ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

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

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on Bill 5, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who has 19 minutes remaining.

Is it the will of the House to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River? Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak briefly about the triangle components in the educational process, consisting firstly of the teachers, secondly of the students,and thirdly of the school administrators.

The first issue I would like to tackle, Madam Speaker, is this question: Are our public schoolteachers really underworked and overpaid? Are the public schoolteachers really fat cats in our society who deserve no public sympathy whatsoever?

I believe that teaching is the greatest and the noblest of all human professions. Indeed, it is and can be considered as the mother of all the other professions including medicine, dentistry or law because you have to train and to teach your physicians in the medical schools. You have to train and teach your future dentists in the schools of dentistry, and you have to teach your student lawyers in the law schools before they can even access these elite professions in our society.

But depending on one's potentialities, I could say that there are three different categories of teachers: First, the mediocre teachers. They simply tell the student. Second, the good teacher. They are the ones who explain. Thirdly, the excellent teacher. The excellent teachers are the ones who inspire.

* (1420)

If we look back to our student days when we were young, we could hardly remember any teaching methods. But we do remember and we do recall teachers who inspired us, teachers who inspired us to excel, to achieve. We excel when we do better than we did before. The best teachers I would say are those who teach by what they are. The best teachers are those who teach by what they do, not necessarily by what they say.

The more experienced the teacher is, the better the teacher becomes. Why?

An Honourable Member: Not necessarily.

Mr. Santos: Well, the honourable minister said, not necessarily. Well, if you have a mediocre teacher who had experienced 20 years in the teaching profession, it is simply mediocrity multiplied 20 times. There might be a point in there. Who knows? It is a matter of judgment. If you like me, you will not agree; but if you dislike me, you would say so.

Experience is the best teacher because experience is always there on the job. But let me point out to the honourable members, whosoever is there to teach must never cease to learn. Let me repeat that. Whosoever is there to teach must never cease to learn, because the moment the teacher stops adding to his learning, he or she diminishes that learning.

An Honourable Member: Are you still learning?

Mr. Santos: Yes, every day.

For example, a teacher who we think imparts knowledge to his pupils and students, that teacher learns from interaction with his students as much as the student learns from interaction with the teacher and with each other. Even the wisest minds still have yet something to learn. Therefore, one does not stop to study, to observe, to inquire. As Solomon said, to know wisdom and instruction, to perceive the words of understanding, receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, judgment and equity, to give prudence to the simple, to give to the young men knowledge and discretion and wise men will hear and increase learning and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel.

To be an inspiring teacher, it is not enough to be just a good person. The teacher must realize his full potential as a human being. He must be willing to give his time and his self to others, particularly to his pupils. He or she must be eager and anxious to do something for others for which the teacher gets no reward, simply the privilege and the satisfaction of doing it.

However, Madam Speaker, given the numerous cuts in education financing in the public school system of this province, aggravated by the undue increase in the grants to the elite public school system, the cuts in the professional development time of the teaching staff, the increase in the size of class in the public schools, the growing conditions of physical and emotional insecurity among public school teachers, I have come to the conclusion that the public school teachers are among the overworked and underpaid public service groups in our society.

As a humble member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, I consider it a great privilege and a unique opportunity to speak on behalf of the public school teachers whose contribution to society in the teaching and the training of youth, although tremendously great and almost incalculable, are often not appreciated, but they are essential for the teachers as the bearers of culture. They are the transmitters of civilization from one generation to another.

Now, let me go to the second triangle, the second component of the triangle of the educational process, the students themselves, the children, the pupils in the triangle of the educational process. We must always bear in mind that no matter what we do, no matter what policy you undertake, no matter what program we conceive, we should always uphold the welfare of the children as first in any discussion of reforming our public school system. Always bear in mind that is the highest value, promoting the welfare of our children.

According to Francis Bacon in his essay entitled, Of Youth and Age, youth are fitter to invent than to judge; they are fitter for execution than for counsel; fitter for new projects than for settled business. Particularly young men, in the conduct and manage of action, they embrace more than they can hold. They stir more than they quiet, they fly to the end without consideration of the means and degrees. They pursue some few principles which they have chanced upon absurdly, care not to innovate which draws unknown inconveniences, use extreme remedies at first and that which doubles all errors will not acknowledge or retract them like an unruly horse that will neither stop nor turn.

The youth, I am inclined to think, seem to believe that they know everything. As Lord Chesterfield observed, young men are apt to think themselves wise enough, as drunken men are apt to think themselves sober enough.

Young people, they are impulsive.

Samuel Johnson once said, it is very natural for young people to be vehement. It is very natural for youth to be acrimonious. It is very natural for youth to be severe in their judgment. Why? Because they seldom comprehend all at once the consequences of an action. They form their conclusions with great precipitance. Seeing that nothing can embarrass the question, they expect to find their own opinion universally prevalent. They are inclined to impute uncertainty and hesitation to want of honesty, rather than want of knowledge.

* (1430)

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

Teachers who interact with students must ensure that the young men and young women continue to believe in themselves. These teachers must ensure that these young men and women must keep their dreams alive, keep their idealism vibrant for as Benjamin Disraeli said: the youth of the nation are the trustees of posterity. The youth are the hope of the country.

Young men and young women of today are not any worse than their own elders, when their elders were still young. The young people of today are simply different in making a fool of themselves sometimes. Come to think of it, it is really wonderful to be young enough to know everything, or, more precisely, almost everything except how to make a living. I noticed that the young people of today are always ready to give their elders the benefits of their inexperience.

I think it is really wonderful to be young. We can only be young only once. That is the time in our lives when we really appreciate things to the fullest. After the stage of youth, we can only think we are young, but that is all right. As Samuel Ullman said: We are as young as our faith, but as old as our doubts; as young as our self-confidence, but as old as our fears; and as young as our hope, but as old as our despair.

What we should remember is that whether young or old, we must incline our ears unto wisdom, we must apply our hearts to understanding, then we shall understand, according to the good book, the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of knowledge. For the Lord giveth wisdom; and from His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

Now let me come to the third component of the educational process, the school administrators. Of course, the school administrator includes the highest officials in the Department of Education and the superintendents and the principals.

Going back to the past, how did hierarchical organization come to be? Let us go as far back as the olden days of Moses. When Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses observed that Moses had sat alone in judging the people from morning until even evening, and there were so many problems, the father-in-law made a suggestion and said: you shall teach the people the statutes and the laws, and then show them the way in which they must walk and the way they should do their work. Moreover, you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, and place them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of tens and let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter let them judge themselves. So it will be easier for you, but they will bear the burden with you.

In the organization of our public school system, necessarily the organizational design would include the hierarchy of the organizational setup for the school administrators, from the deputy minister of Education, assistant deputies, superintendents, principals, head teachers. Whatever their name or designation or appellation, what is needed, what are the essential qualifications for good administrators? I would say they should at least possess these three Cs, three letter Cs, the qualification of a good administrator. The first C is competence; second C, character; and third C, courage.

An Honourable Member: Courage.

