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 eighteen Grade 5 students from Chapman School under the direction of Mrs. Cathey Gornik. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

Also, twenty Grade 5 students from Ryerson Elementary School under the direction of Mrs. Florence Eastwood. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).

Also, nineteen Grade 6 students from the Prince Charles school in Portage la Prairie under the direction of Ms. Linda Wright.

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

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): When the Premier was trying to justify his broken election promise to keep the publicly owned telephone system owned by Manitobans in this House last year, the Premier stated that the, quote, rates could go up or the rates could go down.

Well, are the rates ever going up, Madam Speaker, after that commitment from the Premier. In fact, the telephone system now is proposing a $3-a-month rate increase on top of the $2 rate increase of January 1, 1997, on top of $2 last year.

I would like to ask the Premier: Why did he not inform people that MTS would be joining the other private, profit companies, phone companies in Canada, in asking for this massive increase from the consumers of Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we said consistently and truthfully, which is something that is not known to members opposite, that rates would be evaluated by the CRTC and that they would do the same basis for evaluation of the rates whether the company was publicly or privately owned.

The member opposite talks about Manitoba Telecom Services joining the other privately owned companies in asking for a rate increase. All he needs to do is--and I know he has difficulty in attempting to read or understand what is going on elsewhere in the country or elsewhere in the world, but I can send him copies of correspondence, or I can send him copies of newspapers from Saskatchewan where the president of SaskTel, Don Ching, is quoted as saying: There is no question in my mind that there is pressure to redo local rates. I think consumers have got to be prepared and understand they will be asked to pay more for local service.

Now that is a publicly owned utility. This is a May 3, 1997, statement by him. He said they will be asked to pay more for local service. That is precisely what is happening right across Canada because, of course, of competition in long distance, which is reducing the amount of money that people are paying for their long-distance rates, and therefore all the utilities have to make that up by their local rates being increased so that it balances off.

I will not go into the whole analysis, Madam Speaker, but for the vast majority of people, they still end up better off because, of course, the combination of their bill, which does include long-distance charges, ends up being--the total--billed less.

The bottom line is that, whether it is publicly owned as it is in Saskatchewan or privately owned as it is elsewhere in Canada, those rate increases are still going to be the same right across Canada, which is exactly what we said in the debate.

Mr. Doer: I have the press release for the minister responsible for the Saskatchewan telephone system pointing out that their four-year zero rate increase in the public, nonprofit Saskatchewan telephone system would continue on all the way through 1997. While this Premier was jacking up rates $2 in '96, $2 in '97, $3 in 1998, Saskatchewan has frozen their rates. The Premier knows that the rates in Saskatchewan are much lower than Manitoba.

I would like to ask the Premier: Is it not correct that the Manitoba seniors organization and other consumer groups said that the rates would be lower, but with a public, nonprofit corporation like Saskatchewan rather than it going to a profit, private company like Alberta, which Manitoba is duplicating? Are not Manitoba seniors correct and this Premier is dead wrong?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member opposite chooses to ignore the fact that in Saskatchewan they have, under the New Democrats, a tradition in which they move across huge amounts of money, tens of millions of dollars of what they call dividends out of the telephone system to the public treasury, so that they in fact in many cases syphon off more than would be taken in profits by private companies and put it into the public treasury. So, in fact, that is why in many cases the rate comparisons even between Saskatchewan and Manitoba favour Manitobans.

* (1345)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): This Premier, this whole session--five years of zero percent rate increases in Saskatchewan, no rate increase this year, no rate increase for future years, and we have a $5 increase since this government has privatized the Manitoba Telephone System, a 33 percent increase.

