Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I thought you might call Grievances, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I did.

Mr. Ernst: Did you? Okay.

In that case, would you call Bills 36, 5, 6, 23, 24, 31, 33.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 36--The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second readings, Bill 36 (The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications corrélatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

Is there leave for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas? [agreed] And also standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who has six minutes remaining.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, as I begin, I would like to make a correction to something I said previously having to do with a number of recipients of social assistance. I wrongly said that there were 31,000 client files. In fact, there are 15,000 on the City of Winnipeg; 26,000, Province of Manitoba, for a total of 41,000. I was under by 10,000. So I correct the record.

In concluding my remarks about the one-tier system, I would have to say that we are not totally opposed to this. In any case, there is nothing we can do about it. This government has a mandate for another two or three years, and they are going to amalgamate the two systems whether we vote against it or not. However, we do have numerous concerns about the implementation and how the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) plans to do it. Of course, we have had a longstanding concern about the rates, because the City of Winnipeg has historically--and even up to the present--paid higher rates in spite of the efforts of the provincial Minister of Family Services to standardize the rates and reduce them, including the rates for infants which were reduced by 26 percent this year.

* (1440)

The second major part of the bill has to do with obligations regarding employment and many of these obligations are quite draconian. For example, the individual on assistance who is deemed employable--and this minister has deemed thousands more people employable, namely single parents--has an obligation to do 15 job searches. I am not sure whether that is every 15 days or 30 days, but there is this obligation, in fact, quite a large expectation in terms of searching for work.

If an individual is offered work or training or education and turns it down, they can have their benefits reduced by $50 a month up to six months, $100 a month for six months or have their benefits terminated entirely, or if someone is working or in education or training, they can have their benefits reduced by a similar amount, $50 a month up to six months and $100 after that, or be not eligible for benefits.

One of the sneakier provisions of this bill is that they are asking clients if they want to waive this job expectation and sign away their benefits in advance. So they are asked if they want to do this, and if so, then their benefits are accordingly reduced in advance.

We believe that the vast majority of people on social assistance want to work. The main problem is the lack of jobs, so having this big-stick approach is probably not going to be very successful. We do know that it is forcing more people to rely on alternative sources. Just yesterday I talked to someone who works at Agape Table soup kitchen who told me that the caseload was up considerably in June, July and August, which is not surprising because welfare cuts took effect May 1.

Just by way of example, I had someone contact me just a couple of days ago who has been unemployed since 1995. This person took computer upgrading. This person had been employed as an accountant for various companies for many years. She is very desperate; however, she refuses to apply for social assistance. She did, however, tell me that rather than go to a welfare office she would go to her garage and start the car. I have a great deal of empathy for people like this, who very clearly told me that she would rather commit suicide than apply for social assistance. That is what the policies of this government are doing. They are forcing people to consider options like committing suicide rather than apply for social assistance, because of their punitive attitudes and policies.

The final section of the bill I would like to comment on in my last two minutes is that of workfare. We have done quite a bit of research on this and studied many examples in other Canadian provinces and in American states. In fact, I am indebted to one of our legislative interns from last year, whose name is Tannis Cheatle, who did her paper for the university on this topic. It was called Workfare in Manitoba, Will it Work?, dated August 1996. The research shows that workfare is very expensive because you have to hire many, many more civil servants in order to put people into jobs. It does not get many people off social assistance, and frequently it subsidizes business and industry who can lay off paid employees and have access to a pool of very cheap labour, and it can be constantly replaced by other people on social assistance.

One argument that we may hear from this government and have probably already heard from the minister is, how can we afford to pay for the increasing costs of social assistance? I would like to just give one example before I conclude, and that is family trusts. We know that the federal government's Department of Finance recently approved $2 billion in a family trust being moved out of the country and no taxes were paid on it in spite of protests by Revenue Canada. The taxes that were not paid amount to $500 million to $700 million. So, if this provincial government and the federal government were serious about going after family trusts and other sources of revenue that they refuse to collect, there would be money for meaningful job creation programs, not the 700 jobs for 41,000 recipients that this government has as its meagre target. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

* * *

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, earlier when I called the bills, I think I transposed two numbers. I should have called 36, 56, 23, 24, 31 and 33, and I believe I transposed 33 and 31.

Madam Speaker: You did call them 31, 33. Is the minister suggesting you wanted 33 then 31?

Mr. Ernst: No, no. It should be--I am sorry--33 first, then 31. Sorry.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable government House leader. Is there further House business?

An Honourable Member: No.

* * *

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): In regard to this Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, I understand this bill changes the name of The Social Allowances Act to The Employment and Income Assistance Act. This bill also narrows the definition in terms of social assistance in Manitoba.

Superficially, the term “social allowance” is replaced by the term “social assistance,” but the whole act changed the direction and intent of social services in Manitoba. In this act, under the old act, goods and services that may be provided to residents of Manitoba were specifically spelled out, including goods and services essential to their well-being, including food, clothing and shelter, as well as essential surgical, medical, optical and dental treatments in addition to funeral upon death.

With the new act these services are not spelled out individually and are referred to only as services essential to the health and well-being of Manitobans, including an allowance for shelter, essential medical services and a funeral upon death. This might seem superficial but it has important connotations.

This Conservative government has significantly changed the way our society operates. It has dismantled the social welfare system. It has also limited the access to services in health care, threatening to close some hospitals by underfunding health care in general. Public optical and dental services have been eliminated, and Pharmacare rates have been going up. We now pay for services and can in the future expect to pay more in user fees for such services. As part of the need to define health care services, it should be impossible to leave The Social Allowances Act untouched.

In effect, if they did nothing to this act, people on welfare could demand better service than people who receive no government assistance. Since under the old act what a person was entitled to was clearly spelled out, whereas in the new act it only makes reference to essential services and does not offer a full definition, the reality of this situation though is that government is simply taking services away from the public by attacking the poor, convincing us that they are lazy and do not want to work. The government needs a way to legitimize the reduction of health services to the general public.

If you need the government to pay for these services, you must be lazy, it implies. As part of this scene, the government has introduced employment obligations. This is called workfare in many other provinces or states in North America. In this section the government now has the power to deny or reduce income assistance to any applicant if they refuse employment opportunities by the department. Again, this attack on the poor plays very well in the media and is used to convince the public that the Conservative agenda is getting lazy people off the dole. Such programs have not been that successful in the past.

When this gets to committee, we are sure there will be strong representations made. We look forward to hearing those representations made when it goes to committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

Bill 5--The Horticultural Society Repeal Act

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading on Bill 5. On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 5, The Horticultural Society Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les associations horticoles), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? No. Leave has been denied.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, as the minister indicated in his comments when he introduced this bill, this is a housekeeping bill that has come forward from the Horticultural Society as they reorganized themselves. So what the minister did not put on the record was that the reason that horticultural societies have had to reorganize themselves is that over the past few years the government has reduced their funding and in fact has eliminated the funding to horticultural societies. So there is not any reason for the government to have a bill there when they are not contributing to the societies at all. As a result of that reduction and elimination of funding, the societies have come forward with their own by-laws and their own charter on how they will continue to operate.

* (1450)

It is unfortunate that the government has chosen to take this step to eliminate the funding and in that sense not recognize what the horticultural societies have contributed to this province, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize that the horticultural societies do play a very important role in many communities. I know they play a role in the city in beautifying and encouraging people to beautify their properties. They play a role in educating the public in the value of plants, mostly decorative plants but also shrubbery and in gardens as well and in the rural community they also play an important role.

It is an organization that is dying. In many areas, the number of societies has decreased and, as I say, I think it is disappointing that the government has chosen to single this group out as one that would not need any continuation of funding but, since they have chosen that, it is redundant legislation.

