Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you please call Bill 2, Bill 5 and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 2--The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 2, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), who has 20 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington?

An Honourable Member: Leave.

Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): When we ended off yesterday, I think that I was discussing the bill's provisions for referendum on tax increases. I was expressing the concern that this provision is going to stack the deck against the government having a more fair tax system. I was particularly concerned about a couple of the provisions in this area, one of them being for the kind of tax increases we have seen from the provincial Filmon government, the current government, as they did in 1993 when they increased taxes to the tune of about $400 for a family of four in that year by broadening the scope of the PST, by decreasing property tax credits and those kinds of things. None of those kinds of tax increases would go to a referendum vote. That is one of the things that is a concern.

The other thing that is of concern is that there is a requirement in the bill that there cannot be any increase in revenue generation from a tax change, so that they can shift the tax from one type of tax to another; for example, as they have been doing, decreasing tax on business and increasing taxes on individuals and citizens whether it is in the form of fees. They can do that as long as they do not increase the total revenue which would make our tax system more unfair, and again because that would not require a referendum; it would not require any kind of a vote. They can do that without the kind of attention that other tax changes would incur from the public.

So there is a real problem in this bill, I think, that we can see they want to use it as a way of choking the ability of the provincial government to meet the needs in the community. What happens is the only way that the government can have new revenue then is from a growth in the economy so that there is going to be more revenue generated from more people working. The kind of growth we have seen, where we have had what is called the jobless recovery where there may be more economic activity, but we are not necessarily seeing more jobs. We are going to have a real problem on the revenue side. Those of us on this side of the House have said many a time, but especially across the country in Canada, the deficit is not so much a problem with spending but it is a problem with high interest rates and monetary policy that is trying to deal with inflation and increasing the interest rates.

This government then is going to--also because they are lumping the capital side and the current expenditure side or operating side of the budget together--what we are going to see is more pressure on them to cut services in order to balance the budget. They are not going to, I wonder, look at things like some of their own documents have suggested that they look at green taxes to do something about the very low fees we have, stumpage fees in forestry, for example.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

So how about all of these other kinds of ways that we can deal with new revenues besides this government's approach which is going to be simply to cut programs, programs that have often meant the difference between someone being employed or unemployed? As I said yesterday, programs like the Access program that they cut, which was very successful in economic terms of actually saving money in the long run.

My big concern about the legislation is it is going to, through the unbalanced approach to the tax provisions for the referendum, encourage a more pay-as-you-go government. I am referring to it as the business of government will change from being one of having an interest in function in managing public finance to help plan and direct the economy, where the government is going to change to becoming more of a cashier where citizens will have to pay for services as they go, and the government will just be there to exchange a service for a fee.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

That, I think, is moving away from a sense we have that government is there to work in a collective sense on behalf of all of us for needs in the community that we all share, be it by the fact that we are part of the same community. This is going to create a two-tiered system because we all know families, I am sure, who are not going to be able to pay for services in this fee-for-service fashion. It is going to lead to a greater disparity between the wealthy and all the rest of us in the community, and it is going to I think compound the problems of poverty.

It is interesting when I look at the exemptions in the bill. The exemptions in the bill include serious disaster, Canada being at war and having a reduction in revenue of 5 percent or more which in '95 dollars accounts for about $270 million. Well, the ministers opposite, particularly the speeches that I heard yesterday, talked about us being in a global economy and how we cannot just try and fence our province off and not trade and do business with the rest of the world. When we deal with the economy in this fashion, we may already be in a war.

* (1430)

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

It is very much an economic war. We are in an economic war with our other provincial partners in this country in fact. In some ways individual communities in our province are in an economic war with each other in an effort to attract industry and jobs. Similarly, of course, internationally there is an economic war going on. The problem is the victims of this war are individual citizens and in some cases entire communities.

We are seeing the victims also become government regulation, whether it is environmental regulation, whether it is labour legislation and regulation to protect workers, whether it is now even social services, and given the changes that are being proposed across the country, whether it is to the Wheat Board, whether it is to institutions like CN, CBC, across this country there are many victims of this global economic war that is being fought.

One of the weapons in that war that this government has supported is the Free Trade Agreement, and they are compounding the problem rather than assisting us as a community, because they are further entrenching this globalized economy and taking away our ability to protect health services and medicare and our public education system.

So in the provision for exemptions to this legislation, one of them being the country at war, I am trying to make the point, and I am making the point that we are at war indeed. It is an economic war that we are undertaking.

The other exception for this legislation is a serious disaster, and I think we are coming to see more and more, especially after Question Period today when we saw the--what can I call it and be parliamentary?--misrepresentation of the facts perhaps that this government had on the Jets and arena deal, that this government is the serious disaster that we are facing in the province. I think as we go forward, given this legislation which we have heard already in the House is not necessary to balance the budget, what we are seeing is this government has been the serious disaster in dealing responsibly with the finances of the province. They have not, even though they would like us to believe, been able to balance the budget. Even the pre-election budget was not a balanced budget. The Provincial Auditor has shown quite clearly that it was a $98 million deficit budget.

The final exemption under the bill is for reduction in financing. We are facing incredible reductions from the federal Liberal government, and it will be interesting to see when we add them all up how close we are going to come this year and over the next few years to the $270 million that will allow for an exemption under this clause in the legislation. I do not think that that is going to benefit us if they take the same tax that they are with this legislation.

My largest concern about the bill, then, is that it is going to dramatically change government as we have known it. It is going to change government in terms of being able to meet the needs in the community that we all share, and it is going to, I think, exacerbate the effects of unemployment and poverty in the community. It is going to affect certain members of our community more, because we know that there are certain members of our community who, because of their socioeconomic status, rely more heavily on the support of government.

So this legislation is going to further wedge the difference between the haves and the have-nots in our society. New initiatives like child care are going to become next to impossible.

I think that I want to just conclude my remarks by encouraging the government to be honest about its intentions with this bill. I think that they have to be honest with the public in what their real agenda is. I earlier in my debate was talking about a letter to the editor that was in the Free Press which talked about the causes for poverty being high taxes, rigid labour markets and the public education system.

I think that this government has an agenda to privatize, as they have been doing, more and more services in health and education. They do not agree with the vision of government that we should pay according to our ability to pay and to provide services that are there for all the public, equal services, and provide equal access to all those services.

I am very concerned that we are going to see more privatization and that this bill is going to pave the way for it. What we are going to see is more and more of a two-tiered system, one system of services in health care and education for those that have means and one system for everybody else, and what we end up having there is really the financing through public money, as we are seeing in education, of two systems, both drawing public money, one having to deal with the problems from the community at large, all those people who are of low socioeconomic status, and one system that does not have to provide for the special needs of those groups but can simply select those that they want and not have to deal with the great cost of providing services for those that are more disadvantaged.

