Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). In June of 1994, Mr. Secter and his enterprises, a partner of the government on the operating loss agreement of the Jets, moved his operation to Quebec. Mr. Shenkarow also on June 17, 1994, moved part of his Jets operations to the province of Quebec.

Given the fact that the Premier was a partner in the operating loss agreement with the two principals I have mentioned, why did the government not take action to deal with the capital tax exemption that would be available to these two partners of the Premier under the Quebec shuffle? Why did he not take action in 1994 and 1995 to deal with and remedy the problem of assets moving out of our province?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the transaction concluding the sale of the Winnipeg Jets closed on July 1 of this year, and obviously the various owners will be filing their appropriate returns sometime subsequent to that. As well, I am obviously not at liberty to talk about ultimately how they will deal with their individual transactions. That remains to be seen when they do file their actual tax returns.

I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition, and I think he knows this full well, that the issue of the so-called Quebec shuffle is not something that was well known across Canada. It was not known by the federal government; it was not known by provincial governments across Canada, and in fact Manitoba has taken the lead in closing what is a very offensive loophole in the tax system. I anticipate that we will see action taken by other provinces within a short period of time.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, of course the government has to deal in a retroactive way to deal with their retroactive mess in the operating loss agreement signed by the Premier.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, how can he tell the people of Manitoba that the government was not aware of this situation when the 1992--the Canadian Tax Foundation Conference report, which is available to all Department of Finance officials and through the officials to the ministers of Finance in Canada, dealt with the Quebec shuffle and the fact that people could move their assets out of the province to Quebec? Why did the government not take action before that time? Why did they not want to alert the public before that time? Were they afraid to alert the public of this shift of assets out of the province with the Jets because they were afraid of their own vulnerable position in dealing with their own partners that were shifting assets out of the province at the same time kids were putting their piggy banks on flatbed trucks to save the team?

Mr. Stefanson: The only retroactive mess is the financial mess left by that incompetent group in 1981 to 1988. That is a retroactive mess, but in terms of the issue, the member is correct that he refers to a 1,600-page document that was circulated at a tax conference attended by tax professionals across Canada. All of the provinces were in attendance, I believe, in varying degrees, the federal government.

And once again I point out that this issue was a one-line reference in a 1,600-page document, was referred to as being, I cannot quote exactly off the top of my head, but it was viewed as being very aggressive and they were cautioning any tax professionals that chose to use it. Governments were not aware of it, and I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, if he knew about it--I gather he did not know about it, but if he knew about it he had a responsibility to come forward and inform this government and the people of Manitoba. I can only assume that he was like everybody else, and he did not know either.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is this government that signed the operating loss agreement with these partners who moved their assets and therefore our tax provisions out of the province from Manitoba to Quebec. It is this minister's officials, in fact Jules Benson, who helped negotiate the Jets deal one, deal two, deal three. The reports to this Premier who withheld this information, as the Auditor or Ombudsman has noted in The Freedom of Information Act, withheld all kinds of information from the public over a period of time. They are the ones being cited for withholding information.

My question is, in light of the fact they knew in 1992, in light of the fact that Mrs. McKinley from Revenue Canada stated that provinces were made aware well in advance of 1996, why has the government not taken action prior to this date? Why did they keep this thing secret when they knew in 1992 that this provision exists and the Quebec shuffle was created for people like the partners of the Premier on the Jets?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that it is this government and we are the first government in Canada to take steps to deal with the Quebec shuffle, and I anticipate that you will see other governments taking steps to deal with it because other governments across Canada have been asking for information in terms of what we are doing and they are becoming increasingly aware that this application does apply to other provinces, that this loophole, this avoidance technique is in existence right across Canada. So this government recognized the problem, this government dealt with the problem and took the appropriate steps to resolve it.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, it is not this side of the House that is generally into tax avoidance, and it is not up to this side of the House to become tax experts. That is why the government has tax experts; that is why they go to conferences.

Madam Speaker, can the Finance minister possibly explain why every single major national chartered accountancy, and I spoke to four of them, why they all knew about this, why every major tax lawyer in this city who belongs to the tax lawyers committee of the bar all knew about this? These are not people with whom the government is unacquainted. How can he claim that he was not aware of this?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, obviously the member for Crescentwood did not know about it. I just pointed out to this House that we are the first government in Canada to recognize this problem. We are the first government in Canada to deal with this problem, and it was not brought to our attention by the federal government or by any other provincial government. This government found it out and is taking steps to deal with it.