I would like to ask the Premier a further question. Following on the Alberta model, the Alberta private model that the Premier is so fond of, as the Manitoba Union of Municipalities has stated, when you go to a private company you start going to more cost recovery. In Alberta now the application includes a higher cost for rural Alberta over the urban centres. Is this the way of the future for Manitoba: get shafted with your local rates contrary to your promise and then the rural people and the northern people get shafted again by this private company? Is that the way of the future here in Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, it is now about six months since we saw this government sell off the Manitoba Telephone System with no mandate, no support from the people of Manitoba. We predicted loss of ownership, we predicted layoffs and we predicted increased rates, and not once would they even acknowledge that would happen under the private company. Well, six months later, I told you so, I told you so, I told you so is what Manitobans are saying. I want to ask the Premier if he will finally admit that under the policies of his government, many Manitobans are now going to be paying not only 50 percent more for phone rates than they paid before the last provincial election but in some cases as much as a 100 percent increase because of the application that has been approved from MTS, now a private company, in conjunction with seven other private companies.

Will he now admit that rates have gone up dramatically for Manitobans?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member is misleading the House. The application has not been approved. It has been submitted to the CRTC. It has not been approved.

Mr. Ashton: The only person that is misleading anyone is this Premier, who has misled people on MTS.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, to pose a supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: On a supplementary to the First Minister, I am wondering what position, if any, the government appointees on Manitoba Telecom Services, who are appointed by this government, what position they have taken on this rate application. Have they supported it? Have they supported yet another increase that is going to hit many Manitobans, particularly those who are seniors on fixed incomes? What is their position on this increase?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat as I have said before, this matter is all reviewed by the CRTC. The trends that were put in place by the CRTC over many years all were to the effect that there should be cost recovery. That was known, and that was a mandate that was there before Manitoba Telecom was privatized, and nothing is different.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a final supplementary.

Mr. Ashton: I will repeat my question. What is the position of this government which still has representation on the board appointed directly by this government? Do they support that increase or are they opposed to that increase, Madam Speaker? When will they speak up for the many Manitobans who cannot afford this kind of rate increase on their phone bill?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, our position is no different than it was when Manitoba Telecom was in public ownership, and that is that the telephone services of this province ought to be operated in such a way as to provide the best possible service at the most reasonable cost to Manitobans, and that is the mandate they will have whether they are in public ownership or private ownership.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, in response to my recent questions about Canadian Corrosion Control and their workplace fatality, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) and the Minister of Justice both have said that the purpose of the act is to educate. The Minister of Justice also said that one must never forget--and I am quoting here--the importance of having a strong prosecutorial aspect to every statute to ensure that those few who consistently avoid the educational and other aspects of a statute understand that there are penal consequences for the disregard of the law.

If this is the position of the minister and his department on prosecutions under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, can the Minister of Justice explain why, in 1995, it became departmental policy, a Justice department directive to prosecute only companies with previous convictions under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, and if that is the case, how would it ever be possible to prosecute company owners under this directive?

* (1350)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, if the member will table the policy that he indicates is circulating in the department--in my discussions with the prosecutors who make the decisions, they have indicated to me that there are two factors which they look at in respect of every issue that comes over to them for consideration. One, is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction; No. 2, is it in the public interest to prosecute? If both those questions are answered in the affirmative, they prosecute.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Well, if the minister is saying that directive does not exist, Madam Speaker, can he explain why he has not taken steps under the Justice department, since he has received recommendations from the Department of Labour, Workplace Safety and Health recommending prosecution of the company and its owners--why his department has not prosecuted the owners of Canadian Corrosion Control since the company has gone out of business? Why have you not taken steps to prosecute under The Workplace Safety and Health Act with respect to the owners of that particular company with respect to the fatality?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, perhaps the member should be reminded that the government does not determine whether charges are laid or proceeded with under a particular statute, and perhaps the member could discuss that with the Justice critic, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), as to why it would be inappropriate for the government to recommend the laying of charges.

