Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon twenty-three Grade 5 students from Christ the King School under the direction of Mrs. Shirley Gendron. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render).

Also, we have twenty-five Grades 7 to 12 students from Powerview School under the direction of Mr. Scott Radley, Mr. Don Playfair and Mr. Tom Paukovic. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

* (1335)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Acting Premier. Today, the Canada-Manitoba Labour Market Development Agreement was announced, and it looks quite curiously like the agreement we raised in this Chamber a couple of week ago. It is, as we noted, an agreement that follows the Alberta model where we have devolution of power to the provinces and of course our fear has been that today's devolution will be tomorrow's offload. I would like to ask the Acting Premier why the government has signed an agreement--in light of all their, quote, comments about offloading--that only includes three specific years of funding.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition would agree and would want to acknowledge that one of the more important contributions that we can all make to the effective future for this country is to ensure that we reduce overlap and duplication and that we do focus maximum effort to the benefit of those who need services under this program, and that is the objective.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, and of course we believe in a strong co-operative federalism. We believe in a strong national government that works on behalf of all our people in all of our regions. We do not believe in a Canada that is devolving into provinces becoming franchises of the federal government, that is why we have a different view of these matters. The minister will also note that we will have two administrations, because the federal government will still maintain the EI funding or the unemployment insurance funding as most people will still recall the correct term of the program.

I would like to ask the minister in light of the fact that when we raised this question in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago--we asked the Premier why had they agreed to a program transfer that would reduce the staff from 143 down to 119. These numbers of 119 have been confirmed in the agreement released today. Why would we agree to a devolution that would include less people to provide training and counselling for people all across Manitoba to get opportunities across our communities?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the Acting Premier in his answer indicated that we are hoping to avoid overlap and duplication. By taking control of our own destiny and taking advantage of this opportunity, we see an opportunity to provide one point of access, no more going to small towns and seeing an office at one end of the street and another at the other end of the street, have the one point of access. That increases efficiency that is of ultimate benefit to the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, and this is a government that whines about the offloading of the federal government and then has the temerity to sign a three-year agreement for funding. This is a government that talks about offloading from the federal government and signs an agreement that reduces the staff in Manitoba to provide counselling and training and advice for people by 143 down to 119. The federal government is laughing at you because you have agreed to these offloads.

I would like to ask the minister: Can she specifically table in this House where those layoffs are going to take place? Are those layoffs going to take place in Thompson, Selkirk, Brandon, Portage, St. Boniface, Morden, Steinbach, Dauphin, Swan River, The Pas or Winnipeg? Can she specifically tell us today where those layoffs will take place?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, obviously, not accepting any of the preamble of the member, I indicate to the Speaker and to the member opposite through the Speaker, that we do not anticipate any job losses with this particular agreement. He is speculating. He is incorrect.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, one of the real difficulties for Manitobans with this offload from the federal government of labour force programs is that the record of the provincial government on training has been one of cutting longer-term training programs, whether it is the two-year New Careers Program, whether it is Gateway, whether it is the Access programs and developing instead short-term training programs aimed at low-wage jobs.

I want to ask the minister: Does she intend as a result of this agreement to change her government's direction on training and its short-term horizon?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, again, obviously not accepting any of the preamble because it is fraught with errors, I would indicate to the member that we anticipate the people of Manitoba being able to receive the same services they currently receive from both federal and provincial jurisdictions, except now through easier access through one point of entry. The federal government and the province do not intend to see services reduced to Manitobans or service disrupted in any way, shape or form.

* (1340)

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, could the minister then make a commitment that in the long term, that is beyond the three years, that employment counselling services will be provided outside Winnipeg where at the moment for young people the only alternative is the high school guidance counsellor, a profession that is under enormous pressure and which is increasingly scarce?

Mrs. McIntosh: Again, the member is wrong in her preamble and her assumptions.

We have employment development centres that provide counselling outside of Manitoba, very successfully in Brandon and other places outside of Manitoba, and those will continue. Those will continue. We expect to have increased efficiency. We expect to be able to have better linkages between employment and the economy because we can control our own destiny, and we have the commitment of federal funding coming into Manitoba to maintain the funding for those programs which we can now control delivery of, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, could the minister tell us whether she intends the new training role of the province to follow the past practice of Manitoba, that is, the secrecy of Workforce 2000 where no curriculum, no standards, no outcome have ever been revealed and the pattern of the Employment First project which provides employers with, as the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce calls them, no-cost, no-commitment employees?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, if the preamble is accepted as fact, a great disservice is being done to the people of Manitoba. So I think it is important that I state each time for the record, the preamble is based upon erroneous assumptions.