We do not need any lectures about tax issues from the NDP. Just look back at their track record when it comes to their colleagues dealing with the scientific research tax credit or the Manitoba Properties Inc., and the list goes on and on.

* (1345)

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

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, why did the Premier sign an operating loss agreement in 1991 which did not require both the general partner and the limited partners to remain resident in Manitoba? It required the team to remain resident. Why did he not require those who owned the team to maintain their residency here for tax purposes and for any other purpose that they might use to avoid taxes?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, it is wonderful how brilliant the member for Crescentwood becomes five years later, you know. He is so smart that all of a sudden he knows everything five years later. When he was in government with the New Democrats, as one of their lackeys, what he did was encourage them, of course, to bring in the original tax dodge act which was the Manitoba Properties Inc. that encouraged Manitobans to utilize the sale of the assets of the government into a tax shelter dodge to avoid taxation. That is how much credibility they have on this issue.

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

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, could this Premier explain how, with yards of lawyers, with more lawyers involved in this than angels ever danced on the head of a pin, they could possibly have missed the fact that in 1994 the assets of the team that they were looking at had moved to Quebec City? How did all those lawyers the government was consulting manage to miss the fact in their submissions to the Manitoba Securities Commission in April of 1995? How did they miss it in July and August of 1995, or was it missed by accident? You--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I do not know how many angels could dance on the member for Crescentwood's head, but I can tell you that he is so brilliant now that he even talks about the assets having been moved. It seems to me that the team stayed here and played here all the way through to the end of the last season. The assets remained here, and indeed they remained here for the benefit of Manitobans and indeed the income that prevailed to the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, in the chief executive officer's report for 1995-96 of Winnipeg Child and Family Services, Mr. Keith Cooper says that he is being told that there are too many children in care and there must be more attention to prevention and family preservation, that family preservation was risky and that children must be protected, that prevention could take place by mobilizing community resources like churches and volunteers and that none of these activities should cost any money, and that these messages are at best contradictory and there has been little willingness to confront the social and economic conditions which impact considerably on the circumstances of children in this city.

I would like to ask the Premier if his government is willing to listen to Mr. Keith Cooper and take seriously the economic circumstances that force children into the care of agencies, particularly poverty, and what is his government going to do about it?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this government commits the highest proportion of its budget to health care than any province in Canada does, over one-third of our entire provincial budget. This government commits a further more than 18 percent to education. This government commits a further more than 12 percent of its budget to family services.

I might tell the member opposite that that is a substantially higher proportion of the budget and a substantially greater number of dollars that go to family services than ever did under the New Democrats in government. That, despite the fact that thanks to the legacy of New Democrats we have to spend over $600 million a year in interest on the debt that cannot go to improving the circumstances of the families and the children of Manitoba, thanks to not only the neglect but thanks to the terrible policy decisions that his government enacted in this province in the '80s.

* (1350)

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he will then listen to the chairperson of the board of Winnipeg Child and Family Services, and I will table copies of his letter of resignation in which he says: "If it is ever possible to establish a relationship with the Government that reflects the reality of your work, things would improve greatly."

Will the Premier listen to the chairperson that his government appointed to Winnipeg Child and Family Services and recognize the circumstances under which the staff work and the reasons that children are coming into care in greater and greater numbers because of the policies of this government?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I repeat that despite having to spend more than $600 million in interest on the debt that was primarily left by the New Democrats in this province, despite a reduction in transfers from Ottawa this year that amounted to $168 million for our social service safety net, this government today commits more money to family services, both in total dollars and in percentage of budget, than was ever done under the New Democrats. That is how much we are committed to continue to try and solve the problems that face us. We are not interested in just the simple rhetoric of the members opposite. We are doing things within our power to address the real needs.