I look forward to the committee hearings on this bill. I think that it has been drafted with a lot of gimmicks in it. I think, though, that the public, as it hears more and more about the legislation and we go through the committee hearings, will see that there are some very dangerous things in this bill. It is interesting that we have the government going into a new mandate and we will have to face many years with this bill. As I said earlier, I am concerned that they will try to use it to deflect responsibility for changes in public services, for cuts, for user fees, for more unfair taxation away from them. They will be able to use the legislation and say, it is not us, we are not making this decision, it is the law.

I think that that speaks to what I was saying earlier as well, that this is one of the tools the government is using to take away the influence of democratically elected governments, not only this democratically elected government, but the ability of governments in the future, and that is incredibly undemocratic. I think it goes against the whole reason for this House being here, and I am very concerned about the long-term effects that this will have.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is saying that a new government could repeal this, but they will still have to deal with the damage that this bill will have done to a number of people in our community, because when we look at legislation like this I think we have to deal with not just the wording in here but the implications that it will have in the community.

* (1440)

I will put to the Minister of Agriculture that this will have a very unequal effect in the community. It will make the division more extreme in Manitoba. It will exacerbate that gap between the haves and the have-nots, and it will leave many people who rely on quality public services without those services.

With that, Madam Speaker, I conclude my debate. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? [interjection] You are right. The bill has been left standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I certainly welcome the opportunity to address this amendment in Bill 5 proposed toward The Education Administration Act. I hope I will attempt to put on record some of the viewpoints of our party with respect to this particular amendment, as well as some personal observations that I hope will be taken into account by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) when she has an opportunity to review comments, et cetera, as respecting this bill.

Madam Speaker, to commence, I recall in the previous session when I had the opportunity again in this Chamber to talk about this particular amendment. At that time, during a previous session, the amendment had been brought forward by the former Minister of Education, that is, the former member for Morris. At that time, we had indicated some of our concerns with respect to that particular amendment. One of the comments that I had made at that time to the member for Morris was the fact that I am not certain that he was cognizant of the fact that school councils were up and functioning in very many areas of the province.

In fact, I cited the example of Seven Oaks School Division where local representatives and the public had long had such councils functioning and doing very good work within the school systems. In fact, I cited to the member for Morris at that time, and I cite it again for members of the House, the fact that I had occasion to attend a community meeting set up by the school division to discuss a proposed school, now constructed, in Seven Oaks School Division. In other words, the Seven Oaks School Division had gone to the community prior to the construction of the school, met with parents, community leaders and others to discuss the functioning of the school, student council establishment, et cetera. That had taken place prior even to the construction of the school.

I cited that at the time as an example of what is happening in the education system without the need of the paternalistic approach that was adopted by the then Minister of Education and to a certain extent in my view is continued by the present amendment and by the present approach to education by this particular government.

I find it very curious and quite contradictory the words espoused by members opposite and by members of this government and the actual practice that takes place. For example, Madam Speaker, this particular bill talks about and mandates the establishment of school councils when, in fact, I am given to believe the majority of schools already have such councils existent. It purports to cite rules as to when suspensions should take place, how the councils should be set up, et cetera, all at the dictate and all at the mandate of the Minister of Education. Therefore, it says, "the minister shall, the minister shall," keeping in line with the pattern in Manitoba of ministers of Education on high decreeing certain things "shall" happen in the education system.

This is a pattern long adopted by this government through its many ministers of Education, be it the member for Roblin (Mr. Derkach), the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), the member for Morris. And now the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), I hope, will adopt a different attitude, but unfortunately the way that this particular amendment is worded and the particular amendments continue this pattern of "the minister shall decree, the minister shall," it overlooks the total fact, the contradictory fact that this government purports to want to have grassroots representation. It purports to want to hear from the public, yet it purports to determine how it will hear from the public, what it will hear from the public, when it will hear from the public, and that is totally contradictory. It runs contrary to the very nature of the process. One can certainly understand why members on this side of the House and the education community in general are very suspicious of the decrees from on high that come to us from the Department of Education, and no better illustration.

Madam Speaker, that attitude prevails throughout the government. It is not just in the Department of Education. Let me cite an example within the area of Health. The Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) recently made an announcement, in absentia, about the proposal to establish regional health boards. There was a committee that was established and had done work, and it made a recommendation to the government as to how these regional health boards should be established, determined and elected. Now in the very first decision to be made by the minister concerning the recommendations in this particular report, the minister rejected the recommendations of his committee, and decreed that, rather than have elected boards, rather than start with a prototype board to be followed by election process, the Minister of Health would determine who would be on all of these health boards in Manitoba. The Minister of Health completely and totally contradicted the very recommendations of the committee that recommended--[interjection] The member for Rossmere is encouraging me to--

(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

An Honourable Member: The Minister of Labour.

Mr. Chomiak: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews)--continue my discussion in this area. The point that I am making is that, although this government purports to be listening to the public and purports to be determining the nature of the public, it does not happen. In fact, the public makes a recommendation, as they did with respect to the regional boards in Health, and the minister completely and totally ignores the recommendations. Instead of proceeding with the recommendations, he proceeds to appoint by ministerial decree, which, again, is a pattern consistent with this government. By minister decree, the minister shall in Manitoba appoints boards.

We see this very same pattern in the Department of Education where the minister shall appoint and determine school councils, the minister shall appoint and determine how a suspension shall take place. It is quite consistent with the pattern of a government that purports to delegate authority, but in fact keeps authority very, very close to its vest, in fact, largely revolving around the Premier's office, and decrees from on high how we and the public shall manage our affairs.

Again, illustrative is the fact that the legislation and the minister, particularly the previous minister, totally ignored the fact that there were very many functioning councils, totally ignored the fact of perhaps looking at some of those experiences and discussing those experiences with those particular councils, but from on high, by decree, determined that the minister shall determine the power over principals, the composition and role of school councils and over school discipline policies, and overlooks the locally elected autonomous boards. This pattern continues throughout Education, be it in the area of the boundaries review or be it in the area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of reforming education.

The member for Roblin (Mr. Derkach), who I am pleased to see is attentively listening to my comments, might recall in fact that an interesting pattern has developed in Manitoba with respect to recommendations by the public. The minister will know of the voluminous reports that have gone on, be it in the area of reforming of The Public Schools Act or be it in the area of special needs that have been prepared and recommendations have been made. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I recall, the member for Roblin tabled in this very Chamber a five-year strategic plan for the Department of Education which failed in fact to even meet the expectations in year one and has long since been shelved, together with the majority of the reports by the minister. It has long since been shelved, together with the majority of reports, so it is very difficult to have confidence in the decrees from on high of ministers of Education who decree from on high but are very far removed from the reality that takes place on the ground with respect to the organization and to the running of schools in the province of Manitoba.