Mr. Santos: Yes. Competence--what do we mean by competence? Competence refers to the ability to productively use resources of time, material, money, personnel and devote them to the task to be done in pursuit of desired objectives involving the use of interpersonal skills, working on with teams, negotiating, persuading, inspiring, in acquiring, evaluating and processing information and the use of whatever available technology and with the understanding of organizational ethos and group values that had developed in the organization itself

The second "c" refers to character. Every administrator must possess this as an indispensable quality. Character refers to personal integrity. It refers to honesty, trustworthiness, dependability, a sense of fairness--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Santos: I would like to conclude in saying that in the administration of the public school system, the welfare of the child comes first as the component. The teachers sustain him, and the administrators sustain him. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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 Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Order, please. Is there leave to allow the House to revert to Bill 5? [agreed]

Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I am thankful for this opportunity to speak on Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act. On a personal note, I have a vested interest in the fate of Bill 5 which apparently is a recirculated version of Bill 3, prior to the election, a vested interest in the sense that for many years I have been a teacher by profession. Fortunately, my wife had the good sense to direct me to Manitoba in the early 1970s, and I have remained happy with and loyal to the Frontier School Division ever since that time as educator, teacher, lecturer and consultant. Frontier School Division was and still is an excellent system within which to work, and I am sure that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), who has also worked for the Frontier School Division, would fully endorse this view.

I cannot speak of education without bringing my personal experiences to bear. These personal experiences are what make education real. As well, I believe that I have learned as much from my students as my students have ever learned from me. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to those thousands of students who made teaching not just a job but an exciting experience, a learning experience for me. It saddens me when I look at the narrow scope of Bill 5, when I see education reduced to a power formula, to a recipe in which the minister's power is the main ingredient. It saddens me because what is left is the caricature of education, it is a body without a soul, an anemic corpse with power but no feeling or conviction.

* (1440)

But it does not surprise me, it does not surprise me. The last four ministers of Education have given contradictory, mixed and confusing signals to education in Manitoba. Some of my more sarcastic friends in the teaching profession refer to them rather ungraciously, I might add, as the four headless horsemen of the Apocalypse madly galloping in four different directions. That is an uncharitable view, and I do not subscribe to it myself.

Still, during the election campaign it became quite obvious that teachers were not enamoured with this government, and it was not for simplistic reasons such as money, either. Tories and education have always had a tough time mixing. Critical thinking always has a nasty habit of turning people to the left.

But back to Bill 5 and the three proposals contained therein. First of all, the first proposal allows the minister to establish rules and regulations regarding the creation of school advisory councils. This is hardly a new idea. Advisory councils already exist. Secondly, the bill deals with regulations concerning the duties of school principals, expanding and perhaps splitting the accountability of principals. Thirdly, the bill deals with regulations regarding the authorization of suspension of students.

Now regarding the advisory councils, that is nothing new because as many as 80 percent of the schools in Manitoba already have some sort of advisory council. Many of those councils are working very well. I am not sure why the minister is reinventing the wheel. I am also not sure why the minister needed to be so directly involved in the formation, composition and mandate of such councils. In the smaller and remote communities, such heavy-handed intrusion by government was unnecessary. At least the minister has relented from her earlier position which prevented teachers from sitting on the school advisory council at all.

I presume the earlier view was based on the belief that teachers would unduly sway advisory councils into unwanted directions, directions not consistent with those of the parents on the council. This of course is based on the paranoic view that teachers do not want what is good for education. I do not share that view. Teachers do want what is good for education before an election, during an election and after an election.

Now there is the odd government that starts a war with teachers, and there might be short-term political gain in it but there can never be a good thing coming out of it in the long run. The silliest thing a government can do is to underestimate the commitment, the dedication and the long-term memory of the teaching profession. That is what Ross Thatcher did in Saskatchewan, and it came back to haunt him.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. That is true, but also the hand that holds the chalk needs to be respected. My honourable friend alluded to that before. Teachers have worked too hard and too unselfishly to be treated otherwise. No government has the moral right to treat teachers as the enemy. Any teacher worth the name will fight for what is right, for what is best for the student.

If teachers honestly believe that right wing government is hacking and slashing and cutting in education, do they not have the right to fight with all that is in their power? If they did otherwise, if they became doormats for every ruling ideology that happens to form government, they would be cowards. Teachers stand for something, and they are doing an incredibly good job in difficult and stressful times.

They need our full support and if teachers are an integral part of school advisory councils, parents should be even more so. After all, teachers are considered substitute parents when teaching, or in Latin, in loco parentis, whereas the teachers are the natural teachers, not the substitutes designated by society.

Most school divisions, certainly Frontier School Division, have attempted to involve parents directly in the children's education. In fact, Frontier's slogan is partners in education. This partnership involves administrators, teachers, students, parents and other community stakeholders.

In remote and isolated communities, teachers often play a central role in bringing the reality of the outside world, with its challenges and its ruthlessness, to more traditional communities. The teacher becomes a mediator between two worlds, the world that is represented by modern downtown Winnipeg and the world that is represented by the elders.

Hopefully, in northern remote and aboriginal communities, elders will be key participants in the school advisory councils. In fact, elders are even now very much involved in education in such diverse communities as Norway House and Moose Lake.

I once had the privilege of spending some time with an Australian educator, Sister Pat Radigan [phonetic], who was superintendent of education for aboriginal children in a remote part of Australia. Sister Radigan pointed out that modern education for aboriginal children met with very limited success until elders were allowed into the classroom. Each elementary classroom, besides students, was assigned a teacher, a teacher's aide and an elder. Usually the elder was a woman. Often she did not even speak English, but her presence was a reassuring link to the past, as well as a definite commitment to the future.

Yes, even in this computer age, we have things to learn from the elders. Let us hope that in the North, at least, the wisdom of the elders, which is already in evidence at many schools, will also become a part of the school advisory councils as envisioned by the minister.

The second part of Bill 5 deals with the duties of principals. Principals are already the most overworked, harried and harassed members of school staffs. Why the minister would add to their burden in a rather top-down manner, reminiscent of Stalinist centralizing tendencies, I might add, remains a mystery forever beyond the reach of all except a few who can penetrate the inner sanctum of the Tory cabinet. It is a mystery that I cannot fathom.

I am not sure if any real principals were consulted. I am given to understand that the bill will designate school principals as the primary instructional leaders. Well, you can designate all you want, but there are only so many hours in a day. When principals are spending endless hours on paperwork, putting out brush fires here and there in full crisis management mode, a staff meeting here, a parent meeting there, deadlines, speeches and so on, then these principals are more interested in just surviving. They are only human. They cannot leap tall buildings at a single bound. For heaven's sake, make their job easier, not more difficult.

A lot more clarification is needed from Bill 5 regarding the power relationship between the principal and the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and between the principal and the elected school board. Suppose the school board or the advisory council become hostage to special interest groups. Theoretically, the principal could be in limbo, neutralized by three incompatible forces: the minister, the school advisory council and the elected school board.

I wish there had been less designating and more flexibility regarding the role of principal. For one thing, the role of principal changes dramatically in a large school. In a very large school, a principal may indeed have time to be an educational leader. In some schools, principals often teach classes and have little time or the necessary training to become instructional leaders.

I know of husband-wife teams who are the only two teachers in a small remote school. It would be absurd for one of them to assume the role of instructional leader. Of course, one of them will have to be designated as principal, usually the one who loses the coin toss two out of three times.

I am concerned that Bill 5 places too much power in the hands of the Minister of Education. There is too much power over principals, whose authority would be weakened and made less flexible. Why should principals have to look over their shoulder to suit the minister's urge for expanding and centralizing power?

The bill increases the minister's power over school councils and school discipline policies. The bill reduces the role of local authorities.

Is it not ironic that Tories often accuse the NDP, falsely, in my opinion, of being cold and inflexible toward the business community? Well, the Tories are certainly being cold and inflexible to the educational community. Of course, one could muse that it must be easy to become paranoic about education if you have not had a whole heck of a lot of it yourself. Call it the fear of the unknown, Tory dogma being bludgeoned by educational facts and realities, but I would say to the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and her cohorts, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Teachers and students and principals and parents are quite human. Trust them and work with them, do not lord it over them, and the results could be positive beyond your wildest dreams. But we need trust and consistency, not mixed signals. We do not need Filmon Fridays and reduced professional development days. We do need Canadian history and physical education taught in high schools, not that it is compulsory one minute, it is elective the next minute.

