The Acting Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): The Committee of Supply has before it for consideration the motion concurring in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of the expenditures for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 2000.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, you know they say timing means a lot in terms of virtually any aspect in life, and prior to walking into Question Period, I was in the cafeteria and made a quick jaunt up to my office to grab my jacket. Leaning against my door was an envelope from the Seven Oaks School Division, which I just kind of grabbed and took along with me and opened it up during Question Period. I started to read the letter that was inside and felt actually compelled to ask this question. I can honestly say I had no intentions on asking this particular question or a question related to the Seven Oaks School Division today, but, upon reading the letter, I thought it would in fact be appropriate. I say that because I think what it does is it again assists in the arguments of the need for an independent inquiry.

Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if I need to read the entire letter into the record, but there are two or three points in particular that I take great exception to. A couple of the points, I believe the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) has addressed, and I would think should cause grave concern from the Minister of Education in the sense that I cannot say with a hundred percent certainty who is right and who is wrong. But, suffice to say, someone is definitely right and someone is definitely wrong, and there is no doubt about that.

I say that because, and I quote right from the letter: The government's own officials twice reported that no harm was done and that the matter was concluded. Each of the three investigations, which have been done, reached the same conclusion. There was no breach in security; there was a violation of protocol.

Mr. Chairperson, the author of the letter, or at least the signatory of the letter I know is Claudia Sarbit, and no doubt is acting at least in good faith by getting information from the school division. The Minister of Education has been very clear in his response to me, and for that reason I have continuously tried to get to the bottom of this particular issue. But someone is wrong here. Is it the Minister of Education? Is it the signatory of this letter? I think that is a legitimate issue that does need further comment on.

* (1520)

Another point again reinforces the first point. Manitoba Education, and I quote: Manitoba Education officials investigated this incident immediately and declared that while protocol had not been followed, Mr. O'Leary's actions represented no threat to the examination, security, and they deemed the matter closed. Well, again, I would argue someone is wrong here, and I would like to know who is wrong. I think that is quite legitimate, to pose that question.

I cannot recall the last time I had talked to Ms. Sarbit. It has to be a good year at the very least, and this incident is about that age. I can assure you that I have never discussed this matter with Ms. Sarbit.

Another part of the letter, which really offends me, and I question whether or not it was Ms. Sarbit that actually wrote this letter, I would be interested in knowing if in fact she is the one who wrote this letter or did she have the letter written, and then she had signed it off. That is the suggestion, and I quote: The suggestion by Mr. McCrae and Mr. Lamoureux and Mr. Filmon that this matter still requires further investigation by an independent inquiry indicates that this issue has nothing to do with education and everything to do with party politics and an upcoming provincial election.

Mr. Chairman, if Ms. Sarbit made that allegation inside this Chamber to me, I would take great exception to it and, in fact, would be up on my feet in some form and using one of our rules, whether it is our rules and procedures, Beauchesne's, privilege or points of order, in reference to imputing definitely unworthy motives.

I have continuously maintained, virtually from the onset, that what we are talking about is the integrity of the standard exams in the province of Manitoba. For someone to believe that that integrity is not worth protecting and being a school trustee, I think that there needs a re-evaluation in terms of why it is that one might even be in that position.

As a school trustee, you are trusted with the responsibility of providing quality public education. There are expectations that, as a trustee or as a board, you are expected to follow. I find it incredibly difficult to understand how someone can or the board, to quote: imply that this issue has nothing to do with education and everything to do with party politics.

If we look at what the public, including the constituents that live in Seven Oaks School Division, would want to see, it is quality public education. Well, I think Manitobans have acknowledged and recognized the important role that standard exams play in ensuring that quality public education, and all three political parties inside this Chamber agree with that.

I was on CJOB, the Adler on Line round talk show in which there was the Minister of Education, the critic from the New Democrats and myself, and all three of us, speaking on the behalf of our respective political parties, endorsed standard exams. One has to realize that the standard exams have virtually no value if in fact you are not able to protect the integrity of those exams. I do not know if the entire board has actually read the report. If I were a school trustee, I would be quite concerned in terms of it appears there are allegations of more than one breach, of allegations of potential conflict of interest in terms of who is conducting the investigation. These are things in which I would be a little bit more careful or selective, as I am attempting to be. Members might know that quite often I will say some things which I feel and maybe not have done as much research as I could have done, but I always like to believe that I am doing what I feel is right and must be addressed.

The integrity of those standards exams has been called legitimately into question. To this date I do not know if there was any sort of reprimand. To the best of my knowledge, there was not any formal or informal reprimand of the individual. At the end of the letter, the school division then talks about Mr. Treller and says not to worry, not to fear, that this is something which always happens. Well, how naive. That is so incredibly naive to believe that Mr. Treller's reputation has not been damaged by this.

I was there when there was a number of teachers, his former peers, who sat around and said that this teacher was being demoted because he ratted on the principal. Now, if we want to try and say, well, those people that were sitting around, because I did not see their teaching certificates, that is a given, but if you want to say that I was set up to walk into this particular meeting, that they knew that I was meeting with other people there, well, that would be stretching the coincidence. But I will tell you something, the perception is very important. I believe politicians, of whatever political stripe, even apolitical politicians at our local level, realize the importance of perception.

The perception that Mr. Treller was just transferred over because he was a wonderful teacher and this is just normal procedure, if they believe that that was the perception that is out there, I think that they really better start questioning the superintendent and anyone else that was involved in this whole issue. I know, at least it has been indicated, because someone, and I hope to, and if I do not, I trust that the Seven Oaks School Division will ensure that the school trustees are provided a copy of the comments this afternoon. But, Mr. Chairperson, I find the whole issue of Mr. Treller absolutely amazing. I do not want to claim to know the reality of all of the details, but I do know in terms of a good deal of the harm that was caused to Mr. Treller, who has been–and I tried to get hold of Mr. Treller a while back, and I was told by someone else who had given me a call that Mr. Treller will not be able to return my call because he has been instructed not to talk to me. Well, who is the one who actually instructed Mr. Treller not to talk to me?

* (1530)

I would welcome correspondence or communication from Seven Oaks School Division. If there is no election that comes up over the next little while, maybe we can even attend one of these school division meetings and try to get some of those questions answered. Why was Mr. Treller instructed that he cannot talk to me? If they believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong, nothing to fear, then what fear do they have in Mr. Treller talking to me? Was it the school trustees that instructed Mr. Treller? Was it the administration that instructed Mr. Treller? Was it the school division or the school trustees who instructed the administration to instruct Mr. Treller not to talk to me?

Well, you know, if we want to get to the bottom of this, Mr. Chairperson, in reading the letter, as I indicated, offends me, offends personally my intelligence and my motivation for pursuing this. I really believe that the letter gives credibility to the whole notion, which I have been arguing now for weeks, and that is for an independent investigation.

I do not know what more the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) needs in order to see the merits for an independent investigation. In fact, I would argue that the Minister of Education only has two choices. The first choice is to accept the report as written, and the second choice is to agree to an independent investigation. I do not understand why the Minister of Education continues to want to avoid making the commitment towards that independent investigation, especially when things continue to happen to justify the need for an independent investigation.

Yesterday, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Education other concerns that have been raised to me by individuals that I have respect for in terms of political affiliations of certain members of the school division administration and the potential for conflict. Today I bring forward a letter which he was cc'd a copy of.

You know, I found it interesting. Someone had made reference to, well, in the letter, everything to do with party politics and upcoming provincial election. Well, read the cc list, Mr. Chairperson. The cc is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), to the education, to the deputy minister, the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and myself.

Well, I guess at least in part, you know, I would agree with the school division that there is a political background to this. That is the reason why I have consistently argued that any investigation of any value cannot be tied into the Department of Education. You cannot have Mr. Carlyle conducting an investigation. It would be no better than the investigation that we received from the Seven Oaks School Division. You know, the politics of this issue are there. There is a lot of politics in it, and I acknowledge that.

You know, one of the things that I have always been convinced of, and I somewhat heckled it to the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) yesterday, was that if this principal had been a Tory principal–you know, the Finance minister is the former principal I think out in Minnedosa. If this would have been Mr. Gilleshammer and he was still a principal, we, and I say we collectively, the opposition, it would not be just two of us in the Liberal Party fighting for justice on this issue, would have at the very least 25 MLAs fighting on this issue and to the extent of asking for the minister's resignation. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

So is there politics? Sure, there is politics in it. I do not question that. That is the reason why I have stated that it has to be an independent investigation. In reading the report, I do not know if the school division actually has a copy of the report. The school trustees will have more information than what I would have if they have the report, because my edition is whited out. But, surely to goodness, they must give some credibility, I would hope, to some of the other allegations that are being made. Right offhand, I can recall one individual quoted as saying that he would be able to attest to another breach in a court of law. Well, that raises a great deal of concern.

What is really interesting is in reading the letter one would get the impression that maybe you get the Liberals and the Conservatives kind of wringing their hands, saying, yes, justice has to be served here, so let us do what we can. I can honestly say, Mr. Chairperson, and I will not mention names, but I have had members from the New Democrats and the Conservatives who have expressed a great deal of concern in regard to what has taken place, that there are even New Democrats who do not support what has actually taken place, and I respect that. I make reference to it because to try to heighten or to enlarge, to demonstrate the importance of this record–[interjection] And I am sure that the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) will concur that there are all sorts of discussions that occur amongst MLAs, and if I have misspoken any confidence, I would apologize for it.

But what I do know is the issue that is there, politics aside, is of a very serious nature. I would like to see the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) address this issue, and there is only one way in which the Minister of Education can address this issue. I posed the question yesterday to the minister, and I have posed the question previously to the minister to call for an independent investigation. The minister has a copy of the letter. I know he has a copy of it because it is cc'd to the minister, and I see it in his hands.

