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 fifteen Grade 5 to 12 students from Parkview School under the direction of Mr. Harvey Walker, Mr. Alford Wollman and Mr. Kenny Wollman. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings).

We also have seventeen Grades 9 to 12 students from Windy Bay School under the direction of Mr. Greg Lee. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Tweed).

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

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Beginning at age 12, Eva Rutherford [phonetic] was molested, raped, exploited by Harold Welsh, who was in his late 30s at the time, and when she eventually discloses this to the justice system, the minister's department plea bargained a deal allowing Welsh to go about his job for almost a year and a half before facing justice, without so much as checking this sex offender's contention that he was essential to a research project and that he would be in a prison-like environment. He was not essential; he wined and dined and gained prestige.

My question to the minister: is this negligent, casual treatment of such a traumatic, sinister crime the minister's standard for prosecuting child abuse cases?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I have been apprised of the facts surrounding that particular situation, and of course it was a difficult situation. I do not want to get into any particular names in case there are any ongoing proceedings or, in fact, if there was an order of prohibition in respect of mentioning any names, but I do want to point out that that was a particularly difficult case in many respects. As I understand it, it involved a crime that had been committed many, many years ago, and I can appreciate the point of view of the prosecutors in these cases in their efforts to obtain a conviction so that the public is in fact protected. I understand that the prosecutors did in fact their very best in this particular case to ensure that the public interest in terms of public safety was met. If the member has any specific issues with respect to how that decision was taken, I am certain that the members of my department who made the decision would be prepared to sit down and discuss that with him.

* (1335)

Mr. Mackintosh: A simple question to the minister: why is the minister, in this Legislature today, defending this plea bargain, this arrangement entered into with this sex offender? Why?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, my job as the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice is to ensure that justice is in fact done within the laws that we have that guide the conduct of the prosecutor. If this member is suggesting that our prosecutors somehow broke the law or broke some kind of a standard that is not acceptable, why does he not say it directly instead of again making these kinds of broad allegations against hard-working members of my department who only have the best interests of the people of Manitoba at heart?

Mr. Mackintosh: Would this minister please try to understand the torment caused to this victim, understand the wrong message given by this bargain based on untested, unconfirmed information given by a sex offender? Would he not admit that this is not some isolated incident but like cases like the Bauder babysitter case, a plea bargain that the minister again defended, like cases I brought in here on Monday? There is a pattern of child sexual abuse cases that are not being vigorously prosecuted?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, my prosecutors prosecute thousands of cases, and I know how difficult these types of cases are, especially cases that involve children who have been sexually abused many, many years ago. If this member, for one moment, thinks that it is easy for the police or if he thinks that it is easy for the prosecutors to make the tough decisions that they have to do, why does he not go back to law school? Why does he not go see what it takes to prosecute a case?

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that our police forces and our–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I would like to on a point of order cite Beauchesne's 417: the answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.

I listened to all three questions very carefully by the member for St. Johns in which he asked the minister specific questions relating to a prosecution and/or a botched prosecution with respect to the Department of Justice, and on all three occasions the minister has insulted the member, the minister has chosen to not answer the question. I ask you to call the minister to order as you called the member to order when he posed the question. Ask him to either answer the question as posed and not provoke debate, Madam Speaker, or sit down.

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

Mr Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, there was a question that was put to me in respect of policy. I answered the issue in respect of policy. In respect of the specific case, I said, rather than make general, vague accusations about the conduct of the case–and notice he does not bring any details of the types of decisions that had to be made along the way. Then I invited the member to sit down with members of my department as to why they made the decisions they did. I support that kind of interaction between the member and members of my department who are responsible for the prosecution. So I will facilitate that kind of meeting, and I made that very clear in answer to his question.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I would agree with the honourable member for Kildonan. I would remind the honourable Minister of Justice to not provoke debate when responding to a question.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, today is the internationally recognized day of mourning for those workers who have been injured or killed on the job. We not only mourn for the workers killed, but we fight for the living, including survivors of workers who were killed on the job.

