ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Winnipeg Jets/Arena

MEC Proposal

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

In a document we tabled two days ago, the submission from MEC to the Securities Commission on April 11, it speaks to the fact that this financial plan is consistent with the terms and conditions and matters that have been agreed upon or are anticipated to be agreed upon in terms of the proposal.

Madam Speaker, of course this proposal goes way beyond the Premier's promise of $10 million during that same period of time, during that period of time in the election campaign, and in light of the fact that the Manitoba Securities Act makes it an offence for a person or persons to have a financial statement or document or proposal that is misleading or false with respect to any material fact or omits to state any material fact, the omission of which makes the statement false or misleading, I would like to ask the Premier, did the MEC group breach The Securities Act in terms of having a proposal that was well beyond the Premier's alleged promise on April 11?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, my reading of the proposal indicates that in several places they talk about it as being preliminary and they talk about the fact that it is not possible at this time to present the proposal in its final form. They say changes are expected and all sorts of things, so I would not know the legal position of the Manitoba Securities Commission.

I do know that the proposal that was put forth under the Thompson Dorfman Sweatman firm's heading is put forth by an individual who used to be the legal counsel for the Securities Commission. So I would leave that in the matter of the hands of those who have to administer The Securities Act and the commission itself to make that judgment.

* (1010)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Premier.

Given the fact that the document in no way contains the statement of the Premier on April 11 that they are capping the provincial donation to $10 million--in no part of this document does it contain the alleged promise of the Premier; in fact they state that they are anticipating that the numbers in this document will come true--and given the fact that the anticipation of the MEC group to have funds well beyond $10 million actually is more accurate than the promise that the Premier made which he broke after April 26, how would the MEC group be able to anticipate that the Premier would break his promise in a submission that he made on April 11 when in fact we did not have that confirmed until April 26 when the Premier in fact did break his promise?

Mr. Filmon: In fact, Madam Speaker, if you read the proposal you see that at no time do they specify what they are anticipating from the provincial government. They lump together expectations from the provincial and federal governments. You also can refer to an article that was in the news media months before this in which Mr. Osler, who is the spokesperson and president of MEC, was anticipating significantly more funds from the federal government.

At the very least, they were talking about--I read in the paper even just yesterday that they were talking about $15 million from the federal government from infrastructure. There was then $2 million that they put on the table from the Pan Am Games and there was additional money which they were expecting to get from Human Resources Canada for various winter works and other labour subsidies. So it may well have been their anticipation that they were getting a great deal more from the federal government.

But at no time do they state individually what they anticipated from the provincial government because they knew categorically, and they have confirmed it, that they were only getting $10 million committed from us.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, obviously their anticipation that the Premier would break his promise contained within this document, including shares being transferred from public ownership provincially and other matters, was much more accurate. Their anticipation of your word was much more accurate, unfortunately, than the Premier's word on this capping the donation to $10 million. I guess it is a very big coincidence that they knew the Premier would break his word and submitted it in a legal document on April 11, two weeks prior to the election.

I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that the Premier was involved with the MEC group from June of 1994 and in light of the fact that the deadline, the so-called deadline was May 1 and was extended to the long weekend in May for us to cancel the operating losses of the hockey team, is the condition of keeping these matters secret and away from the public which is contained again within the submission of MEC, has that contributed to the fact that the Premier is now again breaking another promise and we are responsible for paying for the losses of this hockey team because you kept everything secret before the May 1 date, Madam Speaker?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, all of those surmissions, all of those dreams and hopes and political manipulations in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition are absolutely false, absolutely false. It may well be that the Leader of the Opposition knew more than I did about all of these issues. The fact of the matter is that, like I did, he met with MEC officials, as did his various different representatives. That is the extent of the information.

I repeat the same facts as have been stated by all of the people who have been asked within MEC, whether it be Mr. Cam Osler, whether it be Mr. Charlie Spiring, whether it be Mr. John Loewen, whether it be the legal counsel for MEC, every one of them has confirmed that our only commitment prior to the election was $10 million, and there is absolutely nothing he can say that would overcome the weight of that evidence.