Surely to goodness, the Minister of Education has to acknowledge that there is no chance or opportunity for an independent report coming out of the Seven Oaks School Division, and if you do not agree with the report that we have here today, well, Mr. Chairperson, then the Minister of Education only has one choice, and that is to have another investigation. If the minister believes–[interjection]

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster has been recognized. Honourable members who wish to carry on a conversation should do so outside the Chamber. Order, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: As I was saying, if the minister wants to draw this issue to a conclusion and a conclusion that would include protecting the integrity of the standards exams, the minister needs to call for an independent investigation. I appeal to the Minister of Education, and, no doubt, when I sit down the minister tends at times to be somewhat long-winded. I should not complain too much. At times I am too a little bit long-winded, but somewhere in that wind, that we see an answer, a very specific commitment to the need for an independent investigation.

* (1540)

The Minister of Education, I am not asking for the minister to say, yes, we will have an independent investigation and Mr. or Ms. X is going to be responsible for that investigation. All I am talking about is a commitment to the independent investigation, and then we can have some dialogue over the next week, if it takes a week, to come up with a name of an individual. I do not believe it would be appropriate. I personally would not have any problem in terms of sitting down with the author of the letter that I have made reference to and the Minister of Education and seeing if there is a name which we can all concur to in terms of conducting this independent investigation. It does not have to be a costly adventure or venture. "Adventure" is probably a poor word to use in describing it. In terms of cost, I think we are looking at a fraction of the cost of what the cost of the standard exams actually is.

We spend millions every year in the standard exams. I think that spending a fraction of that cost in order to protect the integrity of those standard exams is money that is well spent because, and I will say it very clearly so that all members of the Chamber understand, there are a great number of people that are watching what the government is doing. I was in fact at an event over the weekend where someone from the public who I did not know approached me and posed questions about this very issue. It is the first time that I know of that I actually met that person. So there are a great number of people that are watching the actions of this Chamber in addressing the issue of the standard exams.

So, in conclusion, I would ask for the minister to indicate very clearly that he will in fact be conducting an independent investigation, thereby protecting the integrity of the standard exams and provincial directives as a whole.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): At the outset let me tell the honourable member, as I have done before, I believe that the vast majority of the people of Manitoba want quality in their education system; the vast majority want fairness in their education system. When I say they want that quality, they want good, solid curriculum. In the last few years under the New Directions to education begun by my predecessors and carried on by myself, one of the pillars of New Directions is good, solid curriculum.

In my travels, and they have been fairly significant in the few months I have been minister, I have learned from members of the teaching profession, whom I respect, that we have good, solid curriculum and we continually develop it. Our teaching profession would like to make sure that the government is mindful that they have got a big job to do in adjusting their methods and their approaches to these new curricula. I am mindful of that and sensitive to that.

Another pillar is parental involvement. Parents are very clearly in favour of a system of standards and a system of testing against those standards and the performance of the system and the individual performance of the children in our system. So that at the earliest possible time in the development of children, we can find out where we are succeeding and where we are not succeeding and where we can improve and make adjustments to make the learning experience one that is fulfilling for our children and one that results in their being in a position to live happily and fruitfully in this province in the future.

So testing against those standards is one of those pillars, too. If you are going to have a province-wide system of testing, in no matter what grade, whether it be Grade 12, Grade 9, Grade 6 or Grade 3, which is the position that this government takes and for good reason, if you are going to do that, then you better have a system that is fair to the children in every corner of the province of Manitoba, so that children in every corner of the province of Manitoba can confidentially go about their school career knowing that there is integrity in the system in which they are engaged day in, day out, year in and year out. That message is equally important to be received by parents of those children across this province and perhaps at least as important, if not more so, to every teacher engaged in the development of our children through the public school system.

So if there is a suggestion that a teacher somewhere or a school principal who has a significant responsibility in the school environment, if there is a suggestion that a principal somewhere in Manitoba has breached the protocols associated with the standards testing system, then something needs to flow from that. What needs to flow from that? Well, it is like anything else, and I do not equate what Mr. O'Leary did with what happened in other matters which were the subject of the Monnin review. I do not equate it with what goes on in our criminal courts. I do not equate it with what goes on anywhere else but in our education system. There are dimensions here that go well beyond that which I will get to.

But I take this allegation–this fact, because Mr. O'Leary has acknowledged his misdeed here–and look at it from the standpoint that I must as the one who is charged with the responsibility for having some integrity in our education system. I am taking what the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has said most seriously. I, in no way, wish to make light of anything the honourable member for Inkster has said. I especially put that on the record because of all of the people in this House, I think the honourable member for Inkster is probably the best acquainted with the circumstances, perhaps not all the details, but certainly the people, the neighbourhood, the region of the city of Winnipeg in which all of this has transpired. So it is out of that background that I approach the questions being raised by the honourable member for Inkster. He has people no doubt inquiring of him, well, what is going on here, who did what, to whom and when, and all of those kinds of questions.

What are we supposed to think about the way the government is running its education system if there are people who without any care or concern seemingly break the rules of security and cheat on the tests? I mean, what are we supposed to think? If it is okay for a respected person in our community, the principal of our high school to break the rules and with impunity, does that mean it is okay for everybody else including, as the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) asks: what about John Carlyle? John Carlyle is the Deputy Minister of Education.

The honourable member for Kildonan is not wrong to raise the question because as the letter points out today, it is the allegation of the Seven Oaks School Division in the position it takes. It wants to be totally politically aloof of course. In this letter copied to the CBC Radio and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of Manitoba, myself, the Deputy Minister of Education, the former Minister of Education, Dr. Jon Gerrard, Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and the member for Inkster, this nonpartisan approach that the school division is taking, we do have to remember here that there are political dimensions to this. [interjection]

* (1550)

Anybody who thinks there are not political implications and dimensions to this issue is living in some other world, and the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) knows that. You cannot escape the fact that the school principal I referred to is presently the chairman of the election campaign for the New Democratic Party of Manitoba. This is not denied by anybody. But that is another dimension of this.

Speaking as Education minister, it is a very important issue the honourable member raises respecting the integrity of the standards test. Just because the NDP do not believe in standards, just because the NDP just want to let us just all be brothers and forget all about whether our kids can succeed or not, we will just give them welfare when they grow up, never mind having a quality education, and will even have classes to show them how they can get welfare. This whole issue points out a whole philosophical difference between the New Democrats and members of the other parties in this House. I say "parties" because I assume the Liberal Party does not agree with the NDP on some of these things. So there is a very big political dimension, and anybody who wants to pretend there is not is on some other planet, or they are certainly extremely naive. [interjection]

So the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) asks a very interesting question: how can there be an independent inquiry if this is the environment within which all this is taking place?

Well, you know, I think, as a department, the Education department has to take for granted that school divisions are headed by elected people and will do the right things. That is what you have to do until something demonstrates otherwise.

The honourable member for Broadway would be the first to remind me of this: we are all expected to look upon each other in this House as honourable members. In fact, even the rules tell us, we have to accept the word of an honourable member in this Chamber. That is our duty to do that unless and until something intervenes to show that we should not do that anymore. Then there are certain sanctions in place for that.

The same goes for the relationship of the Department of Education with the school divisions with which it partners in the education of our children. Why a year ago, back in June-July of 1998, should the Department of Education have taken any other view but that the Seven Oaks School Division could be trusted to look appropriately into this alleged breach that had been made? Why should anybody suggest the Department of Education should have treated Seven Oaks School Division some way different from any other school division in this province?

The answer is: it should not. The answer is: it did what it should have done and asked the division to conduct an inquiry or an investigation–actually, what was asked of the division, I think, gets forgotten in the debate. But we were asked: there was a breach that took place in your division; what are you doing about it? That was basically what was the genesis of all of the things that have flowed since. Mr. O'Leary's wrongdoing is something he acknowledged, so that what flowed from that, all this business about Mr. Treller, the allegations coming forward, is very disturbing.

You know, if you read the report and look at all the blanks, those blanks stand for names of people, real, living, breathing people in our Manitoba community. There are people in this House who, for their own reasons–none of them have told us what those reasons are–tend to gloss over the fact that real, breathing human beings are affected in some way or another by this matter. So, if somebody does wrong, other things happen. That seems to be the suggestion here.

So a whole lot of other things come out of this. We end up getting people like Mr. Brodbeck writing for the Winnipeg Sun saying all kinds of things, things like: "Doer changes rules to suit the NDP. After criticizing Tories, he bends his own ethics."

We get people, Frances Russell, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press, saying: "Mr. Doer dropped the ethics ball on the very first pass." That is what Frances Russell said.

So I guess when we get any lectures about ethics from New Democrats, we cannot assume that we are hearing it from those who have any particular expertise in the matter. So that is another dimension. There are two main dimensions here. Both of them are important. I think there are those who suggest the political one is not important. Well, those who suggest the political one is not important are those who have something to hide or something to protect. I suggest they all sit on the other side of the Chamber from myself.

We have been through a difficult time with respect to wrongdoings by people. We have been through that, and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of Manitoba very courageously did the right thing by asking former Mr. Chief Justice Alfred Monnin to look into all matters, and if the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) wants to suggest that that was not done with vigour by Mr. Monnin, let her do so.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): On a point of order, I would like to remind the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) stated in this House day after day after day in June of 1998 that there had been nothing wrong that had happened. He had "investigated," and nothing had happened.

It was only after repeated questioning day after day in the House by the official opposition that the Premier finally, not with vigour and not courageously but with his tail between his legs, did the right thing. So let the Minister of Education not sit here in this House and impugn motive to members of this side of the House when he puts inaccurate information on the record about the behaviour, the despicable behaviour of his own Leader.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): The honourable member for Brandon West, on the same point of order.

Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, in response to the honourable member for Wellington, this is June of 1999, and today the tail of the Leader of the Opposition is not between his legs. The Leader of the Opposition is not part of this discussion. He has made sure that he would not be part–[interjection] This is July of 1999. Thank you to my colleagues in the NDP for bringing that clear.