* (1450)

Either Skills for Independent Living is an important course or it is not. If it is--and I believe it is--then it should be taught. Students, teachers, parents want consistency so that long-range planning is possible. That means stable, predictable funding. That means putting an extremely high priority on education. There is no better investment than educating our people, young and old. All of us are lifelong learners--and the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) has already alluded to that. We are all lifelong learners.

It also means that the minister and the other members of the cabinet will not only have to really listen to what educators, parents and students are saying, but actually put into place policies and regulations that reflect what has been heard and learned. Do not just talk the talk, walk the walk.

The third and probably the most controversial aspect of Bill 5 is what appears to be the arbitrariness authorizing suspension of pupils from a school. Superintendents and principals already have this power, so that is nothing new. However, the minister, by regulation, will catalogue all the reasons for suspending pupils from a school as well as the length of the suspension period. The minister becomes a one-person judge and jury.

Does the minister not trust elected school boards, superintendents, principals, to define discipline policy? Should the school advisory councils not have a role to play in suspension policies? Apparently not. The minister's word will be the final word, but at least the minister has backed down from an earlier position, which advocated a teacher's right to suspend a student directly from the classroom. This would have by-passed the existing disciplining authority of board and principal and superintendent and would have led to endless inconsistencies and jurisdictional disputes, disputes between principals and teachers and teachers and parents. I commend the minister for removing that contentious portion of the bill, and I assume it was done partly because the former member for Rossmere first drew attention to this aspect of the bill.

As a teacher, I am fully aware that occasions arise whereby a student must be removed from the classroom because a student's behaviour is detrimental to the welfare of the school community. But such occasions are rare or should be very rare. In fact, in my over 25-year teaching career, I can recall only one instance where I was involved in having a student suspended. Even then, the student suspension was the result of unacceptable behaviour, repeated unacceptable behaviour in a situation that was not typical.

The school at which I was teaching at the time, Rose Valley High School in Saskatchewan, I recall, was heavily involved in experimentation and innovative practices. So there I was teaching Shakespeare and Julius Caesar, I recall, from the stage in the gymnasium to three classes of Grade 10 students, some 85 students in all. There were no other teachers or para-professionals present. Naturally, it was next to impossible to exert any form of discipline or control from the stage, yet 84 out of 85 students did learn, even in such a lecture-driven, low-controlled situation. Alas, there was one person that we could not reach. Only my friend, Brian--one student--did not ever pay any attention. His time was devoted entirely to paper airplanes and disrupting other students. I think he also had some hormone problem, but that is beside the point.

The principal, the board and myself had to become involved in removing Brian from the scene, suspending him. In a, quote, normal classroom, I am certain that I or any other teacher would not have needed to have Brian suspended. It was not Brian so much who was at fault, but the system, in this case, was at fault because we soon learned the limitation of one teacher using a lecture method to teach 85 Grade 10 students as one class. It just was not workable.

An Honourable Member: Eighty-five Grade 10 students.

Mr. Jennissen: There were eighty-five Grade 10 students. It was an innovation.

An Honourable Member: In a public school?

Mr. Jennissen: In a public school in Saskatchewan. It did not work very well.

The point I am making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that suspension of a student is serious business. It is an implicit admission that we cannot reach this child or cannot teach this child at this particular time. For the good of the larger group--the class, the school--the student is suspended, but we cannot forget the suspended student either. We must ask questions about why the unacceptable behaviour existed in the first place. Secondly, we must be sure about the student's whereabouts and safety after the suspension. You cannot rehabilitate the student who is not there.

We must go beyond merely housekeeping matters, control and classroom management and ask penetrating questions about why some kids act the way they do. We must deal with causes, not with symptoms. Chronic disruptive behaviour by a student should immediately signal to the teacher that there is something wrong, badly wrong, in that child's life. Merely turfing a student out of a class or a school does not solve the problem. We need to ask (a) what caused the problem and (b) how can we remedy the situation.

Some children live in abject poverty. Some children come to us from broken and violent homes. Some children never eat breakfast because there is no food in the home. Some children survive only because of secondhand clothes and food banks. It is mighty difficult to be a keen learner when there is no food in your stomach. It is not hard to become a rebel and a troublemaker if you have zero self-esteem, if you do not feel welcome in the educational system for whatever reason, if you feel that you will never get a meaningful job no matter how educated you become, no matter how hard you try.

In extreme cases, suspending a student is necessary, but it is never the preferred option, and it should always be as a last resort. Even then, the suspended student should not be ignored but carefully monitored and tracked. The idea is not to push the student out but rather to cool the student off so that he or she could be let back into the system. The idea is to get at the root cause for the student's disruptive behaviour and to change what is probably a negative context to a more positive one. This often means that principals, counsellors and especially teachers need to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk with a problem student. That takes time, and that takes trust.

Where does a teacher find the time to have intensive one-on-one discussions when there are 25 or 30 other students who need help? Where does the principal of a small school find the time for counselling a student when he or she is teaching classes, running the school? That consumes all the available time. There are no easy answers to these questions, but, remember, a child's place is in the school, even though older children, older teenagers often do drop out. The system should not add to this unfortunate trend, yet there are principals still who suspend students for skipping classes. I have never been able to figure out the logic of that approach, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A student misses classes, and, as punishment, a student is suspended and gets to miss even more classes. To my mind, that is like fighting fire with gasoline.

Kids belong in school. Let us keep them there. Let us not add to the negative forces that already keep children out of school. Let us be sensitive as educators, as parents, as legislators, as citizens of this province and this country to the fact that there are already enough dark forces such as hunger, poverty, hopelessness, conspiring against the education of our children without adding to this by top-down edicts.

The czar of Russia ruled by decree, by fiat; the Minister of Education should not do so. We should listen to our children. If we do not listen to them in these formative, difficult and stressful times, who will? If we do not give them hope, who will give them hope?

In 1989, the Frontier School Division commissioned a high school survey of student beliefs and attitudes and practices. The results of this survey contrasted sharply with a similar but much larger survey representing all Canadian high school students. The Frontier survey showed that northern teenagers were significantly different from teenagers in the rest of Canada in two main areas, self-esteem and job prospects.

Mainstream Canadian teenagers felt by an overwhelming percentage, in the high 90 percentage range, I believe, that their parents loved them and that their chances for a good job were extremely high. Northern teenagers, on the other hand, did not have that same optimism. I do not have the exact figures before me, but if memory serves me correctly, I believe that half or less than half of northern teenagers surveyed felt that their parents loved them. Half or less than half felt that they would actually hold a well-paying job at any time in their life after graduation.

* (1500)

The results of that northern survey has some powerful implications for all of us. Half of our children in the North are crying out and saying, we do nt feel loved; we have little self-esteem; we are not worthwhile human beings; we will never be productive members of this society; we are doomed. Then we wonder why the violence, why the suicides, why the substance abuse, why the acting out.

Now, that is frightening, that scenario, that is scary. Education now becomes much more than suspending a student, creating advisory councils or expanding the role of principals. Education now becomes, as the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has pointed out using the words of Hannah Arendt, the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token to save it from that ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and the young, would be inevitable.