Mr. Reid: Can the Minister of Justice explain--because there are a multitude of charges that have been laid and fines levied against the company over a period of quite a number of years--why this Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) has not recommended that the owners of that particular company be prosecuted either under The Workplace Safety and Health Act or under the Criminal Code for the owners of the Canadian Corrosion Control company in the fatality of Andrew Kuryk? Why have you not taken steps to make sure that someone is held responsible for the fatality at that particular company?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the member raises a long list of convictions and fines and then asks why no prosecutions have taken place. Prosecutions indeed have taken place, and the members of the department make that determination. It is inappropriate for me as a minister to get involved in the charging offence, but if the member wishes, I will again consult with my department to see whether there is a policy that would prevent, that is, a government policy that would prevent the laying of these charges. To my knowledge and from my discussions with members of my department, that is not the case, and, indeed, as the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) indicated the other day, it would be contrary to the Catagas decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Once again rural Manitoba is losing another doctor. In Dauphin a doctor is moving to Ontario because, as she says, this government is not showing any support to the Rural Residency Program. The doctor in question is going to Ontario because she says their incentives are better than ours are. I want to know why the Minister of Health is doing nothing to attract rural doctors to Manitoba and to put in place some incentives to keep rural doctors rural.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, the member references a number of areas. The first is the Parklands residency program. We spend somewhat over $3 million a year on that particular program where we would hope and expect that we would use that program, have a significant training program to train family practitioners to be in rural Manitoba. Overall, as a program, it has not been quite doing that. The Parklands piece has been the most successful. We have entered into some negotiations currently, in fact in the last few days, with the university which runs that program because we have some disputes with them as to their focus in that program, and I hope that they can be resolved. I know there are a lot of aspects to this issue. I hope we can discuss them in the remainder of the questions.

* (1355)

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): This doctor is leaving because of the lack of support for that program. Is this minister going to support the Rural Residency Program in the Parklands or is he just going to sit back and watch more doctors leaving because that incentive, the incentive of teaching in Dauphin, is now going to be lost to them? What is he going to do?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would concur wholeheartedly that the best aspect of that program has in fact been the Parklands program. It has produced the highest success rate in having physicians remain. Regrettably, the university that manages that program has asked for additional money specifically for that area, and within the context of that program we have suggested that the Parklands, the rural aspect, has to be the primary focus of that program, not the Winnipeg training component. Quite frankly, they have said that if they do not receive that funding, they will end that program. If they do, the whole purpose for having it ends, for the whole program ends, because its objective has to be to train rural physicians. As an entire program, I think its success rate is less than 20 percent. This ministry very much wants the university to use the $3 million to concentrate on training rural and northern practitioners and getting a much higher success rate than 20 percent.

Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, the minister does not get it. The doctor is leaving because this province is not supporting that program.

Is the minister going to commit today to funding the program in Dauphin, the Rural Residency Program, so that no more doctors leave our area?

Mr. Praznik: The issue is not quite as simple as the member makes it out to be, and in fairness to him, there is a lot in play here. I can tell you that this government committed over $3 million a year to this program. What is happening within the program is the efforts are being concentrated on training family practitioners for Winnipeg, where we do not need them, and not for rural practitioners. What I am saying to the member today is, we are meeting with the university, and we are telling the university that if they want to continue having our $3 million a year, their focus has to be the Parkland program, their focus has to be using that money to train rural physicians, and their priorities within the program, quite frankly, are wrong, and this minister wants to correct it. If we are spending $3 million a year public money, we want deliverables; we do not want a 20 percent success rate.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. There is a great deal of concern in terms of how this government is dealing with the issue of the financing of health, and the Premier gives the impression that he is quite content on seeing the cash put into tax points. Earlier this year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) came to an agreement at a Finance ministerial meeting in which I quote directly from the document: Western Finance ministers conclude that the federal government must discontinue its misleading practice of claiming the notional tax point component of the CHST as a transfer to provinces and territory.

Will, in fact, the Premier acknowledge that that is the case for this particular government and that is the primary reason why we cannot give up on the cash transfer?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, you know, the real issue is the fact that successive governments--and we fought the Mulroney government when they reduced transfers to the provinces for health and education. You know, unlike what was said by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) when he was, at great cost to the taxpayer, running the so-called Fair Share Office, taking money off the taxpayer to try and publicize the Pawley government's opposition, we opposed them on that issue. The fact of the matter is we also oppose the current government, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien, in their attempts to continue to reduce transfers to the provinces for health and post-secondary education.

What the member does not recognize and acknowledge is that, in the situation where we have cash transfers, those cash transfers have been reduced and reduced and reduced and decimated by successive governments. With equalized tax points, Madam Speaker, those tax points then are ours, and they are able to be utilized for health care.