I would say, Madam Speaker, the Province of Manitoba has an excellent record of providing training and providing employment opportunities to people who are currently unemployed, whether it is through social assistance, through EI, some of which come under provincial jurisdiction, some of which come under federal jurisdiction. We will now be providing one-point access for these people, a better co-ordinated effort which will improve efficiency for them.

Our record of achievement in getting Manitobans back to work is extremely good, Madam Speaker, and heralded around the nation as one of the best in the country. We will continue in that thrust to provide opportunities for Manitobans to be employed.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs.

In May of 1989, this government held a conference called Workshop for the Development of an Indian and Metis Urban Strategy for Manitoba of which I have copies here. A consultant's report by Resources Initiatives Limited called Developing an Indian and Metis Urban Strategy for Manitoba was also released at the same time. Since then, of course, virtually nothing has been done at all in this area by this government. Today this government has the gall to announce an urban aboriginal strategy consultation process.

Could this minister explain what exactly was the so-called urban aboriginal strategy of the last seven years of this government prior to today's announcements?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, this is not time to look backwards. This is time to look forward. There were many situations in the past that we have learned from. I think that the consultation group made up of myself, Danny Vandal, George Campbell, Mary Richard and Professor Tom Henley will take their responsibilities very seriously and will come up with a plan which will be of benefit to all collaborators in this enormous challenge, and those collaborators include all citizens of Winnipeg, all of the different, disparate parts of the aboriginal community and all levels of government.

Mr. Hickes: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister is true about his word of actions because we have been hearing this for--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Since, according to the press release, this new strategy is timely in view of the recent release of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, I would like to ask the minister: What happened to the commitment last November 21 by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that said a cabinet committee would begin examining the commission report immediately? That was on November 21.

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, the report has been examined in detail on a multidepartmental basis. I am very pleased to say that I am on my way early this evening, after I complete Estimates and participate in private members' hour in part, to attend a Native Affairs ministers' meeting in Regina, and that very kind of issue is going to be discussed there. Indeed, we are studying and have reviewed through our different departments that study and will be discussing that at this meeting starting this evening.

* (1345)

Mr. Hickes: Since no initiatives from the Royal Commission report have been mentioned since November 21, are Manitobans to assume that this report will be ignored in the same way that the AJI, Northern Economic Development Commission report and the Hughes report were all ignored by this government? Is this new report just going to gather dust like all the rest that this government has done?

Mr. Newman: I will not accept any of the statements suggesting inaction on the part of this government. I want to suggest that it does a disservice to the people of Manitoba and, I would submit, the aboriginal people in particular, to suggest that there are any simplistic solutions or any one answer to this problem.

One of the great things that has been done by this government--and that I am very proud of and it is reaching a conclusion--is the treaty land entitlement settlements are in the process of conclusion. The Northern Flood Agreement settlements are in the process of conclusion. This is a matter of historic importance that is about to come to an end because of long-term, persistent action on the part of this government that this is coming about, as well as the good will and commitment persistence of the aboriginal people. In partnership with the aboriginal people of this province, Madam Speaker, we are going to come to long-term solutions, and we are going to do it patiently, and we are going to do it in multifaceted ways. It is not simple, and we are not going to mislead anyone into believing it so.

I am prepared to work in partnership with colleagues opposite. I have told the representative from Rupertsland, the representative from The Pas that, as service providers representing the North, I will work with them towards the solution as well.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, earlier this week I asked the Minister of Health about stakeholder reactions to his draft health privacy act, and though he waxed both ardently and loquaciously, he really did not answer that very simple and direct question. So I would like to return today and ask the minister if he can confirm that his health privacy act will be monitored by an ombudsman rather than by a privacy commissioner as in other jurisdictions like B.C.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I can confirm that that is the proposal in the draft that is under consideration now by the privacy committee as part of my consultation.

Ms. McGifford: I thank the minister for a direct answer. Does the minister not understand that a privacy commissioner is superior in a number of ways, amongst them and perhaps chiefly because a privacy commissioner can issue binding orders and put teeth into legislation and consequently save Manitobans the time and expense of court proceedings?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, there is a variety of ways in which one can have a reporting relationship into which individuals--the proposal in that particular draft is to an ombudsman. I am waiting to see the results of that particular review, but I think if you look at the history of this legislation across the country and you look at the powers and protections that are there and the rights of individuals, it is an opportunity or a vehicle certainly worthy of consideration of that committee. I am looking forward to seeing their results and recommendations.

