ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier. We are certainly pleased that a long-overdue tentative settlement has been reached dealing with home care and the clients of Manitoba.
I would like to ask the government and continue to ask the government questions dealing with matters that arose out of the Treasury Board document called Strategic Redirection of Home Care, Treasury Board presentation of December 16. In that document, which I believe precipitated a considerable amount of public outrage and concern and concern by the workers and clients, the Manitoba Health policy was redirected to provide for divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernmental organizations in the home care area.
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), is that still the policy of the provincial government as articulated in the Treasury Board document of December 16?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I join with the Leader of the Opposition in expressing pleasure that we have reached a point in negotiations where we now have a tentative agreement. It is my hope that ratification will happen in due course and that working with the employees and with the union we can have services restored to our clients just as soon as possible. While I am at it, I might offer that I appreciate that the union is working with us to restore that service on an expedited basis. There are clients in the system who I am sure will be pleased to know that. Whatever will happen in the future will have to be consistent with the agreement arrived at, and as that becomes known, then it will become clearer as to the future direction.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, again the government did not answer the question posed to them. The public concern across this province, since the Treasury Board document has been released and since the Minister of Health and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) endorsed this policy to move to private profit home care, the public debate that has been in the public policy area is tremendous public opposition to the plans of the provincial government to privatize and introduce profit in a dramatic way in our home care area.
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier who is in charge of policy of the provincial government, is the policy of the provincial government to divest of all service delivery in home care to private firms, private profit firms? Is that the policy of the government today, or can the Deputy Premier please advise Manitobans of where this issue of private and profit home care services is going?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member draws quite a distinction between profit and nonprofit and in some aspects of our system there is an appropriate difference between the two or a different approach to be taken between the two.
Madam Speaker, the home care system of the future will be more responsive than the home care system of the past. It will be more flexible in meeting clients' needs than it has been. It will be more responsive, as I said. It will be more flexible and we need it to be more efficient because it is going to grow. The number of clients is going to grow; the number of people working in the home care system is going to grow in the future. We know that because we are committed to a health care system, and no health care system in the next century and in the last part of this one is complete without a well-functioning home care program.
* (1355)
Mr. Doer: Again to the Acting Premier. The Minister of Health, with the greatest of respect, did not answer the question posed in this Chamber for the second time. Our question is very clear. The public, the minister's advisory committee, Dr. Evelyn Shapiro, clients of home care services, people all across this province in letters and petitions, the people in this province were saying to us and saying to members opposite that they did not want to move to a profit private home care system in the health care system.
I would like to ask the government, in light of the fact that their own Treasury Board document requires or articulates three profit firms and one private nonprofit firm as part of the home care service plan, the redirection of the Department of Health, which was not debated at all in the provincial election, will the public be involved in the future of home care? Will the public be involved in the future of whether we are going to have a profit private system or a nonprofit system, and when will the government allow the people of Manitoba to get involved in their health care system and their home care system, Madam Speaker, as they have been asking and pleading for from this government for the last four months?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, not accepting the reference to the document as being a Treasury Board document, I would like to respond to the member by saying --and as well as my colleague, acknowledging the tentative agreement that has been reached between the home care workers and the government--say that this government is very pragmatic and very positive in its approach to looking after and prioritizing the needs of the people of Manitoba in health care, in education and family services. They are three extremely important areas that this government has prioritized.
When it comes to the health care budget of the Province of Manitoba, there is a greater share of health care spending in Manitoba than any other province in the country. I believe in the neighbourhood of 34 percent of our budget is spent on health care. We have increased our home care spending from $38 million to over $90 million since we were first elected. Our priorities are to make sure the clients of home care and those people who are in need of services obtain them in the best, most efficient way.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the government has politicized thousands and thousands of Manitobans who have said, we will not stand for these government cuts, we will not stand for government privatization. Home care workers have stood up, women have stood up, clients have stood up and said, we will not stand for this government's plans on health care.