* (1450)

I could cite in fact, and perhaps I ought to cite to the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), many of the reports that made recommendations from the public and from citizens as to improvements and help in the education system that have been--[interjection] I am very pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) is listening attentively and perhaps is even taking notes during the course of my comments, but I think I flatter myself by suggesting that, and that is said actually in--

To continue, the pattern seems to be that the government purports to consult, receives a report and then generally files the report, and then the minister comes out with a decree from on high as to how things should operate. That in fact is totally contrary to what should be happening in education and does not reflect the spirit and does not reflect the reality of what is happening within the public. It is not appropriate if we are going to move into a new era in education where we will work together and we will listen to those who are most actively and most directly involved in the school system, and by that I mean teachers and parents and students and administrators and the public in general who are all involved.

If we are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to move within our education system to improve the quality of our education system, then we ought to listen to those recommendations that have been made by members of the public, by those involved in the education system. That spirit is missing from this particular amendment. In fact, that philosophy is missing from this amendment, and rather we see the dictates and the recommendations by decree, by fiat, from the Minister of Education as to how school councils shall be composed, how discipline shall be managed with regard to students in the classroom.

How is it possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Minister of Education to decree what province-wide standards with respect to discipline shall be if the Minister of Education is not prepared to listen to those who are involved in the education system on a daily and on a regular basis? For example, if the Minister of Education is not listening to what the teachers have to say, is not listening to what the parents have to say, then how can the minister purport to, by fiat, declare what discipline standards should be across the province?

I go further to suggest, what standards and what discipline procedures will be determined by regulation by the Department of Education that will be appropriate and would be functional across the province of Manitoba, which varies in regions, varies in composition and varies in type of school, type of student, type of region. That is why so much of what has come out of the Department of Education has not worked in the recent past, particularly since 1988 when the Conservatives began to make their mark in the education system in Manitoba.

The other concern, of course, is when legitimate concerns are raised by representatives in the community, by the teachers, by the superintendents, by the students, by the parents, the government chooses to ignore, and one example, one very classic example is the recommendations that were made in December of 1991 by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents, the Manitoba Teachers' Society.

At that time they recommended a system of co-ordinating services and activities to children. [interjection] I am corrected, actually, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe it was the summer of 1991 that this report came out, and at that time it recommended a course of action to better operate our schools, to co-ordinate the activities and to help students in general. At that time, we asked the then Minister of Education to put together a plan by December 1991 to deal with this very, very important initiative. Of course, we have not had any plan since then, and it is now September 1995, and we have still no plan from this government Still this government has chosen to ignore those particular recommendations, despite the fact that there are recommendations for a similar program to be put in place by the recent study undertaken by Dr. Brian Postl concerning children's health and initiatives in that regard, and yet the government has still chosen not to act on those particular recommendations.

Now the government has put in place I believe one protocol in this regard, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one protocol hardly makes for a government-wide initiative or a government-wide program. There are so many serious deficiencies and so many problems as they relate to children, you would think it would be a top priority of this government, but this government has chosen not to listen to those involved in education and not to listen to recommendations that a system be put in place to permit a better co-ordination of services to children.

So we have on the one hand, as I have indicated, a government that, by fiat, makes recommendations and on the other hand a government which does not listen to the public when valid suggestions are forwarded to it and continues to proceed on the basis that the minister knows best. The minister, by fiat, can determine what shall happen in education. This is, of course, reflected quite directly in the amendments that are before us today concerning The Education Administration Amendment Act.

Now let me be clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we in the New Democratic Party support wholeheartedly school councils and representation. That is very clear from all of our comments and very clear from our policy statements. We encourage that at all points.

The point that I am trying to make, however, is that this government was not aware of what was happening in the school system, had some difficulty when it originally brought in the amendment which purported to establish school councils of this kind and has now come back with recommendations regarding these particular school councils and by fiat has now decreed that the minister shall determine how these shall be composed.

* (1500)

I wonder how that is to be done. Will the minister by fiat make a regulation as to how all school divisions will compose their student councils despite the differences, for example, in northern Manitoba or the differences in rural Manitoba or the differences in the city of Winnipeg? Are we going to have different regulations varying across the province as they relate to school councils? Are we going to have by fiat one decree as to how this process shall work? Will flexibility be allowed? Will there be flexibility to reflect different conditions and different schools or different school divisions or will it be from, on high, recommendations that have been determined by the Minister of Education? This is an interesting point because much depends upon who occupies the seat of the Minister of Education.

I dare say from my experience in this Chamber and from dealings with the previous ministers, the former member for Morris and the current minister, that their ideas as to how councils, for example, might be composed are probably quite different. So we will have by fiat a declaration as to how schools shall be run by one minister, as happens on a very regular basis in Manitoba, when the next Minister of Education comes up to be appointed by the Premier. The new Minister of Education, by fiat, will declare their version of how school councils ought to be composed, and the subsequent minister will declare their version of how school councils ought to be imposed and their version of how discipline ought to be maintained and their version about what standards should be province-wide. That will vary by virtue of the person occupying that particular portfolio.

That is totally contradictory to what we should be doing in this province and that is trying to reflect what conditions are, what local representatives say, what local teachers say, what local parents say. In other words, it will come from on high and will vary by virtue and by nature of the fact who occupies the particular seat at that time.

So this is a very interesting demonstration again by this government about how it shall approach education in Manitoba, and it will be very interesting to see what regulations come down from the particular minister occupying the portfolio at the time as to how these very significant issues will be dealt with by schools and by those involved in the education system.

Now turning to another point. The curious nature of both The Public Schools Act and The Education Administration Act, which are in fact outdated and ought to be renewed, is that we have an outmoded archaic act trying to deal with education in the 1990s and in the years to come. Part of the dilemma here is we are superimposing again on this outmoded act, on this Education Administration Act and on the education system in Manitoba. We are grasping onto that--another example of some contradictory legislation. It suggests to me that it is nigh time for this province and for this Minister of Education to do something that has been promised by the previous three occupiers of that portfolio and that is to renew and to update and to have a new version of a public schools act, something that has been done in literally every jurisdiction in Canada but which has only been studied and the studies shelved by minister after minister in the Province of Manitoba.

In fact, the previous to the previous to the previous Minister of Education had a task force that went out and examined the act and held hearings and the like, talked about renewing The Public Schools Act and then subsequently, as is common in the education field in Manitoba, we saw those particular recommendations made from the public shelved and placed deeply into the bowels of the Department of Education never to be heard from again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I certainly appreciate your direction in this regard as we continue during the course of these comments. It seems to me that this kind of amendment and this kind of change ought to be considered in the context of a more comprehensive look and a more comprehensive view of the education system in Manitoba and more specifically with regard to The Public Schools Act and how The Public Schools Act ought to be brought into the 1990s.

