Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have been maintaining for a long time on this side that you cannot have an economic strategy without an education strategy, and, of course, the funding cuts, we believe, work against not only the best interests of our students but the best interests of our long-term economic opportunities.

I would like to ask the Acting Premier: Why has this government, through its funding cuts to public education, removed some $25 million alone from our rural communities in Manitoba?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me, at the outset, say that this government, under this Premier (Mr. Filmon), and this group of people in this caucus have made education one of the top priorities--health, education, family services, job creation and economic growth. I can tell you it is working. When we look at the job opportunities for our students, we are looking at job opportunities in all areas of our society. Those opportunities are there. As it relates to funding, we have increased the funding in education by over a hundred million dollars since we have come into office.

Mr. Doer: Thank you for that tirade--[interjection] Well, I have a report from the Rural Institute, which is located in the community of Brandon, which has done a review up till 1996. Of course, 1996 the government cut another 2 percent, and then in 1997 they had a zero percent increase to public education.

But the Rural Institute of Manitoba, an independent body studying the impact of Tory cuts over the last five years on education, has stated that $25 million has been removed from the rural economy through the cutbacks of this Tory government on public education, and it says it has had two impacts. It has weakened the infrastructure in our communities, and it denies students in their communities the opportunity to get fair and reasonable public education.

I would like to ask this Acting Premier: Why have you removed that $25 million away from the futures of our communities and the futures of our children in our public education system?

* (1340)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the member talking about selective years, but the fact is what the Deputy Premier has indicated is absolutely correct. In the time that we have been in office, we have increased funding to public schools by $115 million, and you saw a slight dip in our funding for a period of three years of 2 percent cuts during the time that our transfer payments really hit us and we had to make adjustments. But a $115-million increase overall is still an increase, despite the fact that we had a year or two when there were fluctuations.

I have to indicate the very important fact that I think needs to be understood by members opposite, and that is, in the last decade for which we have up-to-date statistics ending at the end of 1995, between 1985 and 1995 provincial funding to education in Manitoba, to public school eduction stayed in pace with inflation. And so if you look at constant dollars as well, constant dollars will show increased spending power in Manitoba with constant dollars.

Mr. Doer: This is research report No. 8, Research in Rural Education. This is an independent study, not the minister's political comments that she put on the record. It further states that the $25-million removal--and we know that public education funding went up in the late '80s because we know there was a more favourable government in the late '80s. You can quote '85 all you want. We also know during the minority government you were forced to raise public education. It has been since then that you have been hacking and slashing public education.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the report goes on to say that it begs the question why this government is taking such a short-term perspective where it is willing to sacrifice the long-term benefits of public education and willing to sacrifice the long-term future of rural communities by their hacking and slashing and cutting for our future. Why are you doing this, Mr. Acting Premier?

Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can go through every industry in this province that today needs educated people, and there are job opportunities. From the North from the mining sector to the southwest to the oil production area, to the manufacturing centre of the bus industry, to the agriculture sector, to the high-technology industries sector there are tremendous demands. Another piece of information that came from the Department of Education that I believe--and this is a report that is out--80 percent of the graduates of Red River Community College had jobs within six months of their graduation. So the point is that there are jobs, and the education system is responding to educate those people. There has not been a cutback in education, other than from that of the federal government of some 220 to $40 million in health and education.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Speaker, when faced with real teachers and parents who paint a true picture of the diminishing classroom resources, the government's response ranges from bewilderment to belligerence, often in the same sentence but certainly within the same government. The problem is that this rigid and ideological government now actually believes its own propaganda that they put more money into education, but the reality is, as any parent or consumer will tell you, it is the purchasing power that matters, it is what it will buy that counts in the classroom.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education to confirm, using 1988 constant dollars, that her government's operating support for public schools in Manitoba is now $98 million a year less than it was in 1990.

* (1345)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, not accepting any of the rather dramatic preamble, which the member is prone to presenting to the House, I have to indicate that in constant dollars the spending power of divisions is as good, better, slightly better than it was when they were in power. I would invite her to attend my office for an in-depth briefing with the financial people in my department so that she can understand what that means.

I also indicate that, due to a change in funding formula long requested by school divisions, the funding formula now will apply to all school divisions and has an equalization factor built into it that was not there before--a distinct improvement.

Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would invite her to come for that. My department would be very pleased to brief her or anybody else that would like to attend with her on how the funding formula works. Bottom line, bottom line that cannot be denied is that, in the last decade for which statistics are available, funding to the province was constant in terms of inflation.

Ms. Friesen: Is the minister prepared now to listen seriously to the views of teachers presented to her today, which confirm what parents, students, trustees have been saying for many years, that not only are the resources in significant areas such as special needs inadequate but also that, as the FRAME reports show, the purchasing power of provincial education support has been so reduced by her government that it is now $98 million less a year than in 1990, and that is what is having the dramatic effects on the classrooms?

Mrs. McIntosh: Regarding the report card on public schools submitted by the teachers' union this morning, first of all I indicate that two-thirds of teachers in Manitoba did not respond to the survey, for starters. I was presented with my survey, which I then compared to my school division.

The member has mentioned several points in her question. May I respond to one of them? She talked about special needs and so on. On my survey, 67 percent of the teachers who responded from my division, which is about a third if the provincial norm that they have put out is true, said that the assistance for special needs students has decreased, and yet when I checked with my school division, they have indicated that for the last few years they have increased assistance in the classroom by 10 to 15 positions a year and have 15 positions being added yet again this year. So it simply is not true.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, with her final supplementary question.

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister confirm that one of the consequences of that reduced purchasing power is that each school division now has $500 less per-pupil, per-year support from the Filmon government than it did in 1990 and that the lack of classroom resources, the increased class sizes are a direct result of her government's calculated decision to cut the public schools?

Mrs. McIntosh: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not confirm that, nor will I accept the preamble the member has put on the record full of allegations.

* (1350)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the new freedom of information and privacy protection legislation certainly protects the secrecy of private schools because the legislation does not apply to them. The Minister of Education knows that private schools' government funding has increased about 300 percent since 1988, and now it is probably a greater percentage of their budgets than it is of most universities, which of course are covered by freedom of information and privacy protection, so I want to ask the Minister of Education why the freedom of information and privacy protection legislation does not apply to private schools when they are so highly funded by government and public monies.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Again, there were several points in the question, and I presume I will only have a chance to answer a few in the limitations constrained upon those who answer questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member talks in percentages. The member should like to, as the member, her colleague did, refer to dollars as well. I indicate to the member that students in independent schools in Manitoba receive $30 million a year versus $746 million a year for public schools. That is a result of an out-of-court settlement. The members are fully aware of the implications of heading to the Supreme Court on the Manitoba question of the 1870 act. They know then we would have ended up with a hundred percent funding. These people are being funded--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. Beauchesne Citation 417 indicates: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

The Minister of Education was asked a question about the privacy legislation and why freedom of information does not apply to private schools. I would like to ask you to call her to order and answer, for once, a very serious question being raised by the member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the same point of order. I am sure that each of us in our own way does our best to try to be responsive to the questions that are put to us, and I know that the Minister of Education and Training is no different from anyone else, and we will take the honourable member's suggestions to heart in our conduct here, and we hope that his colleagues do the same thing in putting their questions in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order, but I would ask that, when responding to questions, we keep them as brief as possible and to the point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister had not reached her allocated time at that time, so I was waiting to see if she had fulfilled it. The honourable minister, to conclude her remarks.

Mrs. McIntosh: I apologize. Every point I was addressing was in the member's preamble or question, and I am within the time limit.

I am trying to do my best to provide a detailed answer, because if I do not provide a detailed answer, they say I am not giving a full answer. If I give a full answer, they say I am taking too long. You just cannot win.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. I raised the point of order, you made a ruling. The ruling in that case was you provided advice to the member, and at that point, the member should be standing on her feet to answer the question, not providing editorial meandering comments on your ruling or anything else she wishes to.

I would ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask that minister to answer the question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does have a point of order. The honourable minister was recognized to answer the final part of her question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, with her second supplementary question.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to reiterate my question and ask the minister why private schools are not covered by freedom of information and privacy protection legislation when public schools are and when private schools receive public monies. Why the two sets of standards? Where is the accountability?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I answered this question for the member yesterday when our bill was passed through the committee stage. I am happy to put the information on the record again.

Private schools are not, under the legislation, regulated public bodies. They receive grants from public funds like many other organizations and institutions in the provincial private sector, including entities such as agencies which are funded in part, for instance, by Family Services, for example, the Manitoba society for persons with disabilities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, funding was not used as the criterion for inclusion under FIPPA because of the wide variety of levels and formulas and organizations involved, many types of organizations.

The Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), I know, has clearly explained previously the accountability mechanism for private schools, which is clearly spelled out, and I know she would be prepared to answer that in another question.

* (1355)

Ms. McGifford: That was not an answer, that was a dance around an answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne was recognized for her final supplementary question. There is no preamble necessary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, with her question.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Since, over a year ago, the Minister of Education, with the passage of Bill 48, promised to develop regulations governing record management in private schools, would she either update us on her progress or else assure us that her promise has now been fulfilled?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will answer within the time limit, and I hope I will be allowed to say what I need to in that time. Please, I hope they will not cut me off if they do not like the answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mrs. McIntosh: Please do not take the name of the Lord in vain in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister, with her answer.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I indicate to the member that soon we will arrive at the point when the independent schools will receive 50 percent of the cost of educating in the public schools. As we are on our way to that goal, we are undergoing talks at the present time with the independent schools as to the proper way to display the partial funding that they receive from the province. When we have that completed, I will announce it to the public. The member, I am sure, would be interested at that time. I do not have that ready at this date.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Native Affairs. As minister responsible for that department and also Manitoba Hydro, I would like to ask the minister what consultation mechanisms have been held with First Nations over the proposed Bill 55 that is currently before us. The feeling coming out of the MKO conference in Norway House, currently into its final day, is that they feel that the bill prohibits First Nations and tribal organizations from buying hydro power wholesale for resale to their membership. I would like to ask the minister about his position on that.

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Manitoba citizens who are Status Indians on reserves had the same rights and privileges to participate in the standing committee process at Law Amendments as every other Manitoban, and apparently they chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity. I am sure honourable members opposite representing those communities and my own colleagues conveyed to the constituents in their areas the information about the process and the opportunity for participating, and if they did not participate directly, I am sure that their views were represented through the official opposition and my own government.

Specifically with respect to the opportunities to become wholesale distributors of power in Manitoba, the legislation expressly limits that to Manitoba Hydro and Winnipeg Hydro.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the same minister: Is he at all concerned that several First Nations now question whether they gave up land under TLE to allow potential Hydro projects which will not benefit them in the long run?

* (1400)

Mr. Newman: What I am very pleased to say is that we have achieved through Northern Flood Agreement a comprehensive settlement that is ensuring that more land and resources are going for the benefit of members of communities than ever before. We have in Norway House an attempt to resolve through ratification the Norway House settlement, and I know the ratification vote is scheduled for January 29. Cross Lake has run into some difficulties, and at the moment it looks like that is put into a state of suspension, their choice. We believe that what has been negotiated is for the benefit of both of those communities, but it is entirely up to the individuals of those communities in the ratification process to make their own decisions based on advice given. My hope is that these matters will be resolved soon and for the long-term benefit of the community members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Rupertsland, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am referring specifically to the MKO conference happening in Norway House where newly elected Grand Chief Francis Flett said this morning: There are too many potential implications for the MKO First Nations and Bill 55 for MKO to accept the attempt by Manitoba to unilaterally impose this legislation.

My question to the minister: Since this bill was clearly not discussed with First Nations prior to introduction, will the minister agree to hoist this bill for six months and do the proper consultation mechanism with First Nations in this province?

Mr. Newman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are always pleased to have discussions with the aboriginal people who are Manitoba citizens like everyone else and have equal rights to all of them and equal privileges. In this particular respect, I am not prepared to hoist that bill. They had the same opportunity as all citizens of Manitoba to participate, as I stated earlier, but like any legislation, we can always monitor and review it and see whether or not it is a benefit or an impediment to the economic development and the social development of those communities which all people in this House do support.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Education. This government through the years has demonstrated an inability to be able to ensure that there is a sense of fairness and a sense of equity amongst the different schools. In fact, in the report card given to public schools it was asked: Availability of technology for students has increased.

