Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the loge to my left where we have with us today five members of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan: the Honourable Eric Upshall, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and MLA for Watrous; Mr. Dale Flavel, MLA for Last Mountain-Touchwood; Mr. Jack Langford, MLA for Saskatchewan Rivers; the Honourable Andy Renaud, MLA for Carrot River Valley; Mr. John Wall, MLA for Swift Current.

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, over the last five years this government, this Premier, has cut public education by minus 2 percent, minus 2 percent, zero prior to the election, minus 2 percent after the election, and again another zero percent last year. Parents have talked to us about the difficulties their children are having with these cutbacks in their public schools. Taxpayers are concerned about the massive property tax increases based on these funding cutbacks, and of course kids feel that this government is robbing their future with a reduction in their curriculum and opportunities in their schools.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): will he now agree to take some of the $600-million lottery funds and other funds that are in the fund that the government has and reinvest some of that money in public education and go beyond the zero percent funding commitment they have made so kids can have a future again here in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member refers to percentage cuts in a few select years of depression and transfer cuts from Ottawa. The member does not refer to the fact that this year we have put $115 million more into public schools alone than they put in when they were in office in their last year of office.

The member also talks about increases in school taxes, not remembering that increases put in place by school boards during their tenure as government were higher percentage increases than increases put in under this government by school boards. Madam Speaker, we indicated, when we provided a slight increase to the schools last year, that we would guarantee them a minimum amount this year. We were not able at that time, nor am I able at this time, to say what the amount this year will be, but we indicated last year--and it was a great benefit to school divisions in terms of multiyear planning--that at least they could count on a minimum.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the government's own report written by Greg Mason from Prairie Research Associates states that the, quote, Department of Health, Department of Education and the Department of Family Services are fragmented in this government, and secondly, they go on to state that the cutbacks have reduced services in all three departments and reduced services for our children. They actually recommend that we go to the Saskatchewan strategy for kids, an action plan for children, and a broader strategy in government.

Will this Premier finally do the right thing and take the broader Saskatchewan strategy and reinvest in our children and reinvest in our future?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I do not know whether or not Saskatchewan is also going for a 32-hour workweek as these New Democrats are--[interjection] Well, I think that philosophically they are closer to this government than they are to the members opposite. I am tempted to say I know Roy Romanow and this Leader of the Opposition knows Roy Romanow.

In any case, I would say to the member opposite that we have recognized, as governments right across Canada have, that there is a need to co-ordinate social services. There is a need to have interdepartmental co-operation and co-ordination. That is why we have set up the Child and Youth Secretariat that involves making solutions child-centred so that we bring together Family Services, we bring together Education, we bring together Justice, and we bring together Health and the relevant departments so that we can address the needs of the child in a holistic fashion. We know that that is a better way to go in the future, and indeed that is what will improve the services to those children of Manitoba.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Premier certainly has his talking points, but he has no action points for kids and their future.

Today the Canadian Council on Social Development talked about the need to integrate health and education and social services for our kids. They condemned provinces like Manitoba that have cut back the Children's Dental Program. They condemned Premiers like the one opposite for cutting back children's dental programs in the province, and they praised provinces like Saskatchewan that have taken a long-term, integrated view with resources, with funds, with investments.

Why is this Premier content to be condemned by an independent body, and why will he not have the long-term strategy with real action like Saskatchewan that is getting praised on the national stage?

Mr. Filmon: Our government acted very early on in our mandate--for instance, in 1989 we brought into place one of the richest systems of child tax credits anywhere in Canada, raising I believe it was from $50 to $250 the child tax credit that involved an expenditure of something in the range of $30 million annually to reinvest in the children of this province, in families with children. We will continue to reinvest in our children, and we will continue to build--[interjection] Well, Madam Speaker, the members opposite are always critical. I know that they take a look at every silver lining to try and find the dark cloud behind it. You know, the Prince of Darkness over there comes up with his comments time after time after time.

But the fact of the matter is that our children in our public schools continue to do well in various different analyses. We have the recent one that said that, in terms of literacy, they are among the tops in the country because of decisions that have been made, priorities that have been set by this government.

