime prevention of the volunteer-run community clubs across our province and that the least the Liberals could do, if they would not completely eliminate the GST as they promised--would he not agree there is a case to be made for them to at least scrap the GST on community club programs?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I think my colleague from Radisson has in fact indicated that there is a case to be made, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) will raise that with the appropriate federal officials. I thank the member for bringing that to our attention.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, for the Justice minister: since he has been invited to the Liberal by-invitation-only meeting this weekend on gangs, will he raise this issue this weekend with the ministers and the other members of the government at the meeting this weekend and end this erosion of the ability of community clubs to provide crime prevention services and programs for youth in our province?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I will have an opportunity to raise a number of issues with the federal Minister of Justice over the weekend, beginning in The Pas this afternoon and at the youth conference on Saturday as well as Sunday afternoon in certain discussions.

I do not have the background material on that specific issue, so I do not think I can raise it in an educated way, but I think the member has brought an interesting proposal forward. If there is merit to it, I am sure that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) will advise the appropriate federal officials, and I would certainly want to co-operate in that respect if that in fact is feasible and an appropriate way to proceed.

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

The office of the Provincial Auditor actually had a special audit done with respect to Woodstone Corporation, which was another recipient of Grow Bonds. One of the recommendations in it, and I cite the report specific--certain information was included in the offering memorandum that may have overstated the immediacy of the prospect of significant sales.

My question to the government is: is this in all likelihood what happened with Rimer Alco, that the same error was indeed made, and that is why special treatment was given and the contract was awarded?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Not to my knowledge, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would ask the Premier, because I am sure he would acknowledge the benefits of the Grow Bonds Program and its integrity is critical in terms of its long-term survival, will the Premier indicate to us today what actions he has taken to ensure that Grow Bond recipients are in fact not only legitimate but are not overestimating on their potential sales and in essence following the recommendations from the Provincial Auditor?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am informed that we are following all of the recommendations from the Provincial Auditor, and I noted in the information that the member tabled a couple of days ago that the financial position of Rimer Alco had improved in the period that was shown year upon year, I believe it was '95 to '96.

I also note that it is passing strange, as my former colleague from Morris used to say, that, at the same time as he is advocating that we do things to ensure the integrity and the strength of our Grow Bond corporations, he was advocating that we ignore the bid of the Grow Bond corporation that was the lowest bid and a qualified bidder and was able to be bonded, ignore all of that and take the work away from them and give it to a multinational corporation. Now, how would that have helped the integrity and the financial security of the corporation, Rimer Alco?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would respond in the sense of a question to the Premier by asking the Premier to acknowledge the fact that the real reason why Rimer Alco was given this particular contract was because it was having financial difficulties and needed to have additional sales, and this government gave it special treatment because it felt it could save, at least in part, the Grow Bonds Program.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, that is absolutely false, and the member opposite should be ashamed to even raise that issue.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Today is antiracism day, and I noticed members of the government are wearing their Stop Racism buttons. It is a good day to take stock of how well we as a province are committed to combatting the unrelenting evils of hate, racism and discrimination.

My question to the Minister of Justice is, in light of more budget cuts targeted at the Human Rights Commission of Manitoba this year, can the minister tell us what work of the commission the government finds repugnant or unworthy?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I do not need any lectures from the member for St. Johns on racism. This is a government that is committed to the equality of all people here in Manitoba, but that does not prevent us from looking at our various programs from time to time to determine in fact that the services being offered or the programs or the commissions offering services to the people of Manitoba are doing so appropriately.

So I would welcome this discussion in a more full way during Estimates. I would welcome those kinds of questions and we can go through the details.

* (1040)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister not admit that, by cutting the Human Rights Commission's budget, the kind of move denounced by the federal Human Rights Commissioner just yesterday, for each of the last three years and including gutting the Human Rights Commission's education function last year, the government is purposely undermining the fight against hate and racism?

