MATTERS OF GRIEVANCE

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I am rising this session on a grievance motion, availing myself of this opportunity to discuss an issue that is very relevant in my constituency and throughout the province of Manitoba but which I am undertaking on behalf of the constituents in my area, who, in fact, put together a petition that they wished to forward to the Legislature concerned about the level of taxation that has been foisted upon Manitobans, particularly senior citizens by the provincial government, asking for a remedy and a solution to the incredible burden that has been placed on Manitobans, particularly seniors.

Madam Speaker, it is bad enough that many individuals have been cut off their Pharmacare benefits, that are forced to pay for health care that they did not have to pay for before, and are forced to face the indignity of long line-ups and waiting in hallways in order to get health care.

But further, Madam Speaker, and just let me quote from a letter that I received from a constituent, together with a petition wherein he said, to whom it may concern, and it is addressed to us in the Legislature: We seniors from Winnipeg need an explanation from the government of Manitoba. Why would we have to pay school tax all our life and still pay when you retire, pushing people to extreme difficulty to make a living? We have no pay cheque every week or every two weeks, only once-a-month pension cheques, which after they are divided for bills to pay, also have no kids going to school, our kids pay the taxes already. I believe this tax should be abolished for seniors only. Why do people have to sell their property when they retire, because they cannot pay their bills and have no other action than to go and live in an apartment block against their will? During our lifetime working so hard together and our families, we had one home for our future enjoyment, but the government of Manitoba took it away from us. Please give us an answer what you are going to do about it. All these people who have signed this petition are ready to march to the Legislative Building. We cannot go on any longer.

Madam Speaker, it is not just the hundreds of individuals who signed this petition, like Peter Petrillo [phonetic] and Frank Toschi [phonetic] and Amilio Anello [phonetic] and Giuseppe Troia and Tony Fenari [phonetic] and Mrs. Alamo [phonetic] and Salvatore Melizza and Mary Aretti [phonetic] and Felice Arettisi [phonetic] and Amelia Perelli [phonetic] and Rosario Serizzi [phonetic] and Silvario Anizzio [phonetic] and Giuseppe Carnevale and Catarina Suazza [phonetic] and Joachim Gomez [phonetic] and Paul Hankimper [phonetic] and Michele Perillo and Joe Pelletier and Joe Perillo and Guido Martelli and Domenico Nardi and Umberto Cassarlo [phonetic] and Christine Yaskiw and Frank Aquisto [phonetic] and Stanley Skopeski [phonetic] and Alberto Busceni [phonetic] and Renaldo Petrillo [phonetic] and all of these individuals, and I could go on and on, who were asking for a remedy.

But I have spoken with hundreds of constituents during my regular door knocking who have expressed to me the difficulty that they are having. I have talked to individuals in our constituency who are literally forced to sell their homes because they cannot pay for their property tax. They have signed this petition, which says: whereas school division taxes have skyrocketed over the mandate of this government; and whereas the average homeowner in the city of Winnipeg has seen their school division taxes increase by over 60 percent since 1990; and whereas these tax increases are as a result of deep cuts to education from the provincial government, cuts totalling $482 per pupil, real dollars, since the Filmon government was elected, and in 1993 the Filmon government reduced the property tax by $75 per household, which is nothing more than a property tax increase on homeowners, and in 1993 the Filmon government also scaled back the seniors tax credit of $175, whereby further driving up property taxes for seniors, we, your petitioners, humbly pray the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the government of Manitoba to consider adequately funding public schools to take pressure off the school taxes and return the property tax credits to the level they were before this administration took office.

In so many ways, we are neglecting and we have written off our seniors in our society. We have written them off on Pharmacare, we have written them off on health care, and that is tragic, and on taxes where many of them only get a regular pension cheque. The Filmon government has offloaded property taxes and school taxes to historic highs in the province of Manitoba. They have offloaded those taxes and caused a terrible disservice to individuals who spent their entire lives saving and building for this community.

That is why as an alternative we have said: you must put back the money you took away from them as a start, took away from senior citizens on the property tax credit to provide some relief to those seniors who have been so horrendously pressured by the Filmon government, who have been written off. It is not fair to those people who have built this country. It is not fair to seniors who are on a fixed income what this government has done. You have to recognize that these people who have paid taxes all their lives, who worked hard to build security for themselves, are now in very difficult situations as a result of your tax increases.