Winnipeg Jets/Arena

MEC Proposal

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the Premier has just said in his response to the Leader of the Opposition that there was no place in the document at which there was a specific expectation of the province taking some action. The Province of Manitoba and WEC will each transfer their limited partnership units of Jets L.P. to facility company in consideration of facility company, et cetera, et cetera.

Can the Premier explain his words in his previous answer in relation to these words which clearly indicate that there is a commitment to transfer the shares of the Jets to the new entity?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I tell the members opposite to read yesterday's Winnipeg Sun in which the individual who was responsible and whom they interviewed, the individual who was responsible for raising the capital, Mr. Charlie Spiring, and he said this was a wish list.

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

Mr. Sale: Will the Premier indicate what in-principle commitments were made by the Province of Manitoba in support of the project during the period of time from January 1 to April 11 when this document was filed? What were the in-principle commitments made by this government?

Mr. Filmon: $10 million, Madam Speaker.

* (1015)

Mr. Sale: In the hubbub from the other side, I did not hear the Premier's response to my question.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, maybe he could have his own side just calm down a little bit while he is asking his questions. Their anticipation of his glee is obviously overwhelming. My response was $10 million.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, would the Premier then describe to the House how it is possible that this document has so much detail in it and references on page 6 of Appendix A that MEC had numerous discussions with and received certain in-principle commitments from the provincial government? Can the Premier indicate how it is possible that all these details emerged after all those numerous meetings, and yet there was nothing more than $10 million on the table and the $10 million never shows up in this document?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, he would have to ask MEC that.

Tobacco Advertising

Supreme Court Ruling

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down the act and legislation concerning tobacco advertising is a serious blow to all those interested in public health in Canada. It is particularly serious as it affects the health and the future health of the children of Canada.

My question to the minister is: Recently at the provincial ministers' health conference, did the ministers, in light of the fact that a ruling was anticipated, have an opportunity to discuss this issue and a possible response to an issue of this kind and to the ruling that occurred by the Supreme Court of Canada?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, there have been discussions over the past year and a half about issues of this nature. Of course, it is a setback for all of those who are engaged in efforts to try to curtail the consumption of tobacco products.

The federal government started off on the wrong foot, however, some time ago when they so drastically succumbed to the smugglers of our country and allowed the smugglers to set the tobacco tax policy for our country. That was a mistake. We told the federal government that then. I think even some of our Liberal colleagues in this House agreed with that position. At that time the federal government put forward all of these plans that they were going to spend all of these dollars to engage in activities that would lead to cessation of tobacco consumption.

Madam Speaker, we are very disappointed in that ruling, and we are also very disappointed in the federal government because all of the tax dollars they have forgone could be used to reduce the impact of the cuts, the very drastic cuts that we are all going to be experiencing in health care and social services in our country. The federal government has a very serious problem on its hands, and we would urge the federal government to look seriously at the problem.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, given the minister's comments and the very strong position taken by all members of this Chamber on numerous occasions concerning tobacco advertising, I am wondering if the minister would undertake on behalf of either the government and/or together with all members of this Chamber to write today to the Minister of Health in Ottawa in the strongest possible terms suggesting that legislation be brought in immediately to bring back restrictions on tobacco advertising, that legislation be drafted to do that immediately.

* (1020)

Mr. McCrae: I think that might well be a good suggestion, Madam Speaker.

I think that governments are in the habit of reviewing very carefully judgments written by the courts. The courts can sometimes be very helpful even when they are striking down legislation in terms of advice that can be taken in the drafting of other legislation. We have learned that lesson ourselves here in the province and I am sure other jurisdictions have as well.

So I would be urging the federal minister to look carefully at that judgment to see if there is room or any guidance given by the Supreme Court as to whether the legislation is simply faulty or if it is faulty from the start in terms of the principles behind it. If that is the case, we have a bigger problem, but if that kind of legislation is possible, of course we would urge the federal government and I would invite other honourable members to do the same, to correct legislation or bring in alternative legislation if that indeed is possible.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the response.

My final supplementary is, therefore, will the minister, given the serious health consequences that tobacco advertising and the use of tobacco can have on Canadians' health in general and particularly those relating to children, consider also asking the minister if legislation is not possible to consider utilizing the notwithstanding clause in the Charter to override the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard given the serious effect that this issue could have on the health of Canadians?

