4th-36th Vol. 60-Oral Questions

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 fifty-nine Grade 5 students from Southwood School under the direction of Mr. Trevor Neufield and Mrs. Agnes Bond. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger).

Also, nineteen Grade 5 students from Sister MacNamara School under the direction of Mr. John Tabar. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos).

We also have twenty-one Grade 4 students from Tyndall Park Community School under the direction of Mr. Colin Stark. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on June 1 we asked further questions dealing with the stress and workloads for Crown prosecutors here in Manitoba. In fact, we quoted Mr. Hannon, who was quoted in the media as saying that the workloads were heavy and the stress was great for Crown prosecutors. The Minister of Justice denied that the head of the association had made those comments, based on a conversation he had. But, over the weekend, again, we have read the Portage Graphic where Ed Sloane, a retiring Crown prosecutor, talks about no light at the end of the tunnel and that, in spite of the violent crime rate here in Manitoba, the workload is heavy and not getting any lighter.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): will he do what we asked him to do over a year ago and have an operational review of the Crown attorneys office here in Manitoba so that Manitoba citizens can be properly represented with the numbers of Crowns that we need to have in our courts here in this province, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times, that process of review is ongoing in the Department of Justice, specifically with respect to the prosecutors and the numbers needed there.

I note that last week members opposite stood up and indicated that a case had been left sitting for 18 months. When, in fact, I looked into the matter, the police report was finally completed in March of this year. It was 14 volumes of 200 pages each, which were then given to the Crown attorney who then gave it to the defence lawyer. So it is this kind of irresponsible comment that the member opposite makes that confuses the picture.

I am committed to working with the Crown attorneys. I know the head of the Crown attorneys association or union is willing to do the same.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it was just over a week ago when the minister denied that there were any problems of workload and stress in his department. Mr. Sloane goes on to say that he is setting dates until January of 1999. These are not our words; these are Mr. Sloane's words. He said that the workload is incredible in terms of what the pressure is placing on Crown attorneys.

With the highest violent crime rate, regrettably, in the country, will the Premier (Mr. Filmon) please get involved with his Minister of Justice? Will he please take some leadership and ensure that we can have the operational review, so Manitobans can have balance in the court system with properly resourced Crown attorneys offices?

* (1335)

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, that is not something I agree with. I certainly do not take the member's statistics that he has presented.

But, just in respect of the court delays, for example, I do not know whether or not the case that Mr. Sloane was referring to was, in fact, an exceptional case. I know that, in respect of the availability of court dates in this province, we compare very, very favourably to dates in Calgary, Edmonton, Victoria, Vancouver, Ottawa and Saskatoon.

We are indeed committed to ensuring that trial dates move on as quickly as possible, and the suggestions that the member makes that we are one of the jurisdictions where trial dates are the longest in coming is simply not correct. We are one of the best in the country in terms of obtaining trial dates.

Mr. Doer: The Portage Graphic quotes Mr. Sloane as saying that they are setting court dates for January of 1999, and Mr. Sloane feels that that is unacceptable. Now maybe the Minister of Justice is going to say the Portage Graphic misquoted Mr. Sloane. He has done that before in this House. Maybe he is going to have a negotiated statement for this House.

I would like to ask the Premier: does he not agree with Mr. Sloane that it is unacceptable for dates to be set for January of 1999 in the province of Manitoba? Justice delayed is justice denied. Will the Premier please do something with his Minister of Justice?

Mr. Toews: I know Mr. Ed Sloane very well. Indeed, when I was an articling student in Brandon, I worked with Mr. Ed Sloane at that time. Indeed, I have had conversations with him throughout the years.

Mr. Sloane has gone from private practice to the Crowns to private practice and to the Crowns. For a number of reasons he has decided to go into private practice. In fact, I had a conversation with Mr. Sloane at the Slain Peace Officers Memorial Dedication Ceremony a little over a week ago at RCMP headquarters, where I had a good discussion with him. Of course, he has indicated that, despite the fact that he is going into private practice, he will continue to do certain cases on behalf of the Crown, and that is certainly welcome news.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice, Madam Speaker. Manitobans now know what is behind this government's tough talk on crime. It is a could-not-care-less attitude of cuts and turning a blind eye to a prosecutions policy that is actually threatening our safety.

