Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization--Conflict of Interest
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier.
Madam Speaker, it has been reported that the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System has expressed an interest and has stated his intent to purchase private shares in the Manitoba Telephone System. We believe it is the minister's sworn responsibility to deal with the public interest as the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System, and to deal with the issues of equity and price on behalf of the people of the province rather than being interested in purchasing the shares on a private basis.
I would like to ask the Acting Premier whether in fact the minister's statement to buy shares in the Manitoba Telephone System is not a conflict of interest and the minister should be asked immediately to put the public interest as paramount rather than his private interests.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that the public interest is first and foremost. I was asked a point-blank question: Would you be interested in buying shares? From a point of view of showing support for the company, I say, yes, if I am allowed to. If in the prospectus and the Manitoba Securities Commission I am allowed to, I would very gladly invest, but only if I am allowed to as a citizen.
My position now is to advocate on behalf of the public, be sure that the process is handled responsibly. If I am given that freedom, I believe it is a very good investment. As many Manitobans have said in the last few days, it is a very good investment. Since it is a very good investment, all Manitobans who are eligible should have the right to do it, and that applies to members on this side. We will wait and see what the verdict is in terms of the prospectus and the view of the Manitoba Securities Commission. If they say I cannot, I will not, but if I am allowed to, I think it is a good investment.
Mr. Doer: I am quite shocked with the answer of the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. If he does not know whether he is in contravention of Section 18(1) of The Conflict of Interest Act dealing with cabinet ministers that overrides a government-appointed securities commission in terms of their decisions, if he does not know whether he is in conflict of interest of The Conflict of Interest Act of Manitoba, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, or the Acting Premier, will he now make it clear for people who apparently do not know their role to represent the public interest rather than their own interest, that it is totally wrong and illegal for a minister of the Crown to be making individual, private purchases dealing with the public asset that that minister is responsible for in establishing a price on behalf of the public? Is that not quite clear under Section 18 of the conflict-of-interest guideline?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, let me assure the Leader of the Opposition and members of the public that this government and ministers are absolutely committed to making sure the process is followed, that any legal requirements imposed on us are followed. I think if there is anything that we might be guilty of, it is enthusiasm with getting on with the job on behalf of the public of Manitoba.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: The only enthusiasm we see from members opposite is to break their promise and to sell off public assets based on brokers who get commissions for selling those same assets.
I would like to ask the Acting Premier of this province--[interjection] Well, I know the members do not understand that the asset, the telephone system, is not their own Progressive Conservative asset, it is the public of Manitoba. I know they do not understand it, but I would expect that the Acting Premier would understand it. Section 18 of The Conflict of Interest Act deals with insider information.
Given that it is only this government and this cabinet and this cabinet minister that has all the Wood Gundy reports and given it makes it very clear that you cannot represent the public interest in the morning and your individual private interest in the afternoon, would the Acting Premier make it clear today that the government and cabinet and the minister responsible will be only involved in the public interest, and that is in terms of the public telephone corporation, not involved and prohibited from making private purchases of shares because it is indeed a conflict of interest?
Mr. Cummings: I think the member opposite doth protest too much. Absolutely there is a commitment on this side of the House to make sure that the public interest comes first as it always has, and it always will.
Headingley Correctional Institution
Staffing Levels
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I have a new question to the Acting Premier.
Last week and throughout last weekend the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) had repeatedly said that staffing levels were not responsible for the riot and the injury that took place at the Headingley Correctional Institution. She maintained that position all last week. In fact, I asked the question about the 25 staffing persons on the evening shift on the security positions versus the 19 to down to 16 that were taking place at the Headingley Institution, and she said over and over again, staffing levels were not an issue.
