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 a delegation of 44 doctors visiting the Victoria General Hospital in Fort Garry. They are from the Health Systems Research Institute in Thailand.

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

Also seated in the public gallery we have fourteen Grade 7 students from Holland Elementary School under the direction of Mr. Alex Northam. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan).

Also, thirty-seven Grade 9 students from Edmund Partridge Junior High School under the direction of Mr. Rick Kraychuk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

The Clean Environment Commission recommended, for Louisiana-Pacific, E-tubes and RTO technology be used to control the toxic emissions from the plant. It has been reported that on 84 occasions last year, the RTO technology did not work.

I would like to ask the government whether in fact they have investigated this matter and can he confirm that on 84 occasions the RTO technology did not work on behalf of the people of the valley?

* (1335)

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, the honourable member--[interjection] Pardon me, I was consulting with his colleague the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton). He asks about air emissions at Louisiana-Pacific in the Swan River area. The concerned citizens of the valley were consulted on the draft licence prior to its being issued. That includes the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). A clause-by-clause review and discussion of the licence, including the clause that allows Louisiana-Pacific to operate while by-passing the RTOs, was done at the Community Liaison Committee. As well, the by-passes are routinely discussed at the committee meetings. The municipal offices are advised of all by-passes. At the last committee meeting, Louisiana-Pacific's environmental manager reported that they average 250 by-pass minutes per month, with the best month having 50 minutes, and as I say, that meeting was April 21, and the honourable member for Swan River was present at that meeting.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. The Clean Environment Commission recommends that both technologies be put in place to control toxins and emissions from the plant. I asked the minister whether there were 84 occasions last year, in 1996, in terms of the RTO technology not working.

I would like to ask the government: (a) can they answer the first question I asked, and (b) will the government please inform this Chamber and the people what is their analysis, not the L-P manager's or people's analysis, but what is the government's analysis as the body responsible for the quality of air? What is the government's response in terms of the impact of these alleged 84 occasions on human health in the Swan River Valley area?

Mr. McCrae: The air emissions issue is dealt with at Louisiana-Pacific through two systems, one being the E-tube system and the other being the RTO system. The use of the E-tube system all by itself would bring emissions within limits that would not be harmful to health and thereby is acceptable to the Environment department, but when I say that, we also know that the RTO system is there to enhance the quality of the emissions, and it would be of course preferable for those RTOs to be active at all times. That is why our government supports bringing natural gas to that area, which allows the RTOs to operate in the winter months all the time without having to be shut down, but even when they do get shut down--and the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), as I say, has been part of these discussions and is aware, at least since April 21, of this matter--even when those RTOs are not activated, the emissions are within the levels that are acceptable.

Mr. Doer: I asked the minister what was the impact on human health of people in the valley. I asked him whether there were indeed 84 occasions. Those were the first two questions.

Madam Speaker, the Clean Environment Commission does not recommend E-tubes and/or the RTO. It recommends both. They obviously had a reason for doing so. It was based on a public hearing process that took place in the Swan River Valley area, and it was based on recommendations they made that both these controls were necessary to control the toxins in the area.

What action is the government going to take to ensure the Clean Environment Commission's recommendations--[interjection] Well, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) can answer this question, perhaps. What action is he going to take to ensure that both technologies are in place on behalf of the people living and residing in the Swan River Valley area, as recommended by the Clean Environment Commission?

* (1340)

Mr. McCrae: Because we agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the highest and best level of treatment is the most desirable and if it is achievable, then we should work to that goal. That is exactly why the Province of Manitoba has its money on the table with respect to getting on with transmission of gas services to the Louisiana-Pacific plant. I do not know that all the parties are fully committed to this point, but we work in that direction. Louisiana-Pacific and others and the government urge all partners to make sure that their commitments are in place and that we get that service so that we can bring this to the highest possible level of protection for the air in the area.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when the announcement was made by the Clean Environment Commission that the RTOs would be installed in the Louisiana-Pacific plant, everybody was very pleased that we were going to have the best possible controls, but I want to ask the government did they know that, even though the RTOs were being installed, they could not operate properly under propane or without natural gas, and were the people in the valley misled to think that they were getting the best possible controls without natural gas being there?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I think everyone knew that the gas-fuelled RTO system was superior to the propane-fuelled RTO system, but in any event, the E-tube system is satisfactory to everyone, knowing that we can do better and will do better once we are able to keep those RTOs going 100 percent of the time.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister explain why, when it is during the cold weather that the RTOs are not working and that is when there would be an emission problem, his department did not do the monitoring of those emissions during shut-down times in the cold weather to see what the emissions were, instead of waiting until spring, in April, to do the checking on the emissions out of the RTOs, when it should have been done in cold weather when we would have accurate readings of what was really coming out of that plant?