My question to the minister is: rather than continuing to see prosecutors miss trial dates or show up with no witnesses or mistakenly releasing dangerous people, seeing them go on bail, acquiescing in that, would the minister now, one year after we began this demand, appoint an outside independent operational review of the Prosecutions branch as they have done in Saskatchewan? Would he just stop denying there is a problem?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, there is no one indicating that there are not problems. When you prosecute 50,000 charges in a year, there are going to be issues that arise from time to time. I know the member raises occasional cases and said: this is an example of where a Crown attorney has made an error because of work situation. Frankly, every time he raises an issue, it seems that it is not correct. You know, he never continues that discussion. He never comes to my departmental officials to ask about it. He simply relies on these kinds of two-minute or one-minute interviews or 30-second clips in order to make his point.

Well, Madam Speaker, I will be prepared to deal with him very specifically on all the cases that he indicates where the Crown has dropped the ball. Every one that I have looked at, the Crown has not dropped the ball. Indeed, the member has misrepresented the facts, just as he has done in the Guimond case.

* (1340)

Mr. Mackintosh: Since other people outside his department, inside his department, victim after victim, see the problems in his department, can the minister possibly explain to Manitobans why he is so wilfully blind to the problems with his prosecutions policy? Would he please appoint an outside operational review to make sure these hardworking Crowns get the support that they need and we deserve?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the member knows very well that there is an ongoing review going on in my department. He just simply stands up and says that it should happen, and then when the results come out, he says, oh, I will take the credit for that. Well, I have a lot of faith in the Crowns who are working together with my management to in fact resolve these problems.

Again, last week, the member stands up and says a file has been sitting around for 18 months when in fact what happened was the RCMP investigation was completed in March of 1998 and turned over to the Crown. As I have indicated, 14 volumes of 200 pages were just turned over to the Crowns about a month and a half ago, who then turned it over to the defence counsel who need an opportunity to review those files. Again, another situation where he brings forward--says the Crown has dropped the ball. Well, the Crown has not dropped the ball. It is he who has misrepresented the facts.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would this minister, who today wants to talk about the Guimond case, then possibly explain why the prosecutor in that case, if he only received information from the police in March, why, for goodness' sake, did his department and his policy leave the victim in the dark and not tell the victim, Mrs. Guimond, that the facts were still not in? Why was she led to believe the matter could be set down for preliminary inquiry? That reflects on the issue--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the member is a lawyer. He knows very well why certain things cannot be discussed at certain times with anybody. The police have confidential investigations. The Crown have confidential issues that they can simply not release. But, you know, here again is a Crown who was dedicated to his job, ensured that the police did the right thing, made sure that all the evidence was there and, when presented with that evidence, he turned that over to the police.

Madam Speaker, I know that I believe both the husband and the wife in that particular case have had an opportunity to speak with the Crown and with the RCMP on an ongoing basis. If there were any issues that they had, any matters of concern, they could have raised it on an ongoing basis with the police and with the Crown.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): My questions are also for the Minister of Justice. Erick Clipping of Tadoule Lake died more than two years ago. In fact, he died on the 28th of April, 1996, in Churchill. He was severely beaten on June 23 of 1995, and the death of Mr. Clipping was similar to that of Mr. Joseph Akiwenzie, a gentleman's name that we raised in the House a few days ago.

The Minister of Justice will recall that I wrote to him in March and October of last year requesting that an investigation or an inquest take place with the Clipping death, and the minister agreed to that inquest in November of last year. In fact, his letter is dated November 18, 1997, copies of which I would like to table.

