4th 36th Vol. 19--Oral Questions

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, last week in reviewing minutes from labour and management at St. Boniface Hospital, the minutes note that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is intending, with his new interfaith agreement with the WHA, to break the 1996 interfaith agreement. The minutes go on to say that the present Minister of Health does not care about that.

I would like to ask the Acting Premier: is it the intent of the provincial government to break the interfaith agreement they have with the Winnipeg hospitals, pursuant to implementing the WHA proposal that is scheduled to come in place in two weeks today?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Acting Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would be happy to take this question as notice from the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this is obviously a matter that is not important enough to this government to raise at cabinet, whether they in fact are breaking an agreement with major faith groups in the city of Winnipeg to implement their plan under the WHA, which is scheduled in only two weeks from now to be implemented.

I would like to table a letter, written by the chair of Concordia Hospital, wherein the chair of the Concordia Hospital says to the government that they are disappointed by the intimidating tone of the government in dealing with them, and further go on to say that the position that the government is bringing to the table to implement their proposal on the WHA undermines the spirit of the agreement that they signed with this provincial government, with this Premier in 1996.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier again: are you using intimidating tactics with the faith-based hospitals, point No. 1, and are you breaking your agreement with the faith-based institutions, in order to implement the WHA proposal?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. Secondly, this government fully appreciates the contribution that all the faith-related hospital organizations have brought to this province. Again, this government's responsibility is to work with those organizations to make sure that the health care of the patients, not only today, into the future, for the people of Manitoba is looked after. That is the responsibility of this government, and it is a matter of working in a co-operative way to make sure that that is accomplished.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is the chair of the board, Mr. Olfert, that talks about the intimidating tactics of the government. It is the chair of the board that talks about this government breaking its co-operative agreement that was signed by them in 1996, and the letter goes on to say that this government, who just talked about patient care, has significantly reduced their funding over the last number of years at a time when their caseloads were dramatically increasing. It documents it in the letter and goes on to ask the question of the government of coming to some co-operative agreement with them.

I would like to ask the government today, in light of the fact that they are only two weeks away from implementing the new WHA--you have already hired 60 staff, you have already told us that we are going to have peace in our time after the WHA is implemented--can the government today table the draft plan that the WHA has with the faith-based institutions, or are we going to again see crisis, last-minute management from this government that does not care about the agreement they have with the faith-based institutions?

* (1340)

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has a very short memory. I can tell him quite frankly that this government has worked very aggressively and co-operatively to make sure that we maintain and improve a health care system in this province that meets the needs of the people, unlike--and I was going through some files recently of letters that were sent to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). We could not find him for two weeks to ask questions of the government when the New Democrats were there, when they were closing beds in Brandon. He was noted to be in the bunker someplace at Shilo.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition was very clear. It was in regard to the agreement with faith-based institutions, and the very clear question was not only not answered but then the minister seemed to have a flashback to a time in the mid-1980s when he was in opposition.

I think, Madam Speaker, you should call him to order. By the way, to the minister, if he keeps this up with this government, it will not be long before he once again is going to be asking questions because he is going to end up in opposition once again with his policies on health care.

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Whenever a reference is made to the NDP version of health care reform as exercised in Brandon in 1987, there is a sensitivity that arises over on the other side of the House and gives rise to points of order which really do not usually lead us anywhere, and the honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. The honourable Deputy Premier was attempting to be responsive to the questions being raised and I am sure will continue to be as responsive as he always is.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, it I believe is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to ask a question, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik)--I am sorry. I withdraw that statement. I would like to ask the question of the Deputy Premier who is concerned about the health care of people of Manitoba as he has told us. A constituent of mine has told me that her mother who is 94 years of age and who pays between $1,000 and $1,100 plus GST per month to the Bayside Personal Care Home in Killarney, is paying that, but because she required additional attention and care for part of the day, the nursing home decided that a private agency, namely We Care, should be brought in to be with this resident. They paid nearly $1,150 so far, and the nursing home, I would say, obviously does not have sufficient nursing staff, leading to this unacceptable situation where private nursing assistance has to be brought into the home.