It is not enough that personal income taxes have been reduced, because one of the key factors is that the impact of property taxes and school taxes that have been offloaded from the provincial government onto the property tax base is patently unfair and undesirable for these individuals. We in this Legislature, it is incumbent upon us to do something to protect our senior citizens and protect all of our citizens, to allow them to build and to remain in our community and not to have to go to apartments, as this letter states to me, forced to live in apartments and forced to give up their homes as a result of the offloading of property taxes onto the backs of senior citizens.

Madam Speaker, the property tax credit that was introduced by the Schreyer administration was one example of how you can deal with the burden of property taxes by taking, in an absolute stance, part of the burden of the taxes off of senior citizens and lowering their property taxes for education purposes. But that whole philosophy has been turned on its head by this government that has offloaded year after year after year of taxes–in fact, they are called the GFT, the Gary Filmon taxes–on the backs of Manitobans, forcing them and many seniors out of their homes.

This is intolerable because these people are the ones who built the society that provided the fruits under which we are living, and it is tragic that in our area so many senior citizens have told me that they have no choice but to sell their homes and move because they cannot afford these taxes, Madam Speaker. They are looking to us for leadership in this Legislature, and there is no doubt that we have to decrease the burden of property taxes and school taxes and remove the burden from our senior citizens.

* (1510)

A good start, something we could do immediately, would be to increase the property tax credit to these individuals to remove the burden as a start, and, then, Madam Speaker, we have to look at a way and a means, as many seniors have put to me, of dealing with the property taxes and the school taxes to make it a fairer system, because there is only so much and there comes a point where you cannot take it anymore. A strain on the back of an individual and a taxpayer becomes so much that they no longer can pay and they no longer can exist.

You know, Madam Speaker, there are many examples of rash and wasted expenditure in the provincial government that could go to offload taxes. We are paying $20 million for frozen food, much of which these seniors, unfortunately, in their declining years might be forced to partake in. We are spending over $100 million on computers, the largest expenditure in the province, on computers, on SmartHealth, and this money could go back to our senior citizens who built this country. It is more than $100 million on computers. In fact, it is $120 million-plus.

But, Madam Speaker, these are some progressive changes that we could provide to our seniors to ease the burden, to allow them to stay in our communities because it is not just the question of easing the burden. We should be encouraging seniors to remain in the community to provide for the vitality of the community, to provide for the experience in the community, not shunting them off, not rejecting them, not forcing them out of their homes because they cannot afford the health care that has been user-fee imposed on them, because they cannot afford the property taxes that have shot up through the roof as a result of initiatives of this government.

So I am imploring members of the Legislature, listen to the individuals whose names are on this petition, who represent everyone who is on this petition and I dare say probably represent another hundred or perhaps 500 individuals who feel the same, who are senior citizens who are completely overburdened by the unfair tax increases of this administration and who are looking to us in the Legislature to do something to relieve the burden, to allow them to stay in their community, to allow them to continue to contribute to this community.

So I am urging all members of the Assembly to take this petition and to take this letter that I have read into the record seriously to deal with the issues raised, and I am urging all members of this Chamber to pay attention to our seniors. We owe it to them, Madam Speaker, and we owe it to do our part to ensure that they have a right to remain in our communities and to continue to be the productive members of the community that they have always been.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, would rise to stand on my grievance.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member may proceed, yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, given the tabling of the report that we have been calling for for a number of weeks now, I thought it would indeed be appropriate for me to put some comments on the record and make very clear some of the concerns that we have.

In public expenditures, we recognize health care as being the No. 1 priority in terms of what Manitobans expect, but closely behind health care is that of our public education. We are, in fact, charged with the responsibility of the administration of public education. There are certain things in which it is important that we do inside this Legislature to ensure that the quality of public education is well maintained and that Manitobans are served by the different types of directives that the Department of Education puts out.

So we take it very seriously, the issues that we have raised over the last number of weeks, and I stand in disappointment because, in calling for a report, I had indicated a while back that I do not give any credibility to a report, I guess whatever report might be done by the school division or by the Department of Education. I say that because I believe it is stating the obvious.