On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I remind the honourable member of what I said on June 23 about this point of order. The one thing the Leader of the Opposition needs to understand, if he wants to have credibility with the people, he should learn to face issues head-on instead of running away from them and hiding. That is not leadership. Leadership requires courage, something the honourable member does not have, and he is not willing to ensure that his own campaign manager is above reproach.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): The honourable member for Wellington does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. McCrae: One thing I can say about the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), I think what we heard from her today is, other than the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), I believe–probably more said by the New Democrats about this matter has been said by the honourable member for Wellington today than has been said in total by the whole party. The silence is absolutely deafening, but it was interesting to hear the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) from his seat say that what Mr. O'Leary did is much ado about nothing, what Mr. O'Leary did, and that the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is just making mountains out of molehills.

Well, let us talk about that molehill, because Mr. Brodbeck did in his comments or in his writing in the Winnipeg Sun. He says that teachers might have been tipped off about what was on the exam. Well, we do not know that and I am not saying that, but that may have happened, too, and that would have given some teachers an unfair advantage over others when preparing their students. It is the very reason why there are strict rules governing the administration of standards exams.

Were O'Leary's actions a deliberate attempt to give his school a leg up? Well, that is a good question, because we do know that this particular school in terms of the published results of these exams was behind the average. But we do not know that. I know the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) would like to find that out. It is the very reason why there are strict rules.

* (1600)

Did anybody else see the exam? Mr. Brodbeck asks. We will never know. The point is, Mr. O'Leary knew releasing the exam could compromise the fairness of the entire exam process. I guess that would be making a mountain out of a molehill, the fairness of the exam, total exam process in every corner of the province of Manitoba. Much ado about nothing, I guess, according to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) spoken through the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans).

The students rely heavily, and this is very important, on Grade 12 exam results to get into university. Well, they also rely on it for other reasons. I will point this out to Mr. Brodbeck. I mean, they want to get into college. They also want to be able to do a good job if they go straight to the workplace or wherever else they are going. They rely heavily on Grade 12 exam results to get into university. I know people who have their Grade 12 diploma on their office wall. They are proud of it. It is an achievement.

But now the suggestion is that, because of this breach of the protocol, the security protocol, what is that diploma worth? Until we know the answers, I do not think we know the answer to that question either. You simply have to have not only examination security being done but also being seen to be done, and this is important.

It was a clear breach of his ethical responsibility as the head of Maples Collegiate to ensure all students in Manitoba had a fair crack at writing the exam, but apparently it was not a serious enough breach of ethics to warrant a reprimand from his other boss, Gary Doer. Now that is the other dimension here, the political side.

The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) rightly asks–and the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) may have some wisdom to share with us on this point as she did on the last one. The honourable member for Inkster was raising the question about the role of Mr. O'Leary, and I am raising it in relation to his role as campaign manager for the Manitoba New Democratic Party. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has patted him on the back and said: You know, you said you did wrong and therefore it is all over; no harm done.

Well, with regard to that, why is it that we see such a double standard on the part of the New Democratic Party? Why do we have such a double standard, especially of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who has waxed–

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, on a point of order. I would like to remind the honourable Minister of Education that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) finally last week, or within the last 10 days, after days and days of questioning in the House admitted–well, four different kinds of stories, but finally admitted that he had made an error and took responsibility for the gang hotline not being confidential as it should have been. So he admitted to his mistake, his error in judgment.

The Premier (Mr. Filmon) did not do anything other than say in the House–and I think if you check Hansard, the Minister of Justice, I cannot remember the exact language, admitted that the situation had not unfolded as it should have, and that was the end of it.

Now I would like to ask the Minister of Education–and this is the Minister of Justice's job we are talking about, not a volunteer position. The principal of–

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The honourable member had risen on a point of order, and I would ask her to address the matter with regard to the point of order and make her point of order now, please.

Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am in the process of doing that very thing.

An Honourable Member: She was just about there.

Ms. Barrett: I was just about there. My point of order, Mr. Chair, is that the Premier accepted the Minister of Justice's acknowledgement that the process had not functioned as it should, did not remove him from his position. I would suggest that the parallels are striking here and that the Minister of Education, who talks about the role of the principal of the Maples Collegiate in his role as a volunteer, is way out of line, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The political games that are being played here are games that are being played between the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable member for Inkster, on the same point of order.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if it is the same point. I will let you determine that after hearing my comment on it, because I am concerned about the potential of imputing motives.

If I understand the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) correctly, she is trying to say that of the hundreds of schools in the province of Manitoba that if a principal opens or breaches the security of standard exams, that if they get caught doing it, all we have to say is that I should not have opened it and nothing should ever come of it outside of that. If my interpretation is wrong, please ask the member for Wellington to correct me on that point.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable member for Wellington does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Point of Order

Ms. Barrett: On another point of order, I would like to say that the member for Inkster is not putting accurate information on the record. The employer of the principal, the school board, Seven Oaks School Board, has done three investigations, two or three investigations of this situation and has ruled, as a result of those investigations, that the situation had been dealt with adequately.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I would remind all honourable members that when they are rising on a point of order that they do address the point of order and not get into debate about the issue that is on the floor. If there is a legitimate point of order, then the Chair is willing to acknowledge and listen to that, but I would ask the honourable members not to abuse that right of the House to rise on a point of order for no apparent reason.

Point of Order

Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, I am not a hundred percent sure if it is a point of order, but I think that there is some benefit, and I do not know if the rules can accommodate it, but I know that there has been a lot of will from other parties so that we could actually ask questions in regard to this particular issue to try to get a better understanding of people like the member for Wellington. Are there any rules that would allow for us to pose some questions, whether it is to the member for Wellington or other members, which could ultimately have an impact on an independent investigation?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Just for the benefit of the honourable member for Inkster, we are in the process of concurrence, which is an opportunity for the member to ask questions of the minister. That is the scope of this exercise.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): When the honourable member for Wellington rose on a point of order, the honourable minister had the floor, and I would ask the honourable minister if he has concluded his remarks.

Mr. McCrae: I am just getting my throat cleared, Mr. Chairman. The plot thickens. The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has put some flour and milk into the pot and it is thickening, because the honourable member for Wellington wants to be the honourable member for Inkster. As I understand it, in the upcoming election, the honourable member for Wellington is proposing to put her name on the ballot for the New Democrats and run against the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in that constituency where I understand the Maples Collegiate and many people who are interested in this issue reside and vote. I think the people of Inkster–and what is the riding where Maples is located?

An Honourable Member: The Maples.

* (1610)

Mr. McCrae: People from Inkster and people from The Maples and all Manitobans are interested in knowing that there is integrity in our school system. The people of Inkster and the people of The Maples are interested in knowing that their MLA is concerned about this matter. The people of Inkster would not be very happy to know that their New Democratic candidate is among those who are laughing at what happened at Maples Collegiate, that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) who wants to be the member for Inkster joins with her colleagues in saying that what we have here is much ado about nothing and in associating herself with all of the comments made by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).

The people of Inkster would not be very happy to know that about the honourable member for Wellington who wants to move over to Inkster and take the place of the honourable member, the present member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who is trying to get the government to get to the bottom of this situation so that the people can be assured that there is some integrity in the school system, and as I try to make my case for integrity in the school system, the member for Wellington in her trite, protective cover-up way, stands to her feet to try to interrupt the proceedings, to try to deflect attention away from what her friend Brian O'Leary has done.

I hope that the honourable member understands this Mr. O'Leary did something that he has acknowledged is wrong. That is a done deal. That is over with. Now, where do we go from here? What do we learn from that? The honourable member for Wellington would suggest that we have nothing to learn; we are New Democrats. We know better, and this is making mountains out of molehills. We are sure going to go after the Tories when they do something wrong, and we are sure going to demand the head of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) when he does something wrong, and we are going to demand the head of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and anybody else whose head happens to be sticking out when it comes to any other matter that might be the subject of criticism, as long as they are a Tory. But, oh, if they are a New Democrat, Mr. Chairman, they have that royal jelly. They are anointed. There is something about them that is not accountable, that makes them so that they are above that sort of thing.

That is the position of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) who wants to take on the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and replace him, representing the people of Inkster. That is what she wants to do. She wants to substitute her values and her ethics for those demonstrated daily in this House by the honourable member for Inkster.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, I draw your attention to Beauchesne's and to our parliamentary practice here where there should bear some resemblance between the question asked and the response of the minister, some sense of relevance. The minister has spent the last 10 minutes attacking various members, which is his right to do, but not in the form when the member for Inkster asked a specific question, and I will paraphrase the question again, are you going to conduct an investigation, and the minister's announcement again, another 10 minutes of going through his usual diatribe that he has done for the past few days on the same issue.

It is not relevant to the question asked, Mr. Chairperson, and I ask you to call the minister to order because there is much business that must be conducted in this Chamber with respect to concurrence, and if the minister continues to go off on irrelevant matters–the minister can go on as long as he wants and for half an hour on relevant matters, but he is completely irrelevant when he goes away from the issue of the investigation which was the question posed by the member for Inkster and when he goes down the track of attacking the member for Wellington and then giving us a political discourse as to what might happen in the future. It is not relevant, and I ask you to call him to order.

Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, two points here. The honourable member, he forgets altogether this is not Question Period, and the rules that apply to Question Period do not necessarily apply to Committee of the Whole, where there is a level of tolerance on the part of the Chair which usually prevails in these matters.

The other point he forgets altogether, this is indeed concurrence in the Estimates. We already know the outcome, Mr. Chairman. The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and all his colleagues in unison rose to their feet to support the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer).

The Liberals tested them during the process of Estimates review, tested them a few times to see if they had the courage of their conviction to stand in unison and joyfully support a Tory budget, with the expectation that an election was around the corner and they knew they could not do better anyway. All the while, the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) says it is an unsustainable budget, but if it is so unsustainable, why are all those New Democrats standing to their feet and supporting it?