Are we indeed assuming responsibility for our broken world when thousands of our children are living below the poverty line? Do we love the world enough to enter into the world of the children as thousands of teachers do every day, to stand with them, to wipe away their tears, to take their hands and lead them forward? Do we show solidarity with those teachers who are fighting for the children, for the future of those children, and who do this even if they have to take on the establishment, the government, in that struggle?

As the member for Crescentwood has pointed out so eloquently, Manitoba has a great public education system. The system is not in need of dramatic reform. Manitoba has thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers and hundreds of thousands of diligent students. But there are dark and alarming clouds on the horizon. One of those clouds drifting up from the south, I think it is from Newt Gingrich's back forty, is a notion that the world is a gigantic marketplace specifically designed by Providence for upper middle-class entrepreneurs. Everything is for sale; everything belongs to the highest bidder. Poverty and misfortune are the fault of the victim. The winner take all. The marketplace is the arbiter of destiny. The money markets, the IMF, the World Bank have become Moses and the Prophets all rolled into one.

That particular cloud, that particular world view must be dispelled. It is a very narrow view and a selfish view of reality. It does not mesh well with the Canadian psyche. We are a caring nation. We believe in sharing. We hold specific Canadian values. We do not believe in two-tiered systems for health or for education. We believe in keeping the public education system strong and not expending more public largesse in these difficult economic times upon elitist institutions such as private schools.

I have heard the minister's arguments. Yes, private schools have the right to exist, they have a place in the sun, but should the public system, the people system, which is open to all students, take cuts while the private systems, which are very selective--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with Bill 5, and it has nothing to do with the funding of private schools. I ask the member to speak to relevance, please.

Mr. Jennissen: I am all for saving the taxpayer some money, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point is that I think the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) is going the extra mile to support a system that competes with the public system and that they are not going the extra mile for the public system, which has to accept all children. It is odd, in this case, that while Newfoundland is going away from denominational schools because of cost factors and duplication, Manitoba seems to be drifting in the opposite direction.

The vast majority of Manitoba's children attend the public school system, and that system should be the minister's first priority. By fully and openly and unreservedly supporting the public school system with both words and more cash, the minister can visibly express her preferential option for the poor, for the poor have access only to the public system.

Despite the demonstrable success of public education in Manitoba, there are obviously some weaknesses, some areas of concern. One area of concern mentioned over and over again by other speakers is a rapid succession of Tory Education ministers. This suggests a lack of vision about education. Each minister ascends the throne briefly, focuses on one direction and by decree hopes to remedy the perceived weakness in the system.

There does not appear to be a consistent vision or direction. Cutbacks create tension in the system and make planning ever more difficult. When a system is under stress, the participants dig in, become more conservative, that is, take fewer risks, and as a consequence, desperately needed innovation goes out the window. Educators work best in a climate of teamwork and collegiality, not hostility, and some elements of this bill, I believe, will create hostility. It is hard to be innovative and collegial if your job is on the line. A consistent direction, stable, predictable funding and long-range joint planning by all the stakeholders in the system is what is needed. This is what teachers want, what parents want, what students want.

As well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, schools should consider teaching citizenship. In this present callous, economic climate our students once again need to know what constitutes a good citizen, a productive citizen, a Canadian, a Manitoban. Canadians are envied all over the world, but we do a less than sterling job inculcating students with the rights and responsibilities that flow from being a citizen of this country and this province. Surely high school history of Canada needs to be taught to all students. The minister knows that now, I am sure; she has heard the outcry from teachers and parents when the former History 201 was deemed an elective rather than a compulsory high school course.

Our children desperately need to know what makes us uniquely Canadian. Canada is not just a junior copy of the United States, and schools have a serious role to play in strengthening Canadian identity in the aftermath of NAFTA and the cultural erosion that affects us daily. Our children are daily bombarded by American cultural icons. They watch American television by the hour. They pick up American values.

Some of that may well be healthy, but some of it is not in the Canadian tradition. Some of those things not in the Canadian traditions are solving problems with violence, jingoism, exaggerated patriotism, racism, arrogance, triumphalism, the notion that only money counts, the belief that technology will solve all our problems, the belief that militarism is a substitute for diplomacy or that politicians are all on the take, that there are real easy answers. There are no easy answers.

These corrosive beliefs and values seeping north can only be countered in frank and open discussions in our classrooms, in our schools, and hopefully those discussions are also happening in our homes.

There are many other areas of concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Even though the educational system is working well and there is no place for undue alarmism, we need a provincial student information system--that has been mentioned earlier--a record system. We must be wary of quick fixes. Standardized tests may look like a good idea on the surface, but such tests are often very narrow, culturally inappropriate for immigrants or northerners and so on.

The teacher's own evaluation--the personal meeting, the anecdotal report--is much more effective. Often standardized tests are given for the sake of doing something because of departmental, administrative or parental pressures. Well, they have some limited values. The results of those tests are open to varying interpretations. Such tests have a centralizing tendency, however. Teachers tend to teach to the test. After all, we do not want to score poorly, now, do we? Those tests are of limited value but they often make governments look good because supposedly these tests will force teachers back to the basics.

In reality such tests, if raised to the status of the Bible, lead to uninspired teaching and lock-step education. May we in Canada never reach the absurdity reached in some American cities where real estate values, house prices, are keyed to SAT scores in the nearby schools. This obviously leads to the possibility of manipulating scores and gives further emphasis to two-tiered educational systems.

We do not need the American educational system, in which one side of town has a school full of upper middle-class preppies in Ivy League jackets and the other side of town has a school with metal detectors at the door and bodyguards for teachers.

I believe as Manitobans and as Canadians we believe in one good, solid public educational system. This system may vary slightly from province to province, but each province has a workable system, a good system.

Lastly, I think our schools should be open to more than the so-called average students. Manitoba has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. These pregnant teenagers should be encouraged to stay in school. Teenage moms should be encouraged and enabled to attend school. Adult education ideally should be part of every high school. Dropouts should have incentives to return and finish their education.

There are many things that the stakeholders in the public education system can do to improve a system that is already doing a very good job. There are many things the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) can do to make a good system even better, but I have reservations about Bill 5.

Working together in an atmosphere of collegiality and trust is critical to this process. There is nothing wrong with teachers, but there is something wrong when one authority figure, namely, the teacher, is pitted against another authority figure, namely, the Minister of Education or the Premier (Mr. Filmon). That sends mixed messages to our students.

* (1510)

There is nothing wrong with students either, but I can understand the anger and frustration when they cannot find jobs upon graduation. There is nothing wrong with the students, but there is something wrong with the economic system. Where is there dramatic economic improvement after NAFTA? I do not see it.

There is nothing wrong with parents either. They worry about jobs, mortgages, groceries, paying the bills. They hope that their children will have a bright future, but deep down they often feel it will not happen. They see jobs disappearing, welfare lines increasing, food banks expanding. They know the economy is in a mess and there are sharply differing opinions about how that mess is to be remedied, to be cleaned up.

But tough times or not, the children are our future. Only through them can the dream of a brighter future ever be realized, so we continue to work, to struggle, sometimes in hope, sometimes in desperation, to create a new world worthy of that boundless optimism, trust and innocence that still shines in the eyes of the young.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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 Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave? [agreed]

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 2, because in many ways it is one of the more interesting debates of this particular session, and I want to begin by saying that I certainly recognize that this matter is not new. The bill that we are dealing with currently was certainly something that was subject to some debate, discussion, prior to the election when the government announced its intention of bringing in this particular legislation. Certainly the government at the time stated its position on the balanced budget legislation, we stated our position and I think really what we are seeing in this debate is really a restatement of many of the positions that were indicated at that time.