If you read within the report, you will read: This report has been prepared by me, as superintendent of Seven Oaks School Division No. 10, on behalf of the board of trustees–well, the me, of course, is, in fact, John Wiens. Finally, I submit this report believing it be factual and objective and impartial.

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I happen to have had inappropriate behaviour, if it would be appropriate to go to the Leader of the Liberal Party and ask the Leader of the Liberal Party to comment or to investigate on my political behaviour.

There is no credibility that could be given by the Department of Education conducting an investigation into it. The reason I say that is that you have to look at the principal, the principal being Brian O'Leary. The one that did violate the directive from the province is, in fact, the campaign manager for the New Democratic Party.

Given, and it is no longer alleged, the individual and very political nature of this issue go beyond just the principal, if you factor in the superintendent, the superintendent is, in fact, a very close adviser for the official opposition on education-related issues, and all members of this Chamber are very much aware of that. That is the reason why we believe that, given the political nature of what has actually taken place, it would not be appropriate for the Department of Education to be investigating this matter.

Well, if the government was to say that they concur in full with the report, I guess then the challenge could be put to us as to the need for an independent investigation. My interpretation, given comments in questioning, in particular from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in answering, referring to the principal as a cheater, issues–

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On a point of order, there are only two members of my party in this Legislature, and when we speak, we would like to be heard. When the members of the two other parties are bantering, I am sitting next to the member, and I am having a hard time listening to him. I would like to hear. This is a matter that I am very interested. The parties here are close friends of mine. It is a very difficult situation for me, and I would like to hear what the member says.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for The Maples, indeed the honourable member for The Maples did have a point of order. I would ask for the co-operation of all members on all sides of the House in keeping their conversations very quiet and preferably having those private conversations in the loge or outside the Chamber.

Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for The Maples for the consideration.

What we need to recognize is the report that has been tabled today is what I had argued weeks ago would not, in all likelihood, meet the type of expectations that we had, because of what I indicated in terms of relationship between the superintendent and the principal, things that had already previously been indicated through the media, through the Chamber. I would have been surprised, given the political nature and the background of this particular incident, if the government would have bought into the report.

Well, I do not believe the government has bought into the report, and I am grateful for that because I think it would have been an injustice. I have before me what one would classify as a copy of the report, but, of course, Madam Speaker, the amount of information that is blanked out is truly amazing and just does not give any justice whatsoever to the issue that we have before us.

As an example, if you look at the conclusion, Madam Speaker, there are some eight points. I will read the eight points in the conclusion.

First point: there was a contravention of examination protocol. Everything else, the full paragraph, I do not know if it is one or two paragraphs, is blanked out.

* (1520)

Then there is 2: There was not nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was a breach, a violation of provincial examination security either in June '98 at Maples Collegiate or prior or subsequent to June '98. This conclusion is supported by the actions of the Assessment Branch of Manitoba Education and Training.

What is nice, Madam Speaker, is that you actually have a full conclusion point where everything is being reported, but there are serious allegations, in fact, that there was more than one breach. The report is inconclusive in saying yes or no on that particular breach, very, very serious, yet you read point 2. Then it gets a lot worse from there.

It goes into point 3: The nature of degree of the intervention by–and, of course, it blanks out–is commensurate with the seriousness of the violation considering that Manitoba Education officials agreed that no serious breach had occurred.

I would challenge that particular thought, Madam Speaker, but I would go on to points 4, 5, 6 and 7–well, 4, 5 and 6, where absolutely every aspect of it has been whited out. There is nothing that I can actually read on those points.

On point 7, you have to go well into it where they again make another reference, and I find this to be quite interesting. Again, it starts off halfway or three-quarters of the way through the point: They will have known all along that the numbers involved presented no statistically significant threat to the validity or reliability of examination results. In other words, the involvement of these students pose no compromise to the integrity of the process of the results. The only potential winners or losers were students.

I find that to be–and, again, I have not seen what was written ahead of it–absolutely amazing, Madam Speaker. In the report it tries to imply that no harm has been done. I find that amazing to even believe that one could get any sort of interpretation of that nature given the type of breach that was conducted.

Then on point 8, and, finally: my office has no means at its disposal for determining a truth regarding allegations No. 4 and No. 5. I can only report that I have no substantiated evidence to support the allegations in any way, shape or form.