These people are very hard to understand, Mr. Chairman. So on the point of order, on the matter of relevance, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has been raising questions about what happened at Maples Collegiate and what is being done about it. That is exactly what I am talking about. The New Democrats are tremendously sensitive about this matter because who was it that did this thing that was so wrong? That was Mr. Brian O'Leary, who has been given a pat on the head by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), who said it is all right, we can weather this particular little storm.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) does have a point of order. I would remind all honourable members when they are speaking to the issue that has been raised that they do remain relevant with regard to the questions that are asked and what is before this House. Regardless of whether it is in Question Period or in Committee of the Whole, relevance is a factor. So I would remind all honourable members when they are speaking to the issue to remain relevant.

The honourable minister, to complete your response.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your ruling and accept it, of course.

With regard to the question raised by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), in regard to this particular matter and very relevant there too, raised the issue of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and said that the Minister of Justice took responsibility, and this is true.

As I said at the very beginning of my comments, none of these cases are exactly the same, but let us take this very case and let us assume that Mr. O'Leary was the campaign chairman for the Progressive Conservative Party or, for that matter, campaign chairman for the Liberal Party of Manitoba. Let us ask ourselves: would the New Democrats be calling that making a mountain out of a molehill? Would the New Democrats be calling that simply much ado about nothing? Would the New Democrats be saying to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of Manitoba your campaign manager breached security protocol? Well, actually we do not believe in tests anyway. We believe in allowing our children to go forth into the world unprepared so they can seek welfare. So I guess it is all right.

How does that scenario add up? Do you really think that would happen? And can pigs fly, Mr. Chairman? I am asking you, if you think the NDP for one minute would sit silently and talk about much ado about nothing if Mr. O'Leary were campaign chair for the Progressive Conservative Party? Now, that is a case that has been made by the honourable member for Inkster, too.

* (1620)

You know, the honourable member says, well, so what are we going to do now? I do not blame the honourable member for Inkster for pressing me on this matter and doing it quite a bit actually. I do not blame him for doing that because I know his constituents, served by the Maples school catchment area and others, are on his case, probably daily, saying, what are you doing about this? I mean there are things here that need to be looked into, and the Seven Oaks School Division does not appear to have done a very good job investigating this matter. What are you doing about it as our elected member?

Well, if the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) were the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), we know what the honourable member for Wellington would be doing. Guess what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. That is why Frances Russell says the ethics test stumps Doer. Because ethics to honourable members opposite is simply having a standard for everybody except yourself, exclude yourself from that standard. It brings about all of the worst elements of the human condition to present to the people of Manitoba. That is what New Democrats are doing in the face of this matter.

I simply have to do my job. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is pressing me to do my job. New Democrats are off somewhere else, wallowing in their own little world of let us stick it to the rest of the world and protect ourselves at all costs. That is where they are at, and it is regrettable, because people like to think they have choices between two or three good options, although, unfortunately, for various reasons, people tend to go to the polls thinking: well, I have to pick out the best of these three evils. I feel badly about that, always have. I do not think that is deserved, but that may sound a little defensive coming from a politician, so I will not dwell on it for very long.

The fact is that we, I guess, share responsibility, all of us do, for the regard in which we are held by members of the public. Sometimes that regard is not particularly high. To that extent, I regret that. I would like to work to improve that. I think some steps have been made to try to improve that impression of the politicians. But I would not be doing my job if I did not do something to ensure some integrity in something I believe in, that being standards tests. Is it because the New Democrats hate tests that they are taking this position? Is it because they like Brian O'Leary? Is it because they like Mr. Wiens?

Yesterday, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), raised questions about Mr. Wiens. I do not have the answers about the political persuasion of Mr. Wiens, although the honourable member for Inkster has made some interesting suggestions about that. I have no particular evidence to suggest that–[interjection]

The last person who called me a jerk in this House was Eugene Kostyra, and I do not appreciate being called a jerk by anybody, including the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). If this is the way she is going to approach her conduct as a member of the Legislative Assembly, woe betide her when she faces off against the present member for Inkster in that particular riding and faces the judgment of the people. You do not get places by calling people names, and the honourable member for Wellington ought to know that by now. If that is what they resort to when they are put under the slightest bit of pressure, woe betide us all should we ever look to them for any particular kind of example for how to conduct ourselves in public life. I do not call you names, ever.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I wanted to reread one part of the letter. It states: The suggestion by Mr. McCrae, Mr. Lamoureux and Mr. Filmon that this matter still requires further investigation by an independent inquiry indicates that this issue has nothing to do with education and everything to do with party politics and the upcoming provincial election.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I ask a fairly specific question for the Minister of Education: given that you have the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party calling for an independent investigation, and I think, from what I interpret with the dialogue that has been coming from the government benches over the last number of days in which we have been dealing with this issue, that dialogue being that the government does not appear to support the report as submitted, then I would go further to make the statement that all three political parties do indeed want to see an independent investigation.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that in itself addresses a major component to the letter. I believe that the letter, at least my interpretation of it, is that we just leave the issue and consider the issue resolved. Given the position of the three political parties inside this Chamber and the willingness to see another investigation done, but via an independent mechanism, I would then ask the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) whether or not he will take this into consideration when it comes to making a decision sooner as opposed to later.

There is a suggestion in that statement that it is being done in order to pre-empt a potential provincial election. If members feel that that is in fact the case, one could always have a report back in the latter days of September if that would address that particular concern, or immediately following the provincial election, if that is one of the roadblocks for this issue as being suggested by the Seven Oaks School Division when they imply that it has to do, and quote: with party politics in the up and coming provincial election.

The timing of the actual reporting in of the infraction or of the breach and alleged additional breaches, there does not have to be an obligation to have that report itself in prior to the next election. The issue is to ensure that some form of independent investigation occur. My preference is that it occur immediately and it report back within two weeks, two, three weeks. It does not have to be a long drawn-out process, but if that is in fact the concern from the school division or other members inside the Chamber, I would even be prepared to enter into dialogue as to when that report should be released to the public, that independent report. As I indicated, I personally would have no problem whatsoever in sitting down with the author of this letter and the Minister of Education, in trying to resolve this, with the idea that the most important thing here is the quality of our public education and the important role that standard exams play in ensuring quality public education and the importance of the integrity of those standard exams through the security measures that we put in place.

Again, I would illustrate that the cost of this would only be a fraction of what the overall cost of administering the standards exams is. Specifically, to the minister: would he agree to have a meeting that would include, but not necessarily prevent additionals from being added to it, myself, the Minister of Education, the author of this letter in hopes that we can come up with a name that would be through consensus as to who could conduct the independent investigation? Would he be prepared to sit down and at least have dialogue on that point?

Mr. McCrae: I know the honourable member for Inkster has raised the issue of cost in the past, I think, to head off any argument I might make about cost with relation to getting to the bottom of the matter of test security in Manitoba. I would just like to say to him: the cost is not the issue here. I know that whatever needs to be done will cost some money, and it is always prudent to keep that in mind. But it ought not to be the reason to ignore some of the things the honourable member is raising, to say, well, it might be nice to get to the bottom of it and protect the integrity of our system of education in Manitoba, except that the cost would prevent us from that. I simply want to give him some comfort about that, because I am not into spending money with gay abandon.

* (1630)

We have seen what happens to us as a province when governments get involved in that sort of thing. We have tried to steer a different course from that approach. But in the ordinary course of doing the government's business, from time to time inquiries of one kind or another or whatever steps need to be taken need to be taken, and so you have to deal with that.

The honourable member in this regard as well refers to the cost of the administration of tests. This is something that the NDP–I know the Manitoba Teachers' Society have raised the cost and have said, you know, you should not be spending any money on this assessment business, you should be spending it in the classroom. I am sensitive to what is being said there, but on the other hand, it is used as an argument not to satisfy ourselves that we have quality being built into our education system. I do not accept that argument. I believe that something less than 1 percent of the total expenditure in education being spent on evaluation of whether we are spending it well is probably a good idea. Not probably, is a good idea. Anybody engaged in results-oriented efforts needs to know that they are getting results.

We were being told prior to New Directions in education that our kids were arriving at university and college unprepared, and yet we were spending more and more money every year on education. I simply have no difficulty explaining or defending the concept of spending a few dollars of a large budget or a small percentage of a large budget to ensure quality. I think anybody engaged in any initiative of importance would agree with that, unless you are a New Democrat.

The New Democrats think you measure the success of something by how much money you can spend on it. That is not an approach with which we have ever agreed. We have learned that we should measure the success of our education system by what our children are learning. How are you going to find out what your children are learning if you do not have a system of tests, something to assess how you are doing? So, that being said, I wanted to give the honourable member some comfort on that point.

Yesterday he actually went on to name a name of a person who might conduct a review of this matter.

An Honourable Member: Who was that?

Mr. McCrae: Well, he mentioned Bill Norrie. That is okay for the honourable member to do that, but you know it was interesting. A lot of things have come to light. The honourable member for Inkster also raised the suggestion that Mr. Wiens may be an adviser to the New Democrats on education policy. I do not know that, but in the light of that suggestion, I am not likely to go along with what the honourable Leader of the Opposition has said, and that is if there is to be a review, then it needs to be done by somebody who is acceptable to the Seven Oaks Division. Excuse me. And this is where I am having problems with the suggestion of the honourable member for Inkster as well.

If the honourable member is suggesting–and I am saying they did not do a good job. I am saying the report that has been produced is not satisfactory, and if I am going to have that reviewed, I do not know that I want to be consulting the school division on my choice of who or how we are going to go about remedying that situation. So I say that for the benefit of the honourable member because the Leader of the Opposition puts his tongue firmly in his cheek, and gives that little grin, and says, yes, there should be an inquiry as long as it is somebody acceptable to the school division.

Well, you know right away where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from. More cover-up. More covering up for your friends, more double standard. And I am simply not going to play the game with the Leader of the Opposition of you have a standard for you, and we can have our own standard. I am not going to do that.

Speaking of standards, the Manitoba Teachers' Society also has a role in our education system, a very important one, and I have enjoyed what I think to be a cordial and hopefully fruitful relationship with the Manitoba Teachers' Society. But I think if there is to be a further review of this, whatever measures I take, it should take into account the issues we have been discussing in this committee, the honourable member and I, because it is a two-way discussion because the New Democrats simply do not want to get involved. This is just a little too close to their political nerve endings, but the NDP has introduced a code of ethics. Of course, we know what has been said about that, not only by myself, but also by Frances Russell and Tom Brodbeck and now others.