* (1345)

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, this government has continued to make regular cuts, not selective cuts but regular cuts--minus two, minus two, minus two, a cynical zero as an election approaches, and what they have done is created deficits greater than dollars for Manitoba's young people. Meanwhile, away from the public eye, the minister has increased the grants to private schools from $16.4 million to $30.2 million. I would like to ask the minister to confirm that on a per-student basis, this has meant an increase over the last five years for private schools of more than 45 percent per student.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): As I indicated, we have increased funding to public schools by $115 million as we took office. Just as we are seeing a lot of comparisons with Saskatchewan--and I work through the Council of Ministers of Education with ministers from Saskatchewan, for whom I have admiration--we face many of the same problems, but I should indicate that Saskatchewan spends less on a per-student basis than any province west of New Brunswick, so I think they should maybe be careful. If they are going to get into those comparisons, we can have a lot of fun with them.

Madam Speaker, in very public announcements, we indicated that funding to independent schools would rise to 50 percent of the cost of public schools. Independent schools currently receive half, approximately half the cost of public school students, and we made that a very public announcement. It has been no secret. I do not know why the member seems to feel it was. Perhaps she was not listening when we were telling people all of this information about education in Manitoba. We are responsible for all education in Manitoba, including home schooling, nonfunded schools, funded schools and public schools, and we believe in treating all students, giving them the best opportunity possible.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask the minister why she refuses in this House, time after time, and she has done it again today, to be accountable to Manitobans for the more than $30 million of public money that goes annually to the private sector. Will she at least table an annual report in the Legislature on private schools indicating to the taxpayer how that money has been spent?

Mrs. McIntosh: Indeed, the member is correct. We provide some $30 million to independent schools and some $746 million to public schools. Madam Speaker, the independent schools, should those students all decide to come to public schools tomorrow and become then fully funded as opposed to partly funded students, would have us having to raise overnight millions upon millions of dollars from the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is clear that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

The question was about a report to provide accountability for private schools. I suggest the Minister of Education, of all people, expects students to answer questions every day in some of these tests that she provides for. Perhaps she could answer some of the questions she is asked in this House and follow our rules under Beauchesne 417.

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

Mrs. McIntosh: I am responding to points raised in the member's question. Part of the problem when the preamble makes allegations is that the answer then attempts to address all points put on the floor by the member. My answers can be much shorter if the question is much shorter, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable Minister of Education and Training that indeed answers should be specific to the question asked and should be as brief as possible.

* (1350)

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, since this government got its majority in 1990, its mean-spirited agenda has fully surfaced. Children in Manitoba's public schools have suffered from deep funding cuts. Parents have had to pay higher and higher fees for courses and other things, while children in private schools have received huge increases.

Will the Minister of Education finally come clean and admit that since 1990 the real value of her government's funding to public schools, the money our school divisions actually get at the classroom level to teach with, has fallen by an astounding $102 million in purchasing power? That is $532 for every child in every classroom. No wonder parents are being fleeced for higher fees.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I would invite the member to attend my office and meet with the financial people in my office who can explain to him the real purchasing power in constant dollars, which is not at all the information he has put on the record. I do not know where he learned his math, but I would suggest that with our new math curriculum he might be able to do better.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I would be most pleased to accept the minister's kind offer, and I think we will have a very good time sorting out whose numbers are which.

Madam Speaker, will the minister simply admit that her claims about growing support are wrong, that when you take inflation out of the numbers, it is very, very plain the numbers have dropped from $644 million to $542 million, constant dollars, purchasing power, $102 million? Will she not simply admit that she is wrong?

Mrs. McIntosh: There were several points in that speech, and I will attempt to address each one of them so as not to be accused of avoiding answering any portion of it.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I should indicate that in terms of inflation, the last decade for which we have the accurate count, which was the '85-95, soon we will have the '85-96, that we have analyzed in our office shows that we kept pace with inflation, except for 0.5 percent funding to public schools by the Province of Manitoba in that decade just passed, kept pace with inflation. The problem occurred when school division spending outpaced inflation by 15 percent. Not all of that was their fault, and some of that was legitimate spending. Much of it was spending that school divisions have since begun to adjust. We are attempting to help with some of the new costs that are coming in, special needs education, for example. We have a review on right now to ascertain what we could and should be doing with this new cost that school divisions are facing.

Madam Speaker, it comes down in the end to not being fixated on the dollars that are spent but on the learning that occurs, and we know that the learning that occurs can be excellent in any kind of circumstance where there are good teachers and willing students.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, six-year-old Breanne Curé in Grade 1 has been diagnosed with severe receptive and expressive language disorder. Dr. Bowman of the Child Guidance Clinic states that Breanne has significant cognitive delays as well as significant gross and fine motor disabilities. Language development was below a three-year age level. On May 27 of this year, the school division applied for Level II funding but was rejected. Teachers, doctors and the school division support this application.