Now, Madam Speaker, on that particular point, keep in mind the relationship between the superintendent and the principal. Take a look at allegation No. 4. Allegation No. 4, which is on page 12 in the report is: In January, a 40S mathematics examination went missing under the same circumstances as in June 1998. "Blank" received a copy of the examination from–and, then, again, it has been blanked out.

Well, Madam Speaker, that really raises the question–it is the first time that I heard that particular allegation, that, in fact, it has happened before, that it is indeed not the first time. It should be noted, it indicated, after considerable blanking, that he would be prepared to attest to this in a court of law. So, obviously, the individual who has reported this particular allegation is indeed quite serious, but when you look at the allegation No. 4 and the superintendent's response, it is without further information: it is not within my purview nor power to determine the validity of this allegation.

I would suggest and argue to you, Madam Speaker, that the only way in which that allegation could be properly addressed would, again, be through an independent investigation. You cannot ask one of the policy advisers of the New Democratic Party to investigate the campaign manager who happens to be the principal who broke, we know at least, or breached at least once, and when you have other serious allegations that have been made–and even the superintendent acknowledges that at least one of those other serious allegations, in fact, cannot be substantiated one way or the other because of contradictions.

You know, Madam Speaker, in going through this whole report, and, unfortunately, I have not had as much time as I would have liked, but I felt that it was important to stand up today because I personally appeal to the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) this afternoon to recognize the importance of calling for an independent investigation. That is the reason why I chose to rise today.

Page 14 talks about the initial incident and where it clearly demonstrates that there was a contravention of examination protocol by providing a teacher with a copy of the S4 Mathematics 40S examinations the day prior to the examination and, in doing so, potentially compromising the test's security.

It goes on, Madam Speaker, to say: there is no evidence to show that the test's security was in fact compromised–how can one make that statement when in fact the box was unsealed, there was an exam missing? All evidence suggests that no teacher teaching the 40S Mathematics course at the time of this writing viewed the test. There is evidence to suggest neither.

Then, of course, we go into the blank-out portion. But there is no question that there was the breach of security. That has been put to rest.

There are today more questions to be asked about were there additional breaches in security. Again today I think there are even more questions that could be asked in terms of how issues of securities being breached, the provincial directive, are in fact being addressed. I say that, and one has to be very careful and very cognizant of the fact that in here it is referred that one should get legal opinion. I say that inside the Chamber because inside the Chamber I cannot be intimidated for what I might say and have to worry about lawsuits beings taken out against me.

I have heard many different allegations levelled at the Seven Oaks School Division in terms of what takes place at the administration level. There is definitely, I believe, an intimidation factor that is there. I believe it was very courageous for this teacher who raised the issue in the first place, and it is for that reason that I stand and for the reason that a constituent of mine who brought it to my attention, the reason why I raised the issue and continue to raise the issue, and will continue endlessly as much as possible in addressing this issue, that there is a lot that needs to be looked at in terms of what has actually occurred.

If you believe in standard exams–and all three political parties say they believe in standard exams, with some modifications on the Grade 3 standard exams in particular, but all three political parties in this Chamber believe in the standard exams–then let us start talking about the integrity of those exams. If this government does not take direct action in terms of having an independent investigation into this particular matter–we know for a fact there was at least one breach. I am very suspicious whether or not there was more than one breach, and I think that there is just cause to argue that in fact there was more than one breach.

If this government believes in standard exams and is prepared to stand by those standard exams, I am going to suggest the government has an obligation to do one of two things, and this is how I would conclude my remarks. Either you throw the standard exams out and have no obligation for teachers to report, Madam Speaker, or you protect the integrity of those standard exams and you call for, immediately, an independent investigation which does not have to consume a great deal of money, but it does protect the integrity of the exams. I ask for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province to do the right thing today and initiate an independent investigation.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to say those few words.

* (1530)

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of grievance that has come to my attention both through the very politically motivated actions of members of this House opposite and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and teachers and others who have raised this concern with me in my constituency. I of course refer to the matter of the report which was released today and the allegations which were made in regard to exam security in the Seven Oaks School Division.

First of all, Madam Speaker, let us draw a very sharp contrast between the actions of the person whose name has been used so freely here, Mr. O'Leary, and the actions of those many Conservatives who were cited in the Monnin report. First of all, let us be very clear that Mr. O'Leary, when asked had he done what was alleged, he said, yes, he did. He was truthful, he was forthright, as compared to so many liars that Mr. Monnin encountered in his inquiry when at the end of the day he was still not sure whether he had heard the whole truth.