My question to the Minister of Health is, has the Minister of Health learned anything from this situation about how not to implement health care policy in this province?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, one thing I have known for a long time--I did not learn it but it became very apparent over time--is that the more you listen to the New Democrats, the more damage you do to the health care system, so we are not going to be doing that unless they offer something constructive. If the honourable member can find it in his heart and in his caucus to be constructive as we move forward with health services and health reforms in Manitoba, then we will be working with the honourable member. There is little evidence of that to this point. We will wait. We will be hopeful, and we will have faith that the honourable member will indeed come forward with constructive ideas.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for that comment.
Privatization--Public Hearings
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Will the minister today commit that they will not embark on their privatization plans without holding full-scale public hearings to allow the public of Manitoba to have a say in their privatization plan, and will he today denounce their own Treasury Board submission that said they are going to do privatization by the back door without consulting Manitobans?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, as the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) pointed out, within the space of about eight years in government, the Home Care program funding has grown by some 111 percent in this province. That tells me that the growth has been extremely significant. The commitment to the program has been significant. Our plans and the things that we are doing today call for a publicly funded home care system. That is what we have. That is what we will have in the future.
* (1400)
Privatization--Nursing Service
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the agreement that has been tentatively entered into between the government, the home care workers and the MGEU, can the minister today tell this House that they will not be privatizing the whole major other aspect of home care, that is the nursing service, that they are planning to privatize and effectively take VON out of the business? Will he assure the House that they will not privatize the nursing service without public hearings and without consulting the public?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): We will not be proceeding on a philosophical basis, Madam Speaker. We will be proceeding on the basis of what is felt will deliver the best product for the largest number of clients of our home care system in the future. The honourable members opposite have made no secret of their approach. It is a philosophical one. On this side of the House, we put the clients ahead of philosophy.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we have been raising many questions about the government's handling of the Manitoba Telephone System. It has been very clear from previous dealings with this government that they have not dealt properly with the assets of the public of Manitoba, as was confirmed yesterday by the Ernst & Young report.
The minister continues to refuse to answer questions about when the decision was made. I would like to ask when the decision to sell off MTS, the entire MTS, was made and, in particular, whether there was any discussion whatsoever with the Board of MTS over that sale.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the member has been made aware that we had become aware over the course of time that changes had been happening in the industry between competition, technology, those sorts of factors. We endeavoured to get further information and had some evaluations done which came to government as the owner of that corporation, and we determined that the right decision was to allow the company to be free of the shackles of government in the future, and free up to allow them to respond quickly and aggressively in the competitive telecommunications market. The announcement that the member is talking about was made, I believe, two weeks ago tomorrow, on the Thursday, if I am not mistaken. The decision to get on with it was made a few days prior to that.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, then I will ask my question once again because the minister said, we decided. I want to determine who that “we” was. Was it the cabinet? Was it the caucus? In particular, when did they discuss this, or did they even discuss this with the Board of MTS?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the board is there to operate MTS from a senior management point of view. The government is the owner. The decision, obviously, in this sort of situation, the government is here elected by the people and the decision--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister responsible, to complete his response.
Mr. Findlay: The government through the cabinet makes those kinds of decisions.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, is the minister then saying, after criticizing the slowness of the decision-making process, that in a matter of days the cabinet and the cabinet alone, without consulting, involving Manitobans generally, they did not even consult the Board of MTS? Did they not even raise that with the Board of MTS, this very major decision, the privatization of MTS?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the discussion on this particular issue has been going on for some time. The comments were made back, I believe it was in December that we had to evaluate the circumstances that MTS faced and evaluate what the best decision would be to maximize MTS's ability to deliver the very best cost-effective services to all Manitobans in the form of telecommunications.
The member knows that I have made comments over the course of time that the study was underway, that there are some serious considerations that have to be given. He has made comments which obviously are opposed to what we are doing, but we believe the decision we have made is for the betterment of Manitobans, to allow Manitobans the priority position in a public offering to own Manitoba Telephone System, allow the telephone system to recapitalize for the big investments they are going to have to make in the future to stay current with the technology that all Manitobans want to have available to them as they live in this global economy that we are in today.