Before I close, Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize a few of the horticultural societies in my constituency. There is one at Benito, at Minitonas and Bowsman and one in the southern part of the riding as well who do a tremendous job. Particularly in the community of Minitonas, you can see that through their work that the properties within the town have been beautified. They have lots within the community that they themselves do all the planting and tending to the flowers. In the fall there is always a fair for displaying the production of members. I want to commend them for the work and I encourage them to continue on in their effort to educate Manitobans in the value of growing plants and vegetables in our communities. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I too would echo many of the remarks that the member for Swan River has put on the record with respect to the Horticultural Society and, in essence, I understand that this bill has become somewhat redundant, that the bill repeals The Horticultural Society Act.

The Horticultural Society of Manitoba has reorganized and elected its own board of governors and, therefore, there was a need to have this particular piece of legislation brought to our attention. That is, from my understanding, what Bill 5 is about and, as the member for Swan River pointed out, how we have benefited in the past and no doubt we will continue to benefit under the reorganization well into the future. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 5, The Horticultural Society Repeal Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 6--The Veterinary Science Scholarship Fund Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), The Veterinary Science Scholarship Fund Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Fonds des bourses d'études vétérinaires), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, this bill, The Veterinary Science Scholarship Fund Amendment Act, is a bill that allows the government the opportunity to increase the amount of funding that is paid to veterinarian students. It has to be recognized that we do not, in Manitoba, have a veterinarian college, and our students must go to Saskatchewan to get their training. At the present time the government sponsors some 48 students--[interjection] My colleague asks whether they can go to Alberta. I would imagine that they could, but as it is the majority of the students--the sponsorship, as I understand it, is for students in Saskatchewan, and I would imagine if they so choose they could go to other provinces. It is very important that we do support these students because veterinarians play a very important role in the agricultural economy of this province. As we move away from the grain industry and towards more value-added, with the changes that we have had because of the Crow, we will see an increase in livestock production in this province and a varied amount of livestock. It is important that we have the students trained and that we encourage them to come back to this province to practise.

Now, the minister in his comments indicated that this legislation will require that students receiving the public funding will be required to practise in rural Manitoba after graduation. Those practising elsewhere will have to pay back the funds plus interest to government. However, the minister says in his comments that this is part of the legislation. That, in fact, is not part of the legislation. It always has been there. The current regulations of the act require that students pay back any monies received from the government if they do not practise in Manitoba; otherwise, those working in Manitoba are debt free after five years of practice. Therefore, current regulations already have all the components which the minister said were in the new regulations. It appears that the only change, actually, in this bill is the cancelling of the scholarship ceiling, and I think, considering the cost of education, that it is a good move to increase the ceiling as to the amount that can be loaned to students to do their studies in veterinarian.

I do have a concern that there is no minimum level stipulated. Before, there was a top level. Now there is no level, and considering all the cuts that we see by this government to various programs, it has opened the door to the possibility of lowering the amount of funding for students because there is no minimum. Now, I would assume that there are enough members from the government side who recognize the importance of the veterinarian program and would ensure that their government would not reduce the amount of funding that was made available to veterinarian students, but stranger things have happened and we have seen many things cut by this government. For example, I just spoke about the horticultural societies, and we saw the funding for that eliminated, and now we have an opening here for the government, if they so choose, to eliminate or reduce the amount of funding.

I raise that concern, Madam Speaker, but we support this move by the government to raise the scholarships because we recognize the importance of veterinarians. Members across the way and our members from rural Manitoba will know that it is very hard to get veterinarian services in many communities, just as it is very difficult to get doctors to stay in rural communities. Veterinarians are few and far between, and when you get into a difficult calving season, hours, minutes are of an essence, so this scholarship fund is very important. We need to see it continue, and we need to see the number of veterinarians in rural Manitoba grow.

Some of the changes that the government made over the last few years with regard to veterinarians have not been positive and have not encouraged people to practise in rural Manitoba. So we will be watching the government, and we look forward to any of other comments that people might have on this legislation but certainly one that we support, Madam Speaker.

* (1500)

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 6, The Veterinary Science Scholarship Fund Amendment Act.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 23--The GRIP and Related Programs Termination and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 23, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), The GRIP and Related Programs Termination and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi abolissant le régime RARB et des régimes connexes et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? No, leave has been denied.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, this bill deals with the termination of the GRIP program and also some amendments to The Crop Insurance Act, and certainly with GRIP, the program has ended and all things have wound down with that, so it is a legitimate move to have part of the bill rescinded.

However, Madam Speaker, I want to talk for a few minutes about some of the things that have resulted, about the discussion that we had on GRIP. When the minister made his comments, he talked about what a good program it was and all the work that his government had done. Certainly, when GRIP was brought in, there is no doubt it did bring money that was badly needed into the hands of farmers, but the government has to also recognize that there were problems with that legislation. It did not all run very smoothly.

I want to commend the people at the Crop Insurance offices and the various people who were seconded to do the work on taking the applications and ensuring that it was followed through properly. It was a tremendous amount of work that was done by many people and the government's staff, and I want to recognize those people for the hard work that they have done.

But, certainly, it was a program that was put together very hastily, and there were problems. For example, Madam Speaker, there were problems with the type of coverage that was received in the Red River Valley, and that caused a lot of heartache for many producers who felt that they were not being treated fairly. There were problems in The Pas area where the soil classification--in both cases it was a result of soil classification that created the problem--and work had to be done, and a lot of convincing had to be done of government before there were finally adjustments made.

There were problems with the lentil growers which resulted in a court case, because the government tried to change the rules in the middle of the game, and, Madam Speaker, we all know that cannot be done. As a result of that change, the government ended up paying a fairly substantial amount of money to lentil growers.

The program was supposed to end a year earlier, but the government chose to extend that program. The reason they chose to extend it was because, if they would have ended the program in that particular year, there would have been a deficit and the government was going into an election year and it certainly would not have gone over very well to have a deficit, so the government extended it a year.

In fact there is a fairly substantial surplus in the GRIP account of some $63 million to $65 million, and we are waiting to hear from the government how they are going to distribute those funds. We believe that is money that is dedicated to agriculture and that that money should be returned to the producers and the balance of the money that is government money should go to agriculture research.

We are desperately lagging behind in agriculture research in this province. In fact there is an article that I should have brought up with me from my office, but I forgot, where we are told that there is a real brain drain on agriculture research in Manitoba, and it is all shifting over to Saskatchewan. The government of Saskatchewan is doing a tremendous job of attracting researchers and they are becoming the agriculture research centre of Canada. It is something that Manitoba is losing out on desperately and something I am very disappointed in.

When we hear this government talk about value-added jobs and agriculture diversification, to have those things happen you have to have research. So I would encourage the government to move forward on getting the money back to producers that they have coming from the surplus in the GRIP account and the balance of money that is available, that is, the provincial and federal government's share, that the government put that money into agriculture research. It is something that we desperately need.

The program, as I said, was one that got money into farmers' hands. It was one, but there were problems with it; and, if we ever have to bring a program in like that again, we have to look more closely and plan it out that we do not run into the problems where we have, in cases where some farmers were actually farming the program and some of the policies that were in there were not sustainable. We were encouraging people to grow crops that there was probably no room for on the market.

So, Madam Speaker, we have to think more carefully before we put a program in. Certainly, as we have said with other programs, if there is need for another program, and we do not expect it with grain prices going up but, in the future, programs should be based on costs of production, on what it costs a producer. We sincerely feel that programs should also be capped to restrict the amount of money to go to one farmer. The government should not have a problem dealing with that, because they have restricted the amounts of money that they will put to so many other things.

