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 30 visitors from the Salvation Army Literacy Program under the direction of Mrs. Rachelle Johnson and Mr. Murray Rider. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

We also have sixty Grades 3 and 4 students from the Daerwood School under the direction of Mrs. Gloria Wur. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).

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 and arises out of the information provided today and in the media yesterday.

In this Chamber on Tuesday of this week, the Premier stated that the floodway could handle in excess of 100,000 cubic feet per second in terms of flow, and it was the government's intention to more or less divide the flow between the city of Winnipeg and the floodway. In fact, he projected at that time that they would be sending 75,000 cfs, cubic feet per second, through the floodway and between 60,000 and 65,000 through the city of Winnipeg.

I would like to ask the Premier: In light of the fact that the minister just stated 59,000 cubic feet per second through the floodway, what has changed in those projections?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, what has changed is that my memory is not absolutely infallible, and my assumptions were based on many discussions I had had over previous days, and I got it reversed. The 75,000 is more likely to go through the city and the 60,000 through the floodway. That is accurate; that is what the minister has said. I apologize if the member believes I misled him.

* (1350)

Mr. Doer: Of course, this has some impact on a lot of our constituents who were listening to the discussions and listening to the various choices that the government may or may not make in terms of the water flow.

The Premier stated in the House that the floodway could handle, and the quote was, "in excess of 100,000 cubic feet per second." Then he went on to say that the flow would be divided. I would like to ask the Premier: Why are they not sending more water through the floodway pursuant to his original answer and closer to the 100,000 cfs that he talked about here in the House on Tuesday rather than the reversal that we had from the Minister of Environment today?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I want to just make a couple of points. One is that we are attempting to be as open as possible. We are making all information available. This is not about playing political gamesmanship as to who is right or who is wrong. We are attempting as much as possible to give accurate information.

I want to correct the preamble of the member opposite. This does not change the projections that have been given for many days to the City of Winnipeg and the people of Winnipeg. The 24-foot level that has been talked about at the City of Winnipeg has been known to them for a considerable period of time. It was the level to which they were asked to prepare their dikes. I think the range that was given was 23 and a half to 25 and a half or something in that vein, so nothing has been changed for the citizens of the city of Winnipeg or the City of Winnipeg. Its understanding was always firm as to what levels were being projected.

The floodway does indeed have a capacity that could go in excess of 100,000. That would have upstream implications, though, and it would have operational implications, one of which was it would change the levels that people were asked to build their dikes to all the way from Winnipeg to the U.S. border. So it would exceed the current levels of construction of dikes.

The second thing it would do would be to create not only the possibility but now the very real probability that the water would come through the back-door route that the minister referred to at around the height of land near Brunkild where we are building 16 miles of dike on public roadways. That would now raise that to a level that we probably could not cope with in terms of construction. So the city of Winnipeg would get the water, and it would get it in a place it did not expect it, inside and beyond the floodway entrance, and it would cause serious damage.

So these are not decisions that should be made by politicians, not here in this Chamber or not at City Council. They should be made by the experts who are basing their judgments on the way in which the floodway was intended to operate.

That is all I say, Madam Speaker. We are not making these judgments. These are being made by the engineers and the experts who know and are familiar with the workings of the floodway. They are making their best judgment based on that information, and I for one, even as an engineer, would not attempt to second-guess their judgment. I accept their judgment, and, as Premier, I am going to ensure that we do everything to support it and to implement it.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, asking straightforward questions and asking for straightforward information that constituents are asking all of us is hardly "political gamesmanship." I resent the term. When the Premier says something on the record and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) says something, I think it is appropriate to ask questions.

I would like to ask the Premier: In light of the fact that the Premier has stated on Tuesday that we could have a capacity of 100,000 cubic feet per second in the floodway, and in light of the fact that the Premier has stated that would have dire consequences on the contingency plan that is in place now in communities south of Winnipeg, can the Premier please tell the House and the people of Manitoba what are the forecasts for the use of the floodway, and what is the total capacity of the 100,000 that is available based on the planning and contingencies that have taken place in southern Manitoba? Is it 57,000? Is it 59,000? Is it 100,000? What is the kind of latitude that is within the excess capacity based on the forecasts and based on the planning and the contingencies in southern Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: The intent is that at the maximum flow that will be experienced coming through the city of Winnipeg, 59,000 cubic feet per second will be diverted through the floodway. That is the intent.

