4th 36th Vol. 23--Oral Questions

Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the loge to my left where we have this afternoon Mr. Herold Driedger, former member for Niakwa constituency. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Additionally we have seated in the public gallery forty-three Grade 9 students from General Wolfe School under the direction of Mr. Herold Driedger. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Two health care ministers ago, the Premier when he cut the language and speech programs for children stated that the priorities of this government would now be in dealing with preschool children. In 1994 I asked the Premier that very same question, and the waiting lists at that time were a year and a half long. The government has since had the Postl report. I would like to ask the Premier: has he reduced the waiting list for preschool children in dealing with the needed assessment programs for speech and audiology programs that are necessary for children's development?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has identified an area where we have seen a growth in demand and certainly a need for us to provide more resources in that area. I can tell the member that that is one particular area that my colleagues in related departments and myself through Human Services Committee are in the process along with Treasury Board of attempting to address.

Mr. Doer: These are the words of the government ministers, three health care ministers, the Premier year after year after year saying that work is in progress, we care about these issues, cut after cut after cut. We now have a waiting list of 522 children, preschool children, waiting for speech and treatment programs. We have a waiting list of 194 preschool kids for audiology programs. The list grows as the words, Madam Speaker, fall on deaf ears in terms of this government.

Madam Speaker, early intervention is absolutely essential for the long-term benefits of these children. Why has this Premier cut the programs and broken his promises to preschool children here in Manitoba?

* (1335)

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, this has been one of those areas that has had, if I remember correctly, significant growth. We have recognized that there is a need to bring down waiting lists particularly in this area, and I can tell the member that there is a fair bit of effort underway in co-ordinating our efforts between the Departments of Education, Family Services and Health and working with Treasury Board to identify a way to bring down these lists. We hope that we will be in a position to inform the House of more developments during the course of this session.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): When this government took office in 1988, they had a plan for special needs education which involved the dissolving of the provincial advisory council on special needs; the closing of the lead agency for special needs, the Child Development branch; the eliminating of 65 provincial clinicians; the reducing of the department's special education staff and the cynical delay for five years of the special education review.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education to now acknowledge that her policy has been a disaster and has brought many Manitoba families close to crisis.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Of course I will not acknowledge what the member is asking because it is not correct. In funding alone, funding for special needs has doubled, more than doubled since we took office.

Madam Speaker, we have undertaken a two-year special needs review, something that was long needed, that was needed indeed when the people opposite were in power. We have seen a great influx into the school system within the last 15 years of students of abilities and disabilities that previously had not been in the school system.

We hope in receiving the report that we will hopefully within the next few months from the special needs review indicating recommendations after a two-year study, in-depth consulting with educators, parents, teachers of both special needs and nonspecial needs students, we hope to get some clear definition around the most enabling environment, the best environment for both special needs and nonspecial needs students. I believe that both in initiatives and in funding we have more than kept pace with this very important area.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Would the minister make a clear commitment to the House to honour her 1993 promise and make public the report of the special education review that she will receive this fall? We know it is five years late. Will she honour that promise to make it public?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The special needs review, the member keeps saying it is five years late. The special needs review has come into place--[interjection] I am sorry, I did not hear--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Fifteen years ago there was not the abundance in the schools that there is now of people of these kinds of needs. We now have a review that has been in place for some 18 months. The member may argue that it should have come in two years before that. The fact is it is finally being done and it was not being done under their particular government.

The member then asks in her second question that she was asking about whether or not--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

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

Madam Speaker, the question that was asked was a very straightforward question. It was whether the report will be made public. The minister should either answer that question or indicate she is not going to and sit down.

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

Mrs. McIntosh: I think a review of Hansard will reveal that the member clearly specifically talked about both the timeliness of the review and the fact that it was five years late, and also wanted to know about what would be the results in terms of release. I tried to answer both parts of the question. If she only wants one thing answered, she should only ask one thing.

* (1340)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the honourable minister's time had not expired. So I believe that she was about to answer the specific question that the--[interjection]--because I heard her comments relative to--prior to the interjection by the honourable member for Thompson. So, therefore, there is no point of order.