In light of the fact that we have a serious situation in this province where the line correctional officers are saying staffing levels are an issue and will be an issue in their discussions with the government, who is telling us the truth, the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) who says staffing levels are not an issue or the line correctional officers who tell us staffing levels and the deployment of staff are a very, very serious workplace safety and health issue for line correctional officers?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The issues which have been raised by the correctional officers in relation to their concerns, we have made it absolutely clear, wherever there are issues which they are raising in the area of safety and security, we are more than willing and will be dealing with that issue. There are now committees in place which will start to deal with these issues as they are brought forward. We on the government side have named our representatives to the committee and government has made it clear that we will examine the issues which are being brought forward. Some of those issues, we understand, may be a ratio of staff issues, a ratio of correctional officers to program individuals. These issues we have made a commitment to examine with the correctional officers.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask again the Deputy Premier this same question. The minister has maintained over last weekend and all last week and in this House, in Hansard she said staffing levels were not an issue. Now we hear the correctional officers are saying that staffing levels are an issue.
Was the Minister of Justice wrong when she told the public of Manitoba and the correctional officers that staffing deployment was not an issue? Are the correctional officers now correct when they say that they have been raising this with the government, the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), getting nowhere except talk from the government, no action, Madam Speaker? Is the government now saying the correctional officers are correct and staffing deployments are a legitimate issue to be resolved, contrary to what the Minister of Justice said last week?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, for the information of members opposite, I would indicate for the House that we met with the MGEU this morning and we understand that the safety and health process has been agreed upon by the MGEU and the government. That is no longer an issue. The independent review is no longer an issue, and the resignation of senior officials in the Department of Justice is no longer an issue.
The only issue in dispute between the MGEU and the employer is the issue of a separate bargaining unit, and we have indicated that we will sit down and work out some kind of a process in terms of discussing whether that is an appropriate course of action.
* (1350)
Minister of Justice
Resignation Request
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Labour did not answer any of the questions dealing with the public issues that are before us here in this Chamber.
Many members of the public are telling us--and, I am sure, telling members opposite--that we have a Minister of Justice who is out of touch with reality, who maintained a position last week that the staffing levels were not an issue in terms of the riot. Now we are hearing from the government that it may be an issue, contrary to what the Minister of Justice said. We heard all kinds of things from the Minister of Justice, as we always do, a person who talks one way and acts another in terms of the reality of the situation here in Justice.
I would like to ask the Acting Premier, in light of the fact that many discrepancies have now developed between the Minister of Justice, who is out of touch with her own department and the public and the safety of correctional officers, will we get the resignation from the Minister of Justice because she misled us on the staffing levels last year?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, absolutely not to the resignation.
However, let me tell you the areas where we have received information which supports a position of the information I received regarding staff ratio. We have examined, first of all, grievances. There were some grievances which have been pending. None of those grievances dealt with health or safety issues. They dealt with issues relating to sick benefits and also disciplinary action. We examined the Ombudsman who had, to my knowledge, approximately 47 cases. None of those cases before the Ombudsman dealt with the issue of health and safety. I can also tell you that the issue of workplace safety told us that there were no outstanding orders.
So before the Headingley disturbance, we had committees which were in place which were working with the institutions. We have made a commitment now, a very firm commitment with our correctional officers, that we will deal with the issues which they have been bringing forward. There is a committee in place. We have named individuals. Those issues now are no longer part of the dispute of why those officers are not reporting for work.
Headingley Correctional Institution
Range Barriers
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
One of the knee-jerk denials of this minister to the Headingley riot that we have heard about is that the staffing levels, the inmate-to-staff ratio, was not a cause of the riot. So when we alleged last week, Madam Speaker, that the steel barrier wall which divided cell-block 1 into two parts was recently removed, she said we were inaccurate and indeed her spokesperson said that no such barrier ever even existed.
My question for the minister is: Would she get out of the way of the truth here and now admit that her department, in fact, removed this barrier, doubling the ratio of inmates to guards? This is a cover-up.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, let me just say to the people of Manitoba that there is no cover-up whatsoever, and that the issues which have been raised will all be thoroughly reviewed through a number of different areas. They will be reviewed through the internal investigation; they will be reviewed through the independent review; and they will be reviewed through the committee which was originally named the back-to-work committee or Rebuilding Headingley Committee.
I understand that there was a comment which was reported in the media regarding one of my senior officials commenting on the wall and, Madam Speaker, I do not believe I made any comment on that whatsoever. However, I can say, in relation to the wall, there does seem to be some disagreement among the correctional officers about whether or not that wall should be there or should not be there.