Now I commenced my discussion with the comment that The Education Act, The Public Schools Act and this particular amendment continue a tradition in Manitoba, a paternalistic approach to education, that being the minister decreeing from on high how things shall be in the province of Manitoba. That is precisely one of the problems that we have in education in Manitoba, not just because the ministers of Education generally in Manitoba under this regime have occupied very short tenures, very short time spans in the Education portfolio but because of the changing nature of education. Our Public Schools Act was last amended and last changed, I believe, in 1980 and before that some time previous.

It certainly does not reflect conditions as they exist in schools today. In fact, a point of fact, if I recall correctly, The Public Schools Act does not even make mention of the words "child" or "student." Yes, it does not make mention of the word "child" at all in The Education Act because it is an anachronistic act and because it has been an act that has been largely unchanged in many ways since early in the century and contains many portions of the act that are totally outdated.

So you have a paternalistic act that is outmoded and in need of change, and now we have an amendment to The Education Administration Act which is tangential to The Public Schools Act that continues this pattern and this Manitoba tradition of a paternalistic approach, a top-down approach, an approach by fiat in education. Surely that does not reflect conditions in the school system today and conditions in Manitoba.

All members of this House who have recently been through the experience of the provincial election will know that education was one of the fundamental issues discussed by the voters, and we are dealing with a public who is very concerned. One can make the statement that the public is always concerned about education but, particularly in these changing times, in these times of economic uncertainty, in these times of severe unemployment, in these times of marketplace domination, I am afraid, in these changing times, education has become almost a touchstone for many individuals and many parents as to the only means and the only way for people to make a go of things in our society.

Education has become a touchstone for individuals, parents and children as the only way that they can see their way clear to make some progress in our present society. We are dealing with a population which sees education as absolutely fundamental and crucial to the development of our society in the years to come. That runs totally contradictory, that feeling and that spirit run totally contradictory to the attitude of the minister declaring by fiat and by decree how things shall be in the Department of Education, how things shall be at school and how things shall be undertaken by school boards and by others.

* (1510)

We are not just dealing therefore with an amendment that suggests the minister knows best. We are dealing with a continuing, confused and outdated approach to education that has been adopted and continues to be adopted by this government. We are dealing with a government that has chosen--and certainly I must say that I have great hopes for the new Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). I think she is experienced in education matters. I think she brings much good will to the portfolio. I think she will try very hard to do what is best. However, I suggest that the pattern of this government in its approach to education has not been kind to those particular attitudes in education and so, while I have great admiration for the present occupier of that portfolio, I am not optimistic that that spirit can prevail against some of the attitudes that have been exhibited by this particular government as it deals with education.

So we have a government that has proposed amendments to enact that--and let it not be mistaken on the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we support strongly student councils. Of course, no one does not support proper and appropriate discipline in a classroom. The point that I wish to make is that this department and this administration have not been in touch with the views and the wishes of the population of Manitoba and have not reflected those views as they relate to education and, consequently, are now proposing amendments which could have significant effect on decisions made by educators and by those involved in the education system.

I am concerned about where education is going in Manitoba, particularly in light of the fact that we have seen some dramatic shifts and some rather outspoken comments, to say the least, by the former Minister of Education, the former member for Morris, who, I believe, notwithstanding his good will, which I do not question, certainly seemed to be of the impression that he knew exactly what ought to take place in education. So those kinds of concerns and the changes and shifts in policy that we have seen through four previous ministers and the fact that so much that has been done in education, so many reports have been shelved, so many recommendations have been ignored, so much public discussion has been simply put aside leads me to question how this government in an overall sense will deal with the whole question of education in the future and not just how the government of Manitoba is approaching the issues as amended in this particular amendment, Bill 5, relating to the appointment of school advisory councils and discipline in the classroom.

Now, I have outlined in the course of my discussion some suggestions as to what I think this government ought to do in the area of education, and perhaps I will take the opportunity to summarize for you some of these suggestions.

Firstly, I believe that the government ought to look at some of the very valid recommendations that have been made by teachers, by parents, by students and others to deal with some of the needs that are in our classrooms today. The myriad of studies and reports that have found their way onto the shelf had some very valid and meaningful suggestions and ought to be considered and ought to be reviewed, both specifically as I pointed out earlier, recommendations for the co-ordination of services to children and the institution of the utilization of protocols by the departments as well as some of the recommendations concerning special needs students and others in our school system.

Secondly, I suggest that The Public Schools Act ought to be revised and ought to be renewed to reflect conditions in Manitoba at present.

Thirdly, that the amendments as suggested by Bill 5 are illustrative of the approach taken by this government in matters of education and generally throughout the Department of Education which consist of a paternalistic approach and a suggestion that government, that the minister by decree or by fiat shall dictate how education shall be conducted in the province of Manitoba.

Fourth, that if the government is truly listening, that they ought to listen to the concerns as expressed by parents, by teachers, by students, by all those involved in education and provide a meaningful acknowledgement of the concerns raised by these individuals and these organizations concerning education in Manitoba.

Fifth, that if the government is truly listening, it ought to provide those individuals who have concerns on such matters as things as school boundaries to have adequate opportunity to express their viewpoints and express their concerns with regard to boundary issues and how matters of governance shall be determined by these particular bodies.

Sixth, that the government, when it considers the regulations that it is going to determine, ought to consider not only the viewpoint of those members of the public who wish to make comment with regard to the matters of discipline in school councils but have to be cognizant of the fact of the varying regions, the varying make-up and the varying differences in approached education throughout the province of Manitoba. By way of example, I suggest that certain decrees or regulations that relate to inner city schools may not be appropriate for schools in, for example, rural Manitoba, as certain rules as they apply in northern Manitoba may not be appropriate to conditions in a suburban school in the city of Winnipeg. This diversity and these differences ought to be considered by the minister when making regulations under this particular act as it concerns the matters to amend The Education Administration Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I note that my time is quickly expiring in terms of this particular opportunity to speak. I guess I will close my comments by suggesting to members opposite that if they really believe in the public education system in Manitoba, they ought to listen to all of those involved in the education system in Manitoba and not dismiss the comments of parents, teachers and others involved in the system. They ought to examine the system to see what works and what has worked in the past and ought not to be tricked by believing that only the decrees or the fiat by the minister and proclamations by the minister is the only way to operate the schools or is the only way that things ought to run in the province of Manitoba, and finally that they take a look at the overall approach in Manitoba to education and consider some of the suggestions that have been made by members in this House and by members of the public concerning modernizing, providing for more input from the public of Manitoba into education as managed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

* (1520)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, and I want to put the bill in context because this is not the first bill that we have dealt with which deals with a number of the issues before us. This is the latest version brought in by the new Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). As my colleague pointed out, there has been somewhat of a turnover in this particular portfolio over the last number of years. While there is some reference to a change, I do not know if change is as good as a rest--fine, that is exactly what I thought was the reference.

