Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, first I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Mel Wilson, a gallery attendant, will be retiring at the end of this week. Mel began his service with the Assembly on February 4, 1988, and Mel has indicated he wishes to spend more time golfing in the summer, cross-country skiing in the winter and returning to ballroom-dancing competition.

Mel, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all honourable members, to sincerely thank you for your many years of loyal service to the Assembly.

Also, seated in the public gallery this afternoon, we have forty Grade 9 students from River West Park School under the direction of Mr. Gary Perrett. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger).

Also, we have fifteen Grades 7 to 9 students from Long Plain School under the direction of Mrs. Donna Prince. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, over the last couple of days we have been dealing with the everchanging circumstances of the ambulance attendants. According to the media today, there is a confidential report in the City of Winnipeg talking about the option of lockout, which almost defies the reasons for the urgent action in this House a couple of days ago. But, more importantly, we have the firefighters yesterday saying that essential services legislation could hurt almost as much as a, quote, full strike, and secondly, the firefighters stated that fire suppression will suffer if the situation is allowed to go just to The Essential Services Act. It is obvious to us that with all the presentations yesterday, both from people particularly on the front lines, the paramedics and the ambulance attendants and the firefighters that work with them, we need some action.

Will the government be looking at or be appointing–and I would ask this question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe)–a mediator to get the two parties to resolve their differences and get a settlement on behalf of the people of this community, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): I think, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, both parties were meeting this morning with a conciliation officer at the table, that is the City of Winnipeg and the ambulance paramedics and attendants. So they are continuing to negotiate at the table, as the Leader of the Opposition is very well aware, being a former head of the Manitoba Government Employees Union. There still are a number of options available to both parties. There is the option of both parties agreeing to going to binding arbitration. There is the option of both parties requesting that a mediator be appointed. There is the option of the Minister of Labour taking action and appointing a mediator, if that is deemed appropriate.

So there still are a number of avenues available to reach a settlement at the bargaining table. We are encouraging both parties to do that. That certainly was a major part of our discussion yesterday, a major reason behind the amendment that we proposed to The Essential Services Act yesterday, not to make any changes until by proclamation. So again, we encourage both parties to be at the table to work in good faith towards reaching an agreement through the collective bargaining process.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, health care support staff, as represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, had voted in very high numbers to look at the strike option. This will obviously have an impact on many Manitoba communities. Again, it is important for this dispute to be resolved in a meaningful way.

I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) today: has he considered and will he appoint a mediator to bring the parties together and get this situation resolved on behalf of Manitoba patients and Manitoba workers?

* (1340)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I know today that the CUPE, Canadian Union of Public Employees, put out a news release, and they actually in the news release say that they are requesting that a mutually agreed upon mediator be appointed. So CUPE has requested that. I have learned today that the employer has agreed to that. Both parties are going to be sitting down this afternoon to reach an agreement on a mutually appointed mediator. So again, that is exactly the point I am making to the Leader of the Opposition, that there are these options available. In this case, we have the employer and the union and employees agreeing to a mutually appointed mediator, and that is taking place this afternoon.

Mr. Doer: One of the recently created vice-presidents, one out of the seven recently created vice-presidents in the WHA, was quoted as saying that they receive their edicts from the provincial cabinet in terms of collective bar-gaining. I was wondering whether the mediator that is going to be appointed, I assume still by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe)–that usually is the function of the Minister of Labour. I would ask the Minister of Labour: will the mediator be able to work with the Minister of Health, who is one party of this dispute through the WHA according to the WHA vice-president, and the union to resolve this issue? Will he be able to mediate with his own cabinet who apparently are setting the edicts for this dispute?