How many teachers agreed to that? In one part of the province 85 percent said yes. In another part of the province 26 percent said yes. What that says is that there are a lot of inequities in the province of Manitoba with respect to resources for public education, and that is because of the failure of this government to address that issue. My question is: Why?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very fond of the member for Inkster, as he knows, and I hate like the dickens, whenever he brings up funding for education, to remind him of that which we on this side of the House are so painfully aware, $220 million gone that we needed to enhance education in Manitoba. We are still providing the basics and some enhancements--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a responsibility for the minister to answer the questions that are posed. She consistently says and attempts to blame Ottawa for everything that is going wrong in the province. I think it is time the Minister of Education should take responsibility for what is happening in public education in this province and answer the questions that are being put. The question was: Why the inequities throughout the province? Admit to your inabilities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mrs. McIntosh: As I indicated, we have continued to provide the basics and some enhancements, but our ability to do all that we would like to do has been severely hampered by that money the federal government has taken away from us and did not provide that we were expecting.

Having said that, we have done a number of things in technology that I would be pleased to go through if he asks another question and gives me time, but I will say that I do agree with him in the sense that, as technology comes on stream, it is not coming on stream as quickly as we would like everywhere we would like it to come on stream. We are taking moves to address that. We have put another million dollars in just recently. We have got MERLIN up and going, and we expect to see that even out. But there are inequities right now that we are working to address, and I will tell you how in another question, if he lets me.

Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Minister of Education acknowledge it is not a question of how quickly the technology is coming, it is how it is being dispersed through the province. You have some areas--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. May I ask the honourable member to phrase his question. I am not sure if I did not hear the first part or not, but I do not believe there was a question there. We are entering into debate. The honourable member for Inkster, with his question.

Mr. Lamoureux: The question is: Will the minister acknowledge, when you have 26 percent of teachers saying that there are technology advancements and you have 85 percent saying that there is but in two different areas of the province, that there is a problem there? It is a question of equity and fairness to all Manitobans, not to a selected area of the province.

Mrs. McIntosh: As new curriculum comes on stream, and it is coming on stream--we have some new curricular indications out right now--we will be seeing technology in the curriculum used as part of the teaching experience, technology as a tool for learning. When we get to that stage, it will be essential that all school divisions have a certain level of technology expertise in their divisions. Right now, divisions that have sort of gone on their own steam have well advanced. Others who are coming on stream, as we promote this, are coming on behind those that self-started some years ago, and I will give a compliment to the federal government now just to make him happy. The federal government and the provincial government, in their computers for schools programs, have now several thousand schools ready in co-operation with CIBC for the schools in our computers for schools programs.

MERLIN has been helping tremendously to get discounts from suppliers for educational purposes. He and I could talk maybe about how we should do this because if the federal government wants to help, we would be thrilled.

Mr. Lamoureux: What would the Minister of Education like to tell the teachers that teach in our public administration? Ninety-three percent of them say that changes to public schools in the last three years have affected students negatively. What would she say to those teachers?

Mrs. McIntosh: I can say, first of all, I would remind the member that only one-third of the teachers in Manitoba returned this, and exploring the results from my division, I have found it replete with error. I think these are views, not necessarily facts. They are feelings and perceptions that one-third of the teachers identified. I am in regular contact with teachers, practicing teachers in the classrooms, and I regularly visit schools, and I regularly socialize with teachers who tell me a very different story than what the union executive tells me. There are some points of common ground but not nearly as many as the union executive would like to have us think. The classroom teachers, with whom I interact on a regular basis, have lots of good ideas and suggestions and are working beautifully with technology, and all of us, I think, are looking forward to the day when every school in Manitoba is as fully equipped as many schools already are.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sent a letter to the minister about a private school where parents are so upset about the management and lack of accountability and lack of parent input that they are no longer sending their children to that school, even though they risk not having a refund of their prepaid tuition.

I want to ask the Minister of Education: Given that Bill 50 and the Freedom of Information provisions do not apply to private schools, what does she have to say to these parents who would not even be allowed to raise questions about the allocation of funds at their school board meeting? Can she explain to them why Bill 50 does not apply to their school?

* (1410)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologize to the member if she sent me the letter. I do not know when she sent it, but I do not recall it. I would appreciate it if she could provide me with a copy--because I think she has one with her--so that I can take a look at the details.

What I can say is that parents of students have freedom of choice soon in the public system as well as choosing to go to some other school outside the public system or, indeed, to home school. We provide those choices for parents, and they can hold their boards accountable in either the public or the private system and can move away from those schools if they are no longer satisfied. I have many parents who have written to me who have moved from public schools to private schools for much the same reason that the member has outlined in the specific example of a parent going from an independent to a public school. We have parents who have chosen to remain at home, because they want to be totally accountable themselves for their students.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will table a copy of the letter and provide another copy to the minister, and ask why the minister is ignoring the recommendation of her Advisory Committee on Education Finance which said independent schools receiving funding should be subject to the same accessibility to reporting and accountability of requirements as public schools are. Why is she ignoring that with respect to Bill 50 and this school, which is causing a lot of distress for families?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe, in an earlier question from the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), that I answered the question and said that is under discussion right now in terms of what is the most appropriate way to ask for accountability from schools that are only partly funded. Right now, we have the frame for those that are fully funded. For those that are partly funded, what is the correct way of showing how those partial funds are submitted?