It is absolutely preposterous that he, along with Frances Russell, should be attempting to perpetrate this fraud on the people of Manitoba that somehow our protection of health care in this country was as a result--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1400)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I would suggest you--

Madam Speaker: On a point of order.

Mr. Doer: The Premier may disagree with his media coverage or criticism for a critic but to accuse somebody of fraud I think is inappropriate. Again, the Premier should not have a thin skin. He can disagree on the basis of the substance of the issue but try to control his emotions on it.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the official opposition, I would caution the First Minister to exercise caution in the choice of his words. However, unparliamentary language generally specifically refers to a member of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I will not in any way attempt to denigrate the efforts of the member for Inkster, whom I respect, but I think that it is certainly misleading to suggest that in some way the only protection of health care in Canada is as a result of the federal government transferring money. What has in fact happened is that, since medicare began with a 50-50 cost-sharing, we are down to the stage where the federal contribution towards health care in most provinces is under 20 percent. It is down as low as 11 or 12 percent.

So the fact that medicare has continued to be funded to the levels that it has--and in our case, it has become 34 percent of all the spending that we have in this province--is because of the commitment made by provinces to maintain and enhance health care, not because of any big brother in the federal government who have been doing their best to destroy medicare in Canada.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I do not understand how the Premier can make a statement like that given--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the Premier is: How can he say what he just said in favour of tax points when his Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) endorsed--and I quote right from the document: Only the cash component of CHST constitutes a transfer or actual payment to provinces and territories from the federal government.

Is the Premier then advocating by what he is saying that the federal government has no role with respect to health care? If he is saying that, the Premier is wrong, and he should hang his head low.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, respecting the caution of the Leader of the Opposition, I will attempt to keep my emotions under control as I respond.

Madam Speaker, what this ought to be all about, this debate, is how we, collectively, all of us, whether it is the federal government or the provincial government, members on the opposition side or members in government, how we do everything possible to protect and preserve our ability to fund medicare to the greatest extent possible in our province. We need to have the kind of partnership that we used to have in this country, in which the federal government was a major contributor towards that. It was a national system because the federal government set about to give half of the funding for it across the country. That gave the federal government not only the financial authority but the moral authority to be a large player in this whole exercise of providing the best possible health care in the world to our citizens.

What has happened, of course, over the years, over the decades has been that the federal government has become a bit player in the provision of medicare. We agree that it is in everybody's interest to have national standards, but the federal government cannot from on high dictate those national standards any longer when they are such a minor, minor participant in the funding, down as low as 11 or 12 percent in some of the provinces. So, rather than go out there and say the federal government are the only people who can protect health care in this country, what he ought to be doing is saying to that federal government, of which he is a member and strong supporter, it is time that you stepped up to the table and ensured with your finances that we can preserve health care for the future of our citizens in Manitoba, instead of being an apologist, as he continues to do, to no credit to himself or his party.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a final supplementary question.

Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My supplementary question is to the Premier. How does the Premier believe that a further reliance on the tax points as opposed to the cash transfer is going to ensure that there is going to be a larger role for the federal government? Does he not believe that he should be taking sides with other provinces that are in the same situation as Manitoba and advocating for a strong national presence? That is in the long term in the best interests of all Canadians.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member misrepresents what I said. I did not call for a larger role for Ottawa. I called for a co-operative role, in which they would sit together with the provinces to develop national standards and to ensure that we had the means by which we can not only defend national standards but ensure that they are complied with across the country, but this has to be a co-operative effort, particularly when the feds have become bit players in the provision of health care and medicare in this country, contributing, as I say, as little as 11 or 12 percent.

So, when we have an opportunity with tax point transfers to ensure that there is adequate funding--and, as I said over and over again, we are talking about equalized tax points so that we do have the ability to ensure that those tax points are equalized vis-a-vis every area of the country and that we get our fair share and our ability to ensure that services provided in every area of the country are equivalent, as is the concept of equalization. When we have that ability, we have been shown to ensure that we make that commitment to health care.