* (1355)

Mr. Doer: I guess my question really deals with--and I understand this--you have certain forecasts and certain diking and certain contingencies that have taken place in southern Manitoba. In fact, you have also had--and this is a new question--new decisions that have had to be made--and we understand that and we respect that--on the southwest side of Winnipeg and on the Brunkild side. I know in Sanford they were told on Tuesday night they would not need sandbags, and Wednesday night they were told to sandbag like crazy. I understand that this is changing.

I just want to know--there is a difference between intent and capacity--are the contingency plans in diking that have been made in southern Manitoba--can the Premier please tell us what is the maximum capacity now of the floodway based on decisions and the contingencies that have been made in southern Manitoba? Is the intent the maximum 59,000? Can they go over 59,000 cubic feet per second? Can they go to 60,000, 65,000, 70,000? What is the latitude that has been built into these contingencies plans? I think all people will want to know that. I am just asking the Premier: What is it?

Mr. Filmon: I think there is a difference between the capacity and the intended levels. The intended levels are to be used in such a way that the backwater consequences upstream would not be worsened. That is how the engineers who make these decisions have planned for the use of the floodway. They have therefore concluded that by keeping it to 59,000 they will not create a backwater effect that will create a worsening situation upstream.

They have calculated the current expected flows such that, by having the flows of 59,000 diverted through the floodway, they will maintain a flow or a level in Winnipeg at James Street, I guess it is, a maximum level that is--I believe the current projection is still somewhere about 23.5 to 24.5 feet above stage, and the city has been diking to 26.5 feet at that point, which gives them two feet of freeboard. So they are prepared for it, they expected it and that is what it has been anticipated to be. That will result in the optimum usage so that nobody is asked to bear damage in order to help somebody else. This is all a balancing. This is not something that we are doing because of political decision making; this is based on the best advice of the engineers.

Mr. Doer: I respect that. I just want to know what our flexibility is. Now James Street projections last week were 19.3. On Friday it changed to 20.4, as I recall. On Sunday, after Grand Forks, it changed to 23. Now we have the Department of Natural Resources legitimately saying: Prepare for the worst-case scenario.

I just want to know from the Premier: Is the Premier then saying that there is no flexibility whatsoever to go beyond 59,000 cubic feet per second based on the other realities in southern Manitoba and the diking and contingencies that have taken place already in southern Manitoba? I just want to know: Is there any other flexibility built in if we get major rainfall, for example, or whatever? I just want to know that, and I think the people would like to know that.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): I know the member is not intending to misrepresent the measurements at James Street. The 19 feet that were predicted, the change could go to 20 feet. I believe that was the night that the floodgates were opened when we were presented with that possibility. In fact, to perhaps give the member an example of how this can fluctuate, the evening that the floodgates were opened, the river was running 15 to 16 feet above datum at James Street. The prediction was that by morning the flows in the river would have reached 20 feet by eight o'clock or nine o'clock the next morning. So the engineers made the decision that they should activate the floodgates in order to stop that eventuality.

The predictions going back to February have always said that the outside range was 24, 24 and a half feet above datum, and that was intended to also recognize that, should dike with two feet of freeboard, which would be 26 feet, perhaps 26 and change. So it is a balance that the engineers are trying to strike, and yes, obviously, given the forces of nature, we will have to work within that flexibility. But the predictions, they have risen to the high level. The predictions today are that those levels are accurate, and we should be able to manage them in the manner that we have indicated provided we can stop any backwash, backwater from the La Salle.

* (1400)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we all hope that these numbers are accurate. Believe me, we all hope they are accurate.