I think the member would find that, even if Bill 50 applied right now today, there are very few teachers in the private system making enough, in terms of salary, to be under the disclosure provisions.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): My final supplementary to the minister is: What accountability will there be for this school and these parents that I have outlined to her in this letter? Will she do an investigation into the management and accountability and accounting of this school?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will certainly take a look at the letter the member has sent me. They probably have one in my office, as well, and as soon as I get the copy here, I will look at it here in the House. Whenever we have concerns or complaints about schools, we do check those complaints out when they come from parents because, ultimately, the government is responsible for all education, and we do not let complaints slide. This is the first letter the member alleges these complaints. I have never received a letter complaining about how money is allocated to independent schools, so it will be interesting to receive it and see what it has to say. I will be certain to look into it within the confines of my abilities, et cetera.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Deputy Speaker, today I received the report card on public schools in Manitoba. It indicates in here that the teachers in the Transcona-Springfield School Division, three-quarters of them, say that assistance for special needs students has decreased.

Last week I had the opportunity to attend elementary schools in Transcona to see first-hand special needs students in the classroom, and I observed children with Down's syndrome, and in another case, a particular child with severe language and speech delays only receiving Level I support, in fact, some 30 minutes every second day of additional support. One particular family was paying an additional hundred dollars a month through SMD for additional instruction for their child to assist their child to progress, supports that should have been in place in the classroom.

I want to ask the Minister of Education to explain why this child and other children only receive 30 minutes every second day of individual instruction, when both special needs teachers and doctors in the Child Development Clinic agree that this child and perhaps others should be, at a minimum, receiving Level II funding for individualized programming to allow these children to progress. Why are you not giving that funding to those children?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to say that this letter from--this is not a letter from an independent school--on my last question. It is a letter from the member Cerilli citing allegations given to her by a third party. Nonetheless, I will look into it, but it is not quite what she said--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona had asked another question. If the honourable minister wants to get back to the member for Transcona, she can do it a little later.

The honourable minister, to answer the question.

Mrs. McIntosh: I should indicate, first of all, that funding for special needs students has doubled since we took office. Under the New Democrats, when they were in power, school divisions were really terrifically burdened. I can recall as a trustee, and I think I have mentioned this in the House before, coming down and pleading with the then minister, I believe it was Mrs. Hemphill at the time--Ms. Hemphill--pleading with her to allow us to have some money from Health to provide for a physiotherapist we had had to hire. She said no.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, funding has doubled for special needs--doubled--more than doubled in fact since we took office. It is $7 million more right now than it was a year ago, so it is going up.

I also indicate that, if there is a Down's syndrome child in a classroom, there is a wide range of ability. It could be that child is at Level I, but if it is a Level II child, then the Level II child--the school division gets money for Level II children, and they should be identifying that child and sending it in with a special needs Level II application showing verification, and they should then be receiving money for that child.

Now they should be spending that money on that child, if they are receiving it for that child, but money for special needs has more than doubled, so let him not say there is no money there. That is wrong.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I might rise on a point of order. For five students, this minister has received application for Level II funding and has denied all five of those students.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): It would be my respectful submission that what we have is a difference of opinion or a debate between a couple of members of this House, and that would be about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona did not have a point of order. It was clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona, with his second supplementary question.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I want to ask the Minister of Education on behalf of these children and their families, and in this case the Cure family in Transcona--will this minister agree to meet with the Cure family to explain to that family why the Education department staff no longer attends schools to observe and assess first-hand the special needs students and now only conducts literature review of that particular child's needs, which excludes both teachers and parents from participating in those decisions? Will you agree to meet with that family to discuss why you take that action?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member said that 93 percent of teachers in Transcona had said this. He should be clear and say that 93 percent of the teachers who responded, and only a third of the teachers responded.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mrs. McIntosh: Can I speak over the yelling? Will it count against me in terms of time? Mr. Deputy Speaker, in terms of the people who filed--school divisions will submit applications for level--[interjection] I will meet with--I always meet with parents. Parents who ask to meet with me get to meet with me, and if parents ask to meet with me, I would be delighted to meet with them. I do that all the time. That is nothing new. I meet with parents regularly. I met with parents this morning. I met with parents yesterday. I meet with parents virtually every day and I am pleased to do that. It often helps clarify for them misperceptions they have been given by the opposition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, school divisions should apply for students whom they suspect are Level II or Level III. They will be given a thorough assessment by the experts in these disorders and if it is ascertained they are Level II students, they receive funding which school divisions should respend on those students.