The Manitoba Teachers' Society has a Code of Professional Practice too, and the Manitoba Teachers' Society, I understand, represents or represented Mr. O'Leary, depending on which job he was in.

I have a document from a handbook revised in 1995, Code of Professional Practice. This is a Teachers' Society document. It says as follows on page 20: The Code of Professional Practice states the general principles of conduct for all members of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. These tenets are intended to inspire each member to engage in professional behaviour of the highest order. A teacher's professional behaviour reflects the spirit as well as the letter of the code.

First, the teacher's first professional responsibility is to her or his students. Well, what about that? Does this have a bearing on the matter being raised in this place by the honourable member for Inkster? Professional responsibility to his or her students.

Second, a teacher acts with integrity and diligence in carrying out professional responsibilities. Are all the allegations being raised about this matter consistent with that second tenet of the Code of Professional Practice of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, that having to do with acting with integrity and diligence?

Third, a teacher avoids involvement in a conflict of interest, recognizes that a privileged relationship with students exists, and refrains from exploiting that relationship for material, ideological or other advantage. Well, we know Mr. O'Leary is a staunch New Democrat. After all, he is their campaign manager. We know the NDP hate tests. Where does Mr. O'Leary stand on that? Does he love them? Does he hate them? Where does he stand? How does that fit with this third tenet of the Code of Professional Practice of the Manitoba Teachers' Society? A teacher avoids involvement in a conflict of interest. Does this have the flavour of a conflict of interest?

Fourth, a teacher speaks and acts with respect and dignity and deals judiciously with others, always mindful of their rights. This is beyond the scope of what I will be doing in furtherance of this matter, but the honourable member rightly raises the issues related to Mr. Treller and, I assume, other teachers at The Maples school whose names are in the report, but blanked out.

I think probably of all the people in this House reading the report, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) can make the most sense out of that report than any of us. Even so, he wants to know what the government is going to do to ensure that there is integrity in our education system, and that is a reasonable question.

Fifth, a teacher respects the confidential nature of information concerning students and may give the information only to authorized personnel or agencies directly concerned with the students' welfare. Now, I do not know whether or not this item has a bearing on the actual opening of a test protocol. It has a sign on the front of it: do not open. I do not know if this comes into the code of the tenet No. 5 here respecting the confidential nature of information. I think it has a reference to confidential information about individual students, and I do not think there is any real suggestion here about that.

Now, No. 6, however, is the following: a teacher's conduct toward colleagues is characterized by consideration and good faith. I will just leave that one there and ask the honourable members to consider that tenet of the MTS Code of Professional Practice. A teacher's conduct toward colleagues is characterized by consideration and good faith. Was all that demonstrated here? I mean, was it simply a matter of breaking open a test package or did that then amount to something else? I am sure these questions arise.

* (1640)

No. 7: Tenet of the MTS Code of Professional Practice says: A teacher directs any criticism of the professional activity of a colleague to that colleague and only then, after informing the colleague of the intent to do so, may direct, in confidence, the criticism to appropriate officials. It goes on: It shall not be considered a breach of this clause to report reasonable grounds for suspecting child abuse to proper authorities according to legal requirements.

The first part of that tenet may be the area which I would prefer not to get too close to because, as the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has said rhetorically, I think, was one person here rewarded and another punished, and what is the perception of all of that?

So I simply read these tenets from the Code of Professional Practice into the record, because I think it is important for Manitobans to know that the members of the Manitoba Teachers' Society do attempt to bring out the best in members of the teaching profession by having things like a Code of Professional Practice. I give them great credit for having a Code of Professional Practice.

The eighth tenet says: A teacher does not by-pass immediate authority to reach higher authority without first exhausting the proper channels of communication.

No. 9 says: A teacher makes an ongoing effort to improve professionally.

No. 10: A teacher adheres to collective agreements negotiated by the professional organization.

I think I will just move right along and not say anything more about that one.

No. 11: A teacher neither applies for nor accepts a position which is included in a society in dispute declaration.

I am not going to touch that one with a 10-foot pole either.

No. 12 says: A teacher or group of teachers makes only authorized representations to outside bodies on behalf of the society or its local associations. Without the express permission of the society, no member conferring with outside bodies may explicitly or implicitly claim that they represent the society.

I think that is enough to give you the flavour that for the most part, other than those parts I did not want to really talk about very much, the Manitoba Teachers' Society maintains a Code of Professional Practice and encourages its adherence to all teachers throughout the province. No doubt, in any review, I do not know if the Seven Oaks School Division made reference to this Code of Professional Practice when it did its review of this matter. But as I say, reading the report, one is left with the impression that there is something missing here.

One is led by the letter referred to today by the honourable member for Inkster written by Claudia Sarbit, chair of the Seven Oaks School Division, copied to CBC Radio, the Honourable Gary Filmon, James McCrae, John Carlyle, Linda McIntosh, Jon Gerrard, Gary Doer, Kevin Lamoureux, protesting too much politics makes me think maybe there is somebody protesting too much about the politics dimension of this matter. There certainly is politics, which is one dimension, but there is another dimension which probably has a more important and lasting import here, and that has to do with our children.

I think that the honourable member for Inkster is doing his duty in raising these questions. I have said to him that I look at The Public Schools Act and I see very, very significant powers at the disposal of the Department of Education, shared powers with school divisions that to this point the department has done what it could do in asking the school division to carry out a review and certainly to advise what has been done about this. We are told that nothing has been done about this by the division itself and that no harm was done.

Well, in saying that, you know, to say that, as the NDP say, no harm was done,. So Brian O'Leary is a fine fellow. As Mr. Brodbeck would say, that is about as credible as arguing Tory efforts to rig the election in 1995 caused no harm at all, because all the ridings targeted by them were won by the New Democrats. Well, the NDP did not accept that argument–[interjection]

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I would ask the honourable members, if they wish to carry on a conversation, that they do so out of the Chamber.

The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to continue a response.

Mr. McCrae: In direct response to the question raised by the honourable member, I just simply say I have trouble, having said that I find the report of the Seven Oaks School Division to be unsatisfactory, running off to them to ask their permission as to who or how the matter should be taken forward from this point. I do hope the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) will understand my position on that matter. There are analogies that I prefer not to use, but I might do so privately in discussion with the honourable member about that particular aspect of his inquiries to date.

I do find a lot of things about this report to be interesting. One of the things that I find most interesting is the derision of the members of the New Democrats to the fact that, in order to protect people's names and reputations, their names are blanked out of the report. They find that funny, and they find it comical. They are just having a wonderful old time over there in the ranks of the New Democratic Party celebrating the wonderful achievement of their friend and leader, Brian O'Leary.

They are going to find out from the people of Manitoba that this is not so funny, because if the roles were reversed, as the honourable member for Inkster has pointed out, there would be demands for people's heads on a platter if Brian O'Leary was the campaign manager for the Tories or for the Liberals. Yet is it not interesting how positions can change and how the horns can come in when you are dealing with your own?

So I guess the NDP family is looking after itself, and that is about as much as can be said about the way the New Democrats are handling this. But I find it hard to understand people who stand to their feet to talk about ethics on a regular basis, people like the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), and others, who, I say, is an ethical person and he stands in his place and talks about that. But what is he doing today? What is he doing today in light of what is going on in his own party, in his own political family?

I wonder, does he agree with the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) when the member for Brandon East suggests that the events surrounding the wrongdoing of Mr. O'Leary is simply making a mountain out of a molehill? Does the member for Broadway agree with that? Does he agree with the member for Brandon East, who says that the questioning of the honourable member for Inkster is much ado about nothing? Well, I will tell you.

An Honourable Member: How can I answer?

Mr. McCrae: On a point of order, you can answer.

The Acting Chairperson: The member for Broadway, on a point of order.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): It is not a point of order. I just want to respond. I do not break the rules just to make a statement. If it is a point of order, it is a point of order. If it is a response, it is a response.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. If the honourable member wishes to respond after the honourable minister sits down, the honourable member may do so.

Mr. Santos: I will read from the–

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I just finished saying that when the honourable minister is finished his response, the honourable member for Broadway will have an opportunity to answer that concern.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself, I would give the honourable member a couple of minutes to make a response. I would ask for leave for that to happen.

* (1650)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Is there leave for the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) to respond to the honourable minister? Is there leave? [agreed]

Mr. Santos: I am grateful to the honourable minister for giving me this opportunity to make a statement which is not mine. This is the statement that I read from page 209 of The Imitation of Christ by Thomas B Kempis, and I quote: "For the most part of men are given to talk much, and therefore little trust is to be placed on them." Thank you.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable minister, to finish your response.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate that statement, which I think brought some new light on this whole discussion. We will have to analyze the statement made by the member for Broadway quite carefully, I think, to be able to grasp the profound nature of its implications for all of us in this discussion this afternoon.

Having heard from the honourable member for Broadway on the point, who has admitted that he simply was quoting someone else, we are left in somewhat of a vacuum yet on where the true ethics of the members of the New Democratic Party are.

I think that Frances Russell put it rather well. I think Tom Brodbeck put it rather well. I think on that side of the issue, they are facing a serious issue of hypocrisy in their ranks. They have a serious problem with a double standard. The trouble with double standards is, until you realize you have a problem with it, you do not think you have a problem with it. You go merrily on your way thinking, I'm all right, Jack, and that the whole world can go by and you can just go along in your little make-believe world that everything is okay in our camp. It is all those other people that are bad.

It is only my, what is it, the mother watching the parade of soldiers going by and her boy was the only one out of step, but the mother looked at the parade and said: everybody is out of step except my son, Johnny.

You know, I think that the NDP are a little bit guilty of that right now. They are simply not able to be objective enough to look at their own concept of what is right here and what is not right here. They can so easily and quickly see what is deficient in others, but they are having a real problem finding any shortcoming in their own rank.