Our money goes there. There is absolutely no question. That is why 34 percent of all of our spending is on health care in this province. That is not because the federal government has been the big defender; they have done nothing but slash and cut transfers for health care to the provinces, making it more and more difficult for the provinces to do their job. The provinces have, despite all of that, continued to do their job, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, four years after reported deaths in some nursing homes, two years after the release of a report recommending changes to nursing homes, eight months after we raised the issue about Holiday Haven in this Chamber, the minister and the government to their credit have finally put in place a complaint structure in personal care homes to allow individuals to raise complaints about conditions in personal care homes.

My question to the minister is: Will the minister consider our suggestion and our recommendation that the government make it mandatory that all abuse and all allegations of abuse in personal care homes be reportable in the province of Manitoba, like it is for children in other areas, like it is for teachers and other professionals?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the member for Kildonan, I think we touched upon that particular issue only briefly in our Estimates process, and it is certainly one that is worthy of consideration. I cannot today indicate whether or not we, as a policy, will adopt that, but certainly that has to enter into our considerations, and I appreciate his raising it again here today.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, can the minister indicate when--and I have asked this of him in Estimates and on several occasions--the inquest will be held into Holiday Haven, when he can provide us that information? Since Holiday Haven, there have been several inquests scheduled of events that occurred after Holiday Haven, but Holiday Haven still has not been scheduled. We still do not know when and where that inquest will take place.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I believe the inquest the member is referring to is the one that was ordered by the Chief Medical Examiner. I do not know at what particular time that individual has scheduled that inquest, but I will endeavour to find out and provide that information by way of letter to the member.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, will the minister give assurances to this House, since we are now reviewing the Holiday Haven information which we received from Freedom of Information and the information is indicating some serious difficulties and shortcomings, will the minister indicate that the inquest, which I do not think is adequate to review this, will examine all of the details of the Department of Health's involvement and lack of involvement and lack of follow-up with respect to what happened at Holiday Haven from the period of time we raised it in the Legislature until the unfortunate death that occurred in February?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, the mandate that the Chief Medical Examiner has--and we hope that the Chief Medical Examiner has a rather broad look at the issue. But when we discussed this whole issue in Estimates, I think I made the point, and I reiterate it today again in the House, what is very critical in enforcing standards is the relationship, the power relationship that exists. Quite frankly, until we introduced amendments to The Regional Health Authorities Act that provides now the minister with the power to move in on an interim basis to manage a facility, the only tool that was available to the department in a difficult situation was to remove the licence of that facility and have to move, in the case of Holiday Haven, 150 people into beds we may not have in the middle of winter. That creates a situation where, quite frankly, staff have to try to be extremely co-operative because their remedy is so extreme. The amendments we have before the House now I think resolve that, and I look forward to support on those issues from members of the New Democratic Party.

* (1410)

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Education. I have a report from the Transcona-Springfield School Division from their phys ed and fitness ad hoc committee from 1991 and '92 which shows that many school divisions in Winnipeg are providing 90 minutes or less per week of physical activity, not the required 150 minutes. I want to table a copy of a chart from this report for the minister.

The minister's new curriculum was looking at further reducing the 150-minute requirement by up to 40 percent for K to 8 and by up to 50 percent for high schools. I want to ask the minister now to confirm if this is the outcome of her curriculum review for physical education in the province of Manitoba.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): As the member knows, we have adopted a model that will see in Manitoba the last two years of high school providing greater opportunities for students, a wider range of options, two compulsory subjects that must be done until the end of high school, those being language arts and mathematics. We have also said, however, that any school division, through their school advisory councils, through the input of parents, can, if it wishes, make any of the supplementary subjects compulsory, including physical education. So we say right now we have 75 minutes physical education--75 percent of physical activity, 25 percent health--and, Madam Speaker, in terms of how long those courses will be compulsory, that is up to school divisions. They can make it compulsory should they so desire. That way, you can have communities reflected in their schools instead of being dictated to by the province.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister: How will this chart look today, since we know that one of the schools in Winnipeg No. 1, where in '91-92 there was 150 minutes per week, now has only 110 minutes per week in phys ed? How much time is the minister willing to sacrifice for physical activity for young people in our province and how would this chart look today in Winnipeg?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I will just have to repeat what I said in my earlier answer because it does explain what the member is--the member is asking--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In responding to the wishes of parents around the province for more input into their schools, for more ability to have their schools reflect their communities and for greater emphasis on the essential skills of literacy and computation, we had evolved a plan that we fought an election on that indicated that the last two years of high school would provide a greater range of options and that schools would begin to be able to represent their communities more closely. We have many communities where there will be parents who feel they have a very strong emphasis on community sports and would like to emphasize something else in school, conversely of many areas where parents feel that they want more physical activity in the schools.