Today we are joined by some 20 members of the WCB Widows Action Group who have joined us and are sitting here in the gallery today. These widows and many others have had their survivor pensions terminated by the Workers Compensation Board due to remarriage, which is contrary to the Manitoba Human Rights Code and is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I want to ask–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Transcona please pose his question now?

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Madam Speaker. For all those acting premiers over there, I will pose the question to them.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The member was asked to pose his question now, not debate with the members opposite.

* (1340)

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the Acting Premier–whoever that person is today–to please explain to the widows why for 11 years this government and the Workers Compensation Board have treated widows as ping-pong balls, bounce back and forth, refusing to deal with the restoration of widows' pensions, as was recommended by the King commission report in May of 1987. I will table a copy of that recommendation that this government did not act on when they amended the act in 1992.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Transcona for this opportunity to answer that question and to speak through this Chamber to the individuals in question.

I do not want to cast any aspersions upon any government, whether it was the honourable member's party that was in power in 1985 or anybody else who was in power in 1985, as to why this issue was or was not appropriately addressed in 1985. The law up till 1985 was very clear, and in the values and times of the pre-1985 pre-Charter issue, if anybody remarried as a widow after having lost a partner or widower having lost a partner, then they automatically lost their compensation rights. Post-1985, there was basically a means test instituted, and in 1992 the regime was changed again to issue compensation over a term of years.

I can tell this Chamber that I have met with the widows. I have taken legal counsel on this issue, and we are at the present time reconsidering the entire issue. I, in fact, had an opportunity to speak to these individuals today at the Union Centre to share this information with them.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the Acting Premier or the Minister of Labour to explain why, in 11 years, his government has not brought forward legislation to restore these widows' pensions, since the WCB states that the restoration of these pensions for some of the widows will require a further amendment of The Workers Compensation Act to restore those pensions. Why in 11 years has your government not acted on that information?

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

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I think it is futile and perhaps even feckless to go back and try to effect revisionist thinking on the issue. I think that we are looking at a problem today, and we have an issue that has been brought to my office today. I am prepared to tell this Chamber, my colleagues in this Chamber and the individuals in question that I am prepared to look at this matter today and come up with a solution today.

To go back and be recriminatory, I think solves no positive issue.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the same minister, Madam Speaker, since he refused to give this commitment to the widows when he met with them earlier–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Transcona, there is no–[interjection] Would the honourable member please pose his question now?

Mr. Reid: Will the Minister of Labour, who refused to act on the request of the widows some years ago when they made this request and as recently as this year, Madam Speaker, indicate if all of the widows whose pensions were terminated will be reinstated back to the date of marriage or to the date of Charter compliance, and is he prepared to bring forward legislation in this sitting of the Legislature before the coming provincial general election to restore those widows' pension benefits?

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in advising the member for Transcona that at the present time the Workers Compensation Board have made a reserve of a significant amount of money in order to address some of the deficiencies of the program that was instituted under a previous administration, and the Workers Compensation Board adjudicators will be working through the group of individuals in question.

As to my honourable colleague's second part to his question, at this point in time I can tell honourable colleagues that what was initially posed to me within the last month was, in fact, not a matter of compassion, not a matter of need–and that is a direct quote from the interview that I had with the individuals in question–they posed a Charter argument. I have satisfied myself that, in fact, there is no merit to the Charter argument that is posed; however, I think that there is a human issue which supervenes the allegations that were made or the request that was made, and it is to that human issue and the human need that we are rising to meet.

* (1345)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to table a copy of a Freedom of Information request that we received that details the close to $500,000 worth of advertising put in place by this government in a desperate attempt to prop up its political fortunes. I would like to ask the Acting Premier if they can explain to Manitobans why they saw fit to spend this close to $500,000 instead of putting it where it is needed, fixing our health care system, not trying to prop up this failing government.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Premier): Madam Speaker, it has to be with his tongue firmly clenched in his cheek that the member opposite asks that question, considering the record of his government and the public dollars that were spent in promotions during the sad time that they were in government. The people of Manitoba have a right to know the correct information and the progress that is being made in health care in this problem and that we are dealing with actively. I suggest that he should not hurt himself by biting on his tongue when he asks a question like that.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, the only people hurting are the people of Manitoba who want money spent on health care, not on politically motivated ads.