* (1345)

I would like to know why it took seven months to formally announce that an inquest would be held into the Clipping death, and I would like to ask the minister: has there been an actual date determined to begin the inquest?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, the determination of whether an inquest occurs is usually in the hands of the Chief Medical Examiner. If there was any inordinate delay here, I will report back to the member.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether or not he recognizes that the delay of over two years since the death of Mr. Clipping makes the likelihood of such an inquest being hard to pinpoint as to what went wrong.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to comment on that issue. There are times, as I have indicated in other cases, where it is important that a continued investigation uncover all the facts so that the tribunal hearing the matter, whether it is a criminal court or an inquest, has the advantage of all those facts. So there may be occasions when a delay is in fact very, very beneficial to the full hearing and understanding of what occurred.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, recommendations were made by the Chief Medical Examiner's office in his 1995 report about people that become unconscious as a result of alcohol or drug consumption, and I am sure that the minister is aware of that report. Now, following those recommendations from that Chief Medical Examiner's report and following the inquest into the death of a man that was drunk at the Pink Floyd concert in 1994, I would like to ask what elements of the Chief Medical Examiner's report have been made government policy to deal with such issues as the question I am asking today about Erick Clipping.

Mr. Toews: In view of the fact that that may well take a broader answer than simply a Department of Justice response, I would take that question as notice and get back to the member.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, Manitoba farmers do not have many advantages over other provinces, but they do have one and that is better warranty on their machinery. In Saskatchewan or Alberta, if you buy a tractor or a combine, those farmers get a one-year warranty. In Manitoba, farmers get two-years warranty, but because of actions taken by this government, this protection is going to end.

Since this change has not been called for by farmers and certainly is not in the best interests of Manitoba farmers, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on whose behalf his government is acting when they reduced this warranty on farm machinery from two years to one year?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Acting Minister of Agriculture): I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, given the reason, we are told, for this change is that prices are cheaper in Saskatchewan; however, investigations show that prices in Manitoba and Saskatchewan are equal, even though we have extra warranty, can the Premier tell his government, again, why are they prepared to reduce a warranty which gives farmers an advantage? Surely he understands that farmers in Manitoba are paying high costs for this equipment.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, because I know the member will want to have the complete answer from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), I will take that question as notice on his behalf.

* (1350)

Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the Premier if he will commit to farmers today that he will not take away this one advantage, that we will continue to have a two-year warranty on farm machinery in this province, even if it is better in Saskatchewan and Alberta, give farmers some advantages in this province, do not abandon them to machinery dealers.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, only a foolish person would make a commitment like that without being in possession of all the facts.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is to the Minister responsible for Lotteries. Recently, Madam Speaker, we have had the Gaming Control Commission come out with a so-called report, and it has now been agreed that what we are going to see are public hearings on the ways in which Manitobans will be able to decide whether or not they can have a ballot in the next municipal election. We all know that that is just not going to happen. The government has now put into place something to ensure that municipalities are not going to be able to have those plebiscites this fall.

My question for the Minister responsible for the Gaming Control Commission: what is the real agenda of this government in not allowing local municipalities the ability to have a plebiscite as early as this fall?

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister responsible for The Gaming Control Act): Madam Speaker, Mr. Desjardins recommended that there be public consultation on VLTs. This government issued an implementation statement on this issue, and the Gaming Commission right now is going out to consult the people of Manitoba to determine what their views are on the issue of plebiscite or referenda.

With the greatest of respect to my honourable colleague opposite, I think he is being precipitous in his conclusion. The issue before the people of Manitoba right now is a discussion paper on whether they wish the Gaming Commission to proceed with a recommendation to government.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the government acknowledge that, if I am being precipitous, this government has been sitting on its back end doing absolutely nothing in trying to deal with the issue of VLTs and the plebiscite issue?

My question to the minister is: will he not acknowledge that there is a need to allow our local municipalities the opportunity to have plebiscites for this fall, that we do not need, Madam Speaker, the lack of leadership from this government to have it indefinitely put off for another four years?