Ms. McGifford: When we all know that the Office of the Ombudsman is pushed to its limits, why would the minister entrust the health privacy act as a simple add-on to this position and consequently put the confidentiality and the rights of Manitobans at such grave risk?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if the issue is one of resourcing the Office of the Ombudsman, obviously if additional responsibilities are given to it by this Legislative Assembly, the resources will have to be adequate to do that job, and that would have to be part of any administrative package that was there to support the legislation.

* (1350)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister responsible for Government Services. It is regarding an incident actually that occurred the other day for me where I was outside a government office, and I had noticed that there were a few individuals standing out there somewhat shivering as they had cigarettes in their mouths. I looked back as to why it is that they were doing this. I am told because the government has a policy on smoking, and they were not allowed to smoke inside the building.

Madam Speaker, I believe that government should lead by example and would ask the government why it is that we allow smoking inside the members' lounge when people outside of this Chamber are not allowed to do likewise.

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): In response to the honourable member's question, my department has been in receipt of a request to review the smoking policy within the Legislative Building and would inform the member that my staff are currently looking at the present smoking policy and any type of future policy that may be laid out with regard to smoking in this building.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, from what I understand, Manitoba is the last Legislature across Canada that still has smoking.

My question to the minister is: Will he make a progressive statement this afternoon and today indicate that in the members' lounge we will not be allowed to have cigarette smoke? Lead by example, that is what I am asking the government to do.

Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, my staff have received the request from the Legislative Assembly Management Commission for the Assembly, requesting that my department take a look at the smoking issue, in particular to the room across the hallway. As I indicated earlier, my staff have been instructed to take a look at the entire issue of smoking in this building, and at that time we would be prepared to come back and make a recommendation to the Legislative Assembly Management Commission.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question then would go to the Minister responsible for the Civil Service.

In a sense of fairness and equity, should not then civil servants be allowed the same luxury as members of this Chamber are in terms of a smoking policy? You cannot tell civil servants that they cannot smoke while at the same time we are allowed to smoke in this building.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Government Services has clearly said that this matter is under review, and I would ask the member for Inkster just to be patient.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister of telecommunications and it concerns the ManGlobe project.

Five and a half months ago, on November 4, '96, I asked the minister of telecommunications for answers on all the free goods and services MTS provided to ManGlobe as part of their partnership agreement. The minister promised to provide the answer at that time. We are still waiting.

Can the minister tell this House what happened to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of computers, office equipment, furniture and MTS vehicles which MTS provided to ManGlobe?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, it seems to me that a similar question has been asked before, but I will undertake to take this question as notice for the minister responsible for telecommunications.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, a supplementary to the same question is this: Can the minister confirm that a $25,000 offer accompanied with a cheque was made to ManGlobe in effect to buy back taxpayer-owned assets?

Mr. Derkach: Once again, Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

* (1355)

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is actually to the Minister of Rural Development. As the ManGlobe project papers indicate that rural business would be helped by the ManGlobe project, placing them on a level playing field with city businesses, can he confirm that not one rural business was recruited for the Internet mall, and would the government release the ManGlobe contracts?

Mr. Derkach: Without accepting any of the preamble, I can tell the member that this is not information that I have at my fingertips, but indeed it is something that I will research and get back to the member.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, on March 25, the Minister of Health held out a faint glimmer of hope for the many dedicated public sector workers who work in our hospitals who are now faced with the privatization move to profit under the USSC movement towards contracting out to a couple of major food services corporations. The minister undertook then to urge a delay in this decision. Today the workers had a rally. They are desperate. Many of them worked 10, 20 and more years in our hospitals.

I want to ask the minister: Is there any hope that he can give to those workers? Will the government and the others involved in this decision back off on this ill-conceived privatization?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Thompson for this very timely question. Let us remember just in context that the Urban Shared Services Corporation was a creation of the nine governing boards of our current hospitals under their structure. As members well know, we have now made the first appointments to the Winnipeg Hospital Authority. My commitment when I met with CUPE, who I believe represents five of the nine bargaining units involved, was that I would ask USSC, over which I have no control, to delay their decision until the Winnipeg Hospital Authority had had an opportunity to review that. Obviously, the labour relations part, the human resources part, was extremely important.