Mr. Toews: No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): My question is to the Minister responsible for MTS or the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). MTS spokesman Guy Prokopetz was quoted in today's paper and said with respect to a phone booth on the Perimeter Highway, "We decide to remove a phone based on how much it makes."

Will the minister not agree that phone booths should also be provided on the basis of safety considerations and on public need? Is the newly privatized MTS reducing every concern about phone service to the issue of how profitable the service is, neglecting safety and other issues?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I am no longer Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. It is no longer responsible to government. It is in the private sector as a private corporation which makes its own decisions.

Mr. Hickes: My question is to any minister who is concerned about public safety. There are many phone booths in the inner city, particularly in the West Broadway and Point Douglas areas, and they serve a public interest in safety due to the lower level of phone ownerships and higher levels of crime. Many 911 calls are made from these phones.

Can any minister assure residents those phone booths will remain for safety reasons regardless of whether they turn a profit for MTS?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, those are all valid concerns that the member is expressing. He should do what has been available to him in the past, which is to approach directly Manitoba Telecom Services. As well, if he is sincere about it, to appear before the Public Utilities Board, which regulates and governs the actions of the Telecom Services, whether they are in--I should say the CRTC--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I do not think the members opposite are terribly sincere about this. This is just a joke to them.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would like to continue the follow-up question with respect to the Provincial Auditor's Report. There are a number of recommendations that are in this particular report, and I would ask the government if in fact they are prepared to comment or table which recommendations they have actually implemented to date.

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my honourable friend that we have received the Auditor's Report. Many of the recommendations that the Auditor made within the report have already been acted on as a result of the 1994 audit that we had asked for. As a matter of fact, the Auditor acknowledges that, and indeed all of the recommendations that the Auditor makes in his recommendations will be acted upon.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, can the minister provide a list of the--I understand there are approximately 20 companies that have received through Grow Bonds--companies and some sort of an overview in terms of what the government's thoughts are with respect to them, if that is an appropriate thing to ask?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, the member is correct. We have 20 companies that are operating who have received Grow Bonds in the province. We do keep in touch with these companies from time to time, but these companies have injected into our economy about $24 million of capital investment. In addition to that, there are about 450 jobs that have been created as a result of these investments. These companies are operating in rural Manitoba employing rural people.

I would be happy to provide any further information that might be of value to the member, and I would encourage him to see me and we could certainly discuss those directly.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister if in fact he could indicate whether or not there are other companies that the government would be currently concerned about with respect to their long-term viability. We know about Woodstone. Are there in fact other companies which the government is currently concerned with?

Mr. Derkach: Well, Madam Speaker, these are all Manitoba companies. There is an element of client confidentiality that one has to respect when you are dealing with any company and that has to be honoured. It is not a matter of us bringing in companies to this Chamber to discuss.

I have to say in a general sense that these companies have contributed significantly to the economy of this province. They have created jobs. There has been a tremendous amount of capital investment in this province. I see this as a very positive approach in terms of giving rural Manitobans meaningful long-term jobs in our province.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, a good and just government is one that listens to and responds positively to input from the citizens, particularly the seniors in this province who are being treated unfairly by this government. We just heard from the committee of residents in Odd Fellows Personal Care Home that the home is being arbitrarily and unilaterally closed by the government. There is a letter from the committee penned by the spokesperson, Joan Anderson, to the government which I am tabling before I ask the question.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Can he explain why his government is directly and unilaterally closing the Odd Fellows Personal Care Home?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I understand this issue goes back some time in discussions with the Odd Fellows. They have a personal care home that was designed and built many years ago for Levels 1 and 2 care. The system is moving towards 3 and 4 care. It was designed for other purposes. Time has passed on that facility. Discussions were entered into with Odd Fellows over a period of time. It is my understanding in picking up this file that the Odd Fellows were onside with the closure of that facility. In fact, I even believe there were discussions about a replacement, and they were not particularly interested in doing this. So it is a phase-out of a time-expired facility.