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

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat my question to the Premier since this is not my rhetoric, this is a resignation letter of the chairperson of the board of Child and Family Services, and ask him what his government is going to do to restore the relationship which is referenced in this letter, as I quoted, so that there is a good working relationship between the Winnipeg Child and Family Services board and this government so that they will recognize the reality in which their staff work.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that we will look at the information provided, that we will listen to the individuals who work within Family Services and we will continue despite all of the great, great difficulties that we face in terms of the terrible decisions of the past that were foisted upon this province by the New Democrats that ran up debt that cost us $600 million a year to service, and despite the fact that we get $168 million in transfer payments from Ottawa less to fund our social safety net we will continue to do our best to solve those problems and to meet those needs.

* (1355)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, right from the beginning we have questioned the ethics of appointing three brokerage firms to make recommendations on the sale of MTS and then having those firms also provide those services.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), first of all, if he can answer the question he took as notice on the amount that was paid for the three firms to do the study and if he can also confirm that Wood Gundy will be the book runner, as is the terminology on the prospectus, and Dominion Securities will occupy the No. 2 position in the syndicate and perhaps confirm how much money these brokerage firms will now be making on the sale of MTS if it is approved this week.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the firms hired received about $300,000 for the initial work. Once Bill 67 is voted on, the prospectus will be filed with the Securities Commission.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if they were paid $45,000 per each page of the seven-page report, I would like to ask the minister how much they will be paid to be the book runner, in the case of Wood Gundy, and the case of Dominion Securities, the syndicate. How much are they going to be paid as part of that?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, that information flows out through the process of the prospectus filing and Securities Commission handling of that prospectus and, certainly, there are industry norms but that will eventually happen through the process as it unfolds from the Securities Commission.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I think we as members of the Legislature and the public of Manitoba deserve a response now--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: As a final supplementary, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask if the minister can also confirm the Barnes organization, a Toronto-based firm, has also been hired in this case to run what is being described as the road show, selling off our publicly owned telephone system. Can he indicate if that is the case and how much that Toronto-based company will be paid?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, in the process of engaging people to do the various work along the way, I will inquire to determine if that particular firm has been hired to do what you are talking about, in terms of the information to potential investors, after the prospectus is approved.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Atlantic provinces worked out an agreement with the federal government with respect to the harmonization of the GST and their respective provincial sales taxes, thereby saving many Atlantic residents the opportunities on tax dollars being saved amongst the avoidance of duplication of services and so on.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why is it that this government is being unco-operative and not working towards the harmonization of the GST and PST, which is indeed in the best interests of Manitobans as a whole? Why is he not being co-operative to any degree whatsoever?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I am interested by this question whether or not the member for Inkster is trying to help the federal Liberals fulfill the promise to scrap the GST or whether he is supporting a continuation of the GST under some new name, but from Manitoba's perspective, the area of concern for us is under the proposal that the federal government put forward. There would be a massive shift from business to consumers in Manitoba in the vicinity of $300 million, a shift onto books, onto children's clothing, onto home heating fuel, onto the entire service industry that would be paid by consumers.

Obviously, I would hope the member for Inkster can accept what a devastating impact that would have on our economy in the short term and what an impact it would have on consumers and consumer confidence in our economy. That was one major concern.

A second major concern is, under harmonization, our provincial government actually loses money. Even though the federal government proposed some short-term bridge funding to cover some of the gap, after the three to four years is up, our Treasury would lose a significant amount of money. The projections are about $100 million per year. So the suggestion from the federal Liberals has been, well, increase some other taxes. Well, we, unlike the Liberals, are not into increasing taxes. We are into attempting to control and reduce taxes wherever possible.

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

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it could be summed up by saying, what balderdash.

The Minister of Finance--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster was recognized for a supplementary question on which there is to be no preamble or postamble.

Mr. Lamoureux: I would ask the Minister of Finance then if he is prepared to table any documentations that could somewhat demonstrate any credibility to the answer that Minister of Finance just gave. There is no credibility to that answer. The taxpayers of the province of Manitoba would benefit--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stefanson: The member for Inkster is wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the federal Liberals are not questioning our numbers. They accept the concerns that we have and understand the concerns that we have. What he fails to understand, the difference in the Maritime provinces is the combined rates today in the Maritime provinces are anywhere from 18 to 20 percent because all of the Maritime provinces have double-digit provincial sales tax of 11 or 12 percent. So what is happening in the Maritime provinces is their combined rates are going from 18 to 20 percent down to 15 percent. What we already have in Manitoba is a combined rate of 14 percent--it will not go down--7 percent provincial sales tax, which is one of the lowest in Canada, combined with the 7 percent GST. That is the difference between the Maritimes and Manitoba.