Manitoba Telephone System
Cable Assets
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, this is an appalling situation. The expertise in Manitoba to run its telephone system involved hiring brand new executives from eastern Canada, involves a board of directors of so-called competent people, involves hundreds of competent specialists in the area of telecommunications, and this government did not consult any of them about whether it should keep or sell the telephone system. It is an appalling record.
Madam Speaker, the minister yesterday tried to defend his sale of the cable system in spite of the fact that it brings in annually more than $8 million in revenue--it did before they sold it--and we are now open to losing $300 million in revenue as a result of that sale, as stated by MTS's own documents.
Does he still want to sell that system for peanuts? Does he still defend that decision?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the member opposite wants to create an impression that does not exist. Manitoba Telephone System, as I told him yesterday, is the only telephone company in all of Canada to own a cable system to a home. He talks about strategic value. The strategic value is if you have a broadcast licence. Manitoba Telephone System did not have a broadcast licence; therefore, there is no strategic value to that cable into the home. Further--[interjection] Well, the member opposite does not want to hear the facts and that is unfortunate he represents his constituents that way.
On June 27, 1985, the federal cabinet passed, and I will quote, broadcasting licences may not be issued and renewals of broadcasting licences may not be granted to applicants of the following classes: Her Majesty in right of any province, agents of Her Majesty in the right of any province.
So not only did MTS not have a broadcast licence, the federal decision was that they could not get one in the future; therefore, the strategic value the member talks about is nonexistent.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, now the minister seems to know more than Ernst & Young, more than his own staff, more than the experts in this whole business.
Will the minister tell the House just how much these cable companies who were supposedly complaining about the quality of the cable asset that they bought for peanuts, will he tell the House how much the cable companies have spent upgrading that supposedly run-down system since they bought it, and will he admit they have spent nothing?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I am very glad the member asked that question, very glad indeed. I would like to table a letter I received today from the Manitoba Cable Television Association which clearly identifies--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I want to read from the letter--of course, the member does not want to hear this--“Last year alone, operators spent $17 million on capital projects and this year, the Winnipeg operators have begun a major fibre optic upgrade that will, in the future, provide cable customers with more choice and control of programming services as well as high speed internet access and interactive TV.”
Madam Speaker, modernizing the system. The commitment in the agreement was to spend $32 million over five years; $17 million was spent in the last year.
* (1410)
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, the minister knows very well that the money that was spent was spent on the cable's own assets, not on the cable bought from MTS. That has long been established. There is nothing new about that.
Madam Speaker, why did the minister yesterday attempt to mislead the press suggesting that the Ernst & Young study dealt only with American examples when he knows it dealt with United Kingdom and Canadian, specifically Bell Canada Enterprises and Quebec examples? Why did he try to mislead the press?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I looked at the document the member sent over and it was U.S. this, U.S. that, U.S. the next thing. Those members often in this House are pretty anti-American, and now they bring forward a document from Seattle, Washington, by an American firm that has a whole litany of U.S. examples. The U.S. telephone companies have licences, which I have already indicated to the member Manitoba Telephone System does not have, cannot get because of federal regulations--very clear statement.
I would ask the member to read that letter and understand the degree of investment that cable operators are putting into the system in Manitoba to upgrade it. It clearly identifies a hundred million will be required to be invested. There is no way that the Manitoba Telephone System could or should invest in that asset because it is high risk to put cable in the ground when today the modern telecommunication systems allow an awful lot of that signal to come from satellites. It is a very competitive business, and I want the cable operators to be sure that they can deliver the best service in the long term to the citizens of Manitoba.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Quality of Service
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, the Liberal caucus is quite pleased to see that a tentative agreement at least has been achieved with the home care services. Having said that, we realize that the privatization for-profit ultimately is going to lead in the long term and short term to the detriment of the quality of service being delivered. I would like to table a document which clearly demonstrates that for-profit turnover is going to be at 49.9 percent in B.C. whereas unionized, it is at 32.6 percent. That particular table, if you like, demonstrates to the Minister of Health that there is going to be higher turnover as a direct result of for-profit privatization of home care services. How can the Minister of Health tell us that this move is not going to decrease the quality of home care services?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member says that he is pleased that the parties have arrived, through negotiation, at a tentative agreement. I am too. Let us let that tentative agreement work.