Mr. Stefanson: The parties at the table are the employers and the union, the employees. Again, we do have a recent example here in Manitoba where a mediator has worked very successfully in terms of the negotiations with the nurses, where Mr. Wally Fox-Decent was the mediator through that process. He was able to bring both parties to agreement. So again, with both parties now, CUPE and the employer agreeing to the appointment of a mediator, that will take place I believe as early as this afternoon. Again, I think we should let that process continue. It has worked successfully in the past, and we continue to be optimistic that progress will be made and that an agreement can be reached through the collective bargaining process.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My question is to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Health, since the Minister of Health did not answer the question from our Leader. That question is: can the minister, any of the ministers, explain how it is that the vice-president of WHA indicates that the edicts and the settlementsC they are taking their marching orders from the provincial cabinet, that in fact it is the provincial cabinet that is calling the shots, yet the government on the other hand has created a separate multimillion-dollar body of the WHA as a shield in order to conduct negotiations. So what is it? Is it the WHA and their organizations or their Long Term Care Authority that is conducting the negotiations, or is it the provincial cabinet as was indicated by the VP of the WHA?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the system is not really any different than was the case when some members opposite were in government back in the '80s, where we even had the Manitoba Health Organization that again had certain parameters, received their funding directly from the government, which is the case today, and they go into negotiations within those broad parameters, but the parties at the table are the employers, are the unions. We have seen examples in many cases where it has worked very well in Manitoba. We now have both parties asking for a mediator, agreeing to a mediator. That will take place this afternoon, and we continue to encourage both parties to work through that collective bargaining process and reach an agreement at the table. So again the overall process, the overall system, is basically very similar to what it always has been. I just encourage the member for Kildonan to talk to the individual sitting to his right, and I am sure he will get confirmation of that fact.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister can explain to this House how it is that the minister can go out and make public statements about supporting the health workers and recognizing their need and plight while only offering, obviously from the cabinet table, the two and two that they have offered, yet at the same time saying to the workers, oh, by the way, you are essential services and you have to be part of the essential services platform, at the same time not offering them a fair discussion with respect to their wage considerations.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): I find it interesting the member for Kildonan's portrayal that the employers are only offering three twos, a 6 percent increase for a number of reasons. First of all, when you look–and I certainly encourage him to look at other settlements across Manitoba, and he will find that the majority of those settlements have been in the 1 percent to 2 percent range per year. He can certainly look at other CUPE settlements in the educational sector and elsewhere, and again he will see that the settlements are in that range. So to try and stand in this House and start to portray that as an unreasonable commitment from employers, or an unreasonable allocation, I am quite surprised at, because it certainly is very much in keeping with the kinds of settlements we are seeing right across Manitoba in a whole range of sectors. Again, I think we should all respect the collective bargaining process and let the two parties negotiate that, now with what is going to be a mediator at the table with them.

* (1345)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the Minister of Health: can the Minister of Health outline to the House the reasons and rationale behind the soon-to-be-announced closure of the gastro-enterology lab at St. Boniface Hospital because of disinfecting and infectious problems? Can he alert the House what the difficulties are and outline for us what steps are being taken to deal with the problem?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): I thank the member very much for that question. My understanding is St. Boniface Hospital will be dealing with that issue this afternoon, I am told, that they will be communicating with the public, and they will be putting forward all aspects of that issue. So I think we should wait for all information to be put forward by St. Boniface Hospital.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Yesterday in committee on Bill 27, we learned that in the event of a strike or lockout of paramedics and with paramedics deemed to be an essential service, Winnipeg ambulance service would be operated with less than 100 percent and perhaps as low as 50 percent of ambulances on the streets. Now, in a bizarre turn of events, we have learned that the City of Winnipeg is considering locking out its paramedic ambulance employees.

I want to ask, Madam Speaker: can the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour, who would normally be responsible for these events, explain how their government through Bill 27 can deem paramedics essential and then allow the City of Winnipeg to lock out the paramedics? How is that possible?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Let us first look at the issue of declaring ambulance, paramedics and attendants essential services. I think we heard yesterday that literally everybody, including, I think, members opposite, agree that it is an essential service, and the whole objective is to protect the citizens and the potential patients here in the city of Winnipeg. I think that is something I hope that we all agree, to put patients and individuals first, Madam Speaker.