I think that we should look at this as well, that we want to sustain family farms and encourage people to stay on the land. What happened with GRIP is that we were getting payments, large operators getting substantial amounts of money and smaller operators not getting nearly the amount of money, and this does not work when what you are really trying to do is sustain the population of a rural community.

The other part of the bill is to deal with amendments to The Crop Insurance Act. One of the first changes is the practice and procedure for the appeal tribunal, and I am very pleased to see this amendment brought forward. I have had constituents who had been before the appeal tribunal of Crop Insurance and found it a very intimidating procedure when Crop Insurance appears there with their lawyers and a big group of people and a farmer comes forward without any support staff. It is a very intimidating situation.

The changes will now allow appeals to be orally, by telephone. The act states that the evidence may be given in any manner the tribunal considers appropriate. As I say, Madam Speaker, I think that this will be a much more friendly environment for those people who are appealing their case before the Crop Insurance tribunal, and I think that is a welcome change. It is a change that has been suggested by producers when the Crop Insurance Review panel was doing their hearings and it is one that I am sure will make the whole process much more friendly to the producers.

But there are many other changes since The Crop Insurance Act has been opened up that the government could deal with, and they have not. There are concerns with coverage that farmers are now able to get on hay. It is a real difficult year for cattle producers who are depending on native hay. There is no coverage for it right now, and there are many producers in the province who are suffering because of that. So there are weaknesses within The Crop Insurance Act that have to be dealt with.

Another weakness within The Crop Insurance Act is the coverage compensation for big game. This has caused serious problems in many of the constituencies in the Parkland Region for myself, for the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). I am sure the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach), Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), all members have had constituents who have suffered because of big game damage. It is an issue that has not been resolved and one that we would hope that this government, a recommendation that they would consider to deal with.

But basically, Madam Speaker, the move by the government to open up the way Crop Insurance people hear their appeals is a good move. We support that and we look forward to working and encouraging the government to address many of the other concerns that are now on the minds of farmers with respect to the way that crop insurance works.

There are, as I said, the issues of the cattle producers at the present time, both with native hay that they are unable to get insurance on and also the big game damage that is there. With respect to the GRIP program, that part is something that has to happen because the program is nonexistent anymore. But we have to understand too that with the removal of the GRIP it has also repealed the parts that include the Tame Hay Program, the forage establishment program. We would want to see government bring forward replacement programs for that.

* (1510)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): This bill brings to an end the five-year GRIP program that was administered under the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation. At the end of this five-year program, which provided close to approximately $800 million worth of benefits to farmers nationally, there will be a surplus of approximately somewhere in the neighbourhood of $65 million. This money will be distributed among farmers, provincial and federal governments, and something which we should be at least monitoring, watching in terms of what is actually happening with these dollars and possibly even get some sort of a report from the current minister in terms of what he is anticipating.

It is interesting to note that the minister was--or I should say, Madam Speaker, although there are no specific numbers, it would appear there are a number of outstanding claims under this program. The meat of the legislation deals primarily with the setting up of an appeal board with the power to settle all outstanding claims. I do not necessarily have the specific numbers, but to watch for potential disenchanted farmers and concerns that they might have, and no doubt the ministry's office will be aware of some of the complaints that have come out, and how the minister has dealt with those complaints is also another concern that we would have with this legislation being brought forward and being passed to committee at this time. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 23, The GRIP and Related Programs Termination and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 24--The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 24, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société du crédit agricole), standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No, leave has been denied.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act, to our understanding and from the information that we have been given from government, is essentially a housekeeping bill. When the government brought in the regulation for the loan diversification, the language did not fit with The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act, and this legislation will rectify that situation. The bill allows for flexibility and latitude in terms of drafting legislation.

There are several definition revisions under Section 2. Under farming, the definition has been changed from livestock raising to stock keeping and the raising or keeping of livestock. Now, the definition, Madam Speaker, of livestock has been changed to include animals or birds designated for livestock in the regulation. This change has been made to accommodate bison ranching, boar ranching and, of course, elk ranching that this government is proposing to bring forward.

Madam Speaker, the changes in Section 26 suggest that the guaranteed loan is no longer in a form prescribed by regulation but rather in a form that is acceptable to the corporation. This change was made to take the application form out of the regulation, this form change. If the form changed for whatever reason, they would have to change the regulation which is cumbersome.

That part of it is not a problem, but, certainly, Madam Speaker, the move by the government to allow for various types of animals to be considered livestock in this province is one of the main reasons for this.

The government has moved forward, as you know, with another piece of legislation which will allow wild animals to now be considered livestock, and they are preparing with this legislation under the loan diversification program to allow producers to borrow money and then buy the elk which they have captured from the wild, elk that they have captured without legislation or the powers to do so. That has caused us concern, and it is a concern that we have raised with this government previously, that they have carried forward actions without having legislation and are now preparing to allow--and they could in fact, under the loans diversification program, lend money for the purchase of elk and other game animals which have not been designated to now be raised in this province.

Madam Speaker, there is also a section of the act that has been added to the legislation in order to protect boards of directors from liability. According to what we can understand, liability is a very hot topic, and they had to move to cover this in the legislation. Certainly, I can understand why the board members would want to have these changes made. It is a big responsibility for a board to make decisions on loaning these kinds of money that are there, and certainly the protection should be there. The board members who make these decisions should be free of being sued, personally being sued, and that is not something that we would object to.

As I say, Madam Speaker, this appears to be basically housekeeping. We have talked to people within the department, at the credit corporation, and this is what they tell us. This is basically to bring the legislation in line with and cover off things that have been put forward through the new loans diversification program. We have concerns with the areas that will now be expanded and covered off as livestock.

We will wait for the presentations and hear what people have to say at committee, but basically that the expansion of the designation is the one area that we have concerns with. With the other parts of the bill, we are prepared to let that bill go to committee and hear what they have to say. But generally I guess in his comments, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) said that this bill would open up the lending to corporate farms; but, when we talked to the department on this, this did not seem to be the case. Certainly, I do not think that it is the intent of the Agricultural Credit Corporation to start lending money to large corporate farms. I believe the mandate of the corporation is to lend money to family operations. I would hope that the minister would look at distributing the funds of that corporation to a larger number of people. [interjection]

The member says that many family farms are corporate farms, and that is true. There are family farms that have moved to become corporate farms to protect themselves and involve their families in it, but my concern is farms that are integrated into very large businesses, capturing the money that I believe should be available to the family farm operations.

With those few comments, we are prepared to let this bill go and have it go to committee.

* (1520)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): The Agriculture critic, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), is not available at the moment, so I want to make sure that we have some comments on the record in regard to this bill.

This bill broadens the scope and authority of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Specifically, the definition of farming has been broadened. The Agricultural Credit Corporation will now include livestock such as wild boars--and I am not talking about the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), of course, to honourable members--elk and bison. Such changes are needed. Agriculture has changed a lot since the minister was first elected, as long back as that was. It is ironic that these changes are coming at a time, given the high grain prices, when more farmers are reverting to traditional prairie crop--wheat. If we say anything about this part of the bill, maybe we should say that it was needed five years ago when prices were not what they are today.

The bill also allows the corporation to become more heavily involved in value-added forms of agriculture by allowing it to set its own regulations under this act. We assume that the main focus, the main impetus, is the hog production. Under the current legislation, the corporation has some difficulty in supporting produce that may be funded by nonfarmers. Under this legislation, the change makes it easier for other nonagricultural entities to become partners in things like feedlots and such. Given the destruction of the Manitoba hog marketing board, this legislation comes as no surprise.