Mr. McCrae: It is probably best to have a look at the judgment before we go stampeding to conclusions like that, Madam Speaker.

Agricultural Legislation

Consultations

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, this government has introduced legislation which will affect farmers across the province and they have done it with very little consultation, and, in fact, farmers are unaware of the changes that this will make and the effect it will have on them. The legislation is coming at a time when farmers are trying to bring in their harvest.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it is his government's policy to pass legislation that will affect farmers across the province without first consulting with farmers.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I am somewhat nonplussed by the question. Manitoba Agriculture Keystone Producers organization, which is the umbrella farm organization, holds, as part of its normal business, regional meetings throughout the province of Manitoba. The issue and the principle of this bill I am personally well aware, because I attended some of those meetings, was discussed at each and every one of those regional meetings.

Furthermore, in terms of notice, this bill was presented to this Chamber. Earlier on in the spring session we agreed, because of the co-operation with members opposite to a particular schedule of sittings, that we would hold it over and not proceed with it until the fall, again, Madam Speaker, giving the farm community full summer, you know, notice that this bill is in fact on the Order Paper and will be dealt with. I know that the honourable member herself has been petitioned by various farm organization groups, notably the canola growers, urgently requesting this legislation.

I suspect it is very seldom that a bill should have such universal appeal by all members of this House in the interest of the farming community.

Public Hearings

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, because this legislation affects farmers across the province and the majority are not aware of the changes that this legislation will make to their pocketbooks, I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will make commitments to hold hearings on this bill and on both Bill 15 and Bill 27 across the province so that farmers can have a chance to have input. Small farmers do not have the ability to come into Winnipeg to these hearings.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I, along with everybody else in this Chamber, held the most significant public hearing last April when we consulted with all Manitobans as to the future of this particular bill. I say this not as an exaggeration, because this bill was very much part of the electoral platform of the group that I am associated with, so, Madam Speaker, I think it is time for action.

We are deeply concerned that some of the groups, particularly the canola growers, whom we take some particular pride in having developed that Cinderella crop that is so important to agriculture today right here out of our research facilities on the campus of the University of Manitoba, that we are falling behind in being able to support the ongoing research that crop requires to provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta where they have this kind of legislation.

We are just catching up with the rest of the agricultural community in Canada with this legislation, Madam Speaker, and it would be my hope that the honourable member for Swan River would want to, with some eagerness, support this bill.

* (1025)

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since we, too, are concerned about farmers, and we, too, are concerned about farmers having a voice and we want farmers to have input, I want to ask the minister again if he will commit to hold hearings on Bill 15 and Bill 27 across the province so that farmers will have the ability to have their say on this bill.

If they choose to have their money go to commodity groups, we would support that, but what we want the government to commit to is--

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

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, one of the unique practices of this House, and a practice that I think all of us can share some pride in, is that before any legislation is passed, we are one of the few, if not the only Chamber that has public hearings at committee stage of all legislation presented to this Chamber. I am sure we will have presentations and hear from various farm communities when this bill goes to committee.

One more final point, Madam Speaker. I am not, and this bill does not, force any farmer to participate in these organizations if he chooses not to. This is a voluntary checkoff, and any producer that does not wish to participate, unlike some of the labour legislation that we have, can get his full refund by simply sending a little notice to the organization indicating the same.

Balanced Budget Legislation

Provincial Auditor's Role

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

Given this government's past record, one has to call into question its credibility on the government's proposed balanced budget legislation. Yesterday, the Provincial Auditor confirmed that the '92-93 deficit was over $200 million more than the Filmon government had claimed it was. Manitoba's financial picture does not necessarily mesh with reality on numerous occasions. Sometimes we have underestimated the losses of the Jets. We overestimate the value of shares for Repap. Unless they get their accounting right, this proposed balanced budget legislation is nothing more than a sham.

Will the government amend its balanced budget legislation to ensure that the Provincial Auditor's office will be the final word on the deficit?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, we have already acknowledged that the Provincial Auditor's office will be the final say in terms of the publication of the Volume 1 document that is produced in the fall after the particular fiscal year, so we have acknowledged that they will audit Volume 1.