* (1420)

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, many victims of the spring flood are facing hardship in their lives now, and they are also facing uncertainty because of this government. They were told there was a possibility that their deductibles would be reduced by the Minister of Government Services, and yesterday we were told by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that there would not be a reduction of the deductible on their claims. Can these people get a clear message from this government and start to get their lives in order? Is the deductible going to be reduced below 20 percent or is it going to be held at the 20 percent?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are all aware of the fact that many people out in the Red River Valley who have been devastated by the flood are urgently waiting for awards to be sent to them so that they can begin to reconstruct their lives. I do not think there has been any kind of message that has been given to them in the past or now for the fact that the policy we have in place is not the policy we are going to be employing. Certainly some people have taken some comments that were made and tried to read other things into those comments, but we have been very clear, I think, in what we have been saying to the victims about the policy we have, and if we have ever referred to any kind of situation that might arise, it would be the entire program.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time for Oral Question Period has expired.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): If I may just indulge the House for a moment, I understand, earlier in the day when I was not here, that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) addressed the House and I think very graciously withdrew his matter of privilege. I just wanted to acknowledge that. I know in this Chamber many times we banter about, we argue with one another, we make accusations. The member brought forward an inconsistency in information from my department that I had put on the record of committee. We discussed how that happened. I think he graciously withdrew that particular motion, and I wanted to acknowledge that today in this House. It is not too often that we have that kind of relationship and I think it is worthy of noting.

I thank you.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): The following committee change was moved by leave during the June 25, 1997, 3 p.m. meeting of the Standing Committee on Economic Development. I am now moving the same change in the House so that the official record will be corrected, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development for Wednesday, June 25, be amended as follows: Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

The following committee change was moved by leave this morning during the June 26, 1997, 10 a.m. meeting of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments. I am now moving the same change in this House so that the official record of the House will be correct, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).

An Honourable Member: Happy birthday to you.

Mr. Hickes: Thank you.

I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Broadway (Mr. Santos) for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), for Thursday, June 26, '97, for 3:15 p.m.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We can all go celebrate the member for Point Douglas's birthday later.

It has been moved by the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), by leave, during the June 25, 1997, 3 p.m. meeting of the Standing Committee on Economic Development, and I am now moving the same change in the House so that the official record will be correct. Agreed?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

The following committee change was moved by leave this morning during the June 26, 1997, 10 a.m. meeting of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments. I am now--I do not have to read that. Hold on. I have got this down now.

It has been moved by the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), seconded by the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Thursday, June 26, 1997, at 10 a.m.: Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).

It has been moved by the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), seconded by the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Broadway (Mr. Santos) for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), Thursday, June 26, 1997, at 3:15.

It has been moved by the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), seconded by the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development for Wednesday, June 25, 1997, at 3 p.m.: Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Could I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, please?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Newman: I rise today to congratulate a young lady from Holy Ghost School on Selkirk Avenue, Ms. Mhelanni Gorre. Ms. Gorre's artwork was selected to represent Manitoba in the 1997 Energy and the Environment Calendar contest. She is one of 14 talented young artists from across Canada whose artwork is included in the calendar.

The title Ms. Gorre chose, "Saving the Earth Starts with You," vividly illustrates many small but effective choices people can make to save money, energy and the environment. Ms. Gorre's drawing was featured for the month of May.

It should be noted that Ms. Gorre's winning artwork was selected from over 300 enthusiastic youngsters that participated in the contest. The calendar is produced by Natural Resources Canada in co-operation with the provincial and territorial Energy departments and distributed throughout Canada. Copies of the calendar were made available to all honourable members earlier this year. In Manitoba, approximately 8,000 copies have been distributed to elementary schools, daycare centres and public libraries. Thank you.