Mr. Lamoureux: The specific question to the minister is, and we would appreciate to have a straightforward answer, how can the minister say that the quality of home care services is going to be there when you are seeing such a high turnover of private versus unionized? How can he say that the quality is going to be maintained?
Mr. McCrae: We fully expect to see quality maintained or exceeded as a result of changes that are taking place in our home care system. We are attempting to address those very issues that are quality issues, issues like an ability, which has been lacking in the past, to properly schedule caregivers and arrival at homes of people requiring home care services. Scheduling, we think that the efficiency of the program will be improved in the future. We believe that we will be more responsive. The honourable member knows that there are areas where improvements are required, and the moves that are being made are with a view to making those kinds of improvements for our clients.
I am sorry the honourable member prefers a system that does not give us that kind of opportunity, but that is all right. We are responsible for the program, and we are going to make sure that services are as good or better than they have been in the past.
Privatization--Moratorium
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): The tentative agreement to the side, will the Minister of Health commit to the 12-month moratorium so that, in essence, what he would be able to do in the 12 months is to look at the possibility of things such as wage scales, things such as nonprofit groups being given special treatment, in the hopes that in the long term we will see a better quality service, not just a straight-out privatization for profit which, ultimately, as I say, as we believe, will lead to the deterioration of what is a good quality service that we provide today?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Through negotiations leading to a collective agreement, we make commitments through the collective agreement which will be honoured. We also make commitments to our clients. In the past we have not been able to make commitments to our clients because we have not been able to guarantee service. The system that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) wants us to return to did not have guarantees. We want guarantees for our clients. It is through mechanisms like the kind that will be set forth in the collective agreement and further improvements to the home care system, we will carry out that commitment, and we will be able to guarantee our service so that it can be more reliable for our clients.
Vehicle Inspection Program
Reform
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My questions are for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Last July the minister implemented a used vehicle inspection program which, since its inception, has consistently been deficient in protecting the safety of Manitobans. On the latest occasion, cars that were previously written off have been repaired and sold to unsuspecting buyers even after these cars passed a so-called inspection program.
My question to the minister is, in light of the fact that the minister's vehicle inspection program has been tested on at least three separate occasions and on all three of these occasions the program failed miserably to safeguard Manitobans, will the minister now admit that the program is in fact a dismal failure and start over?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): The member is completely wrong. His idea is that we subject the Manitoba consumer to a number of unsafe vehicles to be bought. That is his position. Our position is quite opposite.
Across this country, we have a lot of provinces that have instituted like programs. What that does is prevent a lot of the junkers that are on the road from getting sold and reregistered, and they are off the road. So that is a very significant positive. In addition, jurisdictions across the country are looking for some place that there is no inspection so they can bring a car in and have it registered and then sell it. We have stopped that because they have to have that inspection certificate.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the members opposite when they ask questions really want an answer when they are always yapping from their seats. This is a very serious topic about safety for motorists on Manitoba highways, and we have progressively done significant activity to improve that safety. It is very unfortunate that the member opposite wants junkers on the road, cars brought to this province for registration that have no safety inspection. I am very unhappy, and unfortunately he takes that position.
Mr. Jennissen: We do not want gouging of the customers. Since the only noticeable result of the program has been the gouging of hundreds of Manitoba car owners with impunity, will he at least take action to deal with the victims of this program?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the department does a lot of work to make sure that the program will work and continually improve. Inspection of over 800 stations has been done, the certification of those stations, reinspections and a ghost car program. They will respond to any citizen who has a complaint about an inspected car or an inspection station and respond to that customer's satisfaction with regard to that particular incident.