I think what the member is being confused with--and I am sure that that is easy to happen in light of discussions yesterday--is we have Volume 1, which is the deficit, and the budget that is produced every year that is the tax-supported budget. It is the budget that is ultimately funded through the taxes that Manitobans pay. Volume 3 rolls in all of the performances of our Crown corporations--Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Telephone, the Fiscal Stabilization Fund and so on.

Over the course of six years that we have public accounts available during our term in office, in one year the rolling in of that information created a higher deficit. That happened to be 1992-93 where it created a higher deficit by $100 million, but if one were to look at it over the performance of our government over the other years, it actually decreased accumulated deficits by some $583 million.

Our performance on deficits is the best performance in all of Canada since 1988. Our deficits have averaged 1.3 percent of our gross domestic product. The best performance under the NDP, unfortunately they averaged 3 percent of gross domestic product. In fact, under the NDP the real test is what happens to the debt in Manitoba, and I will refer to that in my next answer, Madam Speaker.

* (1030)

Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Minister of Finance define the role in the legislation of balanced budget for the Provincial Auditor because, quite frankly, we do not trust this government's accounting procedures?

An Honourable Member: The public of Manitoba does.

An Honourable Member: The Provincial Auditor does not.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the public of Manitoba certainly trusts our accounting and our performance when it comes to financial matters in this province. We have taken the accounting and the budget process under the previous government and significantly improved it in terms of moving to a full accrual system in most areas of accounting.

One need look no further than yesterday's release again from Standard and Poor's, and I know everybody is interested in terms of what the bond rating agencies say about Manitoba. Once again, Standard and Poor's affirmed Manitoba's rating at an A plus long-term rating, and they go on to talk about: Manitoba's outlook reflects Manitoba's improving fiscal situation, a stronger own-source revenue growth and continuing tight expenditure management should allow the government to achieve its goal of a fully balanced budget in the current fiscal year.

The real test, Madam Speaker, is what happens to the tax-supported debt in Manitoba, and under six short budgets under the NDP the tax-supported debt, the debt that has to be supported by Manitoba taxpayers, increased from $1 billion to $5 billion, a 485 percent increase during six short budgets under that government. Under seven budgets under our government, that same debt has increased by 42 percent compared to 485 percent--seven budgets, $2 billion; six budgets, $4 billion.

They can laugh all they want. You can laugh all you want, but the tax-supported debt is where it really tells the truth, and you should be ashamed of your performance under six years--ashamed.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance concede the real story is when it came to the 1992-93 budget that you underestimated, you misled Manitobans by more than $200 million? Why should we trust you now when you misled us in the past?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member to rephrase his question and remind him that "misled" has been ruled unparliamentary. The honourable member for Inkster, to quickly rephrase his question.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker, and my apologies for using the word "misled." Maybe the Minister of Finance then can explain the $200 million the Provincial Auditor says this government had in addition to the debt that he had reported.

Mr. Stefanson: It is unfortunate the member was not able to be there for the whole time in Public Accounts because I would gladly sit down with him and give him an accounting lesson so that he can understand the different--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stefanson: And the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) certainly needs an accounting lesson; we all know that.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Finance, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Stefanson: That offer stands for both the member for Inkster and the member for Thompson any time to sit down and give them a detailed accounting lesson. They should take the time to look at the various volumes that are produced. I have explained to the member for Inkster that there are three volumes. Volume 1 is the tax-supported performance of government. Volume 3 includes all of the performance of the Crowns, of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund and so on. There is no misleading.

The numbers speak for themselves in terms of what happened in 1992-93, and in 1992-93 the deficit was higher than budget, if the member recalls, because of the significant reduction in transfer payments from Ottawa in excess of $200 million that year.

If you look at the performance of our government over eight budgets to date, it is the best performance in all of Canada. We now have the first balanced budget in Manitoba in 23 years, and we have significantly improved the fiscal situation in our province. That is why we are seeing job growth of 22,000 more jobs in Manitoba year over year, the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, the largest increase in exports, and I could go on and on.

Independent Schools

Funding Formula

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Education confirmed that the funding for private schools was not the result of a court order but was a political agreement reached between her government and the private schools.