So my question to the minister is: will he now admit that some nursing homes are obviously underfunded in this province and are being undermined in their ability to provide an adequate level of care, and that in the process they are spawning a two-tier system, which goes against the principles of universal, accessible health care?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I will not accept any of the premise or the preamble, but what I will do, as normally would be done, is ask the member if he has provided the details to the Ministry of Health so that could be worked on, or is this the first time that he has raised it in this Assembly?

Madam Speaker, I would appreciate if he would provide the details to the minister, so it could be further reviewed and responded to the next time there is an opportunity in Question Period.

* (1345)

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to ask the Acting Premier if he thinks it is acceptable for the Killarney hospital to require the family of an Alzheimer's patient, who is very difficult to handle, admittedly, to pay approximately a hundred dollars a day or $3,000 a month to the We Care company to bring a person into the hospital to look after him.

Why is the hospital not given financial resources to hire its own staff to deal with difficult situations? This is supposed to be a universal, accessible health care system, Madam Speaker.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding if people want to add additional services, they are free to do so in the facilities to which the member referred. I would ask for him to bring the details to the Minister of Health so we could answer directly the specific issue which has been raised by the member.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Acting Premier if he would undertake, in conjunction with his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), to do a survey of the situation in Manitoba and actually determine how many similar situations exist both in nursing homes and in hospitals whereby private agencies are coming in, paid for by the families or by the patients, to provide the service that should be provided by the regular staff in the nursing home or in the hospital in question? As has been stated by the CBC in recent news reports, this problem seems to be more prevalent than the government is willing to admit.

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, I will take the question as notice, but I will, as well, also check as to how far back the policy goes as it relates to the specific questions asked by the member. This could have been a policy that has been in place for many, many years.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice. We understand that early in the new year the minister finally created a position in his department for urban crime prevention, a long overdue and important development, and we commend him for that.

My question to the minister is: would the minister tell Manitobans, who are desperate for new effective ways to protect their safety, why the minister has filled this position with the past vice-president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for St. Johns for the compliment in respect of the efforts that our government has been making in respect of anticrime initiatives. I am committed to working very closely and to ensuring that our department is responsive and working together with police forces to ensure that the crime rates in our city, in our province are continually on a downward decline.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell Manitobans, give us an answer, what is it in Loretta Barrett's background or Loretta Martens' background, other than her politics and her party service, that led the minister to believe she is entitled to this position without a competition? Is it her experience, for example, as executive assistant to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman)?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, unlike the New Democrats before us in government, I do not get involved in personnel matters of that nature. [interjection] Well, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) sits there and sneers from his seat. Maybe he wants to stand up and talk about how the New Democrats used to do that, and I recall it very well, and I can give a lot of details, when I was a public servant. So if he wants to talk about that, I can, but let me answer this particular question.

First of all, as I understand it, this individual is filling this position on a term basis, and there has been no final decision made by anyone in respect of whether she will be in that position for any length of time.

* (1350)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister answer the question? What is it in Loretta Barrett's background that entitles her to be trained and entrenched in this position before a public competition? Why the stinking patronage when our safety is at stake?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I resent very much the comments of the member for St. Johns in reference to the allegation of patronage. I know how the New Democrats practised patronage when I was a civil servant for 15 years, many of those years working under them and watching people on direct patronage being leapfrogged over public servants. I want to tell you that that is not the kind of minister I am and that is not the kind of minister I intend to be, and I know our government does not practise that way.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the big lie at the heart of Tory budgets is that there have been no tax increases. I use the phrase "big lie" advisedly, knowing that your predecessor ruled it acceptable parliamentary language, and a good thing it is too because there is no other language to describe the planned and deliberately systematic execution of education funding since 1991 this government has systematically offloaded.