Mr. McCrae: That is a question on which I would supply further information to the honourable member with respect to the ability to monitor in the colder temperatures. But I am advised that these emissions are--they are called volatile organic compounds. They are called VOCs for short, and the patented E-tube system does take care of the problem to within acceptable levels. However, we can enhance the level of protection through the use of the RTOs, as I have explained. To make sure the RTOs are running at their maximum capacity, natural gas fuel is the best. That is the proposal that is on the table now, and we look forward to having that brought to fruition at an early date.

Ms. Wowchuk: We all look forward to that natural gas coming.

Given that the Deputy Minister of Environment said, should testing and evaluations indicate that control performances of the scrubbers, in conjunction with the RTOs, are not satisfactory, then steps will be taken to require the installation of alternate control technology to ensure that the highest level of controls of emissions from the plant are in place, is this something the minister is considering now since the RTOs are not working properly? Since there is no natural gas, are you looking at other alternatives?

Mr. McCrae: Technology tells us the best option is to get the E-tube system working and the RTO system working on a full-time basis. In order for that to happen, natural gas is needed. We are on record, we have our money on the table to ensure that natural gas comes to the plant so that the highest and best option is the one that can be activated.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My question is to the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). Concerns about the government's policy changes in regard to school buses and student transportation have resulted in eroded safety standards. I raised the issue on December 13, 1995; May 16, 1996; March 10, 1997; and again on April 14, 1997. Not only was it this side of the House, but it was also the trustees at the MAST convention. Now the judge presiding over the inquest has raised concerns about the lax requirements and the funding levels for school buses.

* (1345)

I ask the minister: Was the minister aware and did she approve of the now changed standard procedure of a 10 percent random check, moving away from the each-unit, each-year procedure of the past? Did she know about it at the same time she was cutting funding and lifting the life expectancy of buses?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I want to correct what the member has put on the record here. She talks about lax inspection standards. There are not lax inspection standards. Every school division is required to test every bus every six months. That is the regulation. It has been that way for some period of time. In addition to the twice-a-year inspection that they are required to do at a certified inspection station either in the school division or elsewhere, there is 10 percent of an audit done by my department to be sure that the every-six-month inspections were done appropriately. She did not put the right information on the record.

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

Ms. Mihychuk: My question to the Minister of Education: Will she confirm that it was her government that decided to do the 10 percent random check in '95; in '95 to extend the life expectancy of buses from 12 to 15.5 years; in '96 to cut the operating supports by $5 per pupil; in '96 to cut the gas-loaded kilometre rate by 2 cents; in '97 to abandon the province's responsibility to replace buses; in '97 to formulate a new financial agreement which underfunds the replacement of school buses?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): There were many, many questions there, and I know I am allowed one minute to answer, which is an impossible situation. I should indicate first of all to the member that we have not cut funding for bus purchases this year. It has actually increased by almost half-a-million dollars. We have increased the transportation grants to urban school divisions.

Madam Speaker, we have not decreased the amount of money we are spending on buses. The difference is that, instead of now purchasing the bus for the school division, we now give the school division the amount of money that is required to purchase a bus. It is now up to the school division--and this was something divisions have asked for--to either contract out or purchase or arrange for transportation in a way that they deem best for their students. Many divisions had indicated that they did not want the department buying a bus or giving it to them; they would rather get the money, which has not decreased in any way, shape or form, and they can decide on whether to purchase or lease or find some other way of transporting.