My supplementary, Madam Speaker, is: I wonder if the Acting Premier can explain how the Winnipeg Health Authority ends up being part of this advertising campaign, but when it is convenient for them they say it is arm's length. What is it? Are they arm's length, or when it came to this, are they a direct part of this propaganda campaign by the Conservative government?

Mr. Cummings: Obviously, they believe that the people of this province deserve the facts, and they have undertaken to make sure that they are provided with that.

Mr. Ashton: My final question is in regard to whether there is any policy–and I want to ask the Acting Premier if when the then Minister of Finance, now Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson), said that he had staff working on this issue, we are undertaking it, we take it very seriously–that was in 1994–I am just wondering when we are ever going to get a policy on advertising from this government, or is it going to be conveniently after the next election when once again we have seen them spending $500,000 of the people's money for what should have been paid for by the Conservative Party?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, obviously the member for Thompson takes some umbrage when he realizes that the people of Manitoba, when they are apprised of the full facts, understand the changes that are underway in health care and understand the requirements of any responsible government to deal with that and to keep them informed.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, a question to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the minister held a press conference about a joint police force's intelligent unit on gangs. It is regrettable that the province known as the gang capital of Canada is one of the last to get a joint forces unit, and even now it is still talk.

My question to the minister is: would he admit that there is no agreement with any municipal police forces, with any First Nations police forces, with any Canada Customs, with the city of Winnipeg police? What kind of a joint operation is one police force?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I wanted to avoid the mistakes that his counterparts the NDP government in B.C. made when their joint forces task force fell apart. What we want to do in this particular case is to work with the RCMP, which is our provincial police force, and give them the assurance that we are committed to an ongoing joint forces intelligence unit, not simply on an operational basis but an ongoing basis. The agreement between the RCMP, as our provincial police force indicates, is that they now continue to work with the other municipal police forces who in fact have drafted a plan for the consideration of the department and for further discussion between police forces, and very importantly the city councils that fund the municipal police forces.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who also knows there is no funding arrangement or commitment, there is no agreement on a time limit, there is no technology deal, there is no guarantee of anything, explain to Manitobans why the chiefs of police of the Winnipeg Police Service and Brandon police, who comprise the executive of the Criminal Intelligence Service of Manitoba, who put forward this proposal, were neither invited nor, more importantly, were not signatories to this agreement, especially when Winnipeg–

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

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, again the member seems to misunderstand the role of the RCMP vis-a-vis the provincial government in this province. The RCMP is our provincial police force. The province does not run municipal police forces, and that is a very clear understanding that I have with the mayors of the communities and indeed the mayor of Winnipeg and the specific councillor who is responsible directly for the police. So my role as Minister of Justice is to ensure that the police force that we fund, the RCMP, $53 million a year, fulfills the mandate of public safety and works in the best interests of all Manitobans. Some of that then ensures that working together with the municipal police forces in implementing this plan on an ongoing basis is taken care of. I know that both the assistant commissioner and the chief of Winnipeg and other chiefs will work together on the implementation of a plan.

* (1350)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister admit that this answer and his announcement could in fact harm a co-operative effort on gangs, that yesterday's announcement was a photo op for the purposes of an election to make it look like the government was concerned about a problem it helped create?

Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, it was interesting that it was the RCMP that proposed the establishment of this ongoing unit and that we had discussions on that. I said to the RCMP, bring forward a plan. The RCMP consulted with other municipal police forces. They brought forward a plan and as the Justice minister of the province of Manitoba, on behalf of the government of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba, said to the RCMP, this is a good direction to be going in. We want this kind of a unit in Manitoba. Please work together with all of the heads of CISM, the Criminal Intelligence Service of Manitoba, and the municipal police forces to see that this becomes a reality.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Lotteries.