We have mandated guidelines, but schools are able to add to those if they wish. So if they wish to make it compulsory in high schools, they may. Hence, I cannot say what their time lines would be.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if she is not concerned that young people in our communities are spending now 30 hours a week in class, 26 hours a week on average in front of the television set, and only three hours a week active. Is she not making matters worse in her curriculum changes, which are further reducing the activity time for children in the province of Manitoba?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member is wrong when she says we are reducing activity time in schools. The member complains because in our physical education curriculum we have 25 percent health, which is not physical activity but it is the understanding of why physical activity is important. So we take a curriculum that now is 75 percent physical activity and 25 percent health--why do you need activity, why do you need to get the blood circulating through your veins more, why do you need increased oxygen to the brain? That will lead to a better understanding of why physical fitness, well-being and wellness are good for your entire life. It was felt important by all of those involved that people not only learn to be active but why it is important to be active. For that I do not apologize.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

Yesterday, we learned that 95 percent of Edmonton's 233 school buses failed the police mechanics inspections; 221 flunked the exam, 207 were actually pulled off the road. Issues of funding and road usage limits were raised. This Conservative government also has a deplorable record on funding, bus age limits and safety inspections.

My question to the minister: Will the minister commit to a co-ordinated, comprehensive school bus safety inspection program to be conducted by Manitoba's police services to ensure that the buses that fail safety inspections over and over again are actually pulled off Manitoba's roads so our children can be ensured to be safe? Will the minister take action?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Well, Madam Speaker,

the member uses an example in Edmonton that has no relationship to Manitoba whatsoever. As I identified to her last week, Manitoba has a very comprehensive safety inspection program for school buses. The school division must inspect them twice a year, and the certification is done by the department of the inspecting facilities, plus the department does an audit of the buses in those different school divisions on an annual basis. So many of the buses get inspected three times, plus we require a pre-trip inspection by the driver to determine if there are any flaws or problems with the buses and report it to the garage.

That is in Manitoba. What happened in Alberta has no relationship to what she is trying to make indications about Manitoba.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Education: Will the minister review the training and the route preparation programs, as we hear there are less and less training programs and less and less time available for training of the drivers in Manitoba? Will she review the training program to ensure that we have Manitoba standards and ensure the drivers are properly trained to drive the buses?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I should indicate for starters that the Manitoba Department of Education this year put an additional $400,000 into busing in Manitoba, so any indication that might have been in her preamble about lack of financial support is not correct.

I also indicate that there are requirements for driving vehicles in Manitoba in two ways: one, through the Department of Highways and Transportation Vehicle Licensing. You must have certain classifications of licences for different categories of vehicles driven. As well, school divisions have training programs for their bus drivers over and above that that must be kept current. As the member knows, school divisions have the option now of purchasing buses and hiring drivers or of contracting out, due to the extra money and the flexible guidelines we have put in at school divisions' requests.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas, with committee changes.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) for Burrows (Mr. Martindale); Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Osborne (Ms. McGifford); Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) for Tuesday, June 17, 1997, for 7 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I also have some committee changes.

I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments (for Tuesday, June 17, 7 p.m.) be amended as follows: Mr. Radcliffe (River Heights) for Mr. Laurendeau (St. Norbert); Mr. Tweed (Turtle Mountain) for Mr. McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek); Mr. Gilleshammer (Minnedosa) for Mr. McCrae (Brandon West); Mr. Enns (Lakeside) for Mr. Praznik (Lac du Bonnet); and Mr. Toews (Rossmere) for Mr. Reimer (Niakwa).

Motion agreed to.