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

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, when will this minister take responsibility for the fact that we have seen an increase in the number of incidents in the decrease of safety standards, and when will this government take responsibility and ensure that our bus fleet is up to standard, as it was in the past?

Mrs. McIntosh: The member has, in the past, been on a school board and knows, therefore, the rules. The rules are that the province will set legislation and does, works in co-operation through two departments actually, Highways and Transportation which licenses drivers, et cetera, and the province which provides money. School divisions then have the responsibility for obeying the law and seeing that the rules are put into place, Madam Speaker, and she knows that. So, as she pushed for local autonomy when she was school board chair and asks for it when it seems convenient to ask for it, she wishes to take away from school divisions the local autonomy for which they fought so long and hard on issues such as this.

So, Madam Speaker, the responsibility for obeying the rules and regulations and implementing them rests with school boards, as it has in the past.

* (1350)

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Highways. My question is concerning the tragic school bus death last year and the need to ensure that such incidents are not repeated. Without doubt, there is general concern that the reduction of school bus inspections has made school buses less safe. As well, there are many more older buses on the road. Given that the bus involved in the tragic accident failed 12 out of 83 inspection points, how many so-called drivable defects can a school bus accumulate before it is pulled off the road?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, the incident the member is referring to is exceptionally hard for us to accept; the loss of a seven-year-old is a serious, serious situation. Naturally, the inquest that is going on right now will come up with some recommendations for future action by Education and Highways and Transportation, and I want to assure the member that we are watching the inquest very carefully and will very definitely be proactive on the recommendations coming out of that inquest, but I want to stress that it is premature to comment on anything that is going on in the inquest. We will definitely be looking at the results of that inquest, and we extend our sympathy to all involved in the process. It is very tragic.

Mr. Jennissen: Despite the minister's answers, it is true, though, that one of the minister's own inspectors has said that he has never seen a bus pulled off the road regardless of the number of drivable defects. So how does the minister plan to change this?

Mr. Findlay: Well, Madam Speaker, again I want to review with the member the regulation, the requirements of inspection. Every six months, every school bus must be inspected. It can either be done by the school division or by another certified inspection station. My staff certify those inspection stations. In addition, we audit, doing a reinspection of about 10 percent of the buses, to be sure the school divisions or the inspection stations are doing the appropriate audit. In addition, every driver is required to do a pretrip inspection of the major points of that bus and report them for correction immediately.

Those are the regulations, Madam Speaker, that the divisions and the school bus drivers are to live with.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My final supplementary to the same minister: What is the minister's response to the resolution passed at the last annual MAST convention which calls on the provincial government to remain responsible for the capital cost of purchasing school buses in order to ensure safety, consistency and competitive pricing?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I believe I indicated in my answer to the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) that the Manitoba Department of Education and Training provides money to school divisions to purchase buses. The amount of money that the bus costs is the amount of money they are granted. They can purchase a bus with that, should they choose to, but it gives them the flexibility, should they choose not to, to contract out or use that money for some other purpose. In the past, the department would purchase the bus, and the school divisions had no other choice in terms of deciding how to use money available for the purchase of buses.

So, Madam Speaker, the commitment to providing buses is still there. What is also there, though, is the right for school divisions to be able to have more autonomy and flexibility in how they choose to exercise that commitment.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Every year millions of dollars are tendered through the many different government departments and agencies, and the government last year moved toward a system known as OBS in order to try to get more people involved and open up the system so that people will be aware of what contracts are in fact being tendered. As of June 1, we worked toward a transition into MERX, which again is an online computer program.

My question to the Premier is that--OBS, from this government's perspective in terms of getting the departments to comply and having their contracts, was a complete, absolute failure. What is this government going to do to ensure that, with respect to MERX, contracts are in fact going to be listed so Manitobans and Canadians will be well aware of what this government is putting out for tenders?

* (1355)

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, some time ago, the Manitoba government did enter into an OBS system for an online bidding system, and the results of that system were that many companies in Manitoba, as a result of the provincial government going on that system, were able to have competitive bids on contracts with the Manitoba government. As a result, many companies that did not have contracts prior were able to enter into some contracts, as well as having online service with the rest of Canada. I think the system bodes well for itself. The transition over to the MERX system really just enhances that capability for companies in Manitoba to be able to bid on contracts right across the country, as well as bidding on contracts with their provincial government.