I acknowledge as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the government was fairly clear in its intention on this, and while I would certainly in other areas accuse the government, many Manitobans accuse the government, of perhaps having a hidden agenda, they certainly did not when it came to this particular item of legislation. So I want to preface my comments by saying that I accept that the government campaigned on this particular legislation and is now intent on bringing it in.

That is not to say that I necessarily agree with that position, nor does our party. It is also not to say that there should not be some debate about the particular bill that this government has brought in, in terms of some of the mechanisms that it has built in, but let us put the cards on the table in that sense, the fact is the government did campaign on this particular legislation.

I would also note at the beginning of the debate that this is rather an interesting example, I think, with this government of the way it has chosen to proceed, because there are, I believe, four other jurisdictions in Canada that brought in similar legislation. This is really something that has been brought in from the United States where a number of states have brought in so-called balanced budget legislation, and it is interesting to note there is quite a variance between Manitoba's model and other provinces. There has been some fair discussion as to the kind of model that this government has chosen to proceed with.

I also think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the government would admit that it is part of a larger agenda as well. Certainly, we have had some debate on other aspects of that agenda, and certainly I know the taxpayers' federation, which has been pushing this kind of legislation, has many other aspects of its agenda that it has pushed, rolling back educational expenditures to 1972, privatizing Crown corporations, being some examples of that. I find it interesting to a certain extent.

By the way, those are positions that I do not agree with. I think it would be wrong for us to privatize our Crown corporations, particularly, for example, Manitoba Telephone System. I raised this in committee the other day. Manitoba Hydro, these are Crown assets. They are producing. They are assets for us. They have asset value, and they are producing revenue. I think that is the kind of thing that governments should be involved in. I find it ironic that many of those are brought in by--for example, Manitoba Telephone System was nationalized by a Conservative government at the turn of this century. I have seen some very interesting changes taking place with this government in terms of its approach to the handling of such issues as Crown corporations or even in terms of budgeting.

In terms of education, I have indicated that I think it is wrong to think that if we rolled back our educational system to 1972--it just happened to be the year I graduated from R.D. Parker Collegiate in Thompson. I can tell you, I did not receive a bad education; I received a pretty good one. My kids right now have much better opportunities and have a much more relevant education than they received in those days, so I think there are some aspects of the agenda that have been put forward that I do take exception to.

I find it interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Conservative government has essentially adopted the taxpayers' federation proposed model almost in its entirety. I do not think there is much difference between what they have been proposing--and this is a group I know that has some interesting background going back to the GST opposition in Alberta. This group has many tie-ins with the party of the members opposite and the Reform Party, but they followed that, whereas other provinces, such as Alberta, having significant components of the current bill before us, have decided not to proceed with that.

I think it is important to put that into perspective, because I think it is important to understand where this bill is coming from and where the government is coming from.

When I say that I accept the results of the election, does it mean that I necessarily support what the government's position is? I do think that the government might want to consider the fact that it is moving fairly dramatically in a number of areas. It has moved far beyond, for example, I mentioned the province of Alberta and other jurisdictions that have this kind of legislation.

I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as is the case and should be the case with any kind of legislation that is fairly new in that regard, they should be willing to look at the experience that will take place over the next number of years.

I remember when we brought in some pretty innovative labour legislation, final offer selection. The government, which was then in opposition, opposed it. It was put in place under what was called a sunset clause, and eventually it moved to repeal that legislation. I did not agree with the repeal, but at least there was some time period during which we could look whether that legislation worked.

I think, in this particular case, the government should consider that option when it comes to this particular legislation.

Let us deal with the concept of balanced budgets. Let us deal with the concept of the government fiscal policies in this province. Let us deal with the concept of how that relates to us as individuals, because I think one of the first comments I received from many people, those that did raise this issue, and, quite frankly, it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the biggest election issue in my constituency. I would say maybe less than half a dozen people raised it with me, but I must admit that there were a number of people who were puzzled why the government, after bringing in seven years of consecutive deficits, would all of a sudden become a born-again believer in balancing the budget.

I find, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is maybe one of the reasons why it was not as big an issue in the election as many of the other issues that were being raised, largely because I think the people of Manitoba--and this is a comment I would make about, well, probably the parties in this House collectively, MLAs in this House--I think they take what governments say sometimes, particularly when there is some divergence between what they have done in the past, with a slight grain of salt. I would say, in this case, with the Conservative government, after running seven different budgets, it might be a little bit bigger than a grain of salt. It would probably, I would suggest, be at least a few semiloads of salt that you would have to take because, quite frankly--the interesting thing is, I heard a lot of people, and to put it in the vernacular that--I know all the people I talked to to date, I heard people say, yes, right, you know, the government has brought in this legislation after seven years of deficits.

* (1520)

I mean, let us put it in focus here. The government's credibility is not the greatest on this particular issue. That is not to say that there was not some appeal to this particular bill. The member for Portage (Mr. Pallister), I know, when he was first elected here, brought in a private members' resolution on this type of a subject, and I know it is an area of interest. I must admit that some of us, at the time, wondered if the member for Portage had perhaps checked, before he ran, the record of the party that he was running for, because, you know, the fact is, it did run up seven deficits in a row. In Public Accounts it has been an interesting last week because we, first of all, had the Public Accounts committee, where we had the opportunity to deal in terms of what the reality was of that year.

We had even the former member for Rossmere here, Mr. Neufeld. Now he, a number of years ago, had said that the '92-93 deficit was in excess of $800 million. [interjection] Now the member for Portage is talking about fools, I know he is not talking about the former member for Rossmere because he is a very respected individual. Do you know what I find interesting? He is an accountant, and, as an accountant, he said the deficit is in excess of $800 million. Well, it is interesting. What did the Provincial Auditor say? What has the Provincial Auditor said? The deficit that year was in excess of $800 million. What did the government say? Approximately $400 million. What is the divergence? Let us put it this way. I would suggest it is creative accounting. [interjection] I am being generous. I have to be parliamentary. Creative accounting, some might say it is phony accounting. Some might go even further than that, but I have to be careful how far I go. Let us put it this way: that is the context of this.

The government, the born-again believers in the balanced budget, had a year in which their deficit was in excess of $800 million as was indicated by the Provincial Auditor and their own former member for Rossmere who was, as I said, an accountant and has some experience in these matters. So, as I said, do not take this with just a grain of salt, take it with a few semiloads of salt: this government now talking about balanced budgets.

Well, let us take another example of how we have to be careful with what this government says and what this government does because, in the 1992-93 budget year, this government raised the equivalent of $400 per family in taxes. It is interesting, you know, because the script that the government puts out is they have not raised major taxes. What was interesting was, the briefing note at that time pointed out that the equivalent of the increase was at least 5 percent of the provincial tax, the personal tax rates. It will be in the range of a percent on the sales tax. I think that is important because, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not covered in this bill. It is not covered at all. Creative budgeting is not accounted for.

It is interesting that when specific taxes are identified, the taxes identified are a couple of individual tax rates and the payroll tax. Nothing is said about increasing the coverage of the sales tax that took place here. Nothing is said about the creative increase in fees that have taken place, and I want to put this in context, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think that has to be taken into account.

I think there is also the other side of the ledger, as well, because one of the things that is sort of dealt with by implication with this bill is if in a given year, for example, there is a dramatic drop in revenue, the implications of this bill are that unless it is of the range of about $250 million the government will have to bring in cuts. It will have to cut program expenditures, et cetera.