In essence, this bill makes corporate farming in Manitoba easier, allowing corporate access to what was traditionally the source of family farm credit. This is probably not a good idea. If corporate farming is to come to Manitoba, it should stand on its own legs financially. The Agricultural Credit Corporation should be given the mandate that allows it to protect and help family farms, not nontraditional nonagricultural corporations.

We give limited support to this bill, but we would like to see an amendment that puts a priority on family farms as opposed to nonagricultural corporations that want to look at vertical integration that could lead to the destruction of the family farms. With those few words, I will look forward to this going to committee. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 24, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 33--The Education Administration Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 33 (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 Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, this is the first opportunity we have had to debate several government education bills. There are a number of bills dealing with education this session, Bill 47, Bill 32, Bill 12, Bill 72, Bill 48, and they cover a wide range of issues in post-secondary education, in workplace education as well as in the K to 12 area. There are some common themes, and I want to spend a few minutes setting this bill in the context of the themes which I see in all of these education bills.

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

Firstly, I think each of them enhances the minister's powers at the expense of public debate. On occasion, it sets out, the bills set out to enhance even more centralizing power, and that is the power of the cabinet in Education and of Treasury Board.

Each of these puts into regulation matters which have been publicly dealt with before in Legislatures or in public debate, and so what is happening is that areas that I think are important for public debate are being dealt with by ministerial dictate, which our experience has been, has been rarely consultative. We look back at Bills 5 and 6, for example, of the previous session, there were a number of people who wanted to be consulted in the setting of those regulations. I do not believe that they were all satisfied by the kinds of consultation that the minister had. In any case, regulations, apparently by this government, are never offered to the general public; they simply appear relatively quietly, relatively secretly, without input from the general public.

So overall in these education bills I think we regret some of that move that the minister is choosing to take. There are also, I think, threads of ideology which connect these bills not surprisingly: a thread of authoritarianism, a thread of centralization, which has been common to so many educational changes brought in by governments of a similar ideological cast to this one, whether in New Zealand, or in Britain, or in Alberta. Beneath that push, that thrust to centralization lies, I believe, a deep distrust in the good will of ordinary people to govern themselves locally. In the case of this particular government, there is a confrontational, divisive approach to their task that ill serves Manitobans.

The bills are linked in other ways. I think we will see, first of all, that in the hands of this government one of their aims is in fact to diminish the role and professionalism of teachers. Bill 72, in particular, is the culmination of several years of what, in popular parlance, is called “teacher bashing.” It is an unpleasant phrase, but perhaps the one which is most popularly understood. The Tories, in fact, the government has engaged for several years in deliberate undermining and direct attacks upon the teaching profession.

I have spoken to many teachers who, in their own way, have asked me, why is this? Why is the government doing it? Well, I think there are a number of answers; there really probably is not any one single answer. It is possibly an attempt to displace, or perhaps I should say misplace, blame for the impact of the government cuts to public schools. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you had cut $47 million from the public schools of Manitoba--if you, proverbially, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not in person--if one had presided over a system which had lost 570 teachers at a time when the numbers of school children are not declining, if you had presided over the increase in class size, which has begun to be very apparent to parents and teachers, particularly in the last two years, I think one might be looking for someone else to blame. So I think that is part of it.

I think we should perhaps also ask the question, is it, as this government claims, that teachers are complacent? Is it the role of this government to put them on their mettle? I am sure that there are many members on the government side who would argue that. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know of any teacher who ever argues perfection. It is not in the nature of the business. There is always room for improvement. No one ever walks away from a classroom and says to himself or herself, ah, yes, in my class of 33 thirteen-year-olds today, I held their rapt attention. I taught them to remember something that will stay with them the rest of their life. I taught them, in their 33 different ways, to deepen their understanding of this particular subject, and I am confident that in their 33 different ways, in spite of the physical disabilities of some and the emotional or behavioural handicaps of others, I have brought them another step forward in their desire for continuous learning. Perhaps I have given 33 of them some of the tools they will need for that lifelong journey. No teacher anywhere in the world ever sees that kind of perfection. If the Tories think that it is only their government that is going to put them on their mettle, I think they do not understand the very nature of teaching.

It is in the nature of both teachers and teaching to be self-critical, to be continuously evaluating their daily and yearly performance, to be searching for more effective methods and for more appropriate approaches to particular subjects and to particular students. Every teacher everywhere acknowledges that there is always room for improvement. It is what professional development is all about. It is what advanced degrees are all about. It is what summer institutes are all about.

If the government had offered some support for professional development or for advanced degrees or for additional summer institutes, we might concede that improvement was their real goal, but the very opposite is the case. This is the government which deliberately instructed school boards to take away professional development, to meet the requirements for the reduced workweek commonly referred to as Filmon Fridays.

* (1530)

We cannot put any store, any faith in this government's interest in professional development or in the improving of educational quality through that means, and, yet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government argues that teachers need to improve quality, so we have to raise, I think, at least one eyebrow at that reason for their attack upon teachers.

In addition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government must be aware that every survey in Manitoba, whether it is done by the teachers or whether it is done by others, has shown public support for teachers and for the quality of education in local schools. There is an old adage that both Canadians and Americans value very much the school that they know, and they are only far more uncertain about the ones they do not know.

Well, what other purposes might the government have had? Is it, as many teachers have said to me, simple vindictiveness, Tory vindictiveness? There is certainly a strain of that belief amongst many teachers, but I find that difficult to believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely no government of Manitoba, surely not that nice member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon), would formulate policy on the basis of such a narrowly construed argument or such partisan ways. It cannot be that. We must rule that out, and I say that to teachers who speak to me. Surely vindictiveness is not the ruling force in a government of Manitoba.

I think what we should consider, however, is that there is something very fundamental being put in place in education by this government. The government, in its clumsy and inarticulate way, wants to reduce the role of professionals in the education system. I believe that they see this as part of their larger plan to reduce the role of the state, to broaden their attack on the public sector. It is expressed in stark terms sometimes. The previous minister, Mr. Manness, used to put the question, whose child is this, arguing for a return, in effect, to the early 19th Century and the relationship between trustees, parents and teachers that existed then.

I think on the part of both earlier ministers and the present minister that this is, in fact, a misreading of Manitobans. Manitobans as a whole are far better educated than they were in the early 19th Century or at the turn of the century, and I think what you would find in education, as in health, that there is a desire for more information by more and more segments of the population, a desire to be well informed in order to make informed decisions about wellness or about our own education and particularly that of our children, but I do not sense, except on the part of some of the more extremes of the Tory party, a desire to dismiss or undermine the teaching profession.

Parents want to be seen as partners, and I attended the conference with parents that the minister held in Portage earlier this year. Parents want to be working with teachers, not against them. They want to be able to share the knowledge and experience of teachers. They especially want to be able to trust in the dispassionate and compassionate judgment of teachers. They do not want to see the wedge that is being driven between parents and teachers that this government is pushing. They want to share it; they want to be able to trust teachers, and they want to be working with them.

What we need and what this government does not seem to be aware of is that co-operation and interdependence are the values which are going to move the education system forward. If you fundamentally want to see a successful education system, you have to ensure that parents and teachers and students and, indeed, government, whether it is school board or whether it is the provincial government, are pulling in the same direction. That is not what we are seeing from this divisive government. Put more simply, if I can put it very simply for the members of the government, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reform education without the trust, without the co-operation of teachers, and the government, I would say, is in danger of losing both. Nor can this be dismissed, I think, just as rhetoric.