So I think it is a very positive system and ultimately will prove to be very beneficial to many businesses in Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Given the minister acknowledges that it is a positive system, one has to question why this government failed in terms of delivering it.

My question is to the minister or the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Why would the Department of Education--through Freedom of Information we have found out--not even apply to be put on to that particular system, did not put any contracts on OBS. What is this minister and what is this government going to do to ensure that the same sorts of occurrences do not happen under the MERX system?

Mr. Pitura: In any type of system, when you start with a system and get it up and going, there is a period of time which you have to get departments online, but you also have to remember, too, Madam Speaker, that many of the departments, with many of the contracts that they put on the system, may indeed be putting them under another departmental contract number so that this does not show up in, say, a specific department, but it forms part of the overall process.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Premier to read through and ask him to put into the Treasury Board directives that a commitment towards MERX and the tendering of contracts will, in fact, be something that this government will take quick action on so that there will be some integrity to the system, so that all departments will be participating in it, not just departments that choose to decide that they want to participate. We need a Treasury directive. Will the Premier give that?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will assure the member for Inkster that there will be integrity to the process, that we will do our utmost to ensure that we get competitive bids, unlike his leader who received a $1.7-million contract for her company without tender from the federal government.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, for the past several weeks we have been raising situations of terrible waiting lists in our health care and hospital sector which clearly indicate bad management and cuts and poor planning on the side of this government. Tragically, today, if an individual requires cancer treatment in Manitoba and they go on a waiting list, they will be No. 250 on a waiting list for cancer treatment. That is a tragedy. How does the Minister of Health explain the weeks and months waiting list for cancer treatment in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): We would certainly agree with the member that that current waiting list is not acceptable. In this year's particular budget, we had some dollars allotted, as I have discussed, to deal with a variety of these areas. We have discussed bone density, which we are working on. I am pleased to indicate today that we have approved an additional $380,000 for the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation which will purchase a further additional 7,000 treatments.

* (1400)

Mr. Chomiak: For once I would like to thank the minister for actually delivering on something.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister--unfortunately, those 250 people who are on the waiting list today, who are going to have to wait months and weeks, are waiting despite the fact there is a machine unused sitting at the cancer treatment institute because the government did not approve the funding the last six weeks, the last two months. How does that happen in Manitoba, that people wait on a list for months and months and a machine sits unused? How does this government so badly manage health care that that happens?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the reason why we get into these issues, and it does happen, the area of dialysis is another one, is because, as we fund various hospitals in terms of their facility budgets or organizations like the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, we try to predict the use that will be required. In the case of cancer, there has been an increased demand. We try to keep up with that. We approve budgets; no government provides an open-ended budget to any facility, and we have to make adjustments from time to time, as the member knows. I am pleased to indicate, with this additional money, that will allow that machine he refers to to go into operation. I believe it allows for 5.6 additional staff years for radiation therapists, and it will allow for the treatment of an additional 330 people.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, insofar as this has been an issue for actually years and several months, but specifically this very long waiting list, can the minister indicate to the 250 people who are waiting today when that money will flow--and their families--when that machine will be operational and when they will be able to get the very severe and very necessary treatment they require?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very important question, because anyone who is waiting for treatment, that is the most critical matter. I understand the approvals have been in place, the notifications are going out, and now with that approval, the host facility, the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, will be able to immediately swing into gear to schedule those patients. That is an administrative matter that they will have to deal with. So, as soon as they can gear up that machine with the people, it is ready now to go, dependent on their ability to make it happen. So I thank the member for his very timely question.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that there is some degree of variance in Workplace Safety and Health's usual procedures when a fatality occurs at a workplace. The police are contacted, as are representatives from Workplace Safety and Health, and once all measures at preserving life and reducing injury are pursued, the worksite is left frozen and left undisturbed. Investigations do not always commence immediately, although stop-work orders can be issued immediately.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour why it took the Workplace Safety and Health Branch three days to seal the worksite at the Canadian Corrosion Control where there was a death as a result of a workplace accident and why it took an additional three days beyond those first three days, in fact a total of six days, for a stop-work order to be issued for that particular worksite where the fatality occurred.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I would say that the department by and large has worked well with companies across Manitoba in terms of workplace safety and health issues in the establishment of committees and providing education to employers and employees and developing a partnership with government, employees and employer groups to provide safe workplaces. On the specifics of that question, I will take that as notice and provide that detail for the member.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Perhaps the Minister of Labour can also explain--because it is my understanding that survivors of the deceased are to be kept updated on the progress of the investigations--why, after the initial meeting with the Andrew Kuryk family in June of '94, the Workplace Safety and Health Branch had no further contact with the family until the staying of the charges in June of '95. Why did no further contact take place from the department of Workplace Safety and Health that should have been a normal process in this investigation?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, since I have come into the department, I have discussed issues such as this with the department and encouraged them to be on the job as quickly as possible and to give the families as much information as possible. I think that you will find that that is the direction that they have taken at this time.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Perhaps the minister can explain, then, why nothing was done after the initial investigation of Workplace Safety and Health. In fact, no inquest was called until the family wrote a lengthy letter to both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour requesting that further action be taken in the death of Andrew Kuryk. Why did no further action take place until the family had to contact your departments?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): These accidents are very sensitive ones. The department does a fairly high degree of investigation on it. It does take some time to compile that information and send that to the appropriate authorities.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, earlier this week in Question Period the Minister of Education argued that while student debt had increased, so had graduates' incomes, and there was no problem of accessibility in Manitoba. What is so appalling is that Manitoba seems to be alone in having a Minister of Education who appears to have no understanding of the most significant crisis facing students.