There has been a great deal of concern about the dramatic shifts of direction that this government has taken in terms of education policy, much of it personalized by particular ministers of Education. I think anyone who knows the policies that were put forward by, for example, the current Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) or the current Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) will recognize some particular emphasis. Certainly the former member for Morris had a very distinctive approach to Education that shifted dramatically, certainly in some areas, away from what had been the normal policies and procedures followed by previous ministers of Education.

Now, of course, we are seeing yet another Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and, in this case, a Minister of Education who, I will say, to her credit does have a significant background on the educational side coming from her previous involvements in terms of schools boards, MAST, et cetera, and I think brings that particular focus. Quite frankly, I think that this bill reflects that.

I find it interesting too, and I find it something that should be noted here, we raised concerns in the original bill that was brought in by this government about the direct power of suspension that teachers were going to be given and indicated at the time that many teachers were very concerned about this because of the position it placed them in, unlike the procedures that are followed by most school districts currently of putting them in the front, not only of having the power but also the accountability that many people expressed concern about it.

I remember when the previous member for Rossmere raised this in the House, himself a teacher of long standing, and there was howling from members opposite. I remember very well because it was almost like they could not believe that our member would say that.

You know, it is interesting, and I point this out for the record, that he was right and now the government itself has changed its view. I think that should be noted for the record, because Mr. Schellenberg did this Chamber a very great favour by being the first one to place on the record the fact that this was a significant concern with teachers out there. I think it was very obvious to anyone that could net out the desire of the government to do something dramatic before the election. I think it was very obvious that this was not workable.

I note that this bill essentially accomplishes what the member for Rossmere at the time, the previous member, stated, was very forceful in stating, and I think it is to his credit that this is done. I think it is rather appropriate because sometimes I know we all wonder about our ability to influence events, but here we have a member who is no longer part of this House, certainly in this current Legislature. I suspect he may not have finished his political involvements, but be that as it may, here is a former member of the House who has had a very significant impact on an important policy issue in terms of Education. So I wanted to put that on the record right from the start.

What I want to do, though, is I want to go and put the whole issue into context. This specific bill deals with a number of particular issues. It increases the power of ministers over principals--my colleague just outlined that particular aspect--ministerial control in terms of the composition and role of school councils over school discipline policies, and diminishes the roles of local authorities. A number of other issues are dealt with. I mentioned the suspension issue.

I want to go and put this in context, because what I found very interesting about the original Education Administration Act that we were dealing with was that the previous Minister of Education, the government going in the election, took a rather unusual approach, but you know I think it was a very deliberate approach, and it is being followed by other governments.

It is interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you know we would hear on a regular basis, we hear from the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who is very sensitive to criticism nowadays, a lot of times will be accusing members opposite of saying things that were critical. I heard this again today.

You know, the interesting thing is, in education, the previous Minister of Education was the one that was saying there was a crisis in education. Was that just an accident? Quite frankly, I found it interesting that I happened to be watching the state of the state address given by the Governor of Michigan some time ago, and you know what was interesting was, the rhetoric was very similar. It was almost identical to the rhetoric that was being used by the previous Minister of Education and the government. It was almost identical, and it runs this way. You say there is a crisis in education and what you do is you bring in all sorts of changes that are in many cases not supported by those who are involved in the educational community, but you bring in a whole series of changes, and I would say the previous member for Morris would probably have said this himself, basically aimed at turning back the clock, back to the good old days.

I see various organizations lobbying for that. I found it very interesting when the taxpayers' federation put out an article recently suggesting that we return our education system to the way it was in 1972. Now this was very interesting because in my community, we are the hardest hit by school cuts, but they wanted to roll back the clock, and I found that interesting because I graduated from R.D. Parker Collegiate in Thompson in 1972, and my kids now are in the Thompson school system. My daughter will be going into high school next year, and you know what, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know what they have available to them today. They have this band program, technical vocational training, the many options they have in the school, and I know what I had access to in 1972, which was a lot less than it is today, believe you me, and I look around here at members.

For many members, particularly, I am sure, who grew up in rural and northern areas, it is very much the same story, but, you know, this is part of the whole sort of fiscal and educational philosophy that we are dealing with, and I disagree with the taxpayers' federation. If they think that we can roll back the clock to 1972 and we are going to be better off in terms of education, they are wrong.

Not only that, I would point to the much publicized UN study that was put out that showed that we were No. 1 in terms of quality of life. One of the reasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are No. 1 is because of what we do in terms of education. The Royal Bank just came out recently showing we are the second richest nation. If you look at what the underlying factors are, part of it is in terms of--and I mentioned this yesterday--our investment and infrastructure, our inherent wealth, but part of it is human capital, which is what? It is the skills of our people, the productivity of our people, the ability of our people to deal with the challenges of the 1990s, and it is based essentially on our investment in education.

So I want to put this in context. This is one minister who said there was a crisis, very similar to what they were saying in Michigan. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has anybody been watching what has been happening in Ontario with the Mike Harris government? Here is the Minister of Education in Ontario who is in some difficulty right now, because you know what he did? He went to a meeting of senior officials in this department, and he said, we have to create a crisis in education. He made one mistake. He said it on video. Now it is all over the province.

He is a very interesting individual because he is someone without a formal education himself, which is fine. I do not have any difficulty with that, but here he is now, as the Minister of Education within a month or two of taking office, saying there has to be a crisis created in education. Why, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Because that is the only way you get change in an organization. So you invent the crisis and you come up with a solution.

* (1530)

Coincidentally, the solution is what you had in mind all the way along, and he has a very set agenda, the government in Ontario, and that was what drove the agenda for education in this province. Invent a crisis and come up with a solution.

I find it interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are accused of inventing crises in the opposition, but right-wing governments, when it comes to education, they are the ones--and this is what the Minister of Education in Ontario said directly. He said, we have to invent a crisis in education, so we can solve the problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that not interesting? Because what I think it is, I think it is indicative of just how much ideology is tied up in education nowadays when it comes to right-wing governments and this--

An Honourable Member: Fortunately, we do not have a right-wing government here.

Mr. Ashton: The member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) says we do not have a right-wing government here. I would suggest to the member for Rossmere that he is in the wrong party. He is going to have some difficulty with his own members with that statement, because I think most members on that side ran for the Conservative Party because it is a right-wing party, because it has a right-wing agenda. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a party that is moving increasingly away from the roots of people like John Diefenbaker.