The reason that an amendment was proposed yesterday by ourselves, by our government, was to try and separate the two issues of essential services from the current collective bargaining that is taking place. We do not want the fact that paramedics and ambulance services are being reviewed as an essential service to impact on that collective bargaining, and that is why we put in place an amendment that that would not come in force until proclamation. We are all encouraging both parties to be back at the table, to negotiate in good faith, as we heard from both parties, to work towards an agreement.

We have already discussed the number of options that are available to both parties. They can go to binding arbitration. They can jointly agree to go to mediation like CUPE and the employers are doing. A mediator could ultimately be appointed. There are still a number of options available for both parties to reach an agreement through the collective bargaining process at the bargaining table.

Mr. Reid: Then perhaps the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) can answer what steps they are prepared to take if this legislation, Bill 27, is to pass to prevent the City of Winnipeg taking the unusual step of locking out its employees after this piece of legislation would be in effect, effectively taking away any options for the employees involved.

* (1350)

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member, first and foremost is protection of the patient and the public in the city of Winnipeg. That is fundamental, I hope, for everybody in this Chamber. We have already made it perfectly clear that we are going to do everything we can to prevent having this become a factor in the collective bargaining process.

I also committed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) yesterday at his request that prior to us proclaiming this legislation, we would consult. We discussed the whole meaning of what the word "consult" means with both parties, being the paramedics and ambulance service union and the employer, prior to any proclamation.

So again, I just remind the member for Transcona, it is our objective throughout all of this to have both parties at the bargaining table negotiating in good faith, using every vehicle that is available to them to reach a collective agreement through that bargaining process.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, then perhaps the minister can answer: since we heard yesterday that there does not seem to be a workable contingency plan based on what we heard in committee yesterday, why will the provincial government not take the one step that will guarantee service for the people of Winnipeg and implement binding arbitration on the parties involved in this, instead of having two different laws for parties that are involved in the emergency response department? Why are there two laws involved in this situation?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Well, first of all, Madam Speaker, I do not think the member for Transcona is in any position to talk about a workable contingency. That is obviously incumbent upon the ambulance system. But the more important issue is the one that he just raises about binding arbitration. Firefighters in Manitoba have binding arbitration which was put in place in the 1970s on a unilateral basis by the provincial government of the day, did not have the agreement of all parties. The provincial government of the day put it in place. In the 1980s binding arbitration was put in place for the City of Winnipeg Police at the request of both parties. The City of Winnipeg police union association and employees and the employers both requested it, and it was put in place.

At the City of Winnipeg, the WAPSO group, the management group, have binding arbitration, again based on co-operation between both parties and voluntarily agreeing to it through their collective bargaining agreement. So only once that I am aware of in the history of Manitoba has a government unilaterally and arbitrarily imposed binding arbitration on parties without the agreement of both parties.

At this particular point in time, the City of Winnipeg has not requested or shown support for having legislation for binding arbitration. But, in terms of the collective bargaining, both parties are at the table. They have a number of ways to resolve their disputes and their issues, and we are certainly encouraging both parties to continue to be at the table, negotiate in good faith and reach an agreement.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, when the Monnin report cited Cubby Barrett, Taras Sokolyk, Gordon McFarlane, Bob Kozminski and Arni Thorsteinson, all key Conservatives, for unethical behaviour, the Premier at the time said we have looked at whether or not we can remove people as members, we do not have a mechanism within our constitution that allows for that.

We now find apparently Gary Nestibo has not only been told that he is not a Tory candidate, but his membership has been revoked.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe it is contrary to the rules of proceedings for questions to be asked about the internal workings of the political party in government. They are not within matters of government operations or the public domain, and his question is out of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We had a week of questions last year dealing with the internal affairs of the Conservative Party that let to the Monnin inquiry. The Monnin inquiry was authorized by an Order-in-Council and pursuant to The Evidence Act of Manitoba, again an act of this Legislature. The decisions and recommendations that flowed from the Monnin report were decisions that flowed and were responded to by the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The Premier made certain state-ments dealing with the recommendations and findings of the Monnin report. Those recom-mendations and the response of the Premier were made in this Legislative Building, not in PC headquarters or one of the downtown office buildings that the Tories hang out in in terms of running their campaign. So surely the affairs of the Premier and the recommendations thereof are fully within the scope of this Legislature, and I am surprised the Tories opposite want to gag this Legislature in dealing with the ethical behaviour of the Premier and members of the Conservative Party and the inconsistencies that arise daily.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.