What my question to the First Minister and the minister is, and I just want an answer to it--the Premier made a statement on Tuesday. We have corrected it today, and that is fine. The Minister of Natural Resources has said that it is 59,000 cubic feet per second in terms of the floodway, and that is the intent of the plan right now. I want to know whether the intent of the plan right now is actually the maximum. Because of the decisions that have been made on the forecasts and the diking and other decisions that have been made by the government, legitimately with--and I respect the decisions that are being made. Is the 59,000 cubic feet per second flow in the floodway in a facility that the Premier stated had 100,000 capacity--I understand it is the intent of the government--is that also the limit?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think we have to start recognizing that nobody here is God, that we cannot predict what might happen. We cannot say whether or not we could get enormously unusual conditions. When asked that question, the chief official from Natural Resources, Larry Whitney, said that current levels are assuming that we might have an inch of precipitation during the period of time leading up to when the peak would come through. If we got more precipitation, that could have consequences. If, on the other hand, every one of the tributaries and its flow contribution to the Red River gave us less than expected, that could have consequences. If they gave us more than expected, that would have consequences.

I have indicated to the member that there is the possibility of more capacity being put through the floodway. That would have consequences, and the consequences are higher upstream levels on the Red River affecting people who have already built their dikes and the possibility of backwater coming into Winnipeg. I do not think we should be attempting to alarm people to say this is what might happen. It might happen and if it does we know what the consequences will be, and we may or may not be, depending on when it happens, in a position to do something about it. But those are choices that will have to be made. When the choices are made, they will be articulated to people to say: Well, are we going to have less consequences by letting more water go through the channel in the city of Winnipeg or are we going to have less consequences by trying to force more of that water through the floodway? That is all we can do. That will be a human judgment decision, and we will make it on the best advice that we get from the officials who are paid and who are trained to be able to make the best evaluations that they can.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): The Premier and many of his ministers have been flying to various communities affected by the flood to view first-hand the situation, especially given all the issues that are being raised here about safety, availability of sandbags and equipment, co-ordination, predictions and contingency plans.

When I was sandbagging in south Transcona residents wanted to be assured that their elected officials and governments would be there to see first-hand the situation in south Transcona. I want to ask the Premier if he has been to south Transcona to see the water there standing in ditches of at least six feet, to see water standing in the streets a foot deep, and if he now will tell us if he has gone to south Transcona or if he plans to go there.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have not been to south Transcona. I have not been to a lot of parts of the province in which there is flooding. I was in south Transcona when I was chairman of works and operations in the City of Winnipeg during the 1979 flood. I was there up to my hips in hip waders, and I walked through all of the streets that she talks about. I walked into houses that were completely inundated up to their main-floor level.

I know precisely the circumstances they are facing, and they are not facing them for the first time. They have had flooding in that area on numerous occasions, which is why we have offered the City of Winnipeg an opportunity to permanently deal with it through the Urban Capital Projects Allocation, an opportunity that we believe is what they ought to be looking at in the long term. We hope that they will be taking us up on that offer.

Ms. Cerilli: Would the Premier not agree to come now to see first-hand the situation in south Transcona given that the city is arguing that because the water is coming from rural Manitoba, from the R.M. of Springfield and flooding into the Winnipeg sewer system, the funding for this project should be above and beyond what the Urban Capital fund allows and should actually be coming from Rural Development? Will he come with his ministers from the appropriate departments to make that assessment and to see if that is reasonable?

Mr. Filmon: Apparently, the member for Radisson either is not listening or has not heard, but the fact of the matter is I was there in flood circumstances. I was there in deeper flood circumstances than they are currently engaged in, and I do know exactly what they face, which is why--I do not normally meet with city councillors, but I did meet with a city councillor for that area on two occasions, and I am meeting with her again later this week because I believe that we ought to do something that was not done by previous governments. It was not done by the Pawley government, even though those people knew that they had to find a solution for that area.

We have now offered the money for the first time to the City of Winnipeg through the Urban Capital Projects Allocation. They have never had that money offered to them on a cost-shared basis, and we have done it. The City of Winnipeg now wants to play politics and say: We are not going to take it unless you fund it out of new money. I think that is absolutely absurd, and they deserve to be dealt with.

I would ask the member for Radisson to go and take her people to the City of Winnipeg and demand that they put their money on the line and help in that project and not quibble with us over what pocket we take it from. This is money that we are prepared to put into that investment, which they have never had offered to them before.