I thought it was kind of interesting. It was the 100th birthday of Dief, somebody I really respected politically. John Diefenbaker must be rolling over in his grave today looking at what this kind of government is doing to the parliamentary system, to our Crown corporations, privatizing Crown corporation, many of which were actually nationalized by Conservative governments. Conservatives of 30 or 40 years ago would not recognize this party today in office. It is a Republican north party. We have a Premier (Mr. Filmon) who also I think--I bet you, in his office there must be a big picture of Richard Nixon put away somewhere, because he is following very Nixonian tactics on other issues such as the Jets, but I digress.

The fact is this government has a right-wing approach which is very similar to the Republican Party of the United States: the balanced budget bill, what it is doing on education. You can run through the list and it is straight out of the pages of the right-wing movements in the United States. It is straight out of the pages that are now being followed in Ontario. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us put the cards on the table, so to speak, and be up-front and honest about that.

The former Minister of Education was very clear about that. He was an individual I had a lot of respect for. I do not think we agreed very much on issues, but you know in the time he was in this House, he said what he meant, and he meant what he said. This bill now interestingly enough is attempting to take out some of the features that were pushed through by the previous minister as part of this right-wing agenda, because even this government does not have the stomach to follow through with some of the things that are being pushed as part of this ideological agenda, and it is an ideological agenda.

When this government wants to roll back the clock, it is interesting what comes and what goes in terms of education, because many of the initiatives of the '70s and '80s, particularly in terms of accessibility of education, they are the first ones that are hit. I mean, New Careers has been decimated. The Access programs have been shifted now away from student support to Access to individuals who have outside sponsorship, which is in violation of many of the principles of the Access programs. But is it a coincidence that of the '70s and '80s, those types of initiatives, many of which were brought in by NDP governments, many of these initiatives, by the way, which pioneered in education in this country, those are being cut?

What we have on the other hand is an agenda, and let us look at what the key--you know what the Governor of Michigan talked about? Pillars. Interestingly enough, the former Minister of Education I think had 16 pillars of education, pillars. It is based on a number of things.

First of all, it is based on a mistrust of the system as it exists today. It is based on some sense that the education system today is not working. It is not like it used to be. It was better in the old days. The further we get back to the good old days, the better off we are. That is the sort of underlying basic principle of these educational philosophies. But it goes beyond that. Part of this whole approach is an attack on the teaching profession, and I have never seen relations between a government and teachers in this province sink to a lower level than I have in the last number of years.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Actually, they were not too well in '69.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) mentions 1969, and I defer to him in that they may have been rather difficult in 1969. Of course, that may have been one of the underlying factors in the election which was the election of the first Schreyer government. Even in the Sterling Lyon period the relationship between the government and the teaching profession, I would suggest, was better than it has been under the tenure of this government.

Mr. Enns: Yes, but Sterling was a compassionate pussycat.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the member for Lakeside says that Sterling Lyon was compassionate. You know, this is a scary thought here, but when I see what this government is doing today and this Premier, I am almost tempted to agree with him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the thing about Sterling Lyon was he said what he meant and he meant what he said, and whether you liked what he said or not you knew where he stood. This has changed.

The current government is led by a First Minister who ducks any controversy. He stayed out of the education controversy. He stayed out of the health controversy, and now is trying to claim he stayed out of the Jets controversy which I find hard to believe. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have shifted. It is a very different style of government. It is only different in style to my mind because what the government has learned is that if you push your agenda but you pretend that you are moderate, you talk in moderate terms, some people will believe that.

I really believe one of the reasons why this government was re-elected, apart from some of the things that happened with the Jets--I have to be very careful with the words I use. I think all of the words I could think of to describe what happened were basically words that would be considered unparliamentary. One of the reasons the government was able to get elected in other areas was that people bought this idea that they were not really all that ideological. They were not all that right wing. You know, education is the key area word. We see that is not the case, because this is an attempt to roll back the clock to the good old days when those that could afford an education got it. I hate to say it, but that is where we are headed with some of the dismantling that is taking place with Access and New Careers programs.

The government wants to move back, and this is very clear in the educational reforms proposed by the minister. So where we value certain skills, the basics, which have a role, but where are other skills in terms of problem solving, for example? In terms of dealing with the challenges of this decade and the next century, they are not important.

Mr. Enns: There is no future in basket weaving.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) talks about basket weaving, and I defer to him again. He may be an expert in that area. I do not know.

The point is, the interesting thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is when you look at what is happening with education, the Japanese who for many years have been held up as an example that we should follow are shifting to a far more North American style of education. They are shifting away from rote learning. They are shifting away from focusing only on the basics. They are moving into problem solving, because the interesting thing is that North America and Canada in particular are doing very well internationally, in large part because of the type of education our young people have received. We are dealing with the changes in society far better than many other countries. There are many European countries that are learning from our approach.

Many of those initiatives of the '70s and '80s in terms of education that were criticized by people at the time as not being something that happened in the good old days are the reasons why we are positioned well, I believe, internationally in terms of human resources. Because we learned problem solving starting in schools, we do not treat it as something that is not part of the basic curriculum.

I think this is where it surprised me, when the government pushes so much on this right-wing agenda, because, you know, there is a constituent group out there that buys that--the taxpayers federation--Conservative line on rolling back the education system. There are people out there who buy that.

I do not believe the vast majority of Manitobans do buy that very specific right-wing ideological agenda. I suspect that this current Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), in fact, I will say, is certainly not as ideological as the previous minister. I do not mean that as a criticism for either one of them. I think it is a fair evaluation.

* (1540)

I find it rather interesting that political staff from this government were suggesting that the departure of the member for Morris and the member for Pembina, the previous members, would somehow change the style of this government. They would not be right wing anymore. Maybe that is why the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) says he is not a right-winger, but I look across the way and the member for Riel (Mr. Newman), whom I know from other political fights, I think would have some difficulty in not describing himself as a right-winger. I would be very surprised if he did not, because certainly anybody I know who has been in the political arena with the member knows him to be a very committed right-winger, a committed Conservative.

I look around at other members on that side, and I think that is something they are quite proud of. They are right-wing. They are Conservative. [interjection] The member for Riel (Mr. Newman) agrees. There are other members, too. The only reason I mentioned the member for Riel was because I have had some--well, the member talks about right and wrong. I certainly think though he would acknowledge that his politics would be very much on the right of the political spectrum.

I do not think anybody has accused the member for Riel of being a left-winger, let us put it that way, a centrist territory that is somewhat strange. Perhaps the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews), his politics are cut from a different cloth, and I accept that. [interjection] Now I am really worried because the member for Rossmere says he and the member for Riel (Mr. Newman) get along really well politically. If that is the case, then I would be interested to see what happens in the Department of Labour in the next period of time because I know the member's views. He knows mine on labour issues in this province. It is an ongoing debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with Bill 5 and it is on education. A little bit of relevancy would be appreciated.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my point was the fact that this is part of the right-wing agenda.