I want to ask the minister to explain why it is that she rejects the numbers compiled and confirmed by every major national education organization from the Canadian Federation of Students to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Canadian Association of University Teachers whose numbers say that over the last eight years student debt has tripled from $8,000 to $25,000 and that graduate incomes in fact have remained stable.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The member may be talking about national statistics here in Manitoba. The debt upon graduation is not $20,000; it is in the order of $11,000 to $12,000, substantially less than the member has put on the record, implying that that is Manitoba's stat. Manitoba's stat, as I say, is considerably less than that, in between $11,000 and $12,000, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Friesen: The minister might want to consult a recent survey at the University of Winnipeg, which has quite different numbers and much higher numbers than the minister's.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I would like to ask the minister to explain why Manitoba, almost alone of Canadian provinces, has refused to have a debt remission program that would provide some relief for students after they graduate and some hope for those students who now see it impossible to continue.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The member again--I need to reiterate to her, and these are figures compiled by my department this month, the average debt load of Manitoba students is $11,088. That was last year. This year it appears that it will have risen to $11,981, far, far from the $20,000 that she quotes and alleges to be the figure for Manitoba.

In Manitoba as well, the member might be interested to know, only 21 percent of university and college students access student financial assistance. So when she talks about these vast numbers of students in the dire straits she describes, she is not correct according to what our own figures show us here.

We have a learning tax credit that I have spoken about before here, the only one in Canada. That is $17.5 million students get back at income tax time.

I see my time is up, Madam Speaker. I will continue with the next question.

* (1410)

Ms. Friesen: Well, we have a Minister of Education who simply wants to throw away 20 percent of students and who is not prepared to talk about debt remission. That is appalling.

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

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Will the minister table the agreement that she signed with the Royal Bank this week, and would she tell us whether that agreement was made in anticipation of the withdrawal of the CIBC from student loans in Manitoba?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The conclusions the member consistently comes to are interesting. Other words may be used; I will say interesting for now because I do not wish to be unparliamentary.

I have to indicate that we still have the third-lowest tuitions in Canada. I have to indicate that when I say the average debt load is around $11,900--

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that the minister is answering the question of two questions ago. I wonder if she could focus her attention upon the question I asked her, which was: Will she table the Royal Bank study and explain whether it was done in anticipation of the withdrawal of CIBC as they have in Nova Scotia?