The minister states that applications will be given a thorough assessment, and I want to ask the Minister of Education to explain why you received this application for Level II funding for Breanne Curé on May 27 and rejected the application on the same day without seeing the child in the classroom, without a written explanation, without an appeal mechanism. Is this your idea of a thorough review for this--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1355)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The member is calling for an opinion which is--but then again Beauchesne does not seem to mean a lot to them, but I would say to the member opposite--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I just referenced Beauchesne Citation 417, and not only is the minister once again out of order, she seems to wish to continue with these editorial comments. I was wondering if you would ask her to come to order and remind her she is not an editorial writer, and she is not even the Speaker of the House either. She should for once answer the questions we are raising, in this case about the serious problems in education. A very serious question was asked on behalf of the constituents of Transcona by the member for Transcona. When are we going to get some straight answers from this minister?

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I tend to agree with the opposition House leader when he objects to unnecessary editorializing in this House, and if what he says applies to the Minister of Education, then it applies to all 23 or so New Democrats who occupy that side of the Chamber who editorialize every time they ask a question in this House. So when you are considering this matter, I would hope that we might think that that rule should apply to all members of this House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would request the support and co-operation of all members in this House to firstly, when posing questions, pose the preamble with a single statement and then pose a question. Second and supplementary questions need no preamble, and I would ask that on the other side of the House all ministers respond specifically to the question asked within the time limit allowed.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, to quickly complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I indeed have met with the student and the family that the member refers to. I am aware of their situation, but I think it would not be proper in any way, shape or form for me as Minister of Education to divulge the discussions that took place between a little child in this province, her mother and this minister. I think there are privacy issues that would put this office in great jeopardy were I to be discussing them publicly, and I think the members also know that very well. It is not a fair tactic to use.

Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, I have permission from the family to raise this case, and I want to ask this Minister of Education: how many years does this child have to wait, how far does this child have to fall behind her peers because this government has set the special needs Level II- funding bar at a level that will forever relegate this child to a life of poverty and misery even before she has had a real chance to develop into a contributing member of our society? Your numbers mean nothing to this child, only--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Transcona that postamble is not required either.

* (1400)

Mrs. McIntosh: I appreciate that the member states that a third party has given him permission to raise the issue. That same third party has not given me permission to raise the issue, but I can, in generic terms, respond to the whole question of assessment, which I do not think divulges any confidence or breaks any obligations of privacy that I feel as a minister I am honour-bound to keep.

Madam Speaker, I can indicate that assessments are done by school divisions when children enter schools. School divisions will assess whether a child is Level I, Level II, Level III. They will apply to the department with their diagnosis, their expert testimony and other information that they have used to come to their decision, and the department will then take that request and assign funding, if it is deemed to be properly done, to that child. If that child is deemed to be indeed a Level II or a Level III, the money flows without question to an unlimited number of people who apply if they qualify. That assessment is done by division personnel initially and confirmed by departmental personnel.

Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, I want the minister to take a look at this picture of Breanne Curé and tell me you do not believe that this child does not deserve every opportunity to grow and learn, to become a child proud of her accomplishments, instead of depressed and discouraged because your education system has failed her even before she starts. Will you provide Level II funding for this child?

Madam Speaker: I would remind the honourable member for Transcona that the display of exhibits is strictly prohibited in this Chamber and other Chambers, and I would ask for his co-operation.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I think the question reveals more about the questioner than it does about anybody attempting to answer the kinds of comments that have just been put on the record.

I have met the child that he has just shown a photograph of. I have talked to her mother; I have talked to departmental staff. I do not do the assessments. I have confidence that very, very few appeals on assessments done by school divisions and department personnel on Level II funding are questioned by those receiving the information, very few appeals, Madam Speaker, and a tremendous number of grants for Level II and Level III.

The member asks if I care, and of course I care. All my life I have been involved with education--as a teacher, as a parent, as a school trustee, and now as Minister of Education. That member over there knows nothing about how ill the system was treated in terms of special needs when his government was in power, how as a school trustee I would come down here pleading with then Minister Hemphill for help with our special needs students.

We have more than doubled funding for special needs. We have a special needs review underway, long overdue, that they never did, that we are doing because we care. We care. Had they cared earlier, we would maybe have a lot more solutions here for people like Breanne.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the First Minister with respect to the gaming policy. One of the quickest- or fastest-growing industries is in fact gaming, and after saturating Manitoba with slot machines and VLTs, they commissioned a report. In that Gaming Commission report, one of the recommendations was to reduce the number of VLTs, to which the government actually responded and reduced some VLTs.