I want to deal with a question: Is there is crisis in our school system? Not, are there problems? There are problems. I can list some of the problems from my own committee. First of all, some of the funding formulas that we have in place are not fair. My school district was the hardest hit last year of any school district in the province, and it fluctuates quite significantly. That is part of the problem with the funding formula.

A number of years ago they obtained additional funds, they were cut by about two or three times the amount of funding, the additional they received. Another previous minister of Education here knows of what I speak in terms of the funding formula.

The funding formula is very dependant on assessments. The assessment in Thompson increased 41 percent in one year, which I think is totally unreasonable when it is then transferred to a 41-percent increase in one year to the support levy. Money which flowed out of the community, which did not allow for the return of those funds, when also it took away the tax base of the school board indirectly, because there is only so much money the taxpayers are willing to pay, and they do not care which level of government it goes to, in this case for school taxes, whether it is from the support levy or from the local district levy. So there is a problem with the funding formula, and I have raised this in the House. I have brought in petitions that were signed by thousands of my constituents. That is one problem that does exist.

Another one is violence in our schools. I think we have to recognize there is a problem. It varies. I know in Thompson a number of parents are quite concerned about the level of violence. I know many teachers feel it is perhaps not as bad as many parents feel, but I think if you look at the degree of violence that exists in our schools it probably has increased over time, certainly from when I was in school, and I think there is a concern amongst students and parents. I notice, for example, there is a school now here in Winnipeg, the R.B. Russell School, that has put in surveillance in its hallways. So there is a problem with violence.

I think the solution is adopting the zero tolerance policy that has been adopted in many of the areas in terms of justice. I think it is a good model, and many school districts are doing that. Many jurisdictions are. I believe that is the approach that should be followed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than this approach in this bill, which is giving the Minister of Education a fair amount of authority, but it is not getting, I think, the solution where the solution can come from, which is from the community level and the grassroots level. I believe that is how you deal with violence in the schools.

There are cases where suspensions are needed, but that is only one way in which you deal with it. In many schools, including my high school in Thompson, the involvement of the local police, in this case the RCMP, has been very significant in terms of having a presence in the school. The RCMP is in the school every week, and it has made a significant difference. There is a problem with violence in schools. We have to recognize it.

So I have mentioned funding formulas and I have mentioned the violence. In terms of curriculum, I think there is a problem with some of the shifts that have taken place, and there is a problem when you transpose on top of that the fact that there has been an erosion in many cases of in-service days. There certainly was with the government's legislated ability for school districts to apply the Filmon Fridays, in many cases being applied through the reduction in terms of the amount of in-services. You cannot expect teachers and school systems to change every two or three years depending on the shift and the Minister of Education. There has to be some consistency. So that is a problem that I see in our school system.

In terms of curriculum itself, quite frankly, I think we need to be doing a lot more to keep up with the times. There are many schools that are pioneering in terms of the use of computers, access on the Internet, for example, but I think in general we are starting to fall behind. In many cases for budgetary reasons, because it is difficult to keep up, certainly with the hardware investment that is necessary. I think there are some positive things happening, especially with the MTS initiative, for example, in establishing Internet access in a number of communities. That is a problem in our school systems, and I think we are not keeping up with the times, and I think that is a reasonable concern.

In terms of educational standards, I mentioned before that I do not use strictly the barometer of the three Rs, but I do believe that there are some needs to upgrade in terms of basic literacy, quite frankly. I think a lot of students want that kind of assistance. I think in many cases it is not necessarily something that has to be done in the curriculum itself but through other supports.

I will give you an example just briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In terms of the Access programs, they have pioneered the model of assistance to students, not just financial, but assistance to students in terms of academic upgrading. I will tell you what has happened. There have been people who have not completed a high school education and been able to upgrade and then succeed and completing a four-year Bachelor of Social Work program, Bachelor of Education degree. There are many Access programs that have given them that opportunity. Nursing at the community college level, the R.N. level. The reason is because of those supports, and that is what concerns me with what is happening in our school system.

Class size is another one. There is an increasing problem. A lot of it is because of the funding pressures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my own school district, for example, my kids now are in class sizes of 28. My daughter is in a class of 30. This is Grade 8, and believe you me the kids that will suffer are the ones that need that additional attention and additional help. That has been eroded in my own school district, not only in the increased size but also the loss of the number of options. What used to happen was that many times there would be students who would use spares or times when other kids were taking options to upgrade their academic skills.

So there are problems out there. Part of it is a funding problem, part of it is a resource allocation problem, but there could be a lot more done in that particular area.

In terms of special needs, I think there is going to be a growing problem in this area, because special needs is an area that is being affected by the budget cuts. Do not kid yourself. It is not necessarily the L2s and the L3s that are going to be affected, those at the higher level. But you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have admitted those and I have indicated those particular problems. But I want to compare that with this right-wing suggestion that there is a crisis in education, and something I think was fundamental in the original Education Administration Act, none of those particular issues to my mind lead anyone to be able to make the argument that there is a crisis in education in this province.

I would go one step further. I would say, the argument has never been established in this province that there is a crisis in education. Problems, things that can be done better, challenges, you can apply whatever label you want, but I challenge anyone to document the crisis of education that the former Minister of Education and this government essentially campaigned on in the election. You do not have to take my word for it, I mean, the fact that those problems I identified and challenges.

Look at performance, some of the standardized testing that members opposite really like to hang their hat on when it comes to educational centres. I find it amazing that when Manitoba did do well, they did do well on a number of tests, the former Minister of Education, said, well, yes, but. That did not fit in with the agenda. You know, when you do well, it does not fit in well with the agenda.

I would make the suggestion and I could focus this on a local level, having gone to high school. I have been to a number of school districts. I graduated from R.D. Parker in Thompson. I got a good education. I really received a good education from the Thompson school system, but it is better today. I think we have a lot going for us in this province. I think we have fewer problems than a lot of other jurisdictions in any of the issues I have mentioned, and we have had a generally progressive educational philosophy. I think in large part there is some politics involved. I think there has been a significant impact from NDP governments, but you know, it is our educational community as well. I believe we have a very progressive educational community in this province.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

So let us put aside these artificially created crises. That is the first thing we have to do and then get down to dealing co-operatively with solving the problem. That is why I wanted to speak on The Education Administration Act today, because I think to a certain extent one small step has been taken by the deletion of the ability of teachers to suspend unilaterally. In a way it is partly the personality of the minister in this case, because the minister and I, we probably do not agree on a lot of issues that we have had many debates on in this House, but I have seen on a number of occasions, I note on non-potable intoxicants there was an issue a number of years ago. The member for Point Douglas made some excellent suggestions that were put into place by the minister in one of her previous roles and were adopted and that has happened on a couple of other areas, and you know, quite frankly, Madam Speaker that is the way it should be.