An Honourable Member: What is it about sty in the eye or something?

Mr. McCrae: There is a biblical expression, and the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) might be able to help me if the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) cannot. It says something to the effect that you do not talk about the mote in the other fellow's eye if you have a beam in your own. Now, I think that is fairly loosely put, but it comes to mind. Like I said, maybe somewhat simpler, I said: maybe honourable members opposite should look in the mirror once in a while and take a harder look at themselves when they set out each morning to go out and simply criticize everybody else and get paid for doing it. That is what they do. That is their job. They are paid to be critical. As they get up in the morning and look in the mirror looking forward to another day of Tory bashing, maybe they should take a little harder look in that mirror and say, oh, but, you know, is my own backyard clear here?

Another one is that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I heard that one too. I imagine a few more could come forward.

But the honourable members, I am so used to hearing those things from them that I am surprised at the dead silence that I am getting, other than the odd bit of name calling, which I hope does not persist, because I do not think it is very becoming of the parliamentary traditions of this place for people to be calling other people names.

The last person who called me a jerk was Eugene Kostyra, and whatever happened to him? We know that he is a big shot in the labour unions, but we know what happened to him in the election that followed his calling me a jerk.

An Honourable Member: "Ignomonious" defeat.

Mr. McCrae: "Ignonimously."

An Honourable Member: Yes.

Mr. McCrae: "Ignonimous."

An Honourable Member: "Ignomonious."

Mr. McCrae: Is it "ignomonious?"

An Honourable Member: "Ignomonious."

Mr. McCrae: Check it out. I think it is "ignonimous."

An Honourable Member: Maybe you are right.

An Honourable Member: The Education minister would like that spelling.

Mr. McCrae: We are debating on the spelling of that particular one. I know that in a moment of parliamentary debate and the heat that surrounds it, Eugene spoke of me in that way, and I did not like it then. I think of it to this day, and I thought: what a hurtful thing to say to somebody, when really all you are doing is engaging in debate. Calling people names, in my view, does not really fit.

I hope the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) reconsiders that because I have always enjoyed the honourable member for Wellington in this House, in the sense that she does try to look on life a little more lightly than her latest outburst suggests, but maybe the honourable member for Inkster has got her pretty frightened about what is going to happen in the upcoming provincial election. If that is the case, maybe I will not bother her anymore or bring out that sort of response from her, but by calling people names the member for Wellington may soon learn that constituents do not appreciate that sort of demeanour in this or any other place.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I would like to suggest that the committee temporarily interrupt its proceeding so that Madam Speaker may resume the Chair so that we can determine whether there is unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour. If there is, the Committee of Supply can immediately resume sitting to continue considering the matter now before it. Agreed? [agreed]

Hon. James McCrae (Acting House Leader): I believe there might be interest in waiving private members' hour this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour this afternoon? Leave? [agreed]

Committee can resume now. Thank you.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I was expecting, you know that at times inside the Chamber there is always a little bit of jostling and words being tossed out and about, that type of thing, and I always respected the individual from Broadway (Mr. Santos) in terms of the way in which quite often he is quite candid in his place. When the Minister of Education was trying to express some frustration in terms of how we sit trying to as much as possible address this particular issue, I was a little bit optimistic that, when the member for Broadway would stand, he would actually state something in terms of what he felt was important from his perspective on this particular issue.

* (1700)

Outside of his Leader's call for an independent investigation, there is very little that has been said, and I am sure that the member for Broadway would acknowledge, at the very least, that this issue is of some significance in which the official opposition did have a role, at least on one occasion to raise the issue. Being an educator himself, I am sure he can appreciate the importance of professional behaviour and provincial directives. The member for Broadway, who, I have indicated, has been very candid in the past, I would look to the member for Broadway in possibly entertaining one or two very brief questions. He departs wisdom every so often in terms of when we had the member stand up and he had asked for leave, we had given him the leave, and he made a quote something to the effect that if you talk a lot does not necessarily mean that it is good talk.

Now somewhat profound, one might say, but I am sure that the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) would acknowledge that many of the issues that the public have given attention to via or from the media is because of persistence of members of the opposition day in and day out. Very repetitively, opposition members will bring up an issue and appear to bring it up endlessly. I could talk about speeches that I have heard in the past where members of his own caucus have stood up and debated endlessly. You want to talk about repetition, whether it was the Jay Cowans of the past on final offer selection or the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) on the Manitoba Telephone System. I am sure the member for Broadway would acknowledge that it all serves a purpose.

We would not want to take away from the importance of that purpose, much like I am baiting the member for Broadway in hopes to get the member for Broadway to take some form or state some opinion on the record as to what he believes actually had taken place. Was it an ethical behaviour by what happens to be their campaign manager? Is it appropriate? This is the question that I would be asking the minister: is it appropriate for a principal of any school to stand up, open up an exam, and this time–and I do not know if there were other times, there were allegations, but if you unseal or break a provincial directive, all you have to do is acknowledge that you broke the provincial directive and there should not be any sort of consequence outside of that?

On the surface, that is what it would appear. As I have alluded to and the Minister of Education has alluded to, what would the members' opinions really have been if it would have been someone, a principal, that was completely apolitical? My suggestion to you would be that in Education Estimates, if not in Question Period, your critic would have stood up and asked the question in terms of what took place and what is the government doing. Given the political nature, if it would have been the Conservative campaign manager, I really believe that I would not be alone. And the only reason why it is getting as much debate as it is today is because of the political nature of the principal.

So there are a number of things that come out of this. One is the standard exams, the integrity of the standard exams, along with the issue of a teacher and his reputation amongst his peers that was perceived. Because of his reporting it, this teacher and many of his peers perceive that he was demoted as a result. The teacher in question was even, from what I have been told–because the teacher has been banned to talk to me, I have been told cannot speak to me. And there are many within that school that he was transferred out of that believe he was transferred because he reported the breach of security.

In that document, and I do not know if the member or other members of the caucus have actually read the report, there are other allegations of the same school breaking the breach of the standard exams on more than one occasion, one of which a person is prepared to attest in a court of law that it actually occurred. So the message that goes out to the other high schools, whether it is our Gordon Bells of the north end, the Sislers–and I say those schools because those are schools where I know the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) is familiar with kids who graduate from these schools. What we are talking about is what obligation is there, and I believe that the minister sent out a directive. If you disagree with a directive entirely, there still is a professional responsibility for you to fulfill that, even if you disagree with it. There are a lot of questions regarding that particular issue. If we do not address it, then what message are we sending to other jurisdictions, and that is the reason why, first and foremost, I believe it is an issue.

I did not make the political connection when I first brought it up back in July of last year. In fact, when I brought it up a number of weeks ago in the Education Estimates, the Minister of Education was doing nothing. I had to get the minister to get him to go and find out in fact what has actually taken place. It was not politics that was driving it originally, but it has taken on a very political flavour, and that is the reason why members of your caucus would shiver if in fact you were to agree through leave to answer questions.

One of the allegations that has been put forward is the super–[interjection] For sure, and this is the backdrop for the minister in posing the question–one of the allegations that I made reference to yesterday was there is the strong connection with the superintendent who conducted the investigation. I have been told he was a speaker at NDP conventions, that he is an education policy adviser for your political party, and he is the one who conducted the investigation. Is that not a conflict of interest?

You read the letter that I just got today which your Leader was sent a copy of. The statement that is given shows that no, no, there is absolutely nothing that is wrong that occurred here. [interjection] Well, I do not know if my vocabulary would allow me to articulate to the point in which this issue needs to be addressed. But what I do know is that a principal is one of our leaders in our communities, and we expect our principals to behave in a professional manner. When there is a breach of that professionalism or breach of the standards exams, is there not some sort of an obligation to, at the very least, get on the record in expressing that: Look, I should not have done it. Maybe it is just a slap on the wrist that would originally have occurred.

But today what we have is many, and I have heard from people outside of the city of Winnipeg who are familiar with what has taken place. I have heard stories of other breaches that I have not been able to substantiate. One was where a principal had students doing other activities, so they would not have to write the particular exam. If three political parties all agree to the standards exams, is there not an obligation for us to ensure as much as possible that there is a sense of fairness and that that security is an important component to the standards exams? That is why I believe that it is a critical issue.

Having said that, you know, the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), whom I do respect and I am not trying to trap to get onto the record–I make mention of that just for food for thought. I know the member for Broadway will do just that.

* (1710)

Having said that, I do think the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae), given the background that I have just talked about in regard to the issue–there is one question that I would ask, and that is the time frame issue. The Minister of Education is not committing to calling an independent investigation but would appear to be committed to having some other form of a report or something else done in regard to the issue before us.

Could the Minister of Education indicate very clearly to the House: what time frame does he believe he has to operate under in terms of calling for an independent investigation? Is there not an obligation sometime in the near future that in fact an independent investigation would be called if it is going to be called? Can the Minister of Education enlighten us?

I do have a couple of questions that I was also wanting to pose for the Minister of Culture and Heritage, so unfortunately this would be my last question to the Minister of Education on this issue. So I hope that I would be provided the opportunity to do a couple of follow-up questions with the Minister of Culture and Heritage. Thank you.

Hon. James McCrae Minister of Education and Training): The honourable member for Inkster throughout his conduct of this matter, in my view, has attempted to steer a fair course. He has attempted to represent in an appropriate way the views of constituents as brought to his attention. I think I need to say that because not everything I do meets with his approval, and I guess maybe, if I say that, I could hope that he would blunt his criticisms somewhat, but I am sure I would hope that in vain because that has not been my experience in my dealings with the honourable member for Inkster. My impression has been that he tends to call them as he sees them, and after a fair examination of the issues from his standpoint and from that of his constituents, he brings these matters forward in a somewhat relentless and tenacious way that defies one's ability to put him off. I accept that, knowing the important nature of these allegations and the implications for all of us, for our children and for the system of education that we have carefully cultivated over generations in this province.