I would like to ask the minister today to tell us whether that agreement reached in 1990, and which we have tabled before in this House, that agreement to reach 80 percent funding to private schools by 1998 still stands. Will the government be honouring that stage plan?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I would like to indicate to the member that she once again is leaving an implication that we never said we had an agreement. Of course we have an agreement. It is an out-of-court settlement, a very logical, pragmatic, common-sense agreement that saves the taxpayers of Manitoba $8 million, that provides part funding to those schools that are independent.

Madam Speaker, we intend to honour our letter of comfort, our letter of agreement, our out-of-court settlement as we are legally bound to do.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister confirm then that honouring that political agreement or letter of comfort or Filmon buy-out plan or whatever you want to call it will require, at current levels of enrollment, at a very minimum, $1 million per year until 1998 to the private selective schools of Manitoba?

Mrs. McIntosh: I object to the terminology that is used: private selective schools. The member knows full well that the independent schools--

An Honourable Member: Equal opportunity.

Mrs. McIntosh: Equal opportunity and choice, yes.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

* (1040)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I respect the fact, all honourable members, that today is Friday, but we will complete Question Period. Once again I would remind all honourable members that it is your time, and the clock is running.

The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: We have several categories of school in Manitoba, as the member maybe knows. We have nonfunded schools, those truly selective schools that receive no government funding whatsoever. We have partly funded schools, and those partly funded schools are independent schools who must abide by Manitoba curricula, Manitoba standards testing, higher Manitoba-qualified teachers. They are also able to have a faith-based system in their schools, or whatever their particular added-on feature is. For that they pay a user fee, and because of that they are only partly funded.

We also have the fully funded schools which have total accountability to the public. The member knows that. The member also knows, if she has the letter of agreement and our out-of-court settlement, which is going to be saving the taxpayers from having to have a court-imposed settlement of 100 percent funding for denominational schools, that the terms of the letter of agreement indicate that we will ultimately achieve 80 percent of the operating costs, not capital costs, not other costs, of public schools.

Ms. Friesen: All private schools may select and reject students. That is the difference between private schools and public schools, and I am interested that the minister is so discomforted by that.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Wolseley, this is the final supplementary question. There is to be no postamble nor preamble.

The honourable member for Wolseley, to pose her question now.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, my apologies. Could the minister explain why, before the 1995 election, Manitobans were assured the private school funds had been frozen. Now, within a short five months after the election, we have an 11 percent increase to private schools?

Mrs. McIntosh: I would like, first of all, to correct some incorrect information which is put, I am quite sure, totally unknowingly on her behalf by the member for Wolseley, onto the record.

First of all, the funding to independent schools was frozen for a period of years, with the consent of the independent schools during that same period of time. We needed their consent because we had a legal binding agreement at the same time that we froze or reduced in other areas right through government in order to contain costs. That was something that happened throughout government, and it was always known that ultimately at some point that agreement would be resumed, and that of course has happened.

I also want to indicate the member is absolutely incorrect when she says private schools have total and absolute choice in their schools. Independent schools cannot hire staff, for example, if they are partly funded schools. The nonfunded schools, those schools that receive no government money, can take a choice on teacher hiring, for example. Partly funded independent schools cannot hire teachers on the basis of race or religion or that type of thing. They can take special needs students, Madam Speaker. The member should do a little more research into the K to 12 section of public education.

University of Manitoba

Geological Engineering Program

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

Last night at the Canadian Institute of Mining meeting here in Winnipeg, concerns were expressed over the shelving of the geological engineering program at the University of Manitoba. Actually several people in attendance noted that mining was actually the second largest industry in the province of Manitoba, not VLTs as some would believe.

To the minister: Did the government make any representations to the U of M, to the University of Manitoba, concerning the closure of the geological engineering program?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by indicating that I am pleased that the NDP has finally recognized the importance of the mining industry to the province of Manitoba, and that they acknowledge all of the initiatives put in place by the former Minister of Energy and Mines and the current Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) to ensure that industry grows and flourishes, that there are mining incentives in place because of this government, not because of that government, and pleased she finally acknowledged what we have been trying to tell them for quite a number of years.

I should indicate as well that in terms of the--

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Beauchesne Citation 417 is quite clear that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.

In the spirit of your earlier ruling in terms of one of our members, I would ask that you call the Minister of Education to order because she is clearly engaging in debate, and has not even begun to attempt to answer the question put forward by our member. We would appreciate an answer to the question, rather than the irrelevant debate we are hearing from the minister right now.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am going to be ruling on the point of order.