Last week in the House I drew to the minister's attention a recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation in Europe, the OECD. This report underlined with statistics the fact that--and it actually draws new evidence from its own members in western Europe--the most successful education systems were in countries where governments actively supported their teachers. It does not take the provision, the proverbial brain surgeon or rocket scientist to argue this, but it is useful to learn of solid new evidence, although, as I have often said in this Legislature, one of the most surprising and disappointing aspects of this government is its dismissive attitude towards research and evidence. I suppose it is because theirs is indeed a moral crusade. It does not depend upon evidence. It depends, in fact, upon demons and saviours, not, as the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) put it the other day, on statistics. She, another Minister of Education in the past, was trying to account for the disparity between an 8 percent growth in robbery in Canada and a 66 percent growth in Manitoba in 1996. She chose to dismiss the very clear Canada-based evidence, and it is a common response of many Tory ministers in a tight corner. It is, fundamentally, because theirs is a moral crusade.

So I do not hold out any hope that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) will be interested in OECD reports, but we do expect her to recognize that most Manitobans understand the nature of the teacher's task, respect its complexity, and see it as one part of the broader task with parents and the government to educate all our children.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 33, in this particular case, will enable the minister to take a more direct role in classroom assessment. Not content with the exams worth 50 percent, the minister now wishes to clearly establish a centralized role for her department in every other aspect of assessment. Now some may argue, and they may be right, that the residual powers of the minister always meant that such authority rested at the centre. But what Bill 33 does is to signal a greater interest in classroom measurement on the part of this particular government. In so doing, they are deliberately moving into an area which the teaching profession in its widest sense, and I speak here to include superintendents and principals, where the profession believed it had a significant role to play, not an exclusive role, but a significant role. I know that many school boards and school councils will also argue for a role for teachers in this, and there are good reasons to suggest that in a province as diverse as this local conditions and desires should be recognized.

Those school boards and school councils are, again, being by-passed by this minister and by this bill. It is another of the centralizing agencies that they will be creating. It will be the minister who will determine how much that test, that essay, that project, that quiz will be worth, and whether it can be reported in numbers, letters, sentences or by portfolio or individually or jointly with a student or in family-based presentations.

The Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) for Manitoba will decide this for every classroom across the province, but to do this the minister will require the co-operation of all classroom teachers and school councils, and it is doubtful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this government and this minister has the full confidence of either.

There is, in my view also, a part of the government's attempt to deskill another profession. If the nature of assessment practices is to be limited and directed by a political party, because that is what this is and it will be so in the hands of this minister, then what is left for the teacher? To teach what the minister deems appropriate at the time and the exact minute determined by the minister, because that is another section of this bill, to teach larger and more diverse classes with a more limited range of tools for measuring progress and most of them in the hands of others?

It sounds to me like the immediate narrowing of a job description in a unilateral manner. It is an unusual step, but it fits with the proposals of the minister for the Render-Dyck hearings on the reduction of salaries and the reduction of academic qualifications. The government's determination in this bill is to sit with its stopwatch in Winnipeg and determine in a rigid manner the minutes that will be devoted to each subject, and it is a particularly curious proposal. Where is the role for flexible or local decision making in this? Surely the government recognizes the damage it did last year and the year before at the junior high school level with its centralized rigidity. Its impact has been to reduce curriculum options for many school divisions, and many are left wondering whether, in fact, this narrowing of curriculum options is indeed the government's real agenda.

Finally, surely if a government had confidence in the effectiveness of its system-wide testing at four grade levels, then it would not be necessary to set more than careful general guidelines for the time to be spent on each subject. The proof would be in the testing. Again, this proposal for more rigidly, centrally timed classes is intended to leave less room or indeed no room for the professional judgment of teachers or of local decision makers, in particular, school councils or indeed of the elected school boards and their councils.

* (1540)

Well, what other common threads are in these Education bills? Mr. Deputy Speaker, one striking similarity is the way in which the government has chosen to use the language of decentralization, while instituting far more extreme and centralized forms of government than Manitobans have seen before. In the case of this bill, the minister in introducing it speaks of and I quote her, commitment to providing greater decision making for schools and enabling schools and their communities to make decisions that are considered best for the learning requirements of their students; yet her bill, Bill 33, by-passes school boards. Rather than encouraging school boards to report to their citizens, as those citizens require, it will be the minister who will tell school boards how, what, when and where they will report to their citizens. There is not even any lip service in the bill to working with school boards to develop such plans. There is no school trustee advisory committee on this. There is no teacher advisory committee on this. There is merely an out-of-the-blue bill which directs school boards on how they must relate to their own electors.

As is so often the case with the centralizing tactics of this government, we can only speculate on how this government would respond to similar directions from Ottawa. We can only speculate, too, on what a minister could have meant in her introduction to this bill when she spoke of it as, quote, improving the partnership of those working together in education. This bill is, in fact, another attempt to supersede the hundreds of school trustees of this province, or as one of my favourite commentators from the Hanover School Division wrote, the Tory trustee-proofing of education.

We on this side of the House are dismayed, though not surprised, by the dissonance between government's rhetoric and its action, between its attempt to disguise centralization as decentralization. In the context of one bill, perhaps it is not too disturbing, but when a government continually talks of reform when it really means cut, or protection when it means deregulation, or of enhancement when it means privatization, or of decentralization when it means expanded ministerial powers, then there is a serious cause for concern.

Good government must mean what it says and say what it means. Otherwise it cannot and should not be trusted. It is, unfortunately, what many people believe about these Tories, and once having fallen into such a low place in public esteem, it is often a difficult place to get out of. It is a genuine pity, I think, that the government is not being straightforward on this and other education bills, because this bill does have the germ of at least two good ideas.

I think the minister, in requiring the greater dissemination of public information about schools, is on the right track. We should make more widely known the achievements of our schools and our students, and in this process helping citizens understand the goals and achievements of our education system, there can be many hands on deck. The trustees elected by local residents know some of the information needs of local citizens.

Teachers, daily in touch with parents and students, can help bridge the information gaps in other ways. School advisory councils, linking teachers, parents, citizens and students, would have useful, co-operative perspectives on what could be offered to the public.

Superintendents, in touch with educational practice nationally and internationally, would be aware of how other jurisdictions have handled this issue, as indeed would those few consultants and specialists still employed in the minister's own department, and have something to bring to bear on this.

There is an important task to be done in Manitoba, and there are many Manitobans who would want to be part of it, but I doubt if that is what the minister has in mind. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but given the source of these proposals and the minister's own experience and the underlying purpose of Tory educational reform, I am somewhat pessimistic.

Similar proposals in Tory jurisdictions here have a common purpose with those elsewhere. In London, in Auckland the purpose has been twofold, to increase the central authority while giving the appearance of decentralization and, secondly, to tailor such public information to narrow, measurable exam results and to use them deliberately to create a market-based system of education, where schools compete with each other for customers and with each other for grants from both public and private sources.

Similarly, in Alberta the creation of a market-based education system is underway. The Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) recently required all schools to report only their test scores in each grade level, resulting in pages of league standings in papers across Alberta.

What concerns me is that this is similar to the approach that we have seen in other Conservative jurisdictions, and we have always said, as New Democrats, that the market has a place, but the marketplace in education and health is misplaced, that social goods are distributed and should be distributed in other ways other than on the basis of the free market. It would do the government, I think, a world of good to contemplate that and to look at the direction that they are taking both health care and education in Manitoba.

We do not want to see incomplete information generated by this bill. Parents should be entitled to see test scores in the context of all school achievement, and many school boards are already in the process of preparing balanced and informative information packages for their citizens.