So let us, first of all, draw the sharp distinction that the person whose reputation would be smeared and has been smeared by this member opposite in Inkster and by the member particularly for Brandon West is a person of integrity, a person who has shown educational leadership, a person who admitted he made a mistake, a person who had the courage, the forthrightness and the honour to say: I made a mistake, and I did the wrong thing. He told people that. He did not deny it. He did not dissemble. He did not lie to a court. That is the first distinction, and it is a very important one.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster, on a point of order?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): No, Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Yes, the honourable member for Inkster may rise on a matter of privilege. A matter of privilege takes precedence over all other business in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, with 13 minutes and 21 seconds remaining on his grievance.

* (1600)

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I want to reiterate again that no member on this side of the House has ever said that what Mr. O'Leary did was all right. What Mr. O'Leary did was honourable because he agreed that he had breached the rule. He was truthful. He responded immediately truthfully.

If you read the report, the report says that Mr. O'Leary co-operated at every moment of the investigation. My comment was simply that there is an enormous difference between someone who makes a mistake and admits it and says it was wrong and someone who will never admit that they are wrong until it is proven finally in some court. Mr. O'Leary did something that was wrong, and he admitted it. He, in doing so, has dealt with the issue in terms of his own personal integrity and his honour. He has apologized. That is what we do in this House when we do something wrong, and we consider the matter dealt with at that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In terms of this report, let me say that the report is unsatisfactory to us because of all of the deletions and all of the omissions, and that is why my Leader, the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), has already indicated that he will be seeking, first of all, that under The Freedom of Information Act further information be released. He will appeal any deletions, and he will appeal them to the Ombudsman if necessary.

He would like the whole report to be public. We would like the whole report to be public. On that, we agree with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and I presume we agree with the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae). Nothing much is served by having a heavily expurgated version of an important report. It simply does not meet the needs of anybody, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we support the notion that the whole report should be made public.

What I do find strange is that we have a Minister of Education, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who has stood in defence of the right of school boards to manage their own affairs, to investigate issues of concern within their boards. We have a board that is chaired by a person who is a former Liberal candidate, not a board of one particular party, but, in fact, I think you will find that members of the Seven Oaks school board represent the political spectrum. The Minister of Education, the honourable Minister of Education has many times in this House risen to defend the local jurisdiction, the rights of schools boards to manage their affairs, and now he makes a case that this board cannot do so, in spite of the fact that they are comprised of competent elected officials. They caused their most senior officer to do a long and exhaustive written investigation, and the conclusions of that investigation are very interesting.

There is, first of all, the conclusion that Mr. O'Leary agrees with, and Mr. O'Leary says, yes, there was a contravention of the examination protocol. There was not, nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was a breach or violation of provincial examination security either in June 1998 at Maples Collegiate or prior or subsequent to June 1998. This conclusion is supported by the actions of the Assessment Branch of the Department of Education.

There was no harm done. Yes, there was a breach. Yes, it was acknowledged. Yes, it was apologized for. There was no harm done. The nature and degree of the intervention is commensurate with the seriousness of the violation, considering that Manitoba Education officials agreed that no serious breach had occurred. This is a tempest in a political teapot, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I–

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Just to lend support to the statement by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) about the unsatisfactory nature of this report, the very last conclusion to which he referred about the department's view, my understanding is the department takes serious issue with that last aspect about that there had been no breach or whatever that was that the honourable member for Crescentwood referred to last.

So just by way of a point of order and so that the record is clear, I could not agree with the honourable member more about the unsatisfactory nature of this particular report, because I am advised that the department itself takes serious issue with that last finding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. The honourable member for Crescentwood, to continue.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we find unsatisfactory is not the report. We do not know what the report says because so much of it has been excerpted and crossed out. We would like to see the entire report. The Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) has made it clear further that he would like to see freedom of information release further amounts, and if they do not, he would appeal that. Furthermore, we have made it clear that we support, if this is the wish of the government, an independent inquiry, an independent investigation into this issue to clear the record once again.