What is very important to us is that the correctional officers actually name the individuals they would like to have operate on their behalf--I believe they have done so--and that we get down to work, that we get down to the business of restoring Headingley to being an active institution.
* (1355)
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, if there is no cover-up, would the minister explain this diagram which I will now table, which was created in around 1988 by the former systems and policy analyst for Headingley, which shows, by golly, that there is a barrier right there, the barrier in question. Why this cover-up? I will also table the minister's response in this House to this specific question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, as I said, I understand that one of my officials spoke about a wall, and I have been speaking with information which I received. However, the issue is there is no effort to cover up. In fact, the effort of this government is to bring forward information and to deal with the issues. In order to do that, we have to have both sides at the table, both sides have to participate.
We have made a commitment through the Workplace Safety and Health report which came down yesterday. There were four recommendations to that report, and this government has supported all four of them. So where there are issues to be dealt with, we will be dealing with them and we will be dealing with them in a very full manner and expect to continue as quickly as we can get on with it.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister also explain why the former supervisor of services at Headingley tells us that he was directed to oversee the taking down of the steel barrier about two years ago? Can anything be believed from this minister? Will she now resign?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, no, I will not resign, and now to the matter of the real issue.
The real issue is to restore our institution to be a working institution, to be an institution of rigorous confinement. In order to do that, we have to have both sides at the table. This government, Madam Speaker, has taken every step along the way in response to what the union has put forward in terms of their issues. Some of their issues dealt with health and safety matters. This government has agreed to examine each and every one of those. We will be looking at the committee. Some of the issues which have been immediately removed from the table are issues such as range bars, and as of last week that was clear. On that issue, by the way, that was only going to be dealt with by the committee at the institution dealing with it. The issue that is outstanding now is the issue which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) has raised and that is, will there be a separate and apart bargaining unit for correctional officers? That is the only issue outstanding at the moment.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization--Conflict of Interest
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, on Thursday, without any mandate from the public, without any consultation whatsoever, this government announced the sell-off of the Manitoba Telephone System, a public asset that we have held in this province since 1908, and the lack of concern for Manitobans is probably best exhibited by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who said that Manitobans are the shareholders in name only, which will come as a big surprise to one million Manitobans.
I want to ask some very serious questions to this government about the process it is following, without any mandate whatsoever, in selling off this asset. I would like to first ask the minister once again, since he had the opportunity earlier in Question Period to deal with the question of conflict of interest, does he not see there are some very serious questions involved with his statement today, given the fact that this government has already indicated it will not announce any of the details of the share offering until after this matter is dealt with by the Legislature in November? Does he not see that as a serious conflict of interest in his position and role as Minister responsible for MTS?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I am expressing the enthusiasm many Manitobans are expressing. It will be a good investment for Manitobans. It is well received by Manitobans as an opportunity. I want to be very clear to the member, if there is any degree of conflict or even any hint of perceived conflict, I will not be purchasing shares. I am just an enthusiastic Manitoban who thinks it is a good deal for Manitobans, and I am surprised the member opposite does not see it that way because many individuals in Manitoba have spoken up and have said they are enthusiastic at the opportunity to invest in Manitoba, and I as a Manitoban believe in that principle. But I will be very clear to the member, any conflict of interest or any perceived conflict of interest, I will not even come near it. But if I am allowed to, as an enthusiastic Manitoban, I would like to.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I will try again, and I will ask the minister, does he not see that there is a definite conflict of interest with Section 18(1) of The Conflict of Interest Act, and how does he expect Manitobans to believe anything other than that Tory friends gaining from inside knowledge will happen when he refuses to release information about the share price until after this matter is dealt with by the Legislature in November?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, there is a due process that has to be followed. Legislation will be introduced. Once the legislation is passed, then the prospectus can be put together. The prospectus is then filed with the Manitoba Securities Commission. That is the process.