* (1550)

But simply removing the one item, which this bill does, simply removing the one item does not, I think, take away from the overall philosophy of this government that we are seeing increasingly. I mentioned the funding issues, it is certainly a concern. I mentioned the confrontation with our teachers. I know another issue that has come up recently is the public-private school controversy, but I believe underlying this bill and other bills is the continued attempt by the Conservative government to cling to the idea that our education system is in crisis and we need radical, and you can put that in brackets, right-wing changes.

It took perhaps the Minister of Education in Ontario who really put his foot in his mouth when he made that recent comment about inventing the crisis. I think that really put it all into perspective. That is why, while we certainly support the initiative to take out that section, which is very much the work of our party in working with the education of the community, and our former member for Rossmere who raised this issue, I think, first and foremost in this House and was criticized by the government for doing so. While we certainly acknowledge that is a positive improvement in this bill, I do not think the bill goes far enough in dealing with those concerns.

Quite frankly, as the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), who was a former Education critic for our party, pointed out, it has substituted now this unilateral power of teachers, something that many teachers did not want, to suspend, by a new system that is increasing the role of the minister and is decreasing the role of local administrations.

I want to finish by suggesting that is the exact opposite direction that we should be following, and it is really something that does not really keep--it is not consistent with what the government was stating in its philosophy. You know, one of the issues, the pillars, that the previous Minister of Education talked about was the school council, and I believe there is a role for the school councils.

I will give you a recent example. We in our own elementary school in Thompson had a combination of meet-the-teacher night and the kick-off of the year for the parent council which has been active for the last number of years. There were 280 people that showed up. Just an elementary school with not the greatest enrolment. I think that is great when there is that degree of parental involvement. I feel much better about my ability to make sure my son and daughter get the best education because there is an active parent council.

But this is where the government, I do not think, is really interested so much in the grassroots involvement as it was making itself out to be. I believe the government felt that it could use the parent councils to bring in much of its right-wing agenda. It is interesting, Madam Speaker, if you were to get on the Internet today, there are many right-wing groups based in United States providing information on how to get involved at that grassroots level and put their agenda in place. It is right on the Internet.

You can contact many discussion groups and what pages--[interjection] In fact, as the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) points out, there are many extreme right-wing groups. What they advise is to get involved at that level, and that is what is happening in the United States. That is what the agenda is, and what they are doing is that they are changing things at that level and they are relying on the fact that many people do not get involved or they take for granted that there is a certain kind of education to be offered. They get involved at that level and then they input their agenda.

Madam Speaker, the democratic system. There are limits, obviously, when one is talking about the far right-wing organizations, but that is what is happening. You know, that is what the government's agenda was. They knew they could not change everything at the provincial level, so they wanted it to happen at the local level, and they wanted that to be something that was facilitated. I suggest to you, one of the reasons we are seeing in this bill a shift back to a more paternalistic approach, as the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) pointed out, is that they realize that they cannot impact totally at that level because you get real grassroots involvement and parents are not going to accept the narrow right-wing agenda. They are not going to accept any ideological agenda, quite frankly. I think most parents view education in nonideological terms. They are interested in the best education for their kids.

So this is the underlying philosophy of the government, this is the underlying philosophy of the bill. That puts us in a bit of a dilemma, quite frankly, as to what we do in this particular bill, because we have an amendment in here that is our amendment. It is an amendment that was suggested right from Day One by the former member for Rossmere, so we can certainly support that, but there are some other problems with the bill, and quite frankly there are problems with the fact that the government has picked one issue only out of its 16 pillars brought in by the previous member. It has demolished one pillar. That leaves 15, not all of which I disagree with, but it leaves some of the key underlying assumptions in place as to where our education system should head.

I want to make a prediction in conclusion, Madam Speaker, because I really think that over the next number of years we are going to be dealing with issues that I think we always need to deal with. I mean the health-care system. There are major changes taking place there, and regardless of where we stand on those changes and the kind of health-care system we want, that is clear. That is going to be one of the key issues. The economy is always an issue; we know that, government knows that, and governments, as the political sands shift, a lot of times they do well or they are defeated based on economic issues.

Education is the kind of area where I think people have taken it for granted for years. You ask people, they may even say that education is an issue, but it is not something that you sit down and you say, well, it is a vote-determining issue in many cases. I would suggest that is going to change, and I would suggest that I think many parents in this province, many students, are starting to realize that education is that much more important as we increasingly face a dramatically changing world.

That is what has placed us well internationally, but you know we cannot take it for granted, because just as, as I said, the Japanese are learning from our education system, we better be learning from others, we better be learning from ourselves about how to improve that system. The only way we are going to succeed as a province in the future, to my mind, is going to be if we can stay ahead of the pack in terms of education. It is the only way. And we are not just competing internationally. There are other provinces I think who are doing some very innovative things. British Columbia has done some very interesting things in terms of education. But that is what is at stake, and that is why I am suggesting education should be a more important issue, because it affects other things, and it particularly affects our economic competitiveness.

That is why I am concerned that our government has not yet taken off those ideological blinkers. It has not admitted completely that its agenda of the last couple of years is not working and that it is not in keeping with what the people of Manitoba want. There is one small indication in this bill, but there is a lot more that needs to be done, and I want to suggest to the government that if it does not change its policies, whether it be the priority given to private schools over public schools, or its policies in terms of overall funding, its policies in terms of dealing with the educational community, I really believe in the next election they will find that education will no longer be the sort of issue that everybody takes for granted, that people will start deciding that this is an issue they have to take a stand on.

You know, Madam Speaker, I say this as a warning. I do not know if the government will heed this. Its policies in terms of education are clearly not the policies for the late '90s and going into the next century. That is why, as I said, we are in a real dilemma on this bill. We support aspects of it. We do not support other aspects. It does not go far enough, and we will be considering our position further, depending on what happens in committee. We may reserve the right to move in some amendments to try and improve the bill, but my message to the government is, be careful on education. There is a lot at stake there, and there is a lot that can be done, but do not try and put the right-wing agenda in place here in this province for education. It is not supported by the people of Manitoba, Madam Speaker, and it will not work as we head into the next century.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, there are a few things that I would like to deal with and get on the record with respect to Bill 5. In the current legislation, teachers' duties are defined. This amendment adds the duties of principals to allow ministers to make a clear distinction in the roles of these two professions. The legislation also allows for the creation of advisory councils for school leadership. The councils will have parent, community and business representation, and will provide advice to school principals on the day-to-day operation of schools. The most important and controversial component of the bill allows teachers to suspend students from the classroom to re-establish the teacher's control over the classroom.

Madam Speaker, this is in fact an area in which I used to be the critic for the party, and I have had actually many different sorts of discussions with all sorts of stakeholders in the education background--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Inkster will have 39 minutes remaining. As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River.

As previously agreed, the hour being 4 p.m., it is time for private members' hour.

* (1600)