I would like to indicate I have had meetings with the USSC chair on this, as well as the Winnipeg Hospital Authority. I am pleased to table for this Legislature today a letter I received from Urban Shared Services indicating that they will do just that, and they will not proceed with the decision until they have given the Winnipeg Hospital Authority a chance to be involved in it.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for that, and I hope that they will indeed listen to the many legitimate arguments the public sector workers have.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I have a new question. Yesterday there was a well-attended meeting in Thompson in regard to health care and many concerns were expressed about the impact of government cuts that have been in place, more specifically cuts which were initially delayed by the Minister of Health but which have been implemented since the 1995 election. A particular concern was expressed about the move to the regional health authority with a 2 percent cut in funding that is going to be entailed with that.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health how these regional health authorities, ill conceived as they are in terms of their lack of democratic basis, are going to have any chance of succeeding in meeting the health care needs if they are now starting with less funding than the hospitals collectively had before the regional health process.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, in the preamble of his question the member for Thompson talked about these authorities being ill conceived. I think his reference had to do more with how they are constituted. There are no boards today that I am aware of that are directly elected by the electors of their communities. They are appointed either by municipalities or by private organizations.

With respect to the reductions, I think the initial target for RHAs was approximately 6 percent. When we had a chance to review that, working with the RHA boards, examining their plans, we agreed on 2.25 to be found for the second half of the fiscal year. We wanted those boards to assume a status quo. We expect, because they are amalgamating administrations in a number of services, that that would be a reasonable saving to be incurred. With respect to the provincial staff being transferred for home care, public health, et cetera, they are taking that on a status quo without a reduction target.

* (1400)

Mr. Ashton: A supplementary: Will the minister recognize that hospitals, Thompson, many other rural and northern communities have already been faced with significant cuts and, in fact, what will happen is, despite the assurances of the minister that the status quo will be maintained in the short run, this will only make that situation worse? Our hospitals are already understaffed. When will the minister reflect on the fact that those cuts are having a major impact on patient services in rural and northern Manitoba?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, in working with the RHAs since becoming Minister of Health on the 6th of January, we recognize that in some of those targets that some of the RHAs do not have the number of facilities with which to amalgamate. That is an issue that we are attempting to address. The overall issue of funding and how we fund, we recognize that our current funding model is very inadequate and that is why part of the plan--because our current model funds sickness, in essence, it funds usage of often inappropriate use of facilities is why we are moving as part of this reform to a new model of funding which will take into account the health status of populations and a host of other factors. I think for northern Manitoba that will be a very good and healthy move.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion recently about genetically altering seeds and, indeed, a lot of concerns have been raised. Lema Grain of Saskatoon registered a genetically engineered canola seed in February for general release, and two days ago they pulled it from the market because it did not meet the criteria for commercial release. The canola industry is very important in Canada and Manitoba. In Manitoba it is a half-billion-dollar industry and in western Canada $3.5 billion.

Will the minister agree that this is a warning that has taken place here and we must move carefully on genetically altered seeds, and we need many more studies done before the sale of genetically altered seeds can proceed? We cannot risk our canola industry.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I am confident that those who are engaged in that half-billion-dollar industry, namely the canola industry, sometimes referred to as a Cinderella crop, which I think we Manitobans can take some special pride in having to a large extent developed through our research efforts at our Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Manitoba, have every concern about its future. The question of genetically altered plant breeding and plant development is one that is being looked at very seriously in different research centres across the land. I am very pleased that the budget we have passed this year offers Manitoba's agriculture to be part of that research and development.

I want to assure the honourable member and I want to assure consumers that canola is becoming the vegetable oil of choice in many households and in many households in different parts of the world. We will be extremely careful not to jeopardize the safety and the health of that very important crop.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, of course I agree it is a very important industry, but we must protect it. Can the minister give us any idea how this kind of a mistake could have slipped through the cracks? Is it because the federal government is cutting back on their inspections? Is it because provincial governments are not doing inspections? What has to be done to ensure that this kind of mistake does not put our canola industry at risk?

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, I am not for a moment prepared to acknowledge without further research on my own part just what the difficulty is. It may simply have been a case of the plant not performing to expected production levels. I should not withhold from her that there were genetically altered canola seeds planted last year and will be planted again this year in the province of Manitoba and throughout Canada that do very well.

You see, Madam Speaker, they present a bit of a problem for some of our environmentalist friends. These are genetically altered seeds that require less chemical herbicides in their application, which is certainly a plus if you are talking food production. So I think we have to rely on the best of science. We have to ensure that we invest in the best of science, but food production will not be arrested simply because new and different techniques are being introduced. I am confident that we have that expertise in Canada.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since the genetically altered industry, the alteration of seeds is driven by chemical companies who want to sell more chemical or control the kinds of chemicals that are being used in the canola industry, I want to ask the minister if he is taking this so lightly and is prepared to risk the canola industry so that a few chemical companies can have more control over the industry and sell a little bit more chemical.