Privatization--Public Hearings
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Well, as a final supplementary, I am just wondering, if the minister does not understand the difficulty with conflict of interest, will he at least commit the government to public hearings to be held throughout Manitoba and a referendum, something that has been requested not only by many Manitobans but by rural municipalities and by even members of the Chamber of Commerce, will he at least give Manitobans a say on the future of their telephone company?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I think it has become very clear to the member opposite, Manitobans support very strongly the initiative taken by this side of the House. They support it very strongly, and if he looks--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System, to complete his response.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, there is a lot of support out there from Manitobans. We will be presenting to them as much information as we can as fast as we can. Their speakers' bureau has been set up at the Manitoba Telephone System for any interested group that wants to have further information that can be presented to them.
Madam Speaker, through the due process of legislation, there will be first reading, second reading, there will be committee stage and then there will be third reading. That is the normal process, and that is the opportunity for a lot of public input.
But I want to remind the members opposite, we are getting a lot of information that would indicate--and certainly a lot of it is public now--that Manitobans support the initiative because we have protected the rights of Manitobans to have a preferential position in owning the phone company on into the future.
* (1400)
Headingley Correctional Institution
Reforms
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I would like to table three reports to reference my question: a 1983 report, a 1989 report and a 1996 report in regard to Headingley Correctional Institution.
Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The three reports I tabled call for prison reform. To quote the '83 report: If this or future government administrators are not prepared to show leadership, then anything we or countless committees of the future recommend will not come to pass.
Madam Speaker, leadership in managing reform has been absent. Prisoners have rioted and guards are walking off the job. My question for the Minister of Justice is: Instead of trying to find scapegoats, will the minister accept responsibility and tell the people of Manitoba why these reforms did not work?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, certainly this government has brought in a number of reforms which we believe are in the interest of public safety of Manitobans. We have brought forward reforms which deal with the issue of temporary absences. We have brought forward reforms which deal with whether or not someone at the end of their sentence can serve a reduced time. It is our opinion, they should not unless it is earned.
Madam Speaker, we have brought forward a number of reforms. We have also made it very clear that we would like inmates within our institutions to work a full day, and that the opinion of this government is that there should not simply be idle time within our institutions but that time should be put forward working a full day. That is what we have said; that is exactly the way we are proceeding.
Mr. Kowalski: Will the minister acknowledge that the '83 and '89 reports, which said guards should not be frozen out of the reform process, were ignored and that her department continued its closed-door policy, killing the reform process before it even got started?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, I totally reject what the member has brought forward. There are committees operating in each one of our institutions which deal with issues which correctional officers wish to bring forward and they are discussed with management, so in fact there is a mechanism. However, Madam Speaker, if that communication process was not effective and if that is one of the issues which correctional officers want to bring forward for discussion, then we have made it clear we are more than prepared to discuss it.
Our goal is now to look at the situation that has been brought forward. We want to make every effort to make sure that our institutions are effective, and we will continue to work with our correctional officers to do that. That is the commitment that has been made by this government; that is the commitment that to my knowledge has been accepted by the union.
Mr. Kowalski: Will the minister agree that because her department failed to manage reform, they are responsible for the Headingley riot, and now Manitobans have to foot a $2-million clean-up bill?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, the member has arrived at his own conclusion far ahead of any independent review, far ahead of any internal review. In his mind, you would need no review. In his mind, he has decided on the reasons.
This government wants to make sure that we have a very detailed view and report of exactly what led up to and what occurred at the time of the Headingley disturbance. That is why we have, in fact, the two independent reviews, one internal review and one independent review, which I expect to be announcing very soon. The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) will be able to provide much more detailed information on how exactly we are covering the damages which were done to Headingley jail, and I am sure in a further question he will be more than happy to outline those issues.
Central Health Services
Back-up Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, last fall the government gave out a huge contract to do home care services to Central Health Services in the amount of $650,000.
Can the minister explain why the government home care service has to provide back-up service to this private company and is that not illustrative of what the problems will be in the private home care industry if we let this government have its way?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I think the member said something about last fall a contract being let. I do not recall any outpouring of concern on his part at that time. I do not recall any outpouring of concern when a contract was let to do home intravenous therapy services from the St. Boniface General Hospital. The honourable member is a Johnny-come-lately .