Madam Speaker: Would the honourable minister please quickly complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In response to the second portion of the member's question about whether or not the results will be released, the results of this report will be public. The only parts perhaps that may not be public will be those confidential conversations held with parents who, I think we would all respect, need their privacy protected because they do not wish some of their personal problems to be revealed to the public. Those would be part of the report which may be kept confidential, but the recommendations will be public.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Last June and again in December last year I raised the issue on behalf of Breanne Curé, a special needs student in the Transcona-Springfield School Division. This child is a multiply handicapped child and the teachers, the doctors and the school division are on side saying that this child needs Level II funding in the school to allow this child to progress in her academic learning. The minister's department has rejected the applications over and over again from this particular family, and I want to ask this minister, because her department has rejected these applications. There is now another appeal on her desk from this family, and before this minister makes her decision with respect to Breanne Curé, will she do the honourable thing and accompany me and the family, the Breanne Curé family, to Harold Hatcher School in Transcona-Springfield School Division so we can see this child and other special needs children in the classroom setting before this minister makes her decision?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The school division has not applied for that level of funding for Breanne. Decisions about assessment for students are made locally, brought to the department and approved or denied. If a department request--if it is turned down by the department, they would have to have rationale why that would occur and then an appeal can take place, but in this instance, the division has not made the request for that level of funding.

I have to indicate I have met with and talked to Mrs. Curé and met Breanne. I also have to indicate that the level of treatment that Breanne is receiving in the school right now is fairly extensive in that if the member would like, I could go through what is being done for Breanne in the schools. I think he is aware of the extra help that is there for her at the level that has been requested and approved by the local authorities and the department.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the Minister of Education: since the minister will take the time to write a letter to the school division about Chris Millar, why will this minister not take the time to attend Harold Hatcher Elementary School to see Breanne Curé and other special needs children in the classroom setting before she makes a decision on the application for Level II funding for Breanne Curé, which the doctors, the teachers and the school division say this child requires? Why will you not come to that school?

Mrs. McIntosh: I have written to the Curé family. I have met with the Curé family for quite a period of time. I have visited over 150 schools and seen many children in classrooms with special needs. I do not make the decisions on the final assessment of students. That is not my area of expertise.

I manage a system and ensure that the rules are followed. The school division will make application for a level of funding based on their assessment. The school division and the member is--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The school division has put in place many supports for Breanne, and a dispute between experts over whether the child is to be assessed at Level II or Level I or Level III is not my decision to make. Those experts have to go through that criteria, do the assessment and make the decisions. I know that there are speech therapists, paraprofessionals, language development programs and so on in place for Breanne specifically in the school.

It may well be that the school the member is suggesting I visit be on my list of school visits in the not too distant future.

* (1345)

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Further to yesterday's Question Period, I want to inform the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) that in my answer I had indicated that I had directly contacted the federal government at a meeting in person. On checking my records, I also found that I had sent a letter, which I want to provide for the member at this particular time to fully complete my answer of yesterday. So I have copies to table for the member.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, Michael Chartrand is a young child in my constituency who is suffering because of lack of commitment from this government for children with special needs. Last year, Michael hardly attended school because, despite efforts by the school division, there was no funding for a school-time aide. This year Michael is in school part-time, only because the friendship centre has come to an agreement with the school and it is supporting a part-time worker for him.

How can this government be so callous when it comes to meeting the educational needs of special needs children in this province?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): There is a tremendous caring and tremendous concern on this side of the House and I hope on that side of the House amongst all MLAs about the education of our children, and that includes all the children that we educate.

Just to give you an indication, I have to indicate that for Level II children--students identified by their division and subsequently confirmed by the assessment authorities automatically receive over and above their regular grant $8,520 a year per student. At Level III they receive $18,960 over and above the regular school grant for the Level III children. In addition to that, the Level I funding enables schools to have in place educational assistance and other resources in the school to help with those who are more mildly disadvantaged.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister if she understands that this child does not go to school, only goes to school when someone is with him from the friendship centre. There is no support for him from the Department of Education. What is the matter with you? Do you not care about children in need, children with special needs?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the specific details of the case that the member brings to my attention here in the House.

An Honourable Member: You rejected their application.

Mrs. McIntosh: She speaks, saying I, personally, the minister, rejected an application when she knows absolutely well that those applications, if they are coming to the department for approval, will go to those who are the experts in assessment for diagnosis, assessment and response. They do not come to the minister any more than decisions on putting out forest fires in terms of how to put out the forest fires would go to the minister rather than the pilot flying the plane that is going to drop the fire bomb water on the trees.

Madam Speaker, the senior personnel assigned to that task--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1350)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear, and I read it into the record a few minutes ago. The member for Swan River has been asking questions about Michael Chartrand. What relevance comments about water bombers have to a question on a very serious matter, that involving a special needs student in the constituency of the member for Swan River, is beyond me. I know the minister is becoming well known for some of her bizarre comments and statements, but this is going too far.