Recently, Madam Speaker, it was brought to my attention by a constituent that the Manitoba Gaming Control Commission released the '97-98 annual report. As all members of this Chamber know, this particular commission is supposed to be independent, in particular independent of Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. Yet, if you read the annual report, you will find that the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation has indeed given a $240,000 grant to the commission. My question to the minister is: what does that grant do to the so-called independence of the Gaming Commission?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, as a new minister coming into this portfolio, it would be my understanding that that is the means by which the Gaming Commission is funded in its operation. It is not, I believe, a conditional grant made in which the Lotteries Commission would have discretion, but rather it is a means of ensuring that the Gaming Control–at least that is my understanding. I will endeavour to confirm that with my staff and report back to the member.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the question to the minister responsible is for him to recognize that there is a budget of $1.5 million, of which they got a $240,000 donation.

Madam Speaker: Question.

Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the minister is: was it not the government's policy that the Gaming Commission be independent of Manitoba Lotteries, and if in fact that is the case, then why are they receiving money from the Manitoba Lotteries?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member is correct in his observation that the purpose of the Gaming Control Commission is to be independent, is not part of the Lotteries Commission. In fact, it answers to this Assembly via a different minister, that being the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Render). There is quite likely a very logical reason for that. It could be the pension benefits, one of my colleagues outlines. It could be part of that establishment of their funding or operation.

I will endeavour to get an answer for the member as to the specifics of that matter, but I can assure him it is not meant in any way by the Lotteries Commission to be some sort of an inducement to produce decisions that the Lotteries Corporation would desire.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, a final supplementary. In the annual report, it indicates very clearly that the number of charitable licensed events has gone down considerably year over year. Is the minister aware of the gaming policy that this government has brought in and the impact it has had on charitable organizations' abilities to be able to generate funds?

* (1355)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, having in one way or another, as an MLA, over a decade, been involved with the lottery issues, I can remember, when I first stood for public office, one of the issues had been actually the government getting involved–and it had been a previous administration–in gaming and lotteries and taking over the role of an organization that used to be called, I think, Total Community Involvement that had initially the responsibility for dealing with all of these ticket sales and things for community organizations. Government has taken over because the interest in the public in other various forms of gaming and lottery tickets and like consumers looking for new products has certainly grown. I think in all jurisdictions we have seen an increasing role.

In terms of supporting community organizations, a fairly sizeable portion of dollars or revenues from the Lotteries Corporation does go back into the communities through things like the Community Places Program, through a variety of grants to communities that are made out of that fund. So there is a return to communities.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I would like to rise at this point and respond to a question that was put to the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon) yesterday which he took as notice and directed the Minister of Labour to return. It was a question levelled from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), where I quote from the record: "Will the Premier explain why the Fire Commissioner's office can provide services to Libya, to Cuba, to Chile, to Brazil, to Argentina, but they cannot ensure that the inspections of our very schools to which our children go every single day are inspected by the Fire Commissioner's office? Is this the way you operate your government?" That was the question.

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that there has been no relationship with Libya and our Fire Commissioner's office. There has been no relationship with Argentina and our Fire Commissioner's office. In fact, what the Fire Commissioner's office did was gather together some excess fire equipment and send it off to South America as charity. Further, I mentioned yesterday that the Fire Commissioner's office is an education resource, and there were some members who came from Cuba, paid for by the Cuban government, to our Fire Commissioner's office for instruction, for knowledge, for improvement so that they could take our knowledge from Manitoba back and help their people in the Caribbean.

Madam Speaker, in addition, the Fire Commissioner's office will, on request from any municipality or any facility, do an inspection. If there is a request by the facility, there will be a charge.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, the member just indicated and confirmed what we had said yesterday, that, in fact, the Fire Commissioner's office is inspecting the schools, the daycares, the personal care homes and other facilities involving the public on a fee-for-service or a profit basis. He just confirmed our comments of yesterday.