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, why would the minister not hold off his privatization scheme until we would have an opportunity to examine this Central Health contract which the government slipped through and which we were forced to get by going through Freedom of Information?
Mr. McCrae: Nothing of the kind is the reality, Madam Speaker. In fact, the Seven Oaks project report dating back to February of 1995 was certainly not something slipped through. We had a great big press conference over at the Seven Oaks General Hospital. The honourable member for Kildonan was there, smiling his approval for everything that was going on then. He is a Johnny-come-lately.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: If the minister's privatization plan is so great for the people of Manitoba, why would the minister not hold off the privatization until they had an opportunity to examine the Central Health contract which has not yet expired, which is having lots of problems where the government service is forced to provide back-up? Why would the government not be willing to take that plan, study it for a year, then go back with their proposal?--because they have no evidence to justify privatization.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the position of the New Democrats, as enunciated by the honourable member for Kildonan, their Health critic, and I quote: go back to the system we had in the first place. Now he wants us to hold off for another year or longer any further improvements in the Home Care program. He is the first one to remind me that his own Price Waterhouse report is 10 years old and that we ought not to refer to it. Well, 10 years ago we were told about inefficiencies, by Price Waterhouse. Ten years ago we were told about a lack of responsiveness, by Price Waterhouse. Ten years ago we were told about inconsistent application of services across this city and province. That was commissioned by the NDP. By the way, their response was user fees and cuts in services, which is something they today deny. But 10 years ago these problems were in existence. Not enough has been done to resolve them. We are attempting to resolve them. The honourable member says, oh, wait another year. The clients of home care cannot wait another year.
Regional Health Boards
Budget Surpluses
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): When the government announced their plan to move to regional health boards, existing health boards were told that the initial operating budget of the regional health boards and the interim administration structure would have no impact on their funding, and this money would come from a separate line.
You can imagine the shock regional health boards felt when they got a letter from Mr. Duprey, which I will table, indicating that Manitoba Health will be redirecting up to 50 percent of the facilities' surpluses for the operation of the regional health board.
I want to ask the minister why he has betrayed the existing health boards by first telling them that they should set up surpluses and now taking the money that they need to deal with crises.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the department has been made aware of the displeasure of the various boards and administrations across the province, especially those that have surpluses when it comes to the financing of the operations of the new health boards. We have taken that expression of disappointment quite seriously, made our health care consultants available for discussions with the various boards and administrations. We are attempting to resolve this issue.
* (1410)
Ms. Wowchuk: I wanted to ask the minister if he will not admit that it is absolutely hypocritical on their part to take this money away. I will quote members who say, who in their right mind would not put money away for hard times? Why are you taking this money away when you have told regional health boards that they should be setting up surpluses? Why are you taking it away and setting up surpluses for yourself?
Mr. McCrae: I already answered that we are attempting to resolve the concerns that board chairs, members and administrations have, but the honourable member's question really gives away the real philosophy of the New Democrats in two areas. First off, it is not a good idea to have a surplus, always spend what you can and more, No. 1; and No. 2, she forgets altogether whose money it is we are talking about, the money belongs to the taxpayers of Manitoba.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would ask the minister to remember that we left them a surplus. We certainly--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River, to pose her final supplementary question.
Ms.Wowchuk: Will the Minister of Health communicate immediately through the regional health boards to let them know that they are not going to be recapturing the surpluses that they have built up and put some certainty back into these hospital boards?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member's questions about the so-called 1988 surplus made me think that our poor Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) over here is like the Maytag repairman. Honourable members opposite do not have any questions for the Minister of Finance because he is handling our fiscal situation so well in our province.
The allegation that honourable members left us with a surplus is--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: The suggestion about a surplus left in 1988 is a bitter kind of irony and a bitter joke. There is some $600 million going to the creditors of the Province of Manitoba that is not going to our hospitals, that is not going to home care, that is not going to all the other health and social services that we value so much, thanks to the balanced and surplus budget of the New Democratic Party in 1988. What a joke, Madam Speaker.