I would ask, Madam Speaker, you call this minister to order and ask that she answer the very serious question that was raised about Michael Chartrand.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed he did have a point of order. I would ask for the co-operation of the minister in responding specifically to the question asked.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I will repeat the answer I gave, which is that requests of that nature or decisions of that nature go to the senior experts in the department who are qualified and assigned the task of making assessments. Those decisions do not come to the minister's desk; they are dealt with at the appropriate level in the department. That was the answer I gave earlier, and that is the answer I repeat for the member now.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, there is very little doubt that one of the greatest failures of this government has been in addressing the whole issue of public education. I asked last week and the week prior with respect to the whole funding element, and today I would question the government's abilities in terms of administration.

We have had for 10 years now a government that has sat back and done very little to address the inequities that are there because of the administration in the way in which we have our school divisions. We paid many tax dollars for the Norrie commission report.

My question to the Minister of Education: does this government have any intentions whatsoever to deal with the different inequities that are there today as a result of this government's inaction in addressing the sizes and the differences of sizes of our school divisions?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the Norrie commission had over 40 recommendations in it; we have accepted some 21 of them. On the specific issue of amalgamation of school divisions, our hearings around the province and the feedback we received told us very clearly that school divisions, the people in the school divisions, the administrators in the school divisions, wanted to retain local autonomy. We therefore moved to voluntary amalgamation and promotion of shared services. That is happening.

We have two divisions currently amalgamating, another to announce their intention to amalgamate, several others seriously considering it. We have many divisions that have moved to joint purchasing to looking at sharing common senior personnel, sharing bus routes where possible and bringing down administrative costs through ventures such as those, and it is working because the people are buying into the concept and are committed by virtue of their own decision to opt in. Thank you.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister of Education will have one standard policy for all Manitobans, and that standard policy is either--and your choice is: do you believe in community-administered school divisions, therefore allowing, let us say, Winnipeg School Division No. 1 to break up into smaller school divisions, or do you believe in what the Norrie commission was reporting, and that was to have fewer school divisions in hopes that you would be able to address some of the inequities that are there? You should have one or the other, not both.

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

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, we are not forcing amalgamations on school divisions. We are encouraging them. Many divisions now are beginning to move towards making that decision for themselves. We have facilitators in the department ready and able to assist school divisions to begin such discussions, and those have been successful where the amalgamations are beginning.

So we are saying that school divisions can co-operate, as many are doing, and they can amalgamate with our assistance, as some are beginning to do. That is our position. We are supporting voluntary amalgamation.

* (1355)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Education acknowledge that she cannot have it both ways? You cannot have some people in the city of Winnipeg having the smaller community-size school division and the other citizens of Winnipeg having the much larger 30,000-plus students school divisions.

My question to the Minister of Education is that the government has a responsibility to be consistent with the policy that it is putting on all Manitobans, and I ask the Minister of Education to be straightforward with all Manitobans and treat them fairly.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I believe I have answered the member's question, and I do not wish to be repetitive in saying once again we support voluntary amalgamation. For those divisions who believe, as the member does, that there can be cost-savings by amalgamating, we have much assistance in place to help them accomplish that very goal. So no division is forced to stay small. Quite the contrary: they are being encouraged to amalgamate with assistance from us. It is not inconsistent at all.

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, yesterday I took notice to a question from the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) regarding a letter from staff from my department to the Rural Municipality of St. Andrews regarding regulations for hog production. Although I had asked that the member table the letter, I am still waiting for it. But I am assuming, because it was to St. Andrews, it is with regard to a letter that was sent from the department advising the R.M. of St. Andrews that by-laws passed under the authority of The Municipal Act may not be appropriate to regulate the intensive livestock operations and that provisions for this authority are clearly provided under The Planning Act. The municipality was further advised that it should consult with its solicitor on this matter, because indeed it is a very important matter as it relates to developments of this kind.

Unfortunately, the member was mistaken about the intent and the tone of the letter and its contents, and it is regrettable that this is the same kind of situation that this member has brought forward earlier, whether it is with regard to hog production or elk production or the PMU industry in this province, Madam Speaker. I think it is regrettable.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker, which has two parts. Our rules are very clear that the member should have tabled the letter, and indeed if he was taking a matter under advisement and bringing information back.

I would suggest also that the latter part of his response, the editorial comment, was not what he had undertaken to do. He had undertaken to provide the information from the letter. The appropriate way to do that is to table the letter in the Chamber.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Rural Development, on the same point of order.

Mr. Derkach: Madam Speaker, yesterday the member for Swan River indicated from her seat that she was prepared to table the letter. She referred to a letter that was written to a municipality, but she did not table it. I am still awaiting the tabling of that letter.