I would like the Minister of Education to explain to the House why the amount of education tax that is coming from local municipalities or local divisions has increased by amounts varying from 20 percent to in many cases over 80 percent. Would the minister explain this to us?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The member asks about the amount that school divisions use for special levy, and I should indicate that the funding formula changed in 1991-92. At that time, then, the whole way in which money flows changed. So we talk about percentages; the general revenue from the province has flowed virtually unchanged all these years to the school divisions. So the amount that they can raise in the special levy is up to them. They can raise 20 percent, 30 percent, 10 percent in the special levy if they wish to address those portions of their budget that they set themselves. That whole concept of local autonomy has been highly valued. We heard this loudly and clearly when we had our hearings around the province on the changes to the teachers' bill a couple of years ago. People said very strongly they wanted that local autonomy to continue and the ability to levy taxes to continue as well.

Ms. Friesen: Would the Minister of Education be prepared today to take the courageous stand and say to Manitobans that those 3 percent increases, the 5 percent increases, the 10 percent increases, the 12 percent increases in their tax bill that they are seeing this year and in many, many previous years since 1991--be courageous, tell the truth--this is a Tory tax increase.

Mrs. McIntosh: Two points: one, those percentage increases for special levies of school divisions, the amounts school divisions have imposed on their own people is smaller under our government than it was under their government. We can bring her the figures; I would be pleased to do that for her.

Also, you have to take a look at what does that percentage mean. The percentage in Portage la Prairie, for example, which is a high percentage, translates to $26 a household. So you have to talk in terms of--[interjection] I can assure the member that in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, for example, they are faring very well this year compared to what they had to raise by special levy during years when the New Democrats were in government.

Ms. Friesen: Would the Minister of Education tell us what action she has taken on the very serious warning she has received from school boards and municipalities that "the quality"--and I am quoting, Madam Speaker, and I shall be tabling this--"of education has deteriorated to the point where the primary responsibility of Boards to provide a satisfactory level of service to the students charged to their care is being compromised by the Provincial Government's failure to provide adequate financial support."

I will table that letter from the Antler River School Division, represented, I believe, by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) of this province. I will table also a similar letter with the same sentiments from the Beautiful Plains School Division represented by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), a similar letter from the town of Rossburn, the municipality represented by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach).

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are more, but I understand the government does not want to see them.

* (1355)

Mrs. McIntosh: I can indicate to the member exactly how many more. Fourteen divisions met to discuss the problems they were having with the impact of reassessment this year. Those 14 divisions have written a joint letter to me, which I have received, and they have also sent individual letters stating their own particular circumstances. Those 14 out of the 57 divisions--and she is quite free to table the rest. Please table the rest; I have no objection. I will bring them in--if you have them, bring them in and table them. Madam Speaker, I have no objection to her tabling the rest. I do not think she has any more, but that is beside the point.

The problem they had with reassessment this year was because their homes were reassessed, and that is part of the formula. That same problem was evident in other divisions four years ago. Those divisions that felt the impact of reassessment four years ago experienced the reverse effect this year. There is an equalization factor in the formula that flows much as the funding from Ottawa does to the provinces. Those with higher assessment flow to those with lower assessment.

Ms. Friesen: On a new question, I would like to ask the minister to listen to the question that I posed before, which was to say what action has she taken. These are very serious allegations from rural municipalities as well as from school divisions. What action has she taken?

Mrs. McIntosh: The member should be careful not to use rural divisions as if it means all rural divisions. I specifically indicated to her that there was a 14-division regional meeting where those divisions who had problems with reassessment met to share their problems with me. I have already met with some of those divisions to talk about their unique circumstances, Brandon, for example, which was the one that did the initiation, and so on. Brandon now realizes they have another $256,000 for early literacy training, which they did not realize they could count this year. They also recognize that $200,000 they lost because of a drop in student enrollment will come to them automatically if their enrollment goes back up. They also will recognize and acknowledge that they received an 11.1 percent increase in the succeeding four years and that their tax rise, which they will have to put in place because of reassessment, will amount to some $80 per household.