I want to ask this minister then: who is telling the truth? The previous Minister of Labour, now Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), when he said in Estimates last year–and I will quote the date, Thursday, April 16, 1998, when the minister said that there are efforts on behalf of the Fire Commissioner's office to contract to the services that I mentioned yesterday, including the very countries that the minister just referenced: Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Cuba and others.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the honourable Minister of Labour, I would like to remind all honourable members that when one is either posing a question or responding to a question, the words "to tell the truth" have been ruled unparliamentary on numerous, numerous occasions. So I would suggest the honourable member pick and choose his words very carefully.

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I wanted to continue to advise my honourable colleague that if there is a request from a local fire department to the Fire Commissioner's office for any sort of support, this support is furnished free of charge. There is no charge for a fire inspection, for a building inspection, on account of fire if it comes from a local fire department or from a municipality. So I am sure that my honourable colleague will be enlightened with the truth of this matter, and I would ask him to take this to heart.

Madam Speaker, The Fire Prevention Act has never mandated that the Fire Commissioner's office do these sorts of fire inspections. They do it as a matter of courtesy. They do it because they are a centre for knowledge. They are a resource in our province, and they should be congratulated and lauded rather than criticized by members opposite. I take umbrage at the aspersions levelled by the member opposite to the Fire Commissioner's office on this issue.

* (1400)

Mr. Reid: Then, Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister because yesterday the concern was for the safety of the staff and the schoolchildren that attend our schools in every part of this province–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the minister to confirm–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his question.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the minister then: which one is being straight up with Manitobans–the minister who says that he will provide these services for free, or the former Minister of Labour, now Minister of Finance, who said on Wednesday, May 21, '97, "The objective, of course, is to balance the budget and even turn a profit if we can."?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I think that certainly there are aspects of the honourable member's question that should be viewed by all of us in a very serious way. All public schools are constructed or renovated according to applicable standards and codes of the province or local government authority. After that, the ongoing safety and maintenance considerations accruing to schools, including fire inspections, become the responsibility of the owners of the buildings, that being the school divisions or districts, and their administrative offices.

School divisions and districts, as owners of permanent school buildings and some portable structures, are also the insured parties with respect to fire insurance and other related policies. Consequently, it will be up to the school boards, doubtless in consultation with the MAST, Manitoba Association of School Trustees, to establish–[interjection] Well, Madam Speaker, I thought the honourable member for Transcona was serious about the safety of our children when he asked the question. I am serious about the safety of our children. I am trying to share some information with my colleagues in this House.

There should, of course, be established a mechanism and a schedule for inspections of schools and for fire safety planning generally. MAST currently recommends that all public schools be inspected annually by a competent qualified fire inspector, and there is some discussion about raising the standards to two inspections per year. My department, in response–and I thank the honourable member for Transcona for this–to this issue is following this up with the MAST to find out the present status of their recommendation.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

At least nine First Nations have a direct interest and need for economic development on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. A draft agreement with Pine Falls Paper Company would increase cutting rates by 700,000 cubic metres extending north of Berens River and could have long-term economic implications for these bands; yet they have been told the agreement is to be signed with or without their input.

I would like to table a copy of the memorandum of understanding, unsigned memorandum, and also a letter from Chief Louis Young of the Bloodvein First Nation. In Chief Young's letter he indicates that the signing of the memorandum of understanding without our direct participation would be a breach of our constitutional rights.

Can the minister indicate what the legal implications for the project are if First Nations are not brought to the table?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, the member brings forward an issue that is quite troublesome and one which perhaps he has been a little bit ill-informed on because, in the most recent meeting that occurred, the company that now owns Pine Falls Paper was interested in having signatories which would include equity investors which would include the First Nations communities who were prepared to become involved in the future operations on the east side of the lake. The meeting did not reach a conclusion, and there was no meeting of the minds on where they wanted to go with this.

I hope the member would be broad-minded enough to appreciate the fact that Pine Falls, as they were traditionally known, is making a sincere and ongoing effort to co-operate and to involve the First Nations and the northern communities on that side of the lake because undoubtedly this is very important for their future and the development of that opportunity they need to be part of.

Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, this government's track record of including First Nations is not a good one.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question to which there should be no preamble.