You know, once again I think you have to take this with a bit of a grain of salt because we have heard lectures from this government about how tight the government's finances are, but nothing stopped the Premier from signing the loss agreement with the Winnipeg Jets, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which exposed the government, according to the Auditor, in a secret agreement, it exposed the government to approximately $45 million in losses. I mean, this year alone we have had projections of $25 million to $28 million dollars of losses in the Winnipeg Jets. This is the government that is saying there is not funding to cover cancer patients. There is not funding; they are going to have to cut back for social assistance recipients.

There is money. There is $25 million to $28 million, and that is just the low in the estimate to cover the losses of the Winnipeg Jets because of the failure of this government, the agreements it signed, and that does not deal with the losses that have already been incurred. It does not deal with the whole question that arose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in terms of funding that was given under the infrastructure program. The given attendance already at the Winnipeg Jets games, I would suggest to the government, is a low-end estimate. How do you factor that into some of the discussion?

We can talk about other issues. I talked today in committee about the $118,000 spent by the Lotteries Foundation on two studies that were aimed at deflecting criticism on Lotteries. We can talk about those kinds of expenditures, and I am not going to get into the question of the Beaujolais Restaurant fiasco. I am not going to deal with that. I think that was covered in Question Period yesterday. I think members understand themselves that there is something that does not quite fit when you talk about social allowance cuts and that kind of an expenditure. [interjection]

Well, the minister says there has not been a Lotteries Foundation for three years. He is quite correct. There was a bill that changed that. Of course, there has not been a committee hearing for close to the three years, too. That is one of the reasons I am using the terminology. I guess I am using the terminology from the two reports that we had dealt with this morning which were from prior to that period. The two that were after were under the new name. I appreciate the correction from the minister.

The fact remains that, once again, people have to take with a big grain salt this government's record in terms of spending priorities as well, which, I think, leads us to this particular bill and leads us to that background being then transposed to a government going into an election, looking for something that it could take to the public. This was the particular thing it took.

(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

I could point to some of the dramatic changes, certainly, I think, with the tradition of the Conservative Party, also the parliamentary system, because, in many ways, this bill moves dramatically against that. I must admit that it is something that I find rather amusing. I heard the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) yesterday on a radio broadcast talking about Cicero. I thought it was rather interesting talking about Cicero, because I wondered what Sir John A. Macdonald would say about this particular approach or what John Diefenbaker would have said or even Sterling Lyon.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I was directing my comments through you, and I did not realize they were also at you. But I really believe that. We were close to the 100th birthday--well, it would have been the 100th birthday--of John Diefenbaker. I really believe that there are elements of this bill that go far beyond the parliamentary system for which he fought and committed much of his political life, particularly certain aspects of the bill.

Mr. Acting Speaker, we can go beyond that, because the bottom line with most Manitobans is, when they look at this particular bill, when they look at the situation generally, I would say, most people have a balanced approach toward budgets, whether it is their household budgets or whether it is the Province of Manitoba's budget.

Regardless of what Cicero may have said or may not have said, I look at the average person today, and most people in this House and most people in this province, first of all, most of us do not inherit a lot of money. A lot of us have not inherited money. We do not marry into money. A lot of us work either by employment, or a lot of people own a small business where you basically are on a pretty fine line in terms of what you can start out, how you start it out, what kind of income you earn. I think most people understand that from their daily lives. Most people are not in the situation of having an extensive amount of money they can draw on that comes from outside sources.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): It sounds like this is leading into a silver spoon speech or something.

Mr. Ashton: The silver spoon speech. The Minister of Environment talks about the silver spoon speech. I am not targeting this at those that are perhaps more fortunate, through whatever circumstances, to have inherited money or to marry into money or whatever, win the lottery, you know. Maybe I have Lotteries on the mind today. I am talking about the average person who runs a small business or who runs a household.

* (1530)

Most people, young families starting out, someone in a small business situation, understand better than anyone the role of financing, personal financing and also the role of financing through debt, whether it be for a house or whether it be to operate a small business, because there are very few small businesses in this province that do not have to undertake at least some debt, whether it be an operating line of credit--[interjection] Farmers, as well, yes, have to take out a loan, the average person buying a house.

When I bought my first house in Thompson, I took out a mortgage. When I bought another house recently, I took out a mortgage. What is interesting is--you know, the people that probably understand best are those that deal with finances--it would be bank managers or financial advisers--because the first thing you do when you sit down with the bank manager, whether it is a business or personal.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Asking what kind of credit you have got, and determine what kind of rate you are going to get, what your credit rating is. They try to determine your credit rating, and that is based on knowledge.

Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the comments from the Minister of Education. She has given me her opinions, but we are talking about dealing here with what one's financial situation involves, a business, and you look at it and a number of factors including--

Point of Order

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of order, I would just like to remind the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) that if she has some comments to put on the record she should put them on the record rather than commenting very loudly from her seat.

(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

As she said in Hansard on the record just yesterday, she would much prefer to be in her office doing work that actually was functional than sitting in here listening to drivel. So perhaps the Minister of Education would like to do that very thing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I found interesting is, I have not even gotten to my point yet, and the member for Portage, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) and the Minister of Education are trying to argue the point that they assume I am going to make that I have not even made yet. So if they will just let me get to my point I think they may find that they may actually even agree with us.

When one looks at a household or a business one has to look at the whole situation in terms of those finances. The first thing a bank manager does when it looks at a business or at an individual is look at the net worth, which looks at a combination of not just liabilities but assets as well. I mean, if you own a house and it is worth $100,000 and you have a $60,000 mortgage, the net worth that you have in that house is $40,000.

It does not matter what the figure is. You sell that house, you obtain a liquid asset in the form of cash, you have $40,000. But you know, this is something that has to be included when you look at the province's finances.

We own Hydro, we own MTS, we own the Lotteries commission, we own various different things, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Debt was incurred to purchase them. There is also an asset value that we have, and I would suggest, in a commercial sense, many of those Crown corporations have a significant value in terms of good will, which is basically the ability to earn a profit. Anybody who is in small business, and those in this Chamber who come from a small-business background can say from personal experience, I am sure, what that involves as well, because your value of a business is partly your assets, it is partly your ability with those assets to produce an income.

What I am suggesting is that governments are in some ways not a heck of a lot different from personal households and from small businesses. There are a few differences, probably more so at the federal level, but at some point in time there are those fiscal realities and there are assets, there are liabilities, there are certain things you have to be careful of in terms of the degree to which you can take on any debt in terms of your ability to repay those debts, and those are factors that clearly have to be recognized by anyone.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the basic concept of this bill in a general principle probably is something that most people would say, yes, you have to have some balance. But what I find interesting though is that the government chose the route of a one-year balance. It does make one exception, a big exception, in terms of the $250 million, approximately $250 million--there is a shortfall in revenues at that period of time--but then basically it says that if there is a dramatic drop in revenues, you have to balance that budget within the year. I find that interesting, because I hate to think of some of the kind of cuts that we could see whether it be in health care where we have already seen enough happen in terms of cuts or education or the rest of it.

But we do have some very clear examples, clear analogies to a family to my mind. If you are laid off from a job--and that is not unusual today--or you get a salary rollback, it is not to be unexpected then in that year you might end up with a much reduced income. You might even end up with no income. Anybody who has been a farmer or a small-business person in this House knows that from personal experience. It is very easy in this province to have no income in a year--zero--because you may have some income, but it is balanced out by losses. It is not an unusual circumstance for someone in a small business or a farm.

But I transpose that to what you do in your household at that particular point in time. Now you undertake various different things. You certainly are very careful in terms of expenditures, but in the short run you may also end up with your debt situation deteriorating somewhat, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is to be expected. A farmer loses money in a year, that alone does not make any income, but loses money.