So I do not in any way wish to treat this matter in any way that is not with a great deal of responsible deliberation on the issues that we are looking at. They are serious matters. I know that some have said that they are nothing, they are not important and do not matter. I have tried to be fair about that particular allegation or suggestion too and look at it from the point of view of the likes of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) who says that this is much ado about nothing. The more I look at it from that standpoint, the more I have to disagree with the honourable member for Brandon East and his Leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), who has chosen to be silent about this matter, simply to hope that it goes away pretty soon. I do not think the honourable Leader of the Opposition will get his wish on this matter because, unlike him, I have to be responsible for our education system and the stewardship of it.

I see the joking continues on the other side of the House, and at some point they will take this matter seriously, I suggest, Mr. Chairman–at some point. I am not the one who can say exactly when that will be.

The issue of standards tests, put yourself into the Manitoba scene a year ago when standards tests was a much more hotly debated item than it is today. Thanks to the good work of educators right across this province, the department, my predecessor, Manitobans have come not only to accept standards tests but to embrace them and to respect them and to see the value of them, but to demand that there be integrity in their administration, to demand that there be fairness to every child no matter where in this great province of ours. That is what is at the base of what the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is raising with me, and that is what is at the base of what I will do in response to the issues being raised by the honourable member.

I ask him to give me enough credit for wanting to be very careful in the way that I handle this, knowing there are tremendous political overtones to this matter. I do not want to be any part of any response that suggests only a political response to what is a real issue, a real fairness issue to the children of this province. I will not sacrifice the rights of the children of this province to protect one person. I will not do that. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) tends to want to do that, and his colleagues, but I will not and I do not have to. I would not do it for somebody on my side, should the same thing have happened. Now honourable members opposite will no doubt have their comments to make about that, but the silence on the other side speaks volumes about where they stand on this matter.

So if the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) will bear with me for just a little while longer, I will be able to make known to him the response of the government to this matter. I hope it will be seen by him and by all Manitobans to be an appropriate and measured response to what is surely a serious matter that needs to be dealt with in a serious way, because all of the children across this province are potentially affected and all of their parents are watching. For that reason I ask the honourable member simply to bear with me for a short while longer as I very, very carefully study the appropriate response for the government to make.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister for his comments. I can respect the fact that he has to go through a number of loopholes, not loopholes–

An Honourable Member: Hurdles.

Mr. Lamoureux: "Hurdles" is the word I am looking for.

* (1720)

Having said that, I do have a few questions for the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey). It is in regard to immigration. Immigration has and will continue to be of the utmost importance to me personally because so many of the constituents that I represent are very much so attempting whether it is reunification of families to visitors and so forth, trying to, what I would say, enhance our community by having more full participation.

Having said that, one of the biggest concerns I have always had is in regard to visiting visas. The reason why I bring it forward to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship today is because I want to see if I can get assurances in terms of that the minister is aware of the problems that many Manitobans are having in terms of getting visitors to the province. In particular, I am thinking in terms of whether it is from the Philippines, from India, from the West Indies, areas in which I get numerous requests in terms of assistance in trying to get people that have been turned down visas to come to the province.

Just as a general backgrounder, Mr. Chair, the impact that people visiting the province make is very positive, and I am sure the minister could talk to her colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism and will see, whether it is the social fabric or our economy, how it benefits us having people coming to the province to visit. Now what I have found first-hand by trying to represent people who are hoping to get members of their family and others to visit the province is that visiting visas are turned down more often than I care to see, and I do not know if, in fact, it is justifiable in terms of the numbers that are being turned down.

In fact, Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest to you that there are many want-to-be visitors that are turned down that should not have been turned down. I have attempted to pursue this in different ways in the past, have yet, to date, got any sort of numbers of visas that are in fact being turned down of those who want to visit our province. My question for the minister is: does the ministry keep track or have any idea of the number of individuals that come to our province via a visiting visa?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): The member has raised an important issue and one that I believe he also raised last year in Concurrence or in the Estimates process, and the answer, in a general sense, is very much the same. The issuing of visitor visas is completely and totally the responsibility of the federal government. It is totally and completely the responsibility of his federal colleagues in Ottawa, with whom I would expect that he would have some influence through himself or through his leader, who was a former member of the cabinet of the federal government. So the issuing of visitors' visas is, again, done generally at the post abroad where the assessment is made of a number of issues, and I am led to understand part of that issue is whether or not the individual will be a bona fide visitor or whether there is some expectation that on arrival they may decide to seek another status.

Manitoba, to start with, let me just say, is very, very supportive of immigration. If people coming as visitors would like to come for an opportunity to see our province, return then to their country of origin or a country where an application can be made, a post where an application can be made for immigration, Manitoba is very, very supportive of immigration. We also are very supportive and continue to support our complement of refugees, which, as the member knows, as a result of the recent difficulty, particularly for the people of Kosovo, Manitoba has, in fact, accepted a much larger number of refugees and is very, very supportive of doing so.

Manitoba is also very supportive of the temporary visas for working which would assist in terms of the sewing machine industry, and it has made application to the federal government to reconsider where they have denied those temporary visas to the sewing machine operators that were applying. Beijing was the most recent post where there has been a very large denial. So Manitoba's position is that we continue to be supportive of visitors who wish to come here, who may, in fact, eventually wish to make this their home through the usual process, but it is completely and entirely the responsibility of the federal government to make that decision. Although Manitoba may do everything that we can to impress upon the federal government that we are supportive of these visitors coming here, sometimes that message is not accepted in the posts abroad, and so we are left with some difficulty.

I would suggest to the member then that, in attempting to look at how to increase the number of visitors or the ease at which people may, in fact, get these visitors' visas, he does need to work with his own federal colleagues. In terms of the exact numbers, I am not aware that we do keep in Manitoba a list, provincially, of the number of people who come on visitors' visas here and the return rate or problem rate. It would certainly make sense to me that that would be a reasonable kind of statistic to keep, because we certainly have access to others which have given Manitoba an extremely good record in terms of support to family members on immigration, that there is an extremely low default rate of support. I believe it is less than 1 percent, extremely low, probably the lowest across the country. So there are a lot of statistics in terms of immigration. It is very possible that those statistics are available. I do not have them today, but certainly we would be willing to get them for the member.

But just, Mr. Chairperson, while I am answering this in general, I would like to take another opportunity to address an issue to the member of the Liberal Party, because as this provincial government has supported immigration, we also are very, very much against those policies of the federal government which limit immigration, which tend to deter immigration and which are barriers to immigration.

Any of the taxes, the head tax most specifically, tends to act as a deterrent, and the federal government by policy has given us no indication that they are ever prepared to review that. I have met with the federal minister. I have explained to the federal minister in person Manitoba's opposition to this tax and have not met with any success whatsoever in having the federal government reconsider this tax which really acts as a bar for immigration in terms of our province. In addition, the low income cutoff, I have asked the federal government to reconsider Manitoba's inclusion in the same group of cities of over 500,000 in which Toronto and Vancouver appear, because they are very much more expensive to live in.

So, Mr. Chairperson, our position as a government has been very, very supportive of immigration, very supportive of taking our number of refugees; in fact, accepting more this year. We certainly are interested in the temporary visas for work and in visitors' visas, so that people can come to Manitoba and actually have a look at what this province is about and perhaps then may wish to go back and make an application. But we are not in favour of the federal government's decision of deterrence in relation to the tax, particularly the head tax, and the inclusion of Winnipeg in the same group of cities of over 500,000 as Toronto and Vancouver where the cost of living is much greater.

But, ultimately, the acceptance of people into Manitoba on a visitor's visa, on a temporary work visa, for immigration or as refugees is absolutely and entirely the decision of the federal Liberal government, and I would ask the member opposite to use the influence of himself and his Leader, who is a former member, a cabinet minister of that federal Liberal government, to assist in asking the federal government to reconsider the bars for Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, one of the things–[interjection]

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I would remind the honourable members in the Chamber that there is an opportunity for all members to participate. I was about to recognize the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) when I had some difficulty overhearing my own thoughts in the Chamber here, so I would ask honourable members that if they are going to carry on any discussion, that they do so outside the Chamber, so that we can carry on with the order of business in the Chamber here today.

I recognize the honourable member for Inkster.

* (1730)

Mr. Lamoureux: As I indicated, I do have a number of questions that I would like to be able to put forward. You know, quite often, I feel somewhat flattered, I must admit, in terms of how the government on a number of different issues feels that if it is a federal responsibility, that I could pick up the telephone, and I must admit on occasion I do that when I do feel that it is appropriate. Otherwise, I could end up on the telephone every day, and that would then cause me to neglect my responsibilities inside this Legislature if I ended up being on the telephone every day for hours lobbying the federal government.

Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, I can assure the minister that I have had occasion to meet with the former Minister of Immigration and staff of the current minister where I have had the opportunity to express a personal concern, our provincial party concern, relating to a number of decisions being made in regard to a policy that the national government has in regard to immigration. But one of the things that I do acknowledge is that my value is maybe somewhat–I do not want to criticize myself, so let me reword it and say that I would look for the minister to recognize that there is a role for the provincial government in terms of advocating what is in Manitoba's best interest.

For example, I know first-hand that there are many, many visiting visas that are rejected. Well, it is easy for us to say, well, that is federal responsibility; it has nothing to do with the province. Well, that is not true. It has a lot to do with the province. It contributes tremendously to our economy as people visit. It contributes immensely to the social fabric of our province.

When I say social fabric, let me give you a couple of the types of cases I am referring to. I have had in the last year a number of people who want to come to Manitoba in order to go to weddings. I write probably more letters to Immigration or the embassy in the Philippines than I do to any department within this government, and it is because even though it would be very easy for me to say, well, contact Judy Wasylycia-Leis or Dr. Rey Pagtakhan, they are your member of Parliament, I believe that we have a responsibility.

It is in Manitoba's best interests to ensure as much as possible that we are getting as many visiting visas approved as possible, and what is important from my perspective is that the minister is at the very least aware of the visas being turned down. Last year, I raised the issue with the minister, and that is why I was pleased when she made reference to it in these comments, pleased to the extent that she realizes the importance of this particular issue. Surely she would recognize the importance of her department not only being aware of a ballpark figure or being able to guesstimate the number of visas being turned down, but this is an issue not only that I have a responsibility for lobbying my federal counterparts, but so does her department.