My question is to the Premier. Has, in fact, this government increased the number of electronic slot machines at the same time?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I find it passing strange that the member opposite, who as a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party advocated having three more casinos in this province to increase the gambling revenues, is now out there attempting to say that he has some concerns about the volume of gaming in the province.

I will take the substance of his question as notice on behalf of the Minister responsible for the Lotteries Corporation (Mr. Stefanson).

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier confirm that hundreds of electronic slot machines have in fact been added into the system, while the government on the one hand has been trying to say that VLTs have been reduced?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I believe that, according to the rules of the House, members are required to confirm their facts before they bring them to the House and present them as fact, so I would invite him to do so.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I will await the Premier's or his government's response to the first question.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My final supplementary question is: will he agree that the chairman's report--Mr. Desjardins--on the Gaming Commission which acknowledged that, and I quote, when reference is made to VLTs, it should be understood to mean both VLTs and slot machines. That includes electronic slot machines. Does the Premier agree with the report which he commissioned and paid thousands of dollars for?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, my recollection of that report is that it did not recommend that we reduce the number of VLTs in the province, but we as a government policy decided to do that and did bring in a substantial reduction of something, I believe, in excess of 10 percent.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Early in November of this year the CBC I-Team report called Precious Cargo revealed that in the 1997 fleet inspections, 14 percent of the school bus fleet had to be pulled off of Manitoba's roads. The head of Manitoba's vehicle inspection branch or department says that any more than 1 percent is unacceptable. Some school divisions, in fact, Madam Speaker, had an 80 percent failure rate.

Will this minister admit that she has sacrificed the safety of our children for a financial gain and their election surplus fund, and will she immediately reverse her shortsighted and dangerous decisions regarding our children's school buses?

* (1410)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I had been asked by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) to put my comments on the record, and the comment I made before I sat down was: you come late to the caring table, sir. So I have complied--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education and Training was recognized to respond to the question posed by the honourable member for St. James. The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to respond to the question posed.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member for St. James refers to school division policy, refers to busing policy in the province. The school divisions for some time have been asking for some easier way of dealing with school bus transportation. We then responded by--instead of purchasing a new bus for them--providing for them the amount of money that it would cost them to buy a new bus and allowing them to make the decision as to which bus they would wish to purchase, or if they wished to use some other transportation policies for their students.

We did say that school buses must be inspected twice a year. They must pass a safety inspection twice a year by division staff. As well, the government of Manitoba does an audit on 10 percent of those buses with the provincial safety inspection on top of that inspection. The school bus inspections, of course, must comply with all safety regulations put down by the Province of Manitoba.

If in the audit this province finds that there are any further things that need be followed up, we then do a mass inspection of school division, and I will answer the rest in the next question, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, will the minister not admit that school divisions would have preferred full funding, with the province responsible for replacing buses when they got used, at about 12 years of age? Will this minister and her government take responsibility and fund school divisions so they can provide safe buses for our children?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for St. James that her question is to be a single question, not a multiple question. The honourable Minister of Education and Training has one minute to respond to either question or both questions.

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, Madam Speaker, since the question took--well, I guess I will have to just answer one of them, which is really not quite cricket because she did ask two, and I will only get to answer one in the time allowed.

Madam Speaker, school divisions had long requested flexibility. They had said why should they have to get rid of a perfectly good bus if it is still roadworthy and, conversely, why should they have to replace a bus after eight years, et cetera. So we said the decision then would be theirs, provided that all safety inspections pass the test of safety. In terms of funding, we have now made it possible, in an urban setting for school students, to get funding for busing if their division decides to bus them, if they live more than a mile from their closest transit bus stop. That is an enhancement to the system that has been very much appreciated by school divisions, and we have received many kudos from school divisions for our changes in bus policy.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Madam Speaker, the question concerns the competence of this minister and the lack of due diligence and proper credit checks on applicants for grants from his department.

Madam Speaker, when he gave the $200,000 grant to TeleSend Gateway Inc., at what point did he discover that the developer of the technology and the controlling mind was serving an 18-month sentence in Milner Ridge for fraud? Was it (a) after he gave TeleSend Gateway the first cheque for $20,000, or (b) after he gave Telesend Gateway the second cheque for $90,000?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, just to make the record clear, the individual the department dealt with is not the individual that they are referring to. It was a different person, a young woman who was carrying out the activities of the business, so I cannot accept what the member is putting on the record as having dealt with this individual.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, if Mr. Ishmael is not the controlling mind of this company, then why does he claim to have developed the technology? Why did he apply for an American Express supplementary card on October 28, 1994, in the name of TeleSend Gateway Inc., and why was he using that company credit card for personal expenses?