Madam Speaker, each division will be gone through that way. Four years ago when divisions faced a similar change, they managed to get through it.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Education can also feel free to leap into it if she so chooses. It is with respect to a chronic problem that this government has had. We have seen a government that has in essence starved the funding of public education over the last number of years and that is quite upsetting. But what is absolutely unacceptable is the way in which this government has turned a blind eye to the individuals who are paying a disproportionate amount of property tax dollars to finance education in the province of Manitoba. My question to the government is: when is this government going to deal with the inequities of how people are being taxed to finance public education in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): First of all, Madam Speaker, I do not accept any of the preamble from the member for Inkster. We have put in excess of a hundred million dollars more into education over the last several budgets here in our province. The whole issue of utilization of the property tax base for education funding has been a system that has been in place in our province for many, many years, many decades. It is the same system that has been there through various governments over many years. He and I have discussed this issue at length, that there are the two components of the education levy on our property tax bill. One is the special levy of which the local divisions have complete autonomy; one is the education support levy which is levied by the provincial government. We have held that amount flat in terms of the amount of money coming from the education support levy. What we are seeing in terms of the special levies is we are seeing various adjustments on an individual school division basis based on the individual decisions that those school divisions are making in terms of how they utilize the dollars that they raise and what they require to deliver their services.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. How does he justify in his own mind the inequities that Manitoba property taxpayers will tell him that exist today and have been there for years, and because it has been there is not justification for allowing it to continue? How does he justify his inaction in trying to deal with a very important issue when you have a certain percentage of the population paying millions more dollars every year in education tax because of this government's failure at addressing this issue?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, again, what the member for Inkster fails to recognize and does not address and certainly has not offered any constructive alternatives is that this money does have to come from somewhere. It does have to be provided for education. I think we can all agree that the resources are required in education, so there has to be a funding source to provide that support on an individual school division basis. That is a system that has been in place in our province for many years. It is a system that is also fairly consistent in many other provinces. When we look at what we have been able to do in providing support for education, it is up over a hundred million dollars over the last 10 years. In this last budget alone, it is up over $16 million or 2.2 percent.

As well, when you look at our support for municipalities, almost every budget has provided more money for municipalities, unlike what we have seen happen in many other provinces where municipalities, the municipal governments have had significant reductions. That has not been the case in Manitoba because we share our personal income tax, we share our corporate income tax and so on in our province.

Madam Speaker, those are the facts. That is the system that is in place, and we are certainly providing very reasonable support this year in our 1998 budget.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, let me make it as simple as possible for the Minister of Finance. How does he explain to the senior living on a fixed income in the north end of Winnipeg having to pay a higher percentage of school property tax because of this government's inability or ill-desire to try to resolve this particular problem than someone who lives in another area of the province? How does he justify that in his own mind or to that senior?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, again, the member for Inkster fails to recognize that there are some 56 school divisions across our province. They have individual responsibility for their collective bargaining with the teachers, so there are some differences in terms of teachers' salaries. They have individual choices in terms of the kinds of programs, the kinds of services they are providing in their school divisions, and those all create differences in terms of the special levy that those school divisions have. In terms of the education support levy, the one levied at the provincial government level, it is uniform right across our province, but you do have differences on a school division basis because of some of the choices that they make.

We have also tried to help school divisions. They have indicated to us that they needed more opportunity in terms of dealing with some of their expenditures when it comes to collective bargaining. We have changed some of the process in collective bargaining for school divisions. That should help them in terms of some of the issues they face, but the reality is there are 56 school divisions; they make those choices, and they levy ultimately the special levy at their own individual school division level.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, earlier this winter, by the kind provision of the Minister of Education, the Education critic of our party and I were able to meet with senior officials of her department, her deputy minister and head of the Public Schools Finance area of Education to discuss the matter of whether or not her government had kept up with inflation in her Education funding. She maintained over and over again that her government had more than kept up with inflation in this House.