The North York school board, for example, was written about in the Globe and Mail. They have a series of very interesting--and I sent for them from the North York school board. I looked at them and distributed them to a number of Manitobans. They prepare school profiles. Similarly, Winnipeg 1; some of the rural boards are beginning this practice. The North York ones provide a profile of the catchment area of the school. They provide information on the socioeconomic conditions of the school's catchment area, the languages that are present in the school, the class size, the teacher qualifications and specializations. It indicates test scores and it compares them, where possible, to Canadian ones or to international ones. It also provides information about achievements of both individuals and of classes and of schools in drama, in music, in physical education and in technology. Effective school profiles convey a sense of both school and community, and they are based upon the recognition that good schools are more than the sum of their exam statistics.

I hope that the minister will permit parent and citizens to have this fuller, wider view of schools and education, but again I am pessimistic. The language of the minister's introduction gives me the sense that really what she is talking about is school-based and, in some cases, aggregate student test scores. I think Manitobans deserve more. The models are very clearly there in other jurisdictions. Some Manitoba divisions have already begun to develop these, and I think the minister has the opportunity to build upon this.

I say I am pessimistic because, of course, this is the government and this is the minister who is prepared to see Manitoba students graduate without a high school history course in national history. This is the minister who has presided over the loss of home economics, of an industrial arts and in basic French. It would be an unusual departure if such a minister were to offer directives to school boards to report on the specific results on the broad and sometimes intangible achievements of a school community. If we were to see those kinds of reports for the last few years in Manitoba, we would certainly see an increase in class size, a loss of funding, a loss of funding for special needs students. We would see a decrease in the number of teachers, and we would see in many schools a 20 per cent increase in class size. We would see narrower curriculum offerings for a number of schools. That sense of a broadly-based education, particularly at the junior high level, is something that would be very clearly shown to Manitobans school by school.

So my sense is that the minister is not in fact going to look for that kind of broad reporting that Manitobans deserve. She will be looking for a narrowly based test score ranking of schools. I hope I am not correct in this. I hope indeed that the minister would take a much broader perspective. Of course, we do not know what she will do, because the minister will not discuss what exactly she is going to require school boards to report. This bill only enhances her central power to require school boards to obey her orders. Everything else, the crucial decisions about school profiles or exam results, method of reporting, will be done privately, secretly through regulations. There may be consultations--I hope there are--but it will be with a chosen few, as is the case with so much of this government's consultation.

* (1550)

Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a common thread through so many of these government's bills. Decisions and power are being taken away, in this case from elected school boards, and put into the hands of the minister. Although accountability may be a buzzword for the '90s, it seems to have little meaning for the Tory government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the second useful idea in this bill is contained in a section which allows the minister to release information relating to pupil achievement and the effectiveness of programs in public or private schools. I am glad to see the minister recognize that this is important. I have drawn to this minister's attention and to other ministers' attentions the kind of reporting that is done on a yearly basis, thoroughly, accurately and in a broad base, by the Saskatchewan government, the Saskatchewan indicators report.

I have talked about Alberta's planning system, the rolling budgets, but there is no interest on the part of this government in managing or being accountable for education in that way, although I will say in Estimates this last year the minister did say that the government was interested in the Saskatchewan indicators program. So I think there is a chink there, and I do urge all members in fact to look at the kind of publicly accountable material which comes from the government of Saskatchewan. It is a credit, I think, and I am sure it, too, can be improved upon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, if this bill leads to that level of provincial reporting and accountability, then I think Manitobans may have a means to hold the government accountable for its cuts to education funding or for its reductions of options in curriculum in junior and senior high school. So I am glad the minister listened to our suggestions. I am anticipating that this bill may be a first step in that direction, and I would be pleased to applaud it if the first step became a second step, but Manitoba has a long way to go in reporting on information about education to its citizens.

In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill, to draw attention of honourable members to the increased centralization, to the shift from public legislation to regulation by ministerial fiat, to our concerns that reporting to citizens be broad and comprehensive and to our repeated call for provincial indicators and accountability that should begin with the minister. I regret considerably the gulf that the minister has created, deliberately so, I believe, between her government and teachers. We regret the potential for devaluing the place of teacher's skills and profession, and we look forward to a time when that co-operation and trust can be returned to Manitoba.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, would just like to put a few brief comments on the record in regard to Bill 33. The purpose of the bill, as far as I understand it, is basically to give the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) the authority to write regulations and promote accountability.

Listening to the honourable member opposite's comments in regard to accountability, my first question would be to you: What is wrong with asking people to be accountable to a system that is out there before them? It certainly has been brought to my attention, by several of the teachers that I represent, that there is a concern with the suggestion that we are putting forth a curriculum, and they said, well, the way it goes is, I will teach strictly to the curriculum, with nothing outside of those parameters. I would suggest that if there is room outside of that time frame to teach everything outside of the curriculum, that they so wish to, they should be, but we still have to set guidelines for people to follow a system of education or any other type of process. I think, whenever you are trying to introduce responsibilities to people, there is going to be conflict, and there is always going to be the fear that that is not the way we used to do it.

When you are faced with that, teachers, of all people, are probably the most resilient and most able to compromise and to adjust, and I think that suggesting that they cannot and will not is probably presumptuous on the honourable member's position in the sense, I think, that after looking at what is being presented to them, they are going to see that they certainly can work within the guidelines that are presented to them.

One of the things that it touches--I listened to the honourable member opposite. She talks about accountability, and I sit here day in and day out and listen to the honourable member ask questions of the minister. I think probably in good faith that the minister is responsible, and I say to you, she is responsible; therefore, she is accepting the responsibilities. This act, or this bill, is just to give her that authority and also that responsibility that comes with it.

The bottom line is that anything that happens in the education system ends up back on the minister's doorstep, so why not give that person the authority and the ability to deal with some of those situations as they occur?

I think also, you know, we are always talking about the rights of teachers and the rights of school boards and the rights of students, and I agree 100 percent. I think that this will do it. It is certainly going to ensure that our schools are responsive to the communities that they represent. I think that there is no better example of situations where teachers and education have changed and have adjusted to satisfy the needs of the communities that they are serving, and I think that will continue to happen. I think that it will continue to happen in a more direct manner in today's world, simply because that is the direction of the world that is going right now. We must be responsive to the situations that are happening today and deal with those issues as they occur.

I think we also have to set up some long-range planning, but the ability to be flexible is certainly more prevalent in today's world than ever before. It is changing so dramatically and so quickly, and I suggest to you that for us to get a starting point and an ending point, we certainly have to introduce some qualifications of where we are and where we are going. I think that the testing that is proceeding in Manitoba right now is going to give us that ability to judge.

One of the points I would like to take issue with the member opposite is, we talk about teacher accountability. I accept that, and I would suggest that we have the finest, probably, teachers in Canada. The one question I will put forward, and perhaps someone opposite can enlighten me, I have talked to teachers in regard to this issue, and one of the concerns that they are presenting to me is the fact that they have not been evaluated in the last ten years. When you do not have evaluation, how do you know if you are doing the proper job? How do you know if you are satisfying the needs of the community?

We hear of teachers who are teaching outside of the curriculum. I think that is okay if that is the direction that community wants, but I do think, when we set up guidelines, the guidelines must be followed, and I certainly think that this bill is going to address that particular situation. I think goals must be set and achievement levels must be obtained, and I think that everybody in the situation, right from the students to the teachers to the parents to the trustees to government, must be aware of what these goals are and the direction that we are going.

I think the member opposite is probably spewing a lot of fear in the hearts of the educators who are working so diligently on our behalf, and I think that is perhaps unnecessary that they should be put in that uncomfortable position, because really what we are doing is not asking for one specific group to conform. What we are asking for is a system to be accountable to the people who use it. I think the people of Manitoba deserve that, and I support the minister in bringing this bill forward. Certainly it is consistent with the education policies throughout Canada, where the minister has this kind of authority and, again, I suggest to you, is accountable for it.