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, the process that has been invoked by the Manitoba Gaming Commission, which I might remind my honourable colleague opposite is an independent commission from this government--the timetable that has been designed, if the Gaming Commission is to proceed, is to have this matter presented to the people of Manitoba, on the ballot by this fall for the October elections if, and that is the big proviso, it is the will of the people of Manitoba to have this issue proceed. However, if the public consultation does not affirm this course of action, then of course the issue will not proceed. The Gaming Commission is going to go to the people of Manitoba and ask how it should look, what sorts of questions should be asked and what should be the results of this consultation.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the minister recognize that this politically appointed so-called independent board, which this minister appointed, has now allowed this government to get away from having plebiscites this fall and instruct that we want to see plebiscites as early as this fall for those municipalities that want to have them?

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I have been chided often in this Chamber by virtue of the volume of my voice, but I think there must be a glass wall between me and the honourable colleague opposite. He seems to miss the point. The point is that there is a consultative process going on right now, and if my honourable colleague opposite has his mind made up and he has a closed mind on this issue, I cannot help that. We are going to the people of Manitoba to see what they think, and then, if in fact they wish us to proceed, there is the opportunity for us to proceed this fall with this issue. I cannot make it any more clear to my honourable colleague than this.

* (1355)

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Family Services. The Lord Selkirk Family Resource Centre was established in 1995 to deal with the rise in street gang activity, juvenile prostitution and the high numbers of children under CFS care in the area. On a shoestring budget, they have established community outreach, support for adolescent parents, a group for teen boys, a community kitchen and community powwow, a parents' support group and many other prevention programs. The centre has been instrumental in bringing a sense of community back to a very troubled neighbourhood.

Can the minister explain why, when representatives from the centre made a presentation to the Child and Youth Secretariat asking for stable program funding this winter, the secretariat refused to give them a funding commitment for this prevention program?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. I really want to commend the community for rising to the challenge. I know so very often, from time to time, members of the opposition come to this House and indicate that nothing is happening and the community is not taking responsibility. We know they are, and I commend that organization.

As far as the specifics and the detail of the question that we are asked, I will take that as notice and get back to my honourable friend with comments after I review the situation and try to determine what happened through the Child and Youth Secretariat.

Mr. Hickes: Can the minister explain why, when representatives from the centre made a presentation to the Child and Youth Secretariat asking for stable funding--and given that the family resource centre has clearly said that they need stable funding, not pilot projects, and given that they are in a process of asking for only a $53,000 commitment, will the minister today make a commitment to stable funding for this very vital program to keep the whole community together and functioning for all families?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I indicated in my first answer, and I will repeat again, that I will look into the issue and discuss that issue with the Children and Youth Secretariat, get the details and then respond to my honourable friend at that time.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I would like to ask the minister: when she meets with the Youth Secretariat, will she arrange to meet with the Lord Selkirk Family Resource Centre herself to get the first-hand information and hopefully get a real understanding of the contributions of all groups that are working together, especially the Lord Selkirk Family Resource Centre? Would she make a commitment to meet with the committee and the staff?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I, on regular occasions, meet with many members of the community who are really searching and trying to work with us to find the solutions around support for children and families. I will make the commitment today to certainly meet with that group and understand. It certainly sounds to me like they are taking an holistic approach in trying to bring all services and supports together to support the families in their community. I would be very interested in discussing those issues and trying to ensure that, if it is the kind of model that we are all talking about, we look at what it is doing and what that model might be able to do in other areas throughout our communities.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, in the Postl report, which is now three years old, Dr. Brian Postl pointed out that the number of children in care has precluded agency allocation and resources to other components of the mandate, namely prevention. He recommended that the proportion be increased from 2 percent of budget allocations to 10 percent to 15 percent. Can the minister, who likes to talk about prevention all the time in the House and in Estimates, explain why there has been no change and no increase in percentage of budget allocation from children in care to prevention, and will she undertake to talk to the agencies and provide adequate funding for prevention, as has been recommended?