* (1355)

Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I actually had not even posed my question. I understand the sensitivity of members opposite, but I would remind the government House leader that we just passed legislation that put into place the recommen-dations of the Monnin report which dealt with a code of ethics for political parties.

Madam Speaker, I think if the government House leader will be patient, he will find that my questions are not only in the public interest but are very much in order because I am going to be asking whether indeed the action we took as a Legislature only a matter of weeks ago is going to be applied not just to Mr. Nestibo but to Mr. Barrett, Mr. Thorsteinson, Mr. McFarlane, Mr. Sokolyk and other Tories that have broken every standard of ethics possible in this province.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I would first of all like to indicate to the honourable member for Thompson that if the question indeed had been posed, indeed the honourable government House leader would have had a point of order.

I would caution the honourable member for Thompson that Beauschesne 409.(6) specifically states: "A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government." Also, 410.(10): "The subject matter of questions must be within the collective responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibilities of Ministers."

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, then I will restate my question, and I will start again because I had not posed a question. I would like to table a copy of a picture showing honorary life member Roland Cubby Barrett and the Premier from 1996. I want to ask the Deputy Premier if the Deputy Premier can indicate that the real legacy of this government is that people like Mr. Nestibo, once there is publicity, are punished, but key people like Mr. Barrett continue in a position where he is not only a member of the Conservative Party but continues to receive favours from this government day in, day out, as we see in land deals and other matters–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, in addition to the other citations, Beauchesne 410.(17) says "Ministers may not be questioned with respect to party responsibilities." The member asking what action will be taken about those other members within the Conservative Party is clearly out of order.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, indeed I indicated to the honourable member for Thompson the two rules citing Beauchesne 409.(6) and Beauchesne 410.(10). So indeed the honourable government House leader does have a point of order. The question is out of order.

Mr. Ashton: On the point of order, the government House leader initially rose on a point of order on my question, and I had not finished posing my question. In this particular case, Madam Speaker, you did not give me the opportunity to respond to the point of order.

I would point out that my question was whether people like Mr. Barrett continue to receive favours from this government instead of receiving the kind of punishment that others have received for far, I would say unethical, but far less unethical behaviour than Mr. Barrett and others. That is definitely in order because this government on a day-to-day basis continues to deal with Mr. Barrett, continues to give him favours as a government because of his political activities. That is in order, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I find the member for Thompson's comments extremely offensive to talk about favours to individuals and so on when different questions have been raised and they have been provided information by members here showing that that is not the case, not the case at all. Again, we are certainly prepared to answer any questions that they are asking about this issue or whatever, and I think what our P.C. executive–[interjection]

* (1400)

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stefanson: To conclude, obviously what the executive of our party has shown is that we expect extremely high ethical standards. I hope that is something that they adopt and that they abide by and that they strive to achieve as they work forward to try and represent Manitobans. We believe as a party in high ethical standards. We continue to do that, and we will be coming forward very shortly with our code of ethics in terms of this entire issue.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier when he will recognize that the real offence that has been taken is by the people of Manitoba against the unethical behaviour of this Conservative government and Conservative Party officials, and when are they going to deal with people like Mr. Barrett, Mr. Sokolyk, Mr. McFarlane, Mr. Kozminski, Mr. Thorsteinson and indeed the former Jules Benson, who by the way was not even required to resign because of his behaviour. When are they going to take action for the people that are the main parts of the Monnin report, the unethical behaviour cited by Justice Monnin?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, this started with a question about Mr. Nestibo at Arthur-Virden. As the release that was put out yesterday indicates, and the member for Thompson can certainly read that, his membership has been suspended, and, as a result, his candidacy has been revoked because of the executive determining unethical behaviour. I have indicated to this House and to that member opposite, we believe in high ethical standards. We are coming forward with a code of ethics. We look forward to seeing their code of ethics ultimately. That is going to be interesting to see, and we all await that. Only members opposite continue to attack these individuals. You look at the price many of them are paying today for very inappropriate action when it comes to issues like the kind of publicity relative to them and their qualities, but more importantly losing jobs and those kinds of impacts. I think most of us should be able to identify that those are significant costs for their actions.