So I do not see any problem supporting this bill, and I just want to put those few comments on the record. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to put a few comments on the record in regard to our caucus's concerns about Bill 33, The Education Administration Amendment Act. This Bill 33 follows the fine tradition of Tory education bills by giving the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) more power. One section is added to give the minister the authority to set instruction time, authorize programs and materials for use in public and private schools. The addition of a new clause also allows the minister to release information relating to pupil achievement and effectiveness of programs in public and private schools.

* (1600)

This act also gives the minister power to make regulations pertaining to methods of assessment, effectiveness, information that school boards are required to give to the minister, matters which must be included in the annual school plan, and matters which must be included in the Auditor's supplementary report.

In short, this bill allows the ministers tremendous powers over the Education curriculum. These amendments match what the minister has been doing by putting in place province-wide exams. The general idea is that parents will be able to evaluate which school has better exam results. With that comes the expectation that you are going to have some schools better than others. Rather than putting resources into identifying that, why are we not looking at ways to improve all schools so all schools are good instead of trying to delineate which schools are better than others?

Certainly parents that worry about which school their children go to will use that to evaluate schools in the area. This is not a bad thing from parents' perspective, but it kind of skewers the idea of public education. As I said, in the public's mind, we are going to have good schools and bad schools. Who will want to send their children to bad schools?

In regard to province-wide exams, over and over again the question is asked: How will this improve the quality of education in Manitoba? How will my child learn more because she is tested? By releasing information about pupil or school results, the minister is simply playing one group against the other, diverting attention away from the real issue of her government's underfunding of public education. So I look forward to the committee stage where I am sure there will be strong representation made from a number of groups about this bill. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Bill 31--The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 31, The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la diversification de l'industrie du bétail et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

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

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise today in the House to voice my opposition and my concerns with Bill 31, The Livestock Industry Diversification Act. I, first of all, want to make sure that everybody is clear, reading through the Tory party gobbledygook kind of title to this bill. It is a fancy way of describing elk ranching and the ability of farmers to ranch a wild animal that is prevalent in our part of the world. So I will be referring to this bill as the elk ranching bill throughout the comments that I make over the next little while.

At second reading, it is my understanding that we are to give very deep, very sober consideration to the bills that were passed to us from first reading. This is something that I sincerely hope the opposition, of course, and the opposition to the opposition, which is the government, also does take very seriously.

This is something that I think needs to be considered a lot more than what it has been so far. In saying that, I want to point out, first of all, that we are half way down the road already to elk ranching. Without ever coming to the Legislature, without ever having any of the 57 MLAs have a lick of a word at all in this whole debate, the province has undertaken to go out into the wilds and lasso and capture about 117 elk out of the Swan Valley and out of the federal park at Riding Mountain.

First of all, I consider that very undemocratic. We are now into a situation where we are debating a bill put forward to the House that is already halfway to being implemented because we already have the elk captured and sitting in the Natural Resources minister's constituency in Grunthal, Manitoba.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us be clear that we are dealing with elk ranching and that we are dealing with a plan that is already halfway implemented. I do not know why this government thinks that it can play God on any issue that comes its way, this one being no exception and this one quite probably being the most blatant example of this government and its arrogance and its superiority complex that it shows in the area of natural resources.

This is an area of Natural Resources because the elk still is, despite this government's best efforts, a wild animal in our province. Livestock diversification tells me that we are not just going to diversify into elk, that we are going to diversify into other animals, which has been the case in other jurisdictions that has allowed this kind of legislation to come through to fruition. I wonder if this government has plans to expand from elk to bear, from elk and bear to moose, to deer, whatever other animal this government decides that it can make a little bit of money off of. This is a case of this government playing God.

The things that I want members across the House from me to consider is the amount of pain that they put these elk through when they are so-called velvetized. Number one, the methods by which the elk antlers are removed are two, as far as my contacts have told me. Number one, in some cases, the elk can be anesthetized--[interjection] That is a good one, anesthetized. I thank all honourable members for helping me to pronounce that word--and what they do is freeze the animal and, insofar as that is concerned, cut down on the amount of pain that the elk is put through. I want to point out that I said cut down on the amount of pain, not eliminate the amount of pain. Now, that is going to cost a little bit of money to do this.

In other jurisdictions that I have contacted, another method is used where they simply run an electric current through the body of the elk, not freezing the elk as in the first method but actually just stunning the animal long enough for it to hold still to have its elk antlers sawed off. Elk antlers at the velvet stage are full of nerve endings and are very much an alive part of the elk as much as its ears, its nose and its tail. When you simply run an electric current through the animal, it does not reduce the pain one iota, and that is what we have to think about to begin with. Is this government going to be the government that enacts legislation that allows that kind of pain to be inflicted upon a wild animal? Is this government going to be the one that does that? That is part of the consideration that I think this government has to think of very carefully before it goes ahead with elk ranching. Indeed, one of the members across mentions the word “Saskatchewan,” where elk ranching is part of life in that province, and that is indeed where I get the information that the majority of the velvetized antlers are cut off using the electric current method, the painful method that involves sticking an electric prod down the throat of an elk and then cutting off the elk antlers at the velvet stage. That is something that I think this government has got to take more seriously than what it has thought about and something that we need to discuss as we go through the discussions on Bill 31.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, another aspect of this whole concept of elk ranching that I think needs to be given a lot more consideration than it has been so far is the area of poaching. I have consulted a wide variety of people who, No. 1, are involved in elk ranching, and I have consulted with a number of hunters who have expressed their opposition to this Bill 31. I have consulted with people within the Department of Natural Resources, all of which tell me that they are worried that now that the government is okaying something that is previously spelled out as illegal, i.e., the sale of antlers and elk product in the black market, that their worry is that they will not be able to have a handle on the amount of poaching that goes on in our wilds as it is.

* (1610)

Indeed, what they are telling me is that the Department of Natural Resources has cut back so far on its resources to patrol and implement the law and execute the law and catch poachers that the department even now is in no condition, no state of which to protect our elk. What they ask is, how are we going to do this now that the government says it is okay to go out and sell antlers into the black market?

I want to take a minute to consider why we are doing this in the first place. What possible goal could justify the capturing and ranching of a wild animal and the pain that we put it through? What possible objective could justify that kind of action? What grand and noble goal could the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) possibly have in mind to put our wild animals through that kind of torture?

The official reason that the Department of Agriculture comes up with is that we are providing medicine for people in the Orient. On the surface that seems like quite a noble and grand objective. In reality that is just nonsense. They are not selling it as medicine. It is being sold as an aphrodisiac. It is being sold in the Orient so that people in that part of the world can enhance their love lives. That is what this government is up to and I challenge anybody on the other side of the House to grind up a velvetized elk antler, take it to their own Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and tell him it is a medicine and tell him to fund it through medicare. He will turn you down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had example after example after example in my own riding of people whose drugs have been delisted under the Pharmacare system, drugs that we in Canada, our own government says help with people who suffer from certain illnesses. This government does not think those are medicines.

Why would it think that an aphrodisiac ground out of an elk antler going to the Orient somehow becomes a medicine? How can they actually think that we are helping people in the Orient with these kinds of drugs? Do they not think to wonder why animals such as the panda bear are put onto extinction lists or endangered lists? Why is it something that is considered on the verge of extinction? It is the same kind of reasoning as this government is using as an excuse to have its own friends benefit at the price of our wild elk.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would suggest to you that this phoney-baloney excuse of providing medicine for Oriental people is nothing but a sham and that the real reason that this government is going into elk ranching is to set up some of their own friends with elk ranches throughout Manitoba.