Ms. Cerilli: What I am asking is for the minister and the First Minister to give the same consideration for the area that I represent that he is giving to other areas in the province of Manitoba that are being affected by flooding. I appreciate they are offering the money from the Department of Urban Affairs, and I bring to this House the questions that the constituents of mine are asking.

The constituents are realizing now that City Hall is claiming that the Rural Development department should be funding this program for flood abatement. What I am asking is: Are they completely ruling that out, or are they willing to take a look and see if that is reasonable, or are they going to just stand by their offer and, as he said, have the residents of south Transcona just deal with City Hall?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I think that it is unreasonable, and I think it is unreasonable that the member opposite is taking such a narrow view of the situation. The people of south Transcona have never had--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1410)

Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the Premier cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse me of taking cheap shots when I am representing the views of my constituents and making the very argument here to him that the city councillor is making in south Transcona. I would ask you to have him withdraw those comments.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson does not have a point of order.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the First Minister has told the House today--and we accept his explanation--that the floodway can only operate to about 60 percent of its maximum capacity without having serious upstream consequences for the dikes of Rosenort, St. Adolphe, St. Jean, et cetera. We understand that and we accept that. That basically means that St. Boniface Hospital has about six feet of freeboard at this point on an inspection of that dike this morning, and so far as could be determined, no work is going on to deal with that dike. The City of Winnipeg has built an earthwork the size of the Great Wall of China down the Wildewood golf course.

Can the Minister of Health indicate when serious diking will begin behind St. Boniface Hospital?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for that question because St. Boniface is not the only facility in the city of Winnipeg that we have to be concerned about in a worst-case scenario. First of all, I think he has rightly flagged that given the levels of responsibility in emergency that the City of Winnipeg, as the municipal authority, has the responsibility to protect that building and to ensure that proper diking takes place.

I am informed in the briefing that I have with my staff on a daily basis that their intention is to begin construction of--I think they have removed some of the sandbag diking or are making some changes to strengthen and expand that dike to ensure the protection of the facility. The concern, of course, a very real one--it happens each year--is that many of the electrical cables and mechanical parts in the operation of that facility are in the tunnels below it. The facility is known to have seepage even in a moderate year, and that is what is presenting some difficulty in the continued operation of that facility. So we are attempting to manage it with the facility and with the City of Winnipeg.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, at least at noon today there was no work going on on that dike that was visible, although there may be some that was not visible going on.

Can the minister tell the House what steps have been taken to pre-position additional pumping equipment, et cetera, from his department or from other departments so that hospital's chances of maintaining operation are maximized?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, St. Boniface Hospital and the Ministry of Health--we keep in regular contact with them and all facilities that we either feel may be at risk or are receiving--facilities. We play a co-ordinating function in that particular issue. St. Boniface Hospital began yesterday--I think there was a press release about their changes to reduce their capacity in the system, but they are attempting to manage this and arrange for as much protection as they can for their facility. Again, the City of Winnipeg is co-ordinating dike construction, and although no construction may be taking place at the current time, there are a lot of logistics to do it--obtaining the supply of material, arranging for the trucks, all of those things. The actual placement of the materials is probably one of the shorter parts in that process. So because no work goes on today does not mean that preparations are not underway.

If the member would allow me as well, by way of time, because I know there have been questions about other facilities, St. Boniface certainly fits into a plan or a concern for the whole city. Members may be aware that of personal care homes and hospitals that could be at risk, if we got to a worst-case scenario, a breach of primary dikes, those types of things, we have somewhere over 1,400 beds in hospitals and personal care homes that may in fact be affected. So Manitoba Health has been working with those facilities and others throughout the province to ensure alternate arrangements are available, and we are building in essence reserves of bed space. Winnipeg hospitals will be taking in the next few days some precautions in elimination of some elective surgery and other things to reduce the number of people in facilities that are not affected so that we in fact have room should the need arise to move people out of affected personal care homes and hospitals. Within the system, we should have enough capacity to handle a worst-case scenario, and, although one never would like to hope or expect that to happen, we are certainly preparing for it, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, given that St Boniface is the only major facility outside a primary dike and given that it has taken the city two and a half weeks to construct an 800 metre, 6- to 7-foot high dike at the Wildwood golf course, can the minister assure the House that he will contact the city today and ask them when they intend to actually begin the work of trucking and compacting? That is not a short-term process; it has been more than two weeks to do the similar kind of work in Fort Garry.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am not going to comment today on the decisions that the city makes in its primary role in emergency preparedness. I would say this to the member: We are in regular contact. In fact, my deputy minister is very much involved in many of these contacts as we try to prepare for what in fact are any eventualities.