Will she now confirm that her officials said very clearly, no, you have not kept up with inflation and in fact on the basis of operating and capital support you have fallen behind by some $94 million since 1990-91?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member opposite says that, knowing that we have just announced $29 million for capital construction, $30 million on top of that for the next three years, $10 million a year, to specifically address those known problems with aging buildings. We believe that $30 million that goes over and above the 29 that has already been assigned, which is an increase over the year before to begin with, will in fact address all of the aging problems that come with those buildings built in the late '40s, early '50s and into the '60s.

So, Madam Speaker, his references to not keeping pace with inflation and not addressing capital needs fall in the face of that reality of our recent announcements in this area. [interjection] No, I will not confirm--in short-answers questions, I will not confirm that.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. The question was: will she confirm what her senior, her most senior officials have said, that whether she takes operating in capital, whether she takes operating alone, whether she takes operating capital and TRAF, which has nothing to do with support in the classroom, teachers' pensions, it does not matter; she has fallen behind inflation by tens of million of dollars: $80 million on operating; $94 million on operating in capital; $70 million on operating capital and TRAF? Her own officials confirm it.

Will she at least today acknowledge that she misled this House when she stated she had kept up with inflation over and over again?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I very clearly did in my first answer say no, I will not confirm. He could check Hansard; perhaps he could hear that--see that, if he did not hear it. But if you take out of the Department of Education budget almost everything that is in it, then perhaps what the member says is true, but the truth is that we do provide money for capital; the truth is that we do provide millions and millions of dollars for the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund. That money all does come from us to the public school system. So if he wants to take out aspects of the budget and not include them, money that flows from the department to public schools, then he could make any kind of case he wishes, but if you put in all that we put in and count it truly and honestly, then you will see that his figuring is perhaps not quite accurate.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will this minister confirm that during the same period of time that property taxes have escalated to Manitobans by a total of some $134 million, which is 64.9 percent, which is a Tory tax increase no matter how you slice it, because her government has underfunded the public school system by $94 million during their time when inflation is taken into account? Those property taxes are real taxes paid by real Manitobans and you have raised them.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member opposite constantly puts on the record a stated cut to education during our term in office and, Madam Speaker, I think it is critically important for the record that it be noted accurately that, since we took office, funding from this government to public school education has increased by $131 million, and by anybody's calculation, that is not a cut. He takes into account some years where there were three years of 2 percent cut. The $131-million increase includes those years. It includes those fluctuations. That is a sizeable increase, and our funding to education on a per capita basis holds its own very well with any other province in this nation.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, it is a good thing the Minister of Education does not have to take some of the standardized tests that high school students take in math because she would fail. She shows that on a daily basis. She can also play games like she has done earlier with our critic in terms of the reaction of school boards, the repeated cuts they have been faced with in terms of funding under the current funding formula, but the fact is that many school boards are getting shafted and the School District of Mystery Lake in Thompson is probably the hardest hit in this province.

I want the minister to confirm that the school board in Thompson has faced more than 10 percent in cuts the last six years; the property taxes have increased 25 percent; and under her increase this year they got .4 percent which will lead to further tax increases and further cuts.

* (1410)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I am delighted that the member for Thompson has acknowledged that there is a good purpose for standards testing, because he is keenly showing that he wants to be able to measure competencies by standards exams, the first he has ever acknowledged it.