The honourable Minister of Education, on the same point of order.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member, in her question, clearly made reference to the mining industry and I am responding to that point that she raised in her preamble. My preamble responded to her preamble and, as I said before, if they do not want the preamble responded to, they should not make one.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did have a point of order. I would remind all honourable members that responses to questions should indeed not provoke debate and should address the question concerned.

The point of order by the honourable Minister of Education was not a point of order. It was clearly a dispute over the content of a question posed.

* * *

Ms. Mihychuk: My second question to the Minister of Education--and as a geologist I can assure you that my concern for mining is clear. My question: Since the program has a success rate for employment of students of 100 percent most years, and since it was recognized by the Roblin commission, why did this Minister of Education not speak out for this program?

Mrs. McIntosh: The member makes an assumption, and I will not provoke debate by further commenting on that. The University of Manitoba, the Faculty of Engineering will make decisions on programs. They will make decisions for a variety of reasons as to which programs will be continued, which programs will not be continued.

The geological engineering program is one that the Faculty of Engineering is taking a serious look at, and the member should address her concerns to those people who are the decision makers in that area. I know that the University of Manitoba Engineering department also has expressed concern that perhaps the geological engineering should remain.

Ms. Mihychuk: My final supplementary question is to the Minister of Education.

Given that there have been over a thousand mining jobs lost during the tenure of this government and we have seen the closing of Lynn Lake, Snow Lake and Flin Flon--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Will the honourable member for St. James please pose her question now.

Ms. Mihychuk: Given that the program closed without approval of the senate and the board of governors, will the Minister of Education investigate the legality of the closure?

Mrs. McIntosh: I will take the first part of the question as notice for the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), and I will indicate to the member that the decision on geological engineering is a decision the University of Manitoba has already indicated that they are considering. It is not a done fact. The member is making assumptions again, and I would urge her to be fully accurate when she puts her facts forward. I will take, as I say, the information on Energy and Mines for the minister.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Committee Changes

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). [agreed]

* (1050)

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

Legion Week

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, leave for a nonpolitical statement.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Interlake have leave for a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Clif Evans: On Saturday, September 23, 1995, I will have the honour of attending the 50th anniversary of the Hodgson Legion Branch 158. The branch received its charter on August 14, 1945, and officially opened their club room in 1964.

Since this is Legion Week, Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge all the community and legion members who worked effortlessly in sustaining the supports and services offered by the local branch and who organized this celebration.

I wish to also recognize and commend all the members who contribute unconditionally in supporting and strengthening the sense of the community for the people in the area. While it is important to celebrate the labours of our veteran soldiers, it is particularly important that Hodgson Legion 158 is also honouring those who lost their lives to protect our country.

Madam Speaker, I know that all members of this House join me in extending congratulations to Hodgson Legion Branch 158 on this very special day.

Council for Learning Disabilities Award

Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, I beg the House for leave to make a nonpolitical statement.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Morris have leave? [agreed]

Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay special tribute on behalf of all members in the House here today to a teacher in the Morris-MacDonald School Division, Ms. Marnie Erb. Ms. Erb is being awarded the Council for Learning Disabilities Award for outstanding teaching in learning disabilities. She is one of only 10 teachers in the U.S. and Canada to receive this award. She will be presented with this award on October 28 in Chicago, Illinois, at the Conference on Learning Disabilities. This award is granted in recognition of outstanding professional performance in the service of individuals with learning disabilities.

This is a most prestigious award for Ms. Erb and we heartily congratulate her. Manitoba is indeed fortunate to have teachers like Ms. Erb in our public school system. Thank you.

Legion Week

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, do I have leave for a nonpolitical statement?

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave for a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. McAlpine: Madam Speaker, I join the member for Interlake in congratulating the legion members from Hodgson for their 50th anniversary. I also want to pay tribute to all legion members from this side of the House in celebrating Legion Week. We all know what our veterans have contributed to forming this country and shaping the future of the country over the many, many years that they have provided in serving the future of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I will be attending a function on behalf of the government tomorrow in celebration of Legion Week in St. James and I, along with all members of the House, congratulate all legion members in their efforts in working in their communities. Thank you.