Mr. Ashton: Since the Deputy Premier himself referenced Mr. Nestibo, I would like to ask again whether Mr. Barrett, Mr. Sokolyk, Mr. McFarlane, Mr. Kozminski and Mr. Thorsteinson will be treated in the same way that Mr. Nestibo was. When are they going to take real action and deal with the root rot in the Conservative party that is like to the root rot–

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

Mr. Stefanson: Again, the member for Thompson continues to rant and rave and put inaccurate information and inaccurate descriptions on the record. We have already indicated what our executive did in this particular case for the very reason that we are committed to high ethical standards. We are going to come forward with a code of ethics having to do with high ethical standards.

I want to see what they are going to do when it comes to a code of ethics for the NDP party. We are all anxiously awaiting that action. We do not hear anything from them in terms of commitments about ethics or codes of ethics. What are they going to do as a party? We are committed to it. Our executive of our party has shown it with the kind of action that the executive has taken, and we are committed to come forward with a code of ethics which we will be doing very, very shortly.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Year after year we have watched a growing reliance of funding public education through property tax. This government has in essence failed to recognize the important issue of the overburden that Manitobans are having to pay on property tax because of this government's negligence.

My question to the Deputy Premier is: does this government have any sort of a target or goal for funding public education through general revenues?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Deputy Premier): Again, the percentage of the property tax bill that is related to education is very similar to what it has been for about the last 20 years. As well, the Lower Tax Commission, chaired by one Clayton Manness, a former Finance minister, along with Norm Cameron and Evelyn Jacks, three individuals who are certainly very well regarded in the province of Manitoba, are going to be looking at the whole issue of lower taxes. One of those issues is the whole issue of property taxes. A significant amount of our public education is funded directly from our direct revenues here as a provincial government.

I always ask the member for Inkster, he likes to talk about a shift, but I ask him: where is the money coming from? He never answers that question. Is he going to increase provincial sales tax? Is he going to oppose personal income tax reductions? What are the actions that he is going to take to come up with money that is currently provided under property taxes. You cannot have it both ways if you are going to try and put yourself forward as governing this province and making decisions. You have to be able to balance your books. Those revenues have to come from somewhere. But we are committed to review the entire issue of property taxes as part of our Lower Tax Commission.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the Deputy Premier indicate to the House: why is it when his party was in opposition they had a goal of 80 percent, and today it appears they do not have any goal or target in terms of funding public education through general revenues?

Mr. Stefanson: I think what is an important part of that though is, if the member were to do his homework and look at the amount that the property tax bill that is now coming from the Education Support Levy, which is the levy that is put in place by the provincial government, I believe that is now down to about 19 percent of the property tax bills. If he were to check back, he would see that that was up in the high 20s, 30 percent.

So in the areas where we have had direct responsibility, in fact he can go back over the last many years, and he will see that the Education Support Levy has not been increased for many years in Manitoba. That has been one of the many commitments of our government to controlling taxes and keeping taxes down in this province.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would then ask the Deputy Premier to tell the House also in addition to that, and to recognize that the reliance on the public school divisions because of the freezes and cutbacks in public education has resulted in increases in the property tax. I would ask the Deputy Premier to acknowledge that that is in fact true, along with the fact that this government does not have anything within this budget that gives any faint reason that this government is prepared to deal with the property tax issue.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, the impact of special levies, the other portion of our property tax bill which is related to education, the special levies put in place by school divisions vary significantly across the school divisions for a number of factors. Again, I encourage the member to look at all of the reasons. They vary significantly in terms of the actions taken by individual school divisions in terms of controlling their expen-ditures, the actions they are taking to co-operate between school divisions to reduce and control cost. So there are a number of vehicles available to control the amount of increase that would be required for the special levy.