Where does that money come from? In a lot of cases, there may be a temporary fluctuation in terms of that person's particular situation, but a household or a farm does not send one of the kids out of the house because there is not enough money. You do not do that. You do not sell all your assets in a given year to pay off the shortfall if you know over a longer period of time that you are going to be able to deal with that. You do not sell off the assets of the family. There are limits to what you do. You try to increase your income. You perhaps try and decrease your expenditures somewhat, but you do not go and sell off the heirlooms that your family has had for centuries.

One of the things that this bill allows is for the government to sell off Crown corporations. There is no restriction on that. It allows them to sell them off and then transfer that money to the year in which they are sold or in fact through fanciful accounting--because we have already seen this with McKenzie Seeds--to transfer that over a couple of years. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what they are doing is allowing the government to essentially sell off the assets, the long-term assets that it has not created but has inherited as a government, whereas in a family situation I do not think you would expect that. I do not think you would expect someone to sell off the family heirlooms. That is one very significant weakness of this bill.

The second thing I want to deal with--and I want to use this analogy again of a household or of a farm family that has been in this situation or small-business person. Name me a small business in this province that makes money in its first three, four or five years in operation. There may be a few, but anybody who has been in small business, the first thing they all tell you is that do not expect to make money the first several years. Do not expect to make money for four or five years and even then you have to be lucky. I am talking in a real sense, taking into account the real cost of assets invested. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know probably better than I do, better than most and better than other people in this House do. But you know there is a very real function of financing in that first period of time. You have got to be careful, you know, the financing, you have got to be careful how much you undertake.

But you know there are a lot of small businesses in this province. Successful small businesses would not have got off the ground at all if it was not for some access to capital through debt financing. One of the biggest complaints of many small business people is the lack of access to that capital. Now that is not to say there should be open access, obviously you have to take into account a lot of factors, but you know small business, new small business in this province, many existing small businesses cannot operate without some access to capital.

I want to throw that out again as another analogy because you know I think what the government is failing to recognize in this particular period of time is that there are times and places in our lives as individuals and in terms of small businesses and farms where debt is a reality. Some cases, as I mentioned, it may be from an event such as a layoff. I know a lot of people who have had tough personal circumstances. To keep their family going they have had to increase their debt load over the short run, and you know there are others who, for investment purposes, have invested in a small business or a farm and that investment is something they have obtained in terms of debt, such as small businesses, big businesses.

* (1540)

Inco in Thompson would not be here today, would not have operated its first mine in the 1950s, would not have constantly upgraded its capital portion of the mine if it had not been for investment and that investment was through financing, debt financing.

Now I am sure if the Minister of Education was to be involved in this debate, she would then say, yes, but the credit rating, yes, but, and you know that is accepted. Obviously your ability to access that capital is a reflection of your income, also your past ability to deal--maybe through no fault of your own. I know many successful business people who have had a business go bankrupt, who are now very successful. There are many people.

If you look locally, we have a very successful local promoter who is probably one of the most successful business people now, had one business go bankrupt. I was reading, I mean you could take the international examples, The Body Shop, the woman who founded The Body Shop went bankrupt in her first business venture. The interesting thing is she also sought a partner early on in her subsequent Body Shop venture, and it is interesting to note that she also sought an investor to loan her money. That investor received a portion of the business. I believe he loaned about $10,000. The value of his investment currently today is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So there is an example of an investment that paid off quite significantly.

You know those are the realities out there. This legislation does not account for this. This legislation is based on a one-year snapshot. It purports to want to establish the balanced budget in each and every year based on its accounting, based on its format and formula. That is, I think, one of the serious questions that have to be asked about this, whether this fits in the reality of what is going on.

I want to deal with that for a second because I talked about families. I have talked about small business. I have talked about farms. Let us talk about governments, and let us deal with the reality of governments.

First of all, provinces do have restrictions in terms of their fiscal situation just like other levels of government but more so than, say, the federal level of government because the federal level of government does have some control over monetary policies within a certain range and certainly has greater ability to control its fiscal policies than do provinces. Provinces get their revenue from taxpayers, and when it comes to financing any debt, that either has to be financed locally or financed through the money markets. So there are restrictions on what provinces can do. There is a reality. There is a fiscal reality out there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think everybody acknowledges that.

But one of the other realities of governments, and I would encourage members opposite to go through the budgetary information provided by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) every year, is that there is a fairly significant fluctuation, not so much in terms of expenditure but in terms of revenues that governments receive in any given year. I want to give you an example.

In 1988 when the previous NDP government left office at the end of that fiscal year, before any of the transfers, the creative accounting the government brought into office, there would have been a surplus, I believe about $50-odd million, $52 million. Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the reasons behind that--and I have always been up front about that--is there was a dramatic increase in mining revenue that year, a dramatic increase coming from my own constituency and other northern communities.

Within two, three years because of a drop in the amount of money coming from mining, there was a totally different fiscal position and to a certain extent, 1992-93, the government hit a number of factors. It had its revenues declining in very sensitive areas such as mining. Its revenues were down in terms of other areas such as income tax and sales taxes. It basically hit a wall in that one year whereby it ran this record deficit. But what is interesting is as the economy improved somewhat, there was an improvement on the revenue situation and our fiscal situation today, helped along also by lotteries revenue, is certainly better than it was, say, in 1992-93.

But you compare this 1988-89, 1992-93 and then the current situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What was the key factor throughout those years? It was not a huge fluctuation on the expenditure side. We can argue about the government's policies, that they have cut too much. There might be some people who would argue they have not cut enough. We can deal with those expenditure policies, but you cannot leave out the reality of the revenue side of the equation and that is that governments are susceptible, very much so, to the economy. That is one area they are susceptible but let us deal with another area where they are susceptible, and the government should know this quite well. It is in terms of transfers from the federal government. One of the significant sources of income is transfers from the federal government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, over the last number of years that, too, has been subject to a great deal of pressure, and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is here, and the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) is here, as well. They know that. They have talked about it, somewhat belatedly--I know in the case of the Premier (Mr. Filmon)--but they have talked about the impact that it has had, and is going to have, on the province of Manitoba. So this is another factor that is beyond our control. We can say what we want about the federal government but unless the people of Canada, to a certain extent, wake up to what is happening and make the federal government pay the political price for it, that is going to be the reality of it. They are essentially transferring their own deficit on to the provincial level of government. Of course, the province has transferred part of its deficit onto the local levels of government.

But look, let us deal with that again, another source of revenue that is subject to a great deal of downward pressure. It is somewhat more predictable than our tax revenues, but once again there is a lot of pressure. So I want to submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this idea that is inherent throughout this debate, the real problem is somehow expenditure has to be balanced by the fact that expenditure is only part of what governments do. It is also the revenue side.

Now let us deal with that somewhat further because what happens--[interjection] I am advised that is what Terry Duguid says. He also has a sign up about out-of-city people paying their fair share. I know it was not directed to people from Thompson, but I just remind him of how much we send to Winnipeg in terms of mining, VLTs and other things.

I must say, I do take some amusement because, quite frankly, we pay more than our fair share. If Mr. Duguid running for mayor wants to run on that platform, that is his business, but I think he will get some disagreement from rural and northern members in this House. [interjection] A flawed approach. Exactly. We actually agree on something, as the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) points out. But I digress because the important thing to look at, when you are looking at the fiscal situation facing the provincial government, is what you do, understanding that inherently there is this susceptibility of revenues to outside forces and particularly the economy.