We already have one of the lowest provincial sales taxes in all of Canada, and the member is wrong to challenge our numbers because even the federal government does not question the numbers we are providing, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance then table any documentation that demonstrates that Manitobans would not benefit through any sort of harmonization of the provincial sales tax?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I will certainly provide as much information and detail as I possibly can to the member for Inkster to make sure that he fully understands this issue and the negative consequences and impact on our economy by our taking the position of not harmonizing with the GST.

I have already outlined for him the shift to consumers. I have already outlined for him the significant loss of revenue to our provincial Treasury. Those are only two of the major concerns, but I will certainly undertake to provide him as much information as I possibly can.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

On questions in this House about the government's truthfulness in dealing with the release of inmates from Headingley Jail, the government is attempting to hide behind the Hughes inquiry, and we now have questions whether the government is attempting to hide things from the Hughes inquiry.

My question to the Minister of Justice: Did the minister or her officials in any way pursue the vetting or gagging of any submissions to Mr. Hughes?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, our government, which called the Hughes inquiry as an independent inquiry, has made it very clear that we expected full participation from anyone who wanted to participate or who had something that they believed was important for Mr. Hughes to know.

Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister or her officials agree to a warning to Justice department staff, including sheriff's officers who transport and escort inmates, that all their submissions to Mr. Hughes had to first be accepted by her department, the very department under investigation?

Mrs. Vodrey: If the member has something he would like me to see, then I expect that he will table it. I will ask, Madam Speaker, that you have him table it. He stands with something in his hands.

Certainly, to my knowledge, we have from the very beginning expected full participation. Our government has also made it clear that we fully intend to make the report that Mr. Hughes provides public, because in fact we do not ever want a riot to occur again and we want to move ahead now.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister then explain a memo to departmental staff from the former director of Winnipeg Courts now given to me by staff in her department who felt a real chill from these words, and I quote, "Could you please ensure that all staff are aware that any mail or deliveries for E.N. Ted Hughes must be accepted and routed through my office."--signed Greg Graceffo.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, no, I am not aware of that memo. I would be very interested to have an explanation of that memo, and I will endeavour to get that explanation for the member opposite.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Justice. This is the minister who never misses an opportunity for a photo op no matter how minor it is, but today we have learned that she has refused to send a message to the aboriginal youth symposium, which is dealing with youth crime, and has also declined to go to the follow-up conference with the youth on December 2.

I would like to ask the minister to explain why she treats this aboriginal youth symposium in a very negative way.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member is totally wrong in what he has put on the record. I reject it completely. I received an invitation and was required to reply within 38 hours of demand, in terms of participation. As I was unable to participate, my colleague the member for Riel (Mr. Newman), the legislative assistant to the Department of Justice, did participate. He did participate in a filming which took place. Also, I have been requested on the 2nd to attend personally or to send a representative, and I intend to see that there is representation. I am in fact very pleased that there is this symposium going on. Our government has been very interested in seeing that community participation is really the basis to deal with some of the issues in justice.

Mr. Hickes: I guess they must be warming up the member for the next shuffle. The committee has asked for the minister because they feel it is very important for the minister to have an opportunity to address the youth, or the youth to see some kind of reaction from the minister.

I would like to ask the minister, what is the real reason why she will not attend the aboriginal youth symposium or attend meetings or visit the reserves in Manitoba? Is it because of your lack of action pertaining to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, in response to the first part of the question, again, I received it in the form of a demand to be answered within 38 hours. In that period of time I was unable to make the arrangements to appear on a video film. However, I did make sure that my colleague, a representative of this government, in fact participated.

In terms of the response to the AJI, I only wish that you would allow me the length of time to provide the numerous and multitude of responses that this government has put forward. First Nations policing should be among the first of the issues that members across the way can see as a concrete action of this government. This government was the one that entered into an agreement for First Nations policing policy, community participation agreements which deal with probation, dealt with within the community. We are continuing to work with MKO chiefs to deal with a special project in Manitoba which I think will in fact benefit a large number of communities. The list goes on in the area of Courts, Corrections and policing. The member is absolutely wrong.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, on October 16 when I asked the Minister of Environment to end the five-year review of the General Scrap and Car Shredder environment licence to stop the explosions from that site, he said, and I quote: "Certainly it has been my impression that the operation is doing everything they can to reduce the explosions."