Mr. Downey: I am as equally concerned making sure that any activities of the department and the government to develop and create new businesses, particularly in the new generation of activities in the electronic field, that we in fact do carry it out in a responsible manner, and it is my understanding that was done.

Far more responsible, Madam Speaker, than the NDP when they dumped $29 million in the sands of Saudi Arabia, hard-earned money of the taxpayers of Manitoba.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, earlier I made reference to Beauchesne Citation 417 in regard to the Minister of Education, and you did admonish the minister. I would like to do the same with the current minister and point out that the question was about this government giving grants to a company of which the controlling mind is now in Milner Ridge, a correctional facility.

This minister is making a mockery out of a very serious question, and I think this incompetent minister should answer why that grant was given in the first place.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, on the same point of order.

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, I think an apology is in order. I said $29 million that they frittered away. It was $27 million that they frittered away.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable minister that answers are supposed to be as brief as possible, pertain to the question asked and not provoke debate.

Mr. Maloway: My final supplementary is to the same minister. On May 27 of this year, the minister claimed that the money was used for its intended purposes. I would like to ask the minister: if that is the case, then why was the company credit card used for such TeleSend Gateway Inc. business essentials such as cosmetics, beauty shop gifts, suits, shoes and other personal expenses?

Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, I would not have any ability to know what the credit card use was of the individual as it relates to the operations of the business. As far as I know, and I have been informed by the department, the monies were used for the purposes for which they were intended, for business-related activities.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, in 1991 this government cut the high school bursary program which funded 4,600 students. In 1993 they eliminated the Student Social Allowances Program which ensured that young adults on their own with no family could complete their Grade 12 education. This program helped thousands of students a year graduate from high school. When we objected and asked what these students were supposed to do, this heartless and shortsighted government said the students should go home.

I want to ask the Minister of Education to confirm how many students missed the opportunity of finishing their high school education in the last five years with no student social assistance or bursary programs. Can the minister explain how more than 6,000 students have been left behind by this government, who would rather fund a few private schools than help disadvantaged young people finish high school?

* (1420)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, we have done a tremendous amount of work in terms of encouraging students to remain in school, not the least of which is bringing a new program of studies into the school that will enable higher standards, measurable standards, differentiated teaching and opportunities for students at all levels of learning. We are working very hard on early intervention, early assessment. We have increased the amount of money there for special needs, double what was there before we came to office. We have programs in place in many divisions, entrepreneurial programs.

Ms. Cerilli: Is the minister aware that the Family Services' Employment First workfare program is now forcing the few students still in high school collecting assistance, who are deemed, quote, job-ready, to leave high school and enter a workfare job-training program with no guarantee of a job? More importantly, does she support this or will she reverse this move to have kids leave school for nothing?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, perhaps the member would like to come with me on my routine visits to schools, to visit infant labs in schools, to help young adolescent mothers remain in school, to even be able to attend classes while their babies are safely cared for in the school. They can still nurse their children while they are attending classes. We have all kinds of programs in place to enable young single moms, who may be on social assistance, to remain in school and complete their education, knowing, Madam Speaker, as we all do in this Chamber, including members opposite, that training is the way out of a life of despair, a life of lack of opportunity.

Therefore, we have programs of training that encourage adolescents and young people to complete their education, whether or not they are on social assistance, whether or not they are parents. I think our record is very good in that regard, and again, would she like to come with the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and we could give her a thorough briefing as well?

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Health. New Democrats believe that teachers and principals should not have to do medical work and that nurses should be put in our schools to deliver community-based children's health programs, including immunizations, special needs help, deal with injuries and outbreaks and prevention. My question is to the minister. Would he now at least assure the families of Winnipeg School Division that when the Winnipeg Health Authority takes over health services this spring, it will maintain, if not enhance, public health nurses in our schools, as now provided by the City of Winnipeg?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, to my understanding and knowledge, Manitoba Health, the public health nurses have for many years provided various functions in our school system. I believe the member's question references the discussions now that are ongoing to consolidate public health functions between two different jurisdictions in the same city of Winnipeg. If that is the case, if we are able to succeed in having that amalgamation, services will continue on the same basis, and we would hope over time that, obviously, service levels can improve.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.