There are incidents. This is not a perfect world, and you have a lot of people out there who want to unload unsafe vehicles. We are definitely putting a retarder on the ability of those unsafe vehicles to get on the road and protecting not only the purchasers of those vehicles but the other drivers on the road that those vehicles may run into.
Mr. Jennissen: How can this minister claim that the program works when garages are certified, then suspended, then certified again simply to make it appear that the minister is finally doing something?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I am really disappointed the member takes that low-ball approach. We have 800 inspection stations, probably 2,000 Manitobans involved in the inspection process, with the employees in those garages all doing a very credible job, and that member comes to the House and totally denigrates them all. That is shameful.
* (1420)
Correctional Facilities
Temporary Absences
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Last Friday there was a tragic death of a senior at Inwood, Manitoba, and we understand that charges have now been laid in that incident. My question for the minister is, would she confirm our understanding that one of the persons charged was on a temporary absence or temporary pass from Headingley jail at the time of the incident?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that a charge has now been laid and one of the individuals who has been charged was on a temporary absence from Headingley jail.
As Attorney General, I cannot speak specifically about the case, but I will tell the member that I have immediately requested from my department what decisions and why those decisions were made by correctional officials in this case.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the Minister of Justice tell us now whether it is her understanding that all proper procedures were followed and the usual criteria applied in deciding to release this accused, and when was the temporary absence approved?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, as I said, I have requested an immediate report from my department. I have said that that report must be available to me by tomorrow morning. When that happens, I will have then all the details about decisions made by correctional officials.
Mr. Mackintosh: In making her inquiries, Madam Speaker, would the minister also report to us on how many inmates have been released from provincial correctional institutions not because of the usual criteria but because of the riot and the resulting pressures on the provincial jail system?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I have asked for information from correctional officials regarding any individuals who may have been released. It is my information that some may have been released within approximately two weeks of their sentence completion. However, I have asked for that full report to be available to me.
Education System
Labour Studies Curriculum
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. In 1991-92, the Winnipeg School Division implemented a labour studies curriculum. This curriculum was an attempt to provide students with a responsible and balanced understanding of organized labour's role in our society, as well as an historical perspective on labour's development in Manitoba and Canada.
Would the minister consider expanding this curriculum to be included in the studies of all Manitoban students as a responsible measure towards assuring a better understanding of our economy and our society with the perspectives receiving fair treatment by our education system?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, as the member knows, in New Directions, in our blueprint for excellence, we are moving towards two compulsory subjects in Grades 11 and 12, or Senior 3 and Senior 4 as we call it now, those being mathematics and language arts. We also then have a list of options from which there are supplementary courses from which a certain number must be selected. We also, of course, have school-initiated courses and programs and student-initiated courses and programs, and as we move closer and closer to schools of choice and school plans, those are the very types of things that school councils and communities will now be able to ask to have made compulsory in their divisions if the community or the school catchment area population wishes to see them made so.
I believe those choices, for parents to be able to have courses more closely reflect what they would like to see taught in the schools, is a very important part of New Directions, and I think she might be very pleased to know that a capability will be there for those who wish it.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, in view of the lack of understanding of the labour issues shown by this cabinet across this House, would she consider taking the course herself along with the rest of her cabinet?
Mrs. McIntosh: I suppose, if we sat down and added up the number of labour relations courses that I have taken versus the number the member has taken, she may well be surprised that I have taken considerably more than she has. However, I should also indicate that this side of the House has shown itself very, very conscious of the needs of workers, of the needs of management--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. McIntosh: This side of the House is fully aware of the needs of workers, of the needs of management and of the needs and desires of unions. We have always striven to make sure that workers are not taken advantage of by bad management or by bad unions. That has been very fundamental. We know that there are many very, very good working relationships between labour and management. We know that there are many, many good unions who act as a very effective conduit between labour and management. We know, as with every other kind of grouping in society, there are also those who grossly violate the basic principles they were struck to provide.