Education System
Physical Education Curriculum
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, this government seems determined to not have children and youth in Manitoba participate in physical education. There is, first of all, the problem that they do not understand, that it is counterproductive to sacrifice physical education and health education, one for the other. Second, there is a problem that they are creating ultimate and utter confusion in the community with respect to how these courses are to be scheduled.
I want to, first of all, table a directive from the minister's office from April 22 where she indicated that there should be a reduction of 40 percent of physical education in our schools. Secondly, I want to table a letter from the Deputy Minister of Education responding to the confusion that there has been caused, and saying that the department's intent is to go to 75--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the honourable member for Radisson has a question. The honourable member for Radisson, to pose a question.
Ms. Cerilli: My question for the minister is, why has she sent different directives to the principals and superintendents in this province and then another directive in a letter to the dean of physical education? Will she send the same information into all the schools and all the physical educators in the province?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I am so embarrassed for the member that I hardly know where to begin. We have been through all this in Estimates. The member put forward the same misinformation she just put forward now. We have corrected that all for her, clarified for her her misreading of the situation. Perhaps, in order to correct the record that she has just created here by putting what she knows absolutely to be wrong on the record, I should maybe say what actually did happen here.
As the Speaker may know and the members of the House may know, physical education, there will be a new curriculum written. It has not yet been written. That curriculum will blend health and physical education to take a look at the whole business of a fit lifestyle. That is very important. There are a lot of things about that I could say, but I do not want to take all the time to explain that, although it is very interesting, very appropriate, very necessary.
In setting down the guidelines, we have indicated that we will be moving to 75 percent phys ed, 25 percent health. That has been talked about with all of the people involved, and it is eminently satisfactory. In the meantime, we will be remaining at the 60/40 split that has always been there.
The letter of clarification went out when we were extending the deadlines. The phys ed teachers misunderstood it, wrote--the physical education teachers have subsequently apologized for having misunderstood that, and the letter that they have written reflects that.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, if what the minister is saying is true and there is no confusion in the community, why were the physical educators at the recent Forum 3 asking the question:
What percentage breakdown is your administrator using to make next year's decisions--50/50, 65/35, 60/40 for health and phys ed? There is a lot of confusion--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, as I was indicating, I have struck a minister's advisory committee on the implementation of educational change. That committee has the Manitoba Teachers' Society, school superintendents, school trustees, parents and educators-at-large on it.
In talking about the new curriculum, new guidelines and time lines, that committee had recommended an extension of time for some of the new changes because the field, they felt, required more time to make the adjustment. That extra time was granted, and a letter was sent to the field saying, the new way will come into existence later than was originally planned at your request; in the meantime, you will carry on using the old system. The physical education teachers at a quick cursory glance thought that we meant that the old system was staying in place. They immediately got upset, realized their mistake, sent a letter of apology, apologized to my deputy for misunderstanding.
This member is now implying that the misunderstanding is the thing that is correct, and she knows because we went through it in Estimates. I really object to what she is trying to do here with the game that she is playing. It is not correct.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I am going to table a document from the Physical Education Teachers' Association which will show that the information the minister has put on the record is inaccurate. I would like her to clarify, given that she had said: The agreement they have come to with the deputy minister meets their needs and they tell us it does; quite frankly, they have indicated their satisfaction.
I would like her to explain that, in view of the information I just gave to her which states clearly that the field is not satisfied with this proposal.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to go through all of this again for her in detail in Estimates when I can go through step by step and have the time to properly address the questions that she has put.
The history on this would take a long time to go through, but the final result is this: The physical education teachers are very satisfied with the 75/25 split that we will be going to. Everyone acknowledges that health has to be a component of physical education. It is not enough, as the member said in Estimates, to have the students touching their toes. They must also understand why it is necessary to exercise, what the movement of blood through the circulatory system does for oxygen to the brain, et cetera. They need to understand the psychology of fitness as well as just learning how to touch their toes. We all know that. The physical education teachers know that. The member for Radisson is trying to just--I do not know--play silly games.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.