Mr. Enns: I am disappointed in the honourable member for Swan River with whom I am having a good discourse and debate as we go through our Estimates in the Department of Agriculture. Why would she in a public way cause unnecessary concern among the consumers of our province, indeed of Canada, that we are deliberately or taking lightly the safety, the sanitation questions of our food supply? We enjoy the best food supply anywhere in the world and our actuarial longevity statistics prove that, and we will continue doing that, but that does not mean that we do not look at all avenues that are available to us.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Justice: Even if Manitobans accepted just for a moment the minister's spin, his ruse of yesterday that the Guiboche release was caused by a glitch in the federal Criminal Code and not by shortcomings in his own department, could the minister possibly explain our understanding that his department actually never contacted the police, but five days later the police had to contact the department? We wonder how could the department have been so negligent.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do not want to get into the particulars of this case, but--[interjection] Well, I want to ensure, before I say things about specific cases, that I know the facts that the member for St. Johns--are accurate are in fact accurate. I have discussed the issue with my staff in respect of the gang protocol to see whether in fact every step that is taken generally has been taken. This was a particular situation where a direct indictment resulted in a new process being initiated and certain consequences flowed from that. It is not the usual situation, but what I have asked my staff to do is to take a look at the gang protocol to see whether that needs to be improved in any way, and I think consultation with the police is an important step to take at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: Given this regrettable event, I want to move on and ask the minister: Would he now table in this House the review, any review and recommendations that were made on the events that led to the Guiboche release, so we can watchdog the follow-up? Can he tell us what changes, if any, he is committed to in his department to make sure this never happens again?

Mr. Toews: As indicated in some of the questioning yesterday, there have been administrative changes made, that in particular cases where a direct indictment has been initiated, an accused, even if he is in custody or she is in custody, there will have to be a technical arrest and a new bail hearing to ensure that the bail conditions are in fact clear. In the situation of the direct indictment where the old information and the bail conditions lapse, we do want to ensure that bail conditions do continue, and therefore I have asked my department to ensure that those administrative controls are in place.

Mr. Mackintosh: Since the minister did not deal with a critical part of my question, I ask him again: Will he not table and provide us with the recommendations for change that presumably were made yesterday and may be made over the next little while even further so that we can watchdog them, unlike the recommendations regarding the escape from the sheriff's officers that the minister of the day refused to table, this minister refuses to table and we cannot follow up on? This minister will not even tell us what recommendations he is prepared to implement.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, in fact I have indicated very clearly for the record the administrative steps that we have taken. I have also indicated the consultation that needs to take place with the police. I, in fact, was reminded by my staff that in a past situation where we had offered the police more information, they indicated that that information would not particularly help them. So before we start overburdening the police with specific information--and the type of information I believe it is incumbent upon my departmental officials to discuss exactly what type of information is helpful to the police so that they can do their job.

* (1410)

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, the other day I asked the minister a question posed as a math question, and it was not her strongest point. So today I have prepared it as a multiple-choice question.

In relating to school buses which have exceeded the previous 15-and-a-half-year limit, would the minister recommend that school divisions buy--and Winnipeg No. 1, in particular--one bus a year and use the older buses for as long as they can as long as they meet safety standards; two, lease as many buses as they can with the provincial grant money and end up paying twice as much over seven years as it would cost to buy the bus outright; three, raise property taxes or cut 40 teachers to make up the difference; or, four, replace the old buses with a fleet of minivans? Would the minister please respond?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I presume that question was for me, although she did not identify which minister. I presume that the topic would lead it to me.

I would say that my desire would be for the Winnipeg School Division to take hold of the local autonomy that local school divisions fought so hard for during the Boundaries Review which they said was important to them, which they said they needed to be able to make their own local decisions. I would also suggest that the Winnipeg School Division be able to take advantage of the $750,000 increase they received from us this year, be able to take advantage of the fact that they are getting money for the full purchase of a bus, should they wish to do that, or direct that money, should they wish to do that, to any other area of endeavour.

I would suggest as well that they consider their own busing requirements in light of the fact that we now provide--which never occurred under them when they were government over there on the NDP benches--funding for students to be transported in the city for kindergarten to Grade 6 instead of just kindergarten to Grade 3 and we now also will provide busing funding for that school division from Grade 7 to Grade 12 should they desire it.

Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.