Minister of Education
Removal
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) accused the official opposition of standing for stealing of groceries out of shopping baskets, slashing tires and bombings. Yesterday, the Minister of Education stated in the Legislature to members of the official opposition, and I quote: You support bombings, slashing tires and murder.
This is an incredible, dishonourable statement from a minister of the Crown. I want to ask the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), has he contacted the Premier (Mr. Filmon), wherever he is, and recommended that the Minister of Education be removed as a minister of the Crown based on her highly offensive remarks and statements unbecoming a minister of the Crown?
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that the honourable member for Transcona please avoid making reference to the presence or absence of a member in this Chamber. It indeed is a Beauchesne rule and I would ask that he delete those comments from his question prior to recognizing the minister.
Mr. Reid: I delete those comments, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Transcona.
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, first of all, I understand that you have taken the issues of yesterday under advisement as matters of points of order which were raised. I think it is unfortunate that a series of several events took place yesterday in the Chamber which I do not think any of us feel that good about on either side, and I hope that--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
An Honourable Member: I never said . . . . I said attempted murder.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask for the co-operation of all honourable members. The honourable Deputy Premier was asked a question and he was attempting to make a response. Once again, this is a very sensitive issue, and I would ask that all honourable members not continually disrupt the proceedings of the House. There are three points of order under advisement, maybe four, on this very issue.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to add a fourth to this because the minister from her seat is now saying she did not say that we supported murderers, she said attempted murderers. Whether it is the comments she made about bombings or slashing tires or murderers or attempted murderers, the question raised yesterday applies. I raise this on a point of order again. This minister has no right to make any accusation of that kind against any member of this House.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order by the honourable member for Thompson, I did not hear any comments being shouted across the Chamber. I will take the matter under advisement. I will listen to the tapes and I will check the Hansard and that is the procedure. Order, please.
What is ensuing now is exactly what caused the major disruption in the House yesterday afternoon. I would ask that all honourable members stop pointing fingers, stop making accusation back and forth across the Chamber.
* * *
Madam Speaker: Now, the honourable member for Transcona, I believe, was recognized for a question.
The honourable member for St. Johns, on a point of order.
* (1430)
Point of Order
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am wondering if you heard from your seat the remarks of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) that the member for Thompson was a baldfaced liar.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order by the honourable member for St. Johns, no, I did not hear. In fact, it is very difficult for anyone to hear any comments when there is so much noise in this Chamber. Once again, I will take the matter under advisement, and I will listen to the tape and check Hansard and report back to the Chamber if necessary.
* * *
Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, dealing with the question that was asked of me--
Madam Speaker: To quickly complete his response to the question posed.
Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, not accepting any of the premise of the member who was just asked the question, you have taken under advisement the issues which the question refers to and we will await your judgment on that matter.
Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Deputy Premier again.
I want to ask this Deputy Premier why he is supporting and defending the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Education instead of taking the necessary steps to remove this Minister of Education from her position for making statements that are unbecoming a minister of the Crown. Why are you defending this minister?
Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, again, referring to the matters of yesterday of which you have under your judgment, one could make reference to another series of events that took place that I would ask a reverse question of the member. Is he happy with the actions of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) that took place right beside me and my desk?
I will stand beside and behind the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) in her actions and her activities and will await your judgment as it relates to the points of privilege in this House and the points of order.
McLeod School
Closure
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Manitoba has many good schools that are valued by parents and by their community, noted for their academic excellence, and one of those is McLeod School. Its fate under this Minister of Education is that it will be closing despite the protests of parents and students in its community.
I want to ask the Minister of Education if she is going to take any iota of responsibility for her funding cuts which have led to the closure of this school.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will indicate to the member, as the member may realize, that there are school closure guidelines set down for the Province of Manitoba. These were set down by the Minister of Education during the NDP years of governing in Manitoba. They are very clear. Those are the guidelines that school boards follow to this day when they are closing schools. As a school division that suffered from declining funding during the Pawley administration, the school division I was a chairman of at that time, we closed schools using those same guidelines for those same reasons.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.