All you have to do is look over the people who have already got themselves set up for elk ranching. Take a look at who is getting off the mark to get ready. That leads me to ask, how are these 117 or so elk at Grunthal going to be dispersed from here? That is going to be the next problem that this government has to deal with. Now, are they going to put this up for an auction? Are they going to auction off these elk to the highest bidder so that a whole bunch of politicians and others who have a lot of money can step forward and buy elk? Tell me how that is going to help the normal farmer out there in my riding. Tell me how it is going to help any of the aboriginal bands in our province who may be interested in going into elk ranching. It is not going to help them, because the people who already have money are going to buy the elk.

So if the government decides they do not want to get into that mess, what do they do next? They have to figure out where those elk are going.

An Honourable Member: Never fear, Enns is here.

Mr. Struthers: That is probably what we are afraid of.

The other area that this government has to consider and has been very tentative in considering to this point is the whole question of disease. We have had cases over and over and over throughout western Canada and throughout the States where elk which have been ranched have had to be destroyed because of a variety of diseases. In the States we have had cases where elk, total herds have been destroyed because they have contracted tuberculosis or brucellosis. Even in Manitoba we have had problems with blue tongue in the elk, and in Saskatchewan as well.

We like to talk about, or the government at least likes to talk about the plan in Saskatchewan. They say how well it is working. Well, in Saskatchewan itself they had a herd completely destroyed because it contracted tuberculosis.

Tuberculosis can be spread from elk to elk. Tuberculosis can be spread from elk to cattle. In Alberta they have done a study that says tuberculosis can be spread from elk to human. Is this the stuff that we want to be part of? Is this what this government is asking us to okay in this Legislature?

What does the farm community have to say about this? I would wonder if the Agriculture minister (Mr. Enns) has done any work at all in consulting with the cattle ranchers in this country, the farmers, who have been telling me at least that they are very concerned with this government's direction when it comes to elk ranching, because they have no faith, No. 1, in this government's word when it assures them there is not going to be problems but, more importantly, from a scientific point of view, there is no test that can absolutely 100 percent say whether or not we are bringing diseased elk into this province.

There is no test that says so, and this government can talk all it likes about all the tests available, but there is not one yet today that is 100 percent accurate. I think you can actually ask the government members across the way, and they would have to agree with me on that. There is no test that would give 100 percent accuracy, and anything less than that is just simply not true.

Possibly the most controversial part of the whole consideration on diseases concerning elk has to deal with what is referred to as the shrinking, the wasting away disease that is prevalent in elk, a form, the elk version of what Britain has been putting up with in the area of mad cow disease.

Now, in Regina, they do have a case noted. It is fact. It is not some fairy tale. It is not some myth. It is something that this government needs to deal with, a case in Regina of elk contracting this disease and dying. The scary part about this is that we do not know, when we import an elk that has the elk version of mad cow disease, if we are actually importing that into the province or not because the only way you determine this elk version of mad cow disease is through an autopsy.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) knows that as well. We do not know it until after the animal has died so that we can perform an autopsy. We do not know how many elk along the way it has affected, or indeed we do not know how many cattle along the way it has infected. We have no way of knowing that until we do an autopsy, till we cut the animal open, and we take a look at the animal's brain. Then we know if we have cases in the province of wasting-away disease, and that is a fact. That is no fairy tale.

* (1620)

That is something this government has to think about. That is something this government has to try to prevent if it goes ahead with its plan, which I sincerely hope it does not, but I do not see any discussion up to this point from this government or any evidence from this government that would shoot down what I have said so far. Everything that I have said so far has been factual and has not been disputed by this government. Clearly, this government cannot deal with the facts when it comes to elk ranching, and it has to deal with this issue only through having 31 members in the Legislature who will be willing to stand and push this legislation through.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the members across the way talk about the elk industry. They talk about the economic diversification benefits of elk. How can this government talk about the benefits of elk in dollar figures when at the same time it is this government who lures these elk out of Riding Mountain National Park, a federal national park, lures them out of the park and captures them in a pen at McCreary? How can this government at the same time lure elk out of the Duck Mountain Provincial Park, much to the chagrin of local farmers, much to the opposition of local farmers? Indeed, this government had to shut down its plans to get more elk out of the Duck Mountains because too many farmers were opposed to the original plan and to the capture of these elk.

Just consider for a minute these local farmers in the Duck Mountain area. One of the other reasons that this government is going ahead with its plan, it says, is because there is an elk depredation problem, that they have to do this because there are too many elk in the area, and it is causing too much damage for local farmers. This government, for one, is not willing to compensate those farmers at a fair rate. Number two, this government is not willing to sit down and listen to the recommendations of its own elk management board in that area. What is the government scared of? That board never once said it was in favour of elk ranching, never once proposed that as an alternative to the problems. That board told this government four different things that it should be doing other than elk ranching. Why would this government not listen to the elk management board in that area? Why do they not listen to that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the one thing that I also want to point out is the hypocrisy of this government and the hypocrisy of this government's Agriculture minister who back in the mid-'80s accepted an award, I believe, from the Canadian wilderness people, the federation who said that the then-critic for, I believe, Agriculture is the man of the year. We like this guy so much because he is opposed to elk ranching. He is in there, he is fighting because the elk are going to bring disease, and the elk are going to be poached and all those kinds of reasons. They said, he is a great man. We are going to give him an award because he stands against elk ranching.

I wonder if the minister goes home every night and shines up that plaque on top of the--

Point of Order

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe it is a legitimate point of order when a deliberate misrepresentation of the fact is presented to this Chamber, and in this instance the question of my receiving an award from the Canadian Wildlife Federation. It is quite true; I received that award. I am very proud of it. I invite the honourable members to come and look at it on my office wall sometime. I received that award because the government I was associated with, the department I was privileged to lead, the Department of Natural Resources did a number of things pertinent to wildlife conservation that the Canadian Wildlife Federation were prepared to acknowledge, such as introducing barbless hooks in fishing in the province of Manitoba, the first jurisdiction to use it, such as expanding the use of steel shot in various high-density hunting programs.

I never presented myself, and I have never expressed a position--I challenge anybody to read Hansard. I have put many words on Hansard. I have never stood up in this House, in this Chamber, or in public anywhere, speaking in opposition to elk ranching.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Struthers: As has been the case throughout the few moments I have spoken here, I have stuck to the facts. Again, in regard to the reward that was received by then the critic, the member for Lakeside, I stick to that fact as well, that that was in recognition of his fight to uphold the dignity of one of Manitoba's finest wild creatures, and now we look at a government who is determined to put these creatures into captivity. I will say right now, so that when my grandchildren look through Hansard years down the road, they will say, at least somebody in that Legislature had enough sense just to predict--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please, the honourable Minister of Education, on a point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the member would care to table the facts that he says he has regarding the Minister of Agriculture's position on elk ranching prior to his receiving the award.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister did not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Struthers: Just before I was interrupted there, I was going to make the prediction that just like with the buffalo--

Point of Order

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): On a point of order, I am sure the member for Dauphin would agree that it would only be the honourable thing to table the information he has.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Environment did not have a point of order. A point of order should be raised when there is a breach of the rules, not just to break into somebody's speech at this time.

Point of Order

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I notice that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) talked about tabling information. I wonder if the minister is intending to table today the information she promised yesterday on employment development.

Mrs. McIntosh: The information that the member requested that I said I would table is now ready and will be tabled tomorrow as promised. I challenge the member opposite to do the same thing and table, as I have said I will. I challenge him to be as honourable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. All honourable members do not have a point of order today. We are going a little far here, but time has expired.

* * *

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have five minutes remaining.

It is now time for private members' hour.

* (1630)