Yes, we want to ensure that St. Boniface is properly diked. As the member can appreciate, predictions, a number of things have been changing as we move through the system, and myself and my ministry are very much aware and in regular contact. If St. Boniface Hospital is of the view that their risk is increasing and work is not done, we will take what steps are necessary to be in touch with the city to find out where they are on the priority list.

I can tell the member that a great deal of work has gone on over the last number of weeks in preparing for this. The member may have noticed in many of the evacuations in southern Manitoba deliberate plans were made not to move people into the city of Winnipeg to ensure we were not putting pressure on our bed system, and we are working this through in a very systematic approach. I appreciate his concern. We will make sure that all is done that needs to be done.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is indeed actually quite encouraging to see that the different levels of government are co-operating, and we are entrusting and believing that our experts in fact are doing what they can to minimize the flood damage to Manitobans.

Having said that, as the Liberal caucus, we are going to be monitoring and put forward questions when we believe the government is potentially slipping on the issue. Having said that, I want to ask the government, with respect to the tendering of contracts, if there are provincial guidelines and policies and if we could see something tabled to that effect, what those policies would be.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member is referring to some emergency purchases that the Department of Natural Resources and other departments may be making during the flood. I can indicate to him that, for example--and I will table further information if necessary, but in obtaining services recently for materials that Natural Resources needed, they contacted known suppliers, asked for a turnaround of a known number of hours and chose a winning tender.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what I am actually referring to is the contracting in general and asking the government: Do they have guidelines, provincial guidelines and policies, that in fact they could table that would show how the tendering process actually works and the guidelines that need to be followed within the different departments?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, yes, there is a definite protocol that is put into place with regard to purchasing and tendering of contracts, and there is a definitive process that has to be followed in cases of all purchases made or tenders that are put out. My staff, I think, would be pleased to be able to put that together and supply that to the member.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wonder if the minister could indicate: What role does OBS play with respect to these tenders, online bidding system?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, the OBS system, I guess, is at the present time being replaced with a new system. With regard to the member's question, when the OBS system was in place--with regard to tendering, it is an electronic tendering process which, of course, is available to anybody who was registered under that process and could tender on a number of government contracts right across the country. So, with the Manitoba government being a participant in that, of course, all of the tenders that the provincial government would list on there could be responded to and people could actually bid on those contracts through the OBS system.

* (1420)

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, one of the principles that unites most Manitobans is a shared sense of fairness or an expectation of evenhandedness from their government, which is why one of the most disturbing aspects of this government's educational policies has been the continuous cuts to public schools at a time when private schools have, by political agreement, seen increases of 15 percent, 11.6 percent and 11.1 percent over the past three years.

Could I ask the Minister of Education to confirm that her department Estimates this year allow for another increase of approximately 10 percent for private schools at a time when the public schools have received zero?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I look forward to eventually getting into Estimates with the member so we can go through all of those details.

I have indicated on numerous occasions in this House that funding for public schools has increased by $115 million since we took office. It is a tremendously big increase. I also indicate that it is meeting the needs of the public schools. If you only need to look at the amount that needs to be raised by special levy, it is far less, far less than school divisions had to raise under special levy when the NDP governed this province.