But I remind the member, when it comes to the education support levy that we have direct control of, that has not been increased for many years. We continue to provide increases to the public education system, this year's budget alone some 2.3 percent, I believe, and again–2.6 percent, I am reminded–almost with the unanimous support of this House to approve that 2.6 percent increase to public education in this province.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

Last June in this House, I, along with the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), raised the fact that the federal government, with the support of Liberal Leader Jon Gerrard, closed the Coast Guard base in Selkirk and is stopping the dredging of the Red River. This will prevent large vessels from supplying isolated com-munities on the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

In a letter I have from the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, David Anderson, he speaks about a public consultation process, and I quote: "To-date we have not had any major objections."

My question is to the Minister of Highways and Transportation: why has this minister not objected to Manitoba losing this valuable service?

* (1410)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Selkirk for that question. It is one that is a concern to me personally as an MLA, part of whose riding is coastal area on Lake Winnipeg and who has had many constituents who rely on that lake for their living. I remember, as well, the former Liberal member of Parliament for Selkirk, Mr. Fewchuk, promising his constituents that that base would never be lost, and yet it has been. I can assure him though that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings); the former Minister of Highways, the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay), in that capacity; as well as I believe the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura) have all filed or indicated objections to the closure of that base. In fact, the Minister of Natural Resources advises me that he in fact had written a letter. So it surprises me that the federal government would not have viewed those as being valid objections.

Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, I will table the letter from David Anderson for the minister.

My next question, as well, is for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Does the minister know, or can he enlighten the House, as to the impact that the loss of both the Coast Guard and the dredging services will have upon those who use the Red River and Lake Winnipeg for recreational and commercial purposes?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I can tell the member that that will be a very significant loss. There are a number of potential dredging projects now that have been brought to my attention that are critical to continued operation. In fact, one of them is the lagoon at Victoria Beach which perhaps the federal Liberals forgot is also home to Lloyd Axworthy and Sharon Carstairs. Those seem to have been forgotten, as well the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), but they will be a very significant loss. What I find most surprising about this is the federal government continues to insist on its jurisdiction over those waterways for the purposes of environmental assessment but is abrogating its responsibility in terms of maintaining the basic infrastructure on those waterways.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. Schools built in older neighbour-hoods are often shortchanged, particularly when it comes to the amount of playground space available and often in communities which are already short of green space. Will the minister agree that the playground at Greenway School is substantially undersized for the 600 children that attend that new school?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): I would be happy to review the allocation of land made available by the school division for that school.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Education: will he agree in principle to supplement green space for those older neighbourhoods when land becomes available and affordable and accessible? Will the Department of Education look to supplement those schools which have been shortchanged in the past?

Mr. McCrae: I would be happy to review the issue, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Mihychuk: My final supplementary to the Minister of Education: will the minister then undertake immediately to take steps to obtain the recently vacated land adjacent to and south of Greenway School which used to be the home of Canadian Linen which has been recently demolished? That property is now available and is adjacent to Greenway School. Will the Minister of Education provide that land so that more children have the playground which they need and deserve?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to review this matter with the honourable member.

Mr. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. I understand the government may currently be placing new apprentices in workplaces without the supervision of a certified journeyman, one of the fundamentals of the very valuable apprenticeship model of training. I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House whether this is indeed the case.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): I probably will be able to address that matter in just a few minutes when the honourable member and I resume Estimates review.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, would the minister be prepared to table an account of how many apprentices may be in the situation of being trained by people who have not experienced apprenticeships themselves or do not hold a journeyman's certificate?