But I want to refer to the letter from the chairperson of the board, Ms. Claudia Sarbit, of December 23, 1998. I am going to read part of this into the record: I am seeking information regarding protocol, security, and publicity. She is talking about a letter that was faxed to her by the deputy minister, Friday, December 18. Why was the usual protocol not followed? It has been my assumption that elected people at one level communicate with their counterparts at another level on matters of policy and administrators with administrators. The two do not mix easily. Relatedly, the fax correspondence did not follow protocol regarding confidentiality of such sensitive material. I find it extremely troublesome that the deputy minister continues to infer that additional breaches in security occurred but that he has not substantiated these claims other than with vague references to previous occasions and credible sources. Third, the deputy minister's letter was obviously shared by someone with at least one member of the media, Tom Brodbeck of the Winnipeg Sun. There are only two possibilities for this deliberate disclosure that should have remained confidential. It happened at our end or yours. We will investigate here and share our results and request that you do the same and advise us of your findings.

In other words, from the very beginning this issue was used as a political football instead of as a matter of true concern about the quality of education in our province.

In concluding my grievance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we want to make it very clear that we agree that there was a breach, that we commend Mr. O'Leary for being frank and honest in direct distinction to those who were found by Mr. Justice Monnin to have covered up, to have lied, to have failed to be forthright, to have not told anything truthfully until they were confronted with facts they could not deny. That is the big distinction in this issue.

Our Leader and our party have supported the notion that this entire report should be public. They wish it to be so. If it would serve some useful purpose, we are quite prepared to see there be a further inquiry by a truly independent body, which clearly in this case is not the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae), because he has clearly shown himself by his remarks in this House, by his remarks outside the House to be extremely partisan on this matter, which I regret, because we consider this a very important issue, as obviously the school board does, because they have spent a great deal of time and a great deal of effort and therefore a great deal of money investigating and using their senior personnel to come to the conclusion shared by the Department of Education that while there was a breach, no harm resulted, and the breach was of a technical nature, that it was sufficiently dealt with by the investigation, that the person involved, most named in the whole affair, was truthful and forthright and honest in regard to any enquiries about it, and the matter was disposed of with the promotion of the person involved by the board, not by the superintendent, because the superintendent does not name deputy superintendents, the board names deputy superintendents.

So this was a vote of confidence by the board employing the person who was under investigation, who acted in a forthright and honest manner, who after the full investigation was found not to have caused any serious breach and was promoted with the full confidence of the board of the Seven Oaks School Division, the board that the Minister of Education now wishes to call into question in terms of its credibility, its partiality, its competence. He wishes to question the integrity of the board of Seven Oaks School Division. I think that this shows that this minister does not, in fact, have a concern that school boards are competent and should be left to make a competent judgment about matters under their jurisdictions, which clearly this was.

I think he has no confidence in the ability of Seven Oaks School Division to administer one of the finest school divisions in this province, that has turned out some of the finest graduates, that has some of the finest administrators and the finest teachers in this province. He does not believe that they are competent. He does not believe that they are capable of administering the affairs of their division. I find that sad, because this is the minister who has accused others of wishing to play Big Brother. He is such a proponent of the Big Brother school, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that not only does he want to have the right to approve whether a school division even rents a broom closet, he also wants to call into question the judgment of one of the most senior and respected school divisions, most senior and respected superintendents and most senior and respected principals in this province. He does not have confidence in the elected officials. He does not have confidence in the school board. He is the big brother.

* (1610)

He is the one who wants to call into question an investigation which took over six months and which he would not fully release because of some concern that he has. Why will he not fully release the document? What is he afraid of? What is in there that is not consistent with the line that he has been preaching? Why does he not release the document? If he wants to have a full inquiry, we support a full inquiry. Let us stop playing politics with people's lives, particularly with the lives of people who cannot come and defend themselves before this House.

This issue should be disposed of through a full inquiry. If that is the wish of the government, let them say so, let them act, but, first of all, let us get this whole report public. Let us get this on the public record with all the details and find out what the minister is not telling us that is in here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a serious issue. I believe it has been dealt with in a serious manner. I believe that the person involved has acted honourably and has apologized and has admitted that he has done wrong. We are clear that he did the wrong thing. No material harm resulted. Let us get on with issues that are as important as this but which ought to be occupying the business of this House today. Let us deal with this through FOI by the release of the whole report or through an independent inquiry. We do not mind which. We would support both.