* (1400)

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, we have been working with agencies right throughout the province, specifically with the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency, and have allowed them to keep money that they used to use for protection to reallocate to prevention. We have put in place the Family Support Innovations Fund that has seen the Winnipeg agency hire 40 new workers on the prevention side for volume management and to work with families to try to keep families together. So money has been allocated, 40 workers have been hired in that area, and we will continue to ensure that there are partnerships, not only with the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency, but with all community organizations--like the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) has raised just in his questions--to ensure that we are not asking the child welfare system to do all of the prevention but that community is involved, along with our Child and Family Services agencies. We support that approach and will continue to work to accomplish that.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Can the Minister of Family Services tell us why, when there is a community-based organization, namely a family resource centre that is composed of a number of partnerships of people in the community, she will not approve the expenditure of a small amount of money to support this partnership, since she is the one who is always talking about partnerships, and why did she turn down their request? Why will she not allocate a small amount of money to a partnership in the community of people doing prevention?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): That is exactly what our government has done in its last budget when we allocated $20 million for supports to children and families over and above what has been spent in the past. All of that money is going into community partnerships. I indicated in the specifics around this resource centre that I would get the details and the information from the Children and Youth Secretariat and that I will meet with the organization. Madam Speaker, I will continue to ensure that the community is involved in finding the solutions that we so desperately need for children and families that are in crisis.

Mr. Martindale: Can the Minister of Family Services, who knows that the community is already involved in many programs of the family resource centre and supports the family resource centre--why she cannot find the money, since this new money she is talking about was clawed back from people on social assistance, the vast majority of people in Lord Selkirk? The money was clawed back from their income-assistance cheques. Why can she not allocate some of it for that community for that purpose?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I want to indicate clearly to all Manitobans that no family will be worse off as a result of the National Child Benefit. So the information that my honourable friend puts on the record is false. There will not be any family that will receive less support as a result of the National Child Benefit.

Madam Speaker, I have made a commitment, I think, now five times in this House today in answers to questions that I am prepared to look into the details around funding of the resource centre. I am prepared to meet with the organization, because I believe that we can find the answers by working with the community in a very significant way and try to ensure that we are not putting all of our pressure on the Child and Family Services agencies to provide all of the solutions to all families.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My question is to the Minister of Education.

The minister very recently issued another edict to all school divisions which, once again, raised concerns from the field. The edict forces school divisions to purchase 80 percent of their textbook grant from the Manitoba Textbook Bureau, even though the bureau has had a surplus for the past two years and levies a 13 percent administrative charge. The field, and I mean school divisions and teachers, has argued this will mean more costs to them and fewer textbooks and resources for children in classrooms.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Question.

Ms. Mihychuk: I would like to ask the question, Madam Speaker: why has the minister decided to make this edict at this time? Who is it that has requested this change, when it is going to mean more costs and less materials for our children?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Yes, the deputy did indicate to the field a reminder of the regulation regarding the Textbook Bureau. The member may be aware of the history of the Textbook Bureau, which was brought in to provide curricular-approved materials for school divisions. In the mid-'80s, it was allowed that school divisions could purchase, under the NDP, materials if they were not available at the Textbook Bureau. We will permit them to now purchase materials that may be available at the Textbook Bureau if they can get them cheaper.

What she is talking about is the formula. We allow a flexibility in the formula, which we are taking a look at to see if the percentage needs to be altered, whereby a certain percentage of the money provided for materials should go through the bureau because it does provide for northern and remote communities, sometimes the sole source of texts or materials and a balance of money that could be spent in the field, if they can get it cheaper.

So we are looking at that because we have had three divisions indicate that they have been able to find curricular material at less cost outside the Textbook Bureau.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, with a supplementary question.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I am going to just ask to perhaps have a short answer on my second question, and that is: will the minister listen to the field, to those teachers in school divisions such as River East and Evergreen, review this edict and rescind it?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I think I very clearly said that we are taking a look at the percentage to see if, in fact, that should be adjusted in light of the fact that three divisions have indicated they have been able to find comparable material less expensively outside the Manitoba Textbook Bureau.