Mr. Santos: Would the minister put a human face to his government by being understanding and compassionate and listening to the cries of those people who are being ignored in their old age and in their waning years and try to cancel this decision of the government to close this home where they have developed personal friendship and where they are happy? They have signed, every one of them, petitions asking this government to cancel this decision.

Mr. Praznik: Let us understand very clearly what the New Democratic Party is asking us to do. They are asking us to keep--[interjection] No, when members of the opposition take their case into this Question Period, they are not, I would hope, mindless individuals who pursue every cause. They would have had to have thought about it. What the New Democratic Party is asking, after many, many questions from their Health critic about standards of care and ensuring that people have the best, they are asking the government to keep a time-old facility in operation.

When you think about it, Madam Speaker, if we accept it--and I do not want to be in any way heartless about this; I feel for those people it is a disruption, but there will never be a time when you can close a facility because there are always going to be people in that facility. You are not going to let the bed numbers come down until there is hardly anyone left in which to close it.

I know it is difficult for those people, but there is really no other way to manage this.

* (1050)

Mr. Santos: Will the honourable minister explain to the people of Manitoba why these people who are in their 80s and their 90s, some of them in their hundreds, are being treated like furniture and being moved around without compassion?

Mr. Praznik: No one is treating our elderly people like furniture. That is an extremely offensive remark. The New Democratic Party is saying we should not replace outdated facilities with newer facilities. In this budget we are adding a lot of additional bed space in Winnipeg, modern, good bed space. We are working on replacement programs for time-dated beds. There is never a good time to do that.

While I am on my feet, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) made a statement in the House about lots of people being laid off with the change in the oxygen. I am advised there are three staff affected, two of whom are being transferred to materials distribution, one of whom refused to transfer, was not interested and is on the redeployment list.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, the United States Food and Drug Administration has said it is addictive. The entire medical community in North America has said it is addictive. The Lung Association and the Canadian Cancer Society have said it is addictive. Everyone who indulges in it knows, even if they do not want to admit it, that it is addictive. Now even an American tobacco company admits that it is addictive.

It seems as though the whole world knows tobacco is addictive except the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), who says he has a hard time believing it is anything more than a habit, nothing more than nail biting, for example.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health how he explains his comments and the real cut of almost 5 percent for program delivery from the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba in light of the virtually universal acceptance of the addictive qualities of tobacco.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the report that the member refers to--I believe a story in the Winnipeg Sun by a young new reporter--is not correct. The only concern I expressed, that if any particular group wanted to provide a program on addiction and wanted public funding to do so, they would have to prove that they could make a contribution to the issue.

An Honourable Member: Got you on tape.

Mr. Praznik: Again the Leader of the Opposition from his seat said, we have you on tape. I heard him say it. He is wrong again. The New Democrats can never get it right or get their research right. Tobacco is addictive. I know that, I understand that. It is an addiction. The story is just not quite correct.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Now that the minister has publicly retracted his comments which trivialized the health, economic and social costs of smoking, would he now provide real funds and real programming instead of cuts to the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba to eliminate the scourge of smoking which is reaching epidemic proportions among young people and is now the leading cause of premature death for women? Will he now put some money where his mouth is?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I did not retract comments. I did not make them. My office talked to the Sun reporter and asked that the Sun do me the courtesy at least of doing the same in their forum, and I am still waiting for that to happen.

Madam Speaker, with respect to the issue, I give the member the same statement I gave the reporter at the time, which he did not print, was any particular program in that area--there are lots of programs out there today to help people beat the addiction of smoking and to overcome that addiction. If public funding was to go into any such group or program, that group or program would have to demonstrate that they are able to succeed in meeting that goal and that would be a prerequisite for any consideration.

Throwing money at an issue without knowing that it is going to accomplish something is not a good use of it and takes it away from other things and other programs that are successful.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.