I would like to ask the minister to explain how that can be the case when General Scrap is actually making a profit on the explosions when they occur by levying a fine to the distributor of the scrapped cars.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed that the member would accuse the operators of attempting to make a profit from a problem that they have been working actively with the regulators to deal with. As we indicated and discussed in the House before, this is not an issue that can be quickly and easily eliminated, and if there is some issue that the member has that I have not been apprised of, I invite her to share with me.

* (1410)

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I hope the minister will answer my letter in this regard and ensure that his staff are accurate.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question.

Ms. Cerilli: Will he confirm, as his staff have told me, that indeed General Scrap and Car Shredder is collecting a penalty from the distributors of the cars and that there has been a financial profit made on these explosions and if he can explain if General Scrap is enjoying this lenient licence with a five-year review because they have donated over $6,000 to the Conservative Party in the last two years?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I hope that you and others listening to Question Period would not assume that, because the company in question is attempting to enforce a controlled situation on their suppliers so that they will not continue to hide or to avoid properly providing materials for their shredder, that somehow seemed to be a profit-generating centre because in fact we need to regulate all parts of this industry as the material moves through towards recycling. I really think the member is doing a disservice to everyone involved trying to characterize this as some kind of a profit centre.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. The taxpayers through his department, I, T and T, are putting up a half-million dollars for the ManGlobe Project.

Can the minister responsible explain why he is funding $60,000 for the president's travel budget? Will he table the agreement outlining how much the government is committed to for entertainment expenses, hardware, software, rent and equipment from MTS? I wish to table some relevant documents.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, yes, the department is participating in ManGlobe with a loan under the MIRI program of a half a million dollars in partnership with several other private sector companies to encourage employment in this sector, to create new knowledge, to do those kinds of things that we believe are important to the overall growth of our province on the economic front.

As it relates to some of the specifics, I will take that part of the question as notice.

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

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister is this: Given that this minister and his colleague the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) have made a huge investment in this project, can the minister tell the House what revenues and what new jobs have been created since he began issuing cheques in February?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, unlike the inaccuracy of the member who asked the question last week on the pretext that there was a considerable amount of untendered contract let, I will make sure I get the details and report back to the House.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the same minister is this: Would the Minister responsible for MTS tell the House how much of the wish list request for furniture, computers, et cetera, was picked up by the MTS?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I want to inform the member that MTS gets involved in many arrangements, business agreements, the details of which do not always flow to me. I will take the member's question as notice and reply to him at a future date.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, just on a point of order, the member for St. Johns, I requested that he table the document, the alleged document that he was reading from. He has failed to do that. I would ask that you would request he table it now.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I would be pleased to table it, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St. Johns.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, prior to the last election, the government made commitments to expand natural gas to many parts of rural Manitoba, but since the election has passed we have had very little activity on the part of this government.

I want to ask the Minister of Rural Development what the plans of this government are to expand natural gas, and is the money still available that was promised to the community of Swan River for the expansion of natural gas?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the member for Swan River that indeed we did work with the community of Swan River in the first round of gas expansion in Manitoba. However, it was very evident that it was difficult to bring together all the players with regard to natural gas expansion in the Swan River Valley and it was for that reason that we could not get an agreement established for expansion of natural gas to Swan River.

Madam Speaker, since that time we have continued to work with the community. Indeed, there are some different players around the table today with recent municipal changes in the Swan River area. We are working with the community to try and extend that kind of service to the community as soon as it is feasible and it is affordable to the community.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, can the minister ensure the people of the Swan River Valley who are working to get natural gas in the area that the $1.2 million that was promised from infrastructure money is still available for them for natural gas expansion?

Mr. Derkach: Well, Madam Speaker, I have to inform the member for Swan River that the infrastructure money that was budgeted has indeed been committed to projects around the province, and one cannot wait with a particular project forever and a day until that community comes together and decides that it indeed is going to put forward its amount of money as well. I would tell the member for Swan River that she could go a long way in assisting in bringing gas to Swan River by taking on a more positive approach in terms of working in co-operation to extend that kind of service to an area that really requires it.

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