Mr. Struthers: Will the minister indicate what the timelines are for the signing of this memorandum and whether the signing will be conditional on First Nations participation in the memorandum?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I think the member for Dauphin–and I would hope everyone else who is concerned about this–would appreciate that there are no deadlines, that this is a development opportunity that the people on the east side of the lake in conjunction with this major pulp and paper company, along with a possibility for sawmill operations, can change and move forward in the future opportunities within that area. We have set no deadlines. We are not dictating the conditions of an agreement. We are saying, even in the development of the road on that side, which is very much tied to the opportunity for harvesting of forest for either lumber or pulp or a combination of the two, that we intend to seek and receive co-operation and sign-off in those areas so that we are not seen to be treading in areas where we would be unwelcome or where the opportunity is not wanted. It is intended to be a process that would be very inclusive.

Mr. Struthers: Does the minister not understand, given recent court decisions like Delgamuukw on the west coast and others, that he puts at risk the opportunities and the jobs that he talks about if he continues to leave out First Nations and ignore their constitutional concerns?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I am disappointed and frankly hurt that the member would indicate that he believes we would proceed to put deadlines and force development in this area without significant input and without opportunity for the communities. That is one of the basic tenets of a potential agreement: the communities are part of it, do have an opportunity for a buy-in. In fact, the problem is, as the member knows full well, and I believe he is trying to exploit the differences between the communities themselves on what they see for their future opportunity, because there are some of these communities prepared to be co-investors; they want to be equity holders, they want to participate, but there are other communities that have not yet reached that agreement, and we are going to have to work with them.

* (1410)

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I want to raise again with the government its contribution to the growing problem of inactive and unfit young people in our province. The Minister of Education may know that his home school division in Brandon has approved a reduction of physical education and health teaching time that is far below the curriculum recommendation guideline of 180 minutes per six-day cycle. Grades 1 to 6 will only receive 90 minutes or half the recommended amounts in the curriculum. Given that we have been waiting three years for a new curriculum which would help reverse this trend and clarify what is expected in Manitoba in physical education and health education, I want to ask the minister why his department is planning to release the long-awaited new curriculum next October rather than prior to the beginning of the school year in September so we do not go another year in Manitoba in this vacuum of no curriculum in health and physical education?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is interesting the honourable member should raise that. I was just in the grocery store last weekend getting some groceries and happened to discuss this very matter with one of our teachers in the Brandon School Division. I listened to what this teacher had to say and suggested that is a good topic for discussion at the local level. My concern is also in response to the honourable member's question that whatever it is that is mandated by the provincial authority, it is something that needs to be carried out, and I think what I am hearing in the honourable member's question is that maybe that is not happening. I do need to address that if that is the allegation. I would certainly want to take that up with the school division.

With respect to the second part of the honourable member's question, I need to get some sense from her, I suppose, where it is the opposition wants us to go. I am not always sure I want to go where they want me to go, I am pretty certain I do not want to go where they want to take me, but I would at least like to understand where it is they want me to go, and that is something that is very unclear from honourable members opposite.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I am going to table a study from the University of Winnipeg for the minister that shows that over 50 percent of the grades in Manitoba are below the 180 minutes for phys ed and health education that is required.

I want to ask the minister: is he aware of this, and how will he ensure that the new curriculum, which is going to recommend 180 minutes of phys ed and has a number of outcomes requiring 180 minutes of instruction, how is that curriculum going to be met when some schools are only teaching for 60 minutes?

Mr. McCrae: I am sure, in due course when this curriculum does come forward, that the issues raised in the honourable member's question will no doubt be addressed. The reason I say that is the curriculum that we have been developing in this province has been the result of an extremely inclusive process.

I hear honourable members, for example, complaining about various aspects of curriculum, and I have to remind them that it is Manitoba teachers building Manitoba curriculum in Manitoba for Manitoba students, and we will be guided by that input. We will be assisted greatly by that input. But I do believe that if there are any shortcomings in the present situation, and I am not saying there are or are not because so often we are led to believe certain things in this place that do not really turn out to be that way. I simply say that, as we implement the curriculum, I am sure some of the concerns the honourable member has will be addressed.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.