* (1400)

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, regrettably, I will take it under advisement. Our rule is very clear. It says: if a member reads from a private letter. I have no idea what letter he personally is reading from and whether it indeed is a private letter. I will take it under advisement and report back to the House at a later date.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I can see we are going to be receiving a series of anecdotal comments here, and I would appreciate it if the member could provide me with the details, because certainly no student should be expelled from school because they have a learning disability. So the member has indicated here that a student has been expelled from school for having a learning disability, and I would appreciate receiving the details on that from her without having to bring the student's--well, I guess maybe she has already put the student's name into the House, I do not know. I would like to get the details on that because that, if the allegation is correct, should not be happening.

As to why school staff decreases, there could be many reasons. Again, I do not know the circumstances here, but I know that some schools have a drop in enrollment and some schools have other things where the staffing alignment will change, and I cannot answer that question without knowing the specifics. I would appreciate receiving those details from her so that we can follow up on them.

Ms. Cerilli: I think the minister's funding cuts would have something--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Radisson, she was recognized for a supplementary question which requires no preamble.

Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the minister if it is acceptable to her and her department that parents have to continually fight with her department, fight with school boards in order to get their children's needs met, and if it is acceptable to her that parents have to hire lawyers to keep their kids in school.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I need to indicate right at the beginning of my answer that by far the large and vast majority of parents do not have to resort to what the member has described. There are hundreds and hundreds of students in schools with high-level special needs whose needs are being most satisfactorily met by virtue of the thank-you letters that we get and the comments that we receive when I visit schools. As I have indicated, I have now visited over 150 schools, and I have seen the very positive things that are happening in the area of special needs.

If there are exceptions and if there are disputes occurring, and in any system there will be some, let not the member imply that those are the rule rather than the exception, because if she tries to make that implication, she is leaving a very mistaken perception on the record.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): A nine-year-old special needs boy in Hanover School Division has only attended five days this year and in February was suspended indefinitely because the school does not have the resources to deal with his needs. Can the Minister of Education support this in good conscience that this is the best way to deal with this child?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I would again appreciate receiving some more detail from the member. An anecdotal story that has so few details is very difficult to respond to. So, Madam Speaker, I would appreciate receiving details from the member about this particular issue, because again the member is saying that someone who is identified as a special needs student has been expelled because the school, for whatever reason, could not or did not want to deal with this child. I think I need to receive the details around it because that is not the rule and that is not the way it normally happens.

Again, I wish to indicate to the House that by far the vast majority of situations work very well. If there are exceptions, they are exceptions, Madam Speaker, and not the general norm.

Ms. Mihychuk: My question to the minister: given that she had this information for over a week, is this your solution for children that need extra help? Is it your government's solution to just keep them out of school? You are busy writing letters on other topics; maybe you can address it to children in need.

Mrs. McIntosh: I have corresponded with many, many special needs families. I have met and talked with many, many special needs teachers. I have visited in dozens and dozens of classrooms with high levels and low levels of special needs students. I have talked with instructional assistants, dozens and dozens of them about the work that they do in the classroom. I have seen an incredible number of highly successful, highly positive experiences. I have talked to people about the difficulties. So to indicate that I am not in communication with people on this issue is so far off the mark that it is just entirely inaccurate.

Our government has --

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): The Minister of Family Services will be aware that a support program for parents of high-risk children run by New Directions has lost its funding. They met last week for the last time after providing a very valuable service to parents for the last seven years.

Will the Minister of Family Services intervene and assure the House and assure these parents, who have gone public with their concerns, that the funding will indeed continue so that their children do not fall through the cracks and so that her department is saved thousands of dollars in the future?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I know that my honourable friend did write to me this morning and indicate that this was happening and did ask me to intervene, and I know that he did hold a news conference also around the noon hour to--[interjection] Well, Madam Speaker, I would not encourage the opposition to clap quite yet because the information that was put on the record in the news conference and in my honourable friend's letter was absolutely inaccurate, false information.

I have a letter that I would like to table to my honourable friend because I did just receive the letter from him that indicates quite clearly that Winnipeg Child and Family Services--that is the agency in Winnipeg--is evaluating many programs of this nature right throughout the system and that the funding is there for at least six months for this program into the new year, and if the evaluation proves that it is serving the needs of those families, the program will continue.

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services intervene with Winnipeg Child and Family Services and ensure that this funding continues on a permanent basis, not on a temporary basis but permanently since the value of this program has been proved by the statements of the parents today? Will she make sure it continues on a permanent basis?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I think it is my responsibility as Minister of Family Services and the responsibility of our government in general to ensure that we are spending taxpayers' dollars in an accountable fashion to all Manitobans. I make absolutely no apologies for evaluating programs, determining the success and whether in fact children are being served with those programs. I have said many, many times before that we have to look at and evaluate all programs and have all programs be accountable on a regular basis, and if in fact programs are not working, we have to have the courage to refocus those dollars into programs that will better meet the needs of children and families.