But I do caution the member with that which she knows full well, and that is that the Manitoba Textbook Bureau is the only place where we guarantee that all of the material there has been vetted through for gender-bias, racism, et cetera, and that, for many rural and northern divisions, is the only place where they can get their material. So it is important that the Textbook Bureau remain viable; hence, we have always said a percentage of the money provided for textbook materials should go through the Textbook Bureau where we know the material has been vetted and where it is the sole supplier for many divisions.

Having said that, I repeat, again for the member, that of course we are going to look at that percentage to see if in the evolution of the Textbook Bureau's history--we have gone further than the NDP did, should we go further yet?

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain why she is being so rigid and inflexible when divisions--for instance, Robert Fraser states that it is extremely common for divisions to acquire approved and accredited curriculum materials from other sources at a lesser cost.

That means that the province approves it, and they are still able to get it cheaper--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I have been asked twice and I have responded twice. I have now been asked three times, and I will respond for the third time that we are, indeed, going to examine that percentage of money that can be spent at the bureau or outside the bureau to see if in fact school divisions can get more competitive prices on approved curriculum material elsewhere, and I have said, yes, we are going to do that. I have said it three times. If she wants to ask me fourth, fifth, sixth, I will keep saying, yes, yes, yes, to each of those questions.

But I do object to the preamble. I think, if she would stop reading the script and listen to the answer, make her next question come on the basis of the answer, we would have questions that make more sense.

* (1410)

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, one of the predictable consequences of school choice is that school divisions faced with declining enrollments or with diminishing funds from the provincial government will be tempted to offer various incentives to attract students from other divisions.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education to tell the House why she has not produced guidelines for school choice which ensure fairness across school divisions in Manitoba.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I think the question is very paradoxical in that in the interests of fairness to parents across Manitoba, we have permitted freedom of choice so that, in fairness, they can choose the school that best suits their needs. The ultimate in fairness that a government can provide is the freedom to choose. It used to be in days gone by that you had to attend the school that was closest to you, regardless of any other circumstances. Some divisions opened up and that allowed students to attend schools within their own division. We have gone further and said that parents may choose schools that suit their students' needs, even if they are not within their own division. I do not know how much more fair than that a person could possibly be.

Ms. Friesen: Does the Minister of Education then support the practice of offering publicly paid-for transport by one school division for the students of another school division in order to attract the dollars that go with them? Is that the kind of school choice and the kind of practice which the minister supports?

Mrs. McIntosh: I think the member needs to understand the rules that are there for Schools of Choice to put her question into perspective.

First of all, a parent can choose a school outside the division, provided that (a) there is room in the receiving school for that child, (b) that the school does not have to change any programs to accommodate that child, and (c) that the parent will not be given an automatic right to transportation, and the province will not fund transportation.

Madam Speaker, the top priority for most parents is proximity to home. Given that I think what is behind the member's question is a concern that a school division might take its entire budget and spend it on transportation to drive a hundred miles for students, which of course is an extreme that would never occur, I think if she understood the rules, she would know that there is a limit to the number of students any given school can receive. So, in terms of a school division having a bus that they can take an extra few kilometres to pick up children who might like to come, if they are willing to pay that and their budget can afford it, there is nothing that says they cannot do that. Most parents, I believe, if their neighbourhood school is the right one for them, will remain there.

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister undertake to monitor and to report to this House on the increased dollars which are being spent by school divisions to advertise their regular programs, essentially money which is now no longer going to the classroom?

Mrs. McIntosh: Of course, with any program--this is the first year of Schools of Choice--absolutely we are watching what is happening and how it is evolving and unfolding. We will absolutely--because we always do at the end of the first year of any program--take a look to see how well it has done. But, if she is asking for increased costs of advertising, she does, I think, know that countless divisions have for many, many years annually published information about their schools for the people in their own division and for those from outside division. Universities do that; colleges do that.

If the member is saying she does not want educational institutions to employ information officers, as many have done for years--in my division of St. James, we employed an information officer all through the NDP years of government, and that information officer dispensed a newspaper to the whole constituency, with the blessing of the NDP government, informing the people of the area what was going on in our schools for their information, for accountability and for the explanation of where the tax dollars were going. I think that is not an irresponsible thing to do.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.