Mr. Ashton: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I made no such comment about the testing. I just suggested that the minister is the one whose competency should be questioned in this House because she would not pass her own tests.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, an admission the tests work for measuring is exactly what he made, and I am pleased that he made it. I will obtain for the member the specific statistics for Mystery Lake--I do not have them with me here in the House--and I will get back to the member with a response to his question.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, that was not my question. I know what the statistics are. I was at the meeting, the public meeting of angry parents who are upset with this government for cutting back on public education. My question to the minister is: will she confirm on the record that the School District of Mystery Lake in Thompson is once again faced with double-digit school tax increases, with further cuts to teachers after a legacy of underfunding and cuts in education that led our school district in my community, of which I am proud to be a graduate now, to have been cut by 10 percent since 1992 under this government.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I apologize, but what I heard in both this question and the first question was a request from the member for Thompson for me to confirm his figures, and in order to confirm his figures I will have to go and get my statistics which I do not have here. So I, interpreting his question the way it was literally worded--if he meant some other thing by it than what he said, perhaps he could clarify in his third remaining question.

Mr. Ashton: Well, Madam Speaker, I am wondering when the minister will take the time--which she obviously does when it comes to people like Chris Millar and Elizabeth Carlyle--to find out. The School District of Mystery Lake is the school district in the third-largest city of this province. She has not visited Thompson, obviously, since she has been Minister of Education to talk to them directly.

Why is she not aware of the impact her education policies are having on school districts throughout rural and northern Manitoba?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member has asked me to confirm specific detailed data--and I can address general trends and concerns, and in many cases I do have committed to memory what is happening in certain divisions--but he has asked me to confirm specific data which I do not have here. I will be pleased to get that data and provide and confirm or deny for him what he has requested me to do.

That does not mean that I am unfamiliar with Mystery Lake or that I have not talked with the trustees there. It simply means I do not have committed to memory the specific percentage increases he is talking about over a 10-year period. A 10-year period is a long time.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Education said her letter to the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 regarding an incident at Grant Park High School was for informational purposes only. We now know that was not the case.

My question to the Minister of Education: can the minister tell the House why she made those comments yesterday when, in reality, the letter basically demands the school division to make an example out of one student, that being Chris Millar?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I believe if the member reads my letter she will see that the letter was a request for information specifically about whether or not the information we had been given that day by the school that a student from Grant Park had unlocked a secured door and allowed entry of unauthorized people, whether or not that was true. If that were true, and the words "if that is true" are very prominent in the letter, that if that is true that a locked door was broken, could they please inform me what the facts of the case were and what disciplinary measure would be put in place. It was a request for information, and in fact it was. I would appreciate receiving the information was the wording or words to that effect. It was not a demand.

In fact, I have since received information from the Winnipeg School Division that in fact no locked door was broken. So the information the school provided us with that day was not correct, and it was a very good thing that I wrote to confirm that, in light of the calls I was receiving to my office on that incident.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my second question to the minister: will the minister now apologize, given the whole situation in a clearer day that she overreacted? Will she apologize to the school, the principal, the superintendents, the trustees, the board for violating the rights of those professionals and interfering in the legitimate role of board policy?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the minister, in requesting information about anything that happens in a school, particularly regarding security, has every right and indeed has a responsibility to be informed and receive information on issues that have been brought to her attention by members of the public so that answers can be clearly provided. The proper vehicle of communication is through the school board. It was to the school board I wrote; it was the school board that responded to me.

So I feel that there is nothing more to be said on the topic in terms of whether or not the minister has a right to request information of that nature.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My final supplementary question: will the minister confirm that her letter says: What disciplinary measures will be taken regarding the student that will serve as an example to others? The good citizenship, basic courtesy and the safety of others are expected in our schools.

Did she write this letter or did she not, and is that not a direct order from the Minister of Education?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Of course what the member is not reading into the record is that that particular request for information, which was a request for information, was preceded by: if it is true, that a locked door was broken. Again, it is a request for information; it is not a demand. It is a request for information, seeking assurance that I can pass on to those who had contacted me as Minister of Education, questioning the provincial and local commitment to security in our schools.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.