* (1410)

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I just returned awhile ago from Cross Lake where I was invited to go and meet with the community of Cross Lake, the chief and council and members of Cross Lake. The topic of discussion was of course Manitoba Hydro and this government's failure to recognize and uphold the terms and conditions and implement the Northern Flood Agreement.

I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs to give this Assembly justification as to why he refuses to go to Cross Lake, meet with the chief and council there instead of sending insulting, condescending, patronizing letters like you did on March 19. I would like to table a letter from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs supporting the efforts of Cross Lake, contrary to what the minister has been telling the media.

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam Speaker, having just returned from Cross Lake, the honourable member for The Pas accompanying the media obviously has participated in observing the situation there. I think that is useful because the people of Cross Lake are looking for facts and they are looking for leadership, and there is a great need for them to understand what has been missed by that community.

There is over a hundred million dollars that was available through the comprehensive settlement. There has already been an implementation involving some $35 million for the benefit of the community. There was an $8.3-million advance pursuant to the comprehensive settlement which was agreed to in substance in the early summer of this year. The community is in need of having that kind of investment in their future. The community, under the leadership, has not even wanted to sit down at the table because it does not have its proposals together yet.

So the community--we are waiting with great anticipation to find out where they want to go and what their vision is.

Mr. Lathlin: Could I ask the minister then why he insists that the chief and council are doing this on their own? When I was there this morning, I observed at least a thousand people at the blockade site, as well as people meeting amongst themselves in the community. The support that has been given by members of Cross Lake is overwhelming, and yet the minster continues to say that they do not have the support of the community. They have support from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

I want to ask the minister--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for The Pas is attempting to pose his question. Could I ask for the co-operation of all members, please.

Mr. Lathlin: --and that is, if the minister is going to honour the terms of the agreement, at least in Article 3, if he says he has honoured the agreement, why then in Article 3, the band has not received any land according to the entitlement they were supposed to get.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I do welcome this opportunity to clarify this sort of misinformation which has obviously got out there and has caused a lot of confusion amongst the people of Cross Lake, and I might say too often the kind of misinformation which is engendered by the kinds of positions that have been taken by the official opposition party and the kinds of questions raised with the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson).

With respect to this very specific situation, the Northern Flood Agreement was signed in 1977. It still exists. It is the signed binding agreement which is the basis for the relationship with Hydro, Manitoba and Canada and which has in its content the opportunity to provide for any issues in dispute between Cross Lake and its people and those particular parties.

The comprehensive settlement, which has been agreed to by four other bands, most recently Norway House, is designed to provide the ability, the freedom and capacity for those other communities to become socioeconomically self-reliant and healthy and sustainable communities. Cross Lake, so far, has chosen not to embark in that resolution.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, with a very short question.

Mr. Lathlin: I would like to direct my question now to the First Minister and ask him: since the Minister of Northern Affairs refuses to visit his constituents in Cross Lake--after all, they are citizens of Manitoba--will the First Minister assign that work to another minister so that we can finally come to a resolution on that issue in Cross Lake?

Mr. Newman: The difficulty with pursuing any further discussions with Cross Lake is, No. 1, they have failed to be reasonable in the positions they have advanced. They have put up a blockade which has prevented Hydro transformers to go to Garden Hill, three transformers which would have allowed them to have the same standard of power and as a result, health, sustainability and economic development that every other community in the province has in the south. They are also hurting other Island Lake communities in this effort to grab attention.

The fact is that if efforts were expended by their people to come to the table and discuss issues under the Northern Flood Agreement, I have told them I am willing to get personally involved and make sure everything is done in good faith. They have failed to come to the table and indicated they do not want to come.

* (1420)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I want to cite Beauchesne Citation 417 again. "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." The member for The Pas asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) whether he would put a minister in place who is willing to get involved in dialogue with the people of Cross Lake. The response from the minister not only had nothing to do with the question, it shows why there is such a problem. We have a minister who thinks he knows better for the people of Cross Lake than the people of Cross Lake know themselves.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, the honourable member for Thompson cites Beauchesne citation which asks or suggests that ministers not provoke debate in their responses. I only ask the honourable member for Thompson to refer to each of the questions put this afternoon by the honourable member for The Pas and examine them and their content for any suggestion of provocation. The provocation was in the questions, not in the answers.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order.