Mr. McCrae: I would be happy to review that with the honourable member when we resume Estimates shortly. I am certainly pleased to see the activity going on in the area of apprentice-ship training in Manitoba. There is a tremendous growth of that going on in response to the magnificent job done by the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) and the former Minister of Finance and the present member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), all the economic ministers in this government who have created such magnificent economic activities. We can hardly keep up with the demand, but we are sure working hard to do so, and we are doing a good job at it.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister–[interjection] She says they have a part in this, but unfortunately are not able to give the minister the answer. Could he explain how the govern-ment is ensuring that those who have not experienced apprenticeship training themselves are able to instruct effectively these new and inexperienced apprentices?

Mr. McCrae: We are getting closer and closer to the time when we can address that very question, Madam Speaker, in the review of my department's Estimates, but again, can you imagine, can you even picture in your mind's eye, the wonder of the amount of activity going on in our economy, the opportunities that are being presented for Manitobans, and more and more apprenticeship is being seen by Manitobans as the option of choice to provide for a better life for themselves and for their families in the future. On the question raised, the specifics of the question, I would be happy to go into some detail with the honourable member later this afternoon.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Between 1991 and 1996, this government cut $10 million from our provincial child care system. While we know that now in grand pre-election style the funding has been restored, the damage is done. Our destabilized system sorely lacks trained workers, which is evident in the fact that there are 1,860 untrained child care aides in this province compared to a combined total of 1,722 trained EC1s and EC2s.

I want to ask the minister, who must know that the application for child care aide requires no experience at all with children, if she is aware of the high numbers of untrained staff both those currently in our system and those currently being recruited.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question. I do not, however, accept her preamble or any of her preamble in the question, because our government has a record second to none across this country in increase and support for child care facilities and, in many instances, many very qualified people that are working in our child care system. We are a government that has expanded programming in child care centres through our EarlyStart program because we recognize the qualifications and the good job that our early childhood educators do with the children that they serve in Manitoba.

Our child care budget this year is $54 million, almost double the budget it was when we came into government and far superior to the $17 million or $18 million that NDP Saskat-chewan spends on child care.

Ms. McGifford: The minister of course failed to answer the question.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honour-able member was recognized to pose a supplementary question. Would she please pose her question now.

* (1420)

Ms. McGifford: I would like to ask the minister to tell us since she claims a commit-ment to quality child care, if she will explain how a system with more untrained than trained staff promotes quality child care.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I want to say that kind of a question is a slap in the face to people that are working within our child care system with children in the province of Manitoba on a day-to-day basis.

Ms. McGifford: That answer is a slap in the face to all–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Osborne please pose her question now.

Ms. McGifford: Yes, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the minister if she will answer this question, if she could explain to us the impact of contravening the trained staff ratio policies, and they are being contravened, if she could explain to us the impact on quality care for Manitoba's children?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Contrary to what the New Democratic Party might believe, I know that there are many, many people working within our child care system that are providing the very best care for our children in the province of Manitoba. We have increased on a year-by-year basis the amount of money that we spend on child care, the number of spaces, and I have every confidence–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The member for Osborne is being very disrespectful from her seat. I listened very intently to her questions, and I take some offence to her interruption and her chirping from her seat when I am trying to answer a question that is a very serious question.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honour-able Minister of Family Services, to complete her response.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I appreciate your calling the member for Osborne to order and asking her to try to control herself because this is a serious matter.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I think on occasions some of us have had a few words to say from our seat. I certainly have done that on occasion. I look to the minister, turn slightly to the right and look at her seatmate because I know other members have done that, but I do not think continuing on about this, on what was a normal level of exchange back and forth, is really helpful.

I would suggest perhaps that you ask the minister to complete her answer, which is what she should be focusing on, answering the question, a very important question raised by the member for Osborne.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable minister to quickly complete her response. The time allotment had expired prior to the completion of the honourable minister's answer. Quickly.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, that is why our government has taken very seriously the whole issue of working with the child care committee through the regulatory review process with parents, with early childhood educators and with government to try to ensure that as we move forward into the new millennium, we have the right method of funding in place for attraction, recruitment and retainment of early childhood educators.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.