What does it mean? If you look at what has happened, it means that in a year like 1992-93, in the depths of the recession, what you end up with is a situation where you get a significant drop in revenues. On the expenditure side, you also get a significant increase in expenditure, welfare, social assistance. It is not because of any great generosity of the government at that particular day and time; it is because you have more people unemployed. That, by definition, is what you do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there have been those in the past that argued that what you should do in a depression is you should cut back on government expenditures dramatically, balance the budget. We all talk about the Herbert Hoovers, but we had that here: R.B. Bennett, very much a part of his philosophy in the 1930s here; Mackenzie King.

This is interesting because Liberals do not like to admit to this, but one of the big concerns that Mackenzie King had in the middle of the Depression, one of the criticisms that he had of the Conservative government of the day was, it was spending too much money, and it was running the deficit up. You know these great sort of warm-hearted Liberals who will want to be there when you need help, you know, like in a depression, they wanted to cut government expenditures.

I find it interesting because, to a certain extent, the current Liberal Party is living up to that approach. I mean, they say kind words, and then they bring out the axe.

I find it interesting that, when you are looking at these kinds of circumstances, this is the 1930s philosophy of dealing with budgets. If there was one lesson that was learned in the 1930s, it is that you do not do that.

I will give you another example. This is probably one of the best examples. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in the 1932 presidential election, campaigned against the deficit. He wanted to cut the deficit. He wanted to cut expenditures. Yet what he did, when he came into power and recognized the gravity of the situation, was he brought in the new deal in the United States, which, I think, was a model that I thought, until recently, was accepted by people from the right, the left, the centre.

I mean, it just made sense that when you are in a difficult situation, when your economy is being run down, what you do is you do not cut back even further. What you do is you try and prime the pump a little bit. You help those that need help. You try and get the economy moving.

* (1550)

We could talk about Keynesianism, and I do not want to get into those kinds of debates really, but it was really common sense. Len Evans will talk about Keynes.

I admit, and I think this is a fair comment too, that there has been a sort of a bastardized Keynesianism. It is not unparliamentary, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not make any reference to any member. I am talking about a particular philosophy. You know, that I refer to as when you do not follow the basic assumption of it, which is that in good times you do run a surplus if necessary, which we did not actually until approximately the mid-'70s, and the tough times, that is, when you are going to get expenditures increased either deliberately or else because that is part of the built-in process that we do--our UIC expenditures go up or our welfare payments go up.

I think that is important because, in the provincial context in Manitoba, I think the government has basically tied itself into the straitjacket of a one-year, balanced-budget bill that does not reflect the reality of the fact that every year is different, that there is an economic cycle--[interjection] No, I talked about a philosophy. I was not making any reference to any member of the House. I assure the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I was making no reference to him or anybody else.

No, but every year is--well, I have not gotten up and said I am going to withdraw anything I have said to offend anyone, but if the member is happy, if the use of the word "bastardized" Keynesianism has something that he takes offence to, I withdraw that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will say distorted Keynesianism.

Even though it has been somewhat distorted, the fact is, the reality is, not every year is the same. That is why I have some great difficulty with this particular bill. We could deal with the questions of referendum, and I know that Standard and Poor's, for example, has raised some questions about that. Their are others who question why certain things have not been included in that. We can also deal with the question of the whole philosophy of the bill, but the reality is, when we are in tough times, we have to maintain expenditures in this province in certain areas, and we have to pay that back in good times. That is something this bill does not do. That is why, despite the fact the government won the election on this bill, I think we warn the government, we do not think it is going to work.

We are going to oppose the bill, and I hope the government will at least agree to review it over the next number of years, because I think they will find as well that this bill will not work. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also am rising this afternoon to put some comment on the record about Bill 2, the balanced budget legislation.

I would like to start by saying that my reading and understanding of what this balanced budget legislation is all about, really the heading "balanced," there is no relationship in any way, shape or form to any kind of legislation or activity on any level in our society, historical or current. It bears no resemblance to economic theory, whether it is a Milton Friedman supply side economic theory or the Keynesian economic theory or the Adam Smith economic theory. From whatever political perspective you come, the economic theory that you ascribe to is not reflected in this piece of legislation.

It also does not reflect any economic practice. It does not reflect the actions of past governments in Canada, the United States, anywhere in the developed world or in Manitoba, and it does not reflect the current actions of governments in Canada or this government in Manitoba. It also does not reflect past practice or present practice or theory in the context of business, whether it is small business, medium-sized business or large multinational, transnational corporations. This legislation and its thinking is not reflected in anything business has ever done.

Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this piece of legislation has no parallel in any legitimate way with what actually happens in the smaller unit that this government wants very much to be the basis of everything, and that is the family. So I find it very interesting that this government has brought in this legislation in the face of overwhelming evidence that this kind of thinking never has worked, it is not going to work now and it most likely in the future will not ever work. Families, businesses and governments throughout recorded history--if I could be that extensive--have never operated under the kind of restrictions and the kind of thinking that is seen in this piece of legislation.

Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one must ask themselves then, why was this piece of legislation brought in in the first place?

An Honourable Member: Why?

Ms. Barrett: Well, I am going to answer that question, that rhetorical question, and I, of course, am not privy nor was I privy to the discussions and the decision-making processes that were undertaken by the previous government, because this legislation was promised and actually tabled before this last election. I was not privy to those discussions either in the context of cabinet discussions, departmental discussions or caucus discussions. But looking at it from the outside, knowing what I know about the activities and the thinking of this government, I can come up with a couple of potential ideas and potential reasons for why this government put this legislation before the Legislature last spring. I think the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) alluded to this kind of thinking in his speech the other day.

A year and a half ago, this government thought perhaps it would not win another term. One never knows what is going to happen in the body politic, and I think we have members in this Legislature today who could well attest to the vagaries of the public will. My sense, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the government of the day felt that the likelihood of their being re-elected with a majority was less than the likelihood of their either being beaten at the polls or being in a minority government situation.

So to enhance their electoral prospects and thinking that perhaps they would never really actually have to deal with the implications inherent in this piece of legislation, they brought forward in the fullness of time Bill 2, the balanced legislation. My sources tell me that the discussions on the government side said we want to bring forth a piece of legislation that is the toughest in North America. Why did they want to bring forth a piece of legislation that was the toughest in North America? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am convinced that they either did not think through the full implications of what was going to happen to them if they actually had to govern under this piece of legislation, or they did and felt that they were not perhaps going to be the government that would have to implement it.

As I stated earlier, I can only posit these kinds of reasoning, the kind of reasoning that was undertaken by the government. In all honesty, I cannot figure out any other reason why the government would do something like this. They are doing something that no other government in North America has done, whether it is a New Democrat government, a Liberal government, a Conservative government, and Lord knows we have no more Conservative government than the government of Alberta, or any state in the United States of America with the exception of California, anything near as severe as the legislation before us in Bill 2.

With those opening remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like then to go through the various elements of Bill 2 and discuss why I believe this is an unrealistic piece of legislation this government is going to have an enormously difficult time living with. I think perhaps that members on the government side are beginning to realize that when you sow the wind, you sometimes are forced to reap the whirlwind. I think the whirlwind that is going to swirl around this government in the next weeks and months and years is going to be devastating, not only for the government, but it is going to be devastating for the people of Manitoba.

And further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin my more specific comments by talking about the historical precursors of this piece of legislation. In the 1930s, both in Canada and the United States, as well as across the entire world, the--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. As previously agreed, the hour being 4 p.m., it is now time for private members' hour. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 32 minutes remaining.

* (1600)