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

Mrs. McIntosh: When members opposite, as they so frequently do, have a lengthy preamble that addresses several points, which is followed then by two or three different questions, how is the member answering to know which of the points being put forward requires the answer? Now she has specified the one point she does want answered, I will be happy to do it.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wolseley, the honourable member for Wolseley indeed did have a point of order. I would remind the honourable Minister of Education to respond to the question asked.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, and I did not rise on a point of order to say there is no preamble on second and third questions. I will from now on. I will from this point on.

Madam Speaker, the member asked the question--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A point of order was raised by the member for Wolseley. The minister gave her comments. You ruled that it was a legitimate point of order. The only thing that would be in order for this minister to do now would be actually to try and answer the question. It is not in order for her to either give editorial comment on this matter or to question the ruling. If she wishes to question the ruling, she can challenge it, but she is once again abusing the time of Question Period. I would like to ask you to bring her to order.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable Minister of Education she was recognized to respond to the question asked.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would wonder again if you would remind the minister, in this case, her role in Question Period is to give answers to questions not to continually--actually she does give these kinds of irrelevant and out-of-order editorial comments. You made two rulings against the minister. Will she not accept those rulings, Madam Speaker, instead of showing contempt for Question Period on a continuing basis?

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

Mrs. McIntosh: I realize the members are sensitive because they are taking the criticism against them. All I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that I acknowledge your ruling. I acknowledge your ruling, and that is what I said. I acknowledge your ruling on not talking about anything other than the point we are supposed to be up for. If they have interpreted it as applying to them, I cannot help that. I am acknowledging your ruling, and I do not think that is out of order.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the last point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed the honourable Minister of Education should not be adding editorial comment, but I appreciate the fact that she was acknowledging that indeed she was out of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to quickly respond to the question asked.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that clarification, and I would like to--the member had asked a question. She asked, did we have an agreement with the Royal Bank because we were anticipating the CIBC would back out? No, we had an agreement with the Royal Bank, as I indicated to the member last year, when CIBC signed on, that it was the sole--the member was concerned that it was the sole bank. We said other banks are interested and will be coming on to agreements before the year is out. This is an indication that that has come true, as I had indicated it would.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Education.

In January 1996, the Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association had an article in their newsletter entitled physical education threatened again, and they were expressing their concern about this government's proposals to withdraw a required course in phys ed at the high school and, then subsequent to that, to eliminate some portion of physical education in order to teach health. The minister, at that time, wrote to the High Schools Athletic Association somewhat chastising them and asking them to print her letter which said that they were premature.

I want to ask her now if she could tell the House: What will the new curriculum be in terms of the amount of time for physical education and health education, both K to 8 and in our high schools?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I do not recall asking people to print my letter, but I may have asked to have a correction made if there was an error in anything that went out. I do recall the physical education teachers offering to print a letter, which I appreciate very much. I know that is part of the preamble I am addressing, but I do not know how we can avoid addressing the preamble. Maybe I should take that as the question. I have only answered one, so there we go.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, this is truly unbelievable. The minister said in her letter: I would request that you publish this response in your next issue as a letter to the editor.

I want her to tell the House now on this very important issue: What has her curriculum review determined in terms of physical education and health education? What time allotments are going to be prescribed for the province, since recently we had a student from Transcona complaining that they do not have enough time in phys ed class?

* (1420)

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would be good enough to table the letter from which she is reading, because it seems to be a letter to the editor as opposed to--[interjection] She was reading from it, and I wonder if she could table it because I think she said it was a letter--

An Honourable Member: Do not let them push you around, Linda.

Mrs. McIntosh: No, no, do not worry.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member tabling the letter, the letter to an editor that I wrote, which I think was different from the letter that I thought she was referencing in the first one when she said high school teachers.

However, we have indicated for some time--and I believe the member is aware of this--that, ultimately, physical education will be approximately 75 percent activity, 25 percent health. Health and physical activity go together in terms of wellness, in terms of being--the member mentioned in her rather lengthy preamble that students were worried about having too much health and not enough physical activity. If we take the picture of fitness and wellness and well-being, we know that we also have to teach students why the physical activity is important so that they can then go onto a life-long physical fitness regime understanding foods, nutrition, health, et cetera, to be a healthier, more well-fit Canadian citizen.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.