I also have indicated on numerous occasions, Madam Speaker, that we have an agreement with the independent schools that will see them come ultimately to 50 percent of the cost of running public schools and that once it reaches the 50 percent level, which is an agreement going in stages, that 50 percent level will remain the same as school divisions continue to get their costs under control. If public schools go down, then independent schools will go down as well, but they will never be more than 50 percent of the total costs of running public schools.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, could the minister, who has on occasion blamed federal cuts for her reductions to public schools in Manitoba--minus two, minus 2.6, minus two translates into a cut however she wants to present it--explain to the House why such federal cuts are not applied evenhandedly to both sectors of education in Manitoba?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the devastating effect of the federal transfer cuts I am sure will be emphasized in the weeks and months ahead very dramatically to the people. Those cuts are real. They have had a tremendous impact, and we have not passed on to public schools anywhere near the impact that we have received from them and I say--[interjection] The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), I would invite him to ask me that question so that I can have the opportunity to answer it and may explain to the people why that kind of statement is extremely misleading. [interjection]

Madam Speaker, may I have leave to continue my answer?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: There are many who would argue and in debate might be able to argue successfully for their position, which is that independent schools actually save the system a great deal of money--$8 million per year to be exact--by virtue of being funded less and having to pay a user fee to teach our curriculum, hire our teachers and do all of those things, write our standards exams, and if we had to accommodate them overnight, our taxes would rise considerably.

Ms. Friesen: Would the Minister of Education tell the House what her response has been to her own Advisory Committee on Educational Finance, which represents all the stakeholders in education and which urged her in November of last year to ensure that she repeal, reverse her decision on the funding of private schools and that private schools be subject to the same accessibility, reporting and accountability requirements as public schools?

Mrs. McIntosh: There were several questions in that, and I trust that I will be allowed to answer all of them. I would indicate that, first of all, we are following through on a commitment made by Premier Ed Schreyer, by Premier Howard Pawley, who both said in writing that the best way to deal with this situation is to have an out-of-court settlement, a signed phased-in agreement.

We are following the put-in-writing statements of their two former Premiers, plus one Professor Gerald Friesen who indicated that the constitutional rights of independent schools were similar to the constitutional rights of Francophones in Manitoba.

I do not disagree with those people, Madam Speaker. I trust that she does not disagree with them either.

Ms. Friesen: Once again, Madam Speaker, the minister is either evading the issue or she is unable to answer the question, but my question was specific. What is her response to her own ministerial Advisory Committee on Educational Finance which has urged the reversal of her policy and accountability for private schools?

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley does not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable minister, to quickly complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was answering the question, Madam Speaker. You are quite right; there was no point of order because I was indicating to the member that--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Beauchesne's Citation 417 states very clearly that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

I would note there was no reference in there to editorial comments or the member--and God forbid that the minister is in training to be Speaker, because we do not see any purpose in having her comment after you have made a decision in this House.

I would ask you to for once, Madam Speaker, call her to order and ask her to stop abusing this House with her rambling nonanswers in Question Period.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I would remind the honourable minister, indeed, according to Beauchesne, her responses should respond to the question asked and be as brief as possible.

Madam Speaker: The honourable minister has three seconds remaining to respond.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I will simply say in answer to the third question the member posed that--because she had three questions. I think I have answered two. The one was that public schools do expel students. I deal every day of the week with parents who want to know what to do with children expelled from the public school system, and independent schools do take special needs children. Indeed, independent schools take the expelled children from the public schools to help the parents out.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. This minister and her government have kept public education on a starvation diet for the last nine years. While staff and programs in the public system have been cut, property taxes have soared as the result of provincial underfunding. We have seen private, elite schools benefiting from the sweetheart deal this government voluntarily signed. We have now seen another increase to 10 to 13 percent for this year alone. Can the minister tell this House how many staff have been cut in private schools over the last four years when we have seen over 250 positions cut in Winnipeg 1 School Division alone?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could get your advice as to which of the questions posed I am permitted to answer. She asked three. Which one should I answer?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: I will attempt to answer all three briefly then. The member, first of all, asked if I knew how many independent school teachers have been laid off. No, I do not, but I could find that out for her. She asked if I am concerned about teachers being laid off in public school divisions. I would indicate to her that in British Columbia, for example, two Vancouver school boards have just laid off 475 teachers because of budget cuts to them. When they expressed their concern to the B.C. NDP Minister of Education, he said: Tough, you cannot have everything you want.

We are not doing that. We are providing increases. If you look at the constant dollars over time, in constant dollars the spending power has increased, what you can buy for the dollar has increased.

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