I get the impression, Mr. Chairperson, that if I pose the question in the sense of can the minister table documentation, any form of documentation that would clearly indicate that this government has an interest in fighting for those visiting visas being approved or is trying to get down to the nitty-gritty as to how many are actually being rejected, that it, in fact, might embarrass the department because I get the impression that they have not been looking into that. If, in fact, I am right in my assessment, it then becomes a question of opportunities lost, economically, for the province, but, more importantly, I would suggest is for those who are here who are trying to get family members to attend events.

I have written in the past some fairly hard letters to the embassy, and I am sure–at least I would anticipate that I am not alone. It would be very easy for me to pass the buck on it. I will, and I give assurances to the minister that I will continue to lobby Ottawa, the department of Immigration, but my resources are more limited than your financial resources, yet I will take the responsibility that I have–because I am a Liberal MLA and it is a Liberal administration–to try to assist our province.

But as the minister is fully aware, I lose some battles. I was not a big fan of the landing fee. I have attempted to try to get modifications or changes to it to make it easier for the province. But I do not want this government to believe because I happen to be a Liberal MLA that it is only my responsibility, and I look to the Minister of Culture and Heritage to at the very least acknowledge that her department also has a responsibility in dealing with visiting visas.

Would she not concur with that statement?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, let me start again with repeating some of the comments that I made in my last answer.

First of all, Manitoba is probably one of the most active, actively recruiting, provinces across this country in terms of immigration. One strategy to encourage people to immigrate here is to see that they have visitors' visas to come and have a look, and that when they have a visitor's visa and they come and have a look they have an opportunity to see that there is perhaps some reason that they would like to, in fact, come here.

We send out information basically around the world about Manitoba and what we consider to be the Manitoba advantage. So I certainly want the record to show the very active role that this government and my department, as their working arm to do this, very actively works on this issue among others; provincial nominee for our economic development, immigration, supports of refugees, temporary working visas as in the sewing machine operators and visitors' visas.

But the insurmountable hurdle is that it is the federal government alone who determines the criterion, and it is the people of posts abroad who make the decisions. So the concern of Manitobans has to be registered to the federal government and to the federal minister. Now I, as minister, have done that on behalf of the people of Manitoba. I have had the opportunity to meet with my federal colleague, and I would say that my federal colleague does attempt to understand the initiatives that we have wanted to put forward in Manitoba.

However, the federal government has now shown itself to necessarily be particularly open to a lot of change. So it is important not only for our government to make our representation in the area of visitors' visas but to ask other members, particularly of the Liberal Party, if they are willing to put themselves on the line to take a position, which is probably not a particularly popular position with their colleagues in Ottawa, to in fact fight for the people of Manitoba and not necessarily to toe a party line. That has been the difficulty, and that is what I am asking the member to put forward and put on the line.

* (1740)

If he really believes that the people of Manitoba can have this benefit, join with our government, put that position forward to Ottawa, risk the wrath of your Leader who is a former federal cabinet minister, a federal cabinet minister in cabinet at the time that these policies were being developed, and he continues, it appears to me, to support everything that is done by Ottawa. I have not heard him at any time take a position on the head tax or a position on the low-income cutoff where Manitoba is included with Toronto and Vancouver as a city over 500,000, nor have I heard him being willing to risk and take a position on behalf of the Liberal Party in the area of visitors' visas, of temporary work visas, of provincial nominee of immigration or of refugees. So my answer to the member is you really can have no doubt of our government's support in the area of immigration.

I would just like also then to focus on the visitors' visas, because I too am aware of the importance of family reunification, even for a short time, that a visitor's visa provides. Sometimes it is the opportunity for a family to reunite here in Canada, here in Manitoba, that perhaps has not been together for some time. I think all of us are aware of cases of families which for whatever reasons, as a result of conflict in their homeland or other economic opportunities, live around the world and therefore make applications to come to Canada for a reunion.

I certainly believe that our government is in support of that, whether people originate from the same place or from countries around the world but, as I have said, the insurmountable barrier is that it is the federal Liberal government who determines all of the criteria, who develops the risk assessment, and who makes the decision in the post abroad. So for Manitoba's immigration policy, for Manitoba's tourism policy, we would require them to understand the specific circumstances of Manitoba, not only, as the member has mentioned, for in some cases family reunions, but also potentially they may be, in fact, people who might like to be part of our wave of immigration.

There is no getting around the main feature here. The federal government has put forward barriers. The federal Liberal government has put forward barriers. If the member across the way representing the Liberal Party is prepared to put his position on the line in opposition to his federal Liberal colleagues and stand up for Manitobans, that would be appreciated.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, actually I believe in the past I have given detailed comment in terms of a number of the issues that the minister brings forward. What I am interested in doing is pursuing a line of questioning to find out in terms of whether or not the department realizes the potential that it can serve in terms of enhancing visiting visas.

Maybe the best way to do that is if I said to the minister today that, and this is purely hypothetical, 5,000 visiting visas are rejected every year from the Philippines alone. Now, I have absolutely no idea if that is even close, but if I say 5,000 visiting visas, the minister is going to sit back in her seat and say, wow, is that a huge number or what? Imagine if those 5,000 people were allowed to come to the province, the many different contributions that they would have been able to make.

On the other hand, if I said that there were five people that were turned down, the minister would say, well, maybe they were turned down for good reason. Maybe Ottawa is doing a good job. Well, I am not saying either. I am not saying 5,000 or five. What I am saying is that I know that there is a lot. I have no idea in terms of the actual number. I have posed the question not only to the federal government informally, I have posed the question to this minister in the past, and I pose it today.

The government should at the very least be aware of the situation. The reason why I say it should be aware is that if it was 5,000 people wanting to come to the province to visit in any given year from the Philippines, from the Punjab, from the West Indies, or wherever, and they are being turned down, well, that has a significant impact in the province of Manitoba.

Therefore, I would suggest to you that for no other reason but than the numbers in itself would cause the minister to hop on the next flight–Air Canada has some pretty decent sales–get down to Ottawa and say, well, look, and I will accompany. If the minister wants me, I would be more than happy to accompany her down to Ottawa on this particular issue. We could even throw in a token New Democrat, if that would make it feel better. [interjection]

Well, we will just be selective on which one, you know. Like, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) I do not have any problem with, or the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), you know. We could talk about it and come up with one. But, anyway, the point is, Mr. Acting Chairperson, that if you had an idea–I do not believe the department does have an idea of the number of visas being turned down. So, as opposed to asking the minister that question, I want to move on to another issue in dealing with immigration, but I would suggest that the office does look into the numbers that are out there, because it can assist in facilitating some changes with Ottawa. When I had posed the question there, they could not give me the answer immediately, but it would have been nice for me to have been able to say, well, these are the numbers at this particular embassy. So getting the information I think would be most valuable.

Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, I will certainly look to find out whether or not that information is available to my department. We do have quite a lot of information, so we will certainly find out.

But, in the member's co-operative spirit then, it would really be very helpful to me to have him write to me and clearly state his position and the position of his Leader, the provincial Liberal Party. Put it on paper. Give some additional support to a position that this government has taken that the federal government needs to review the bars to immigration to this province, because this province is interested in attracting immigration, and if part of that attraction of immigration is through the issuance of visitors' visas so that people can come for family reunions, for the opportunity to view this as a potential place to immigrate, and go home and apply through the process, then if the member and the provincial Liberal Party is willing to put that down–now, in the process of speculation, I would say I probably will not see it, because it would really be, I am sure, very difficult for them, particularly his Leader, who sat as a federal cabinet minister and passed and supported those bars to our provincial immigration, to actually put that on paper. But if the member wishes to be a part of an initiative to assist in immigration, it would be very helpful to see that put in writing, the position of the provincial Liberal Party, so that there is support for the position that this government in Manitoba has taken. I will, optimistically, look forward to that.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think the minister underestimates the value of her department. Manitoba could have thousands of additional immigrants come to our province every year if it was managed properly. Manitoba, through family reunification, could benefit tremendously if the government were to take more of an interest in directly getting involved, being aware of some of the statistical information.

* (1750)

You know, if I place the call to the embassy, which I have done, and I pose questions, both in writing and in person, and via telephone, it does not have the same impact as–I am talking with the embassy; I am not talking with Ottawa–if the government of Manitoba approaches the embassy and says: Look, what is happening here? What we would like to be able to know is how many visa requests are you actually turning down. I think there is a moral obligation.

Then, if the minister came to me and said, well, look, the embassy refuses to give us any of that kind of information, well, then, I would be more than happy to join with the minister in seeking the assistance from Ottawa. If we want to put forward a presentation to Ottawa in feeling that we are not getting fairly treated through the embassy–because a lot of this is through the embassy.

The way in which maybe I can highlight that particular problem is that it is the student visas. You know, Manitoba spent about a hundred thousand dollars, I believe a hundred thousand dollars, through Red River, had a college set up in China, with the idea of trying to get some of those students there to come to Manitoba. I understand there was something like 13 or 14 students who were hoping to be able to come. From what I understand, they are having a problem right now. Now I am doing what I can to rectify it. I do not know if the minister has any idea about this issue. Other provinces appear to be able to be getting their students. Now, is it Ottawa? I do not necessarily believe that it is Ottawa. If it is Ottawa, well, then I am prepared to advocate on behalf, and we have initiated some discussions because we found out about it just the other day.

So a lot of it has to do with the government just taking an interest in getting some of the information. You cannot make the assumption that Ottawa knows exactly what is happening in every embassy if no one is raising the issue. I do not know if Bill Blaikie or the Tory M.P. from Brandon has raised the issue in Ottawa. If I was to speculate, I would say that they likely have not. So when you are critical of me in terms of my lobbying, maybe what I should be doing is asking you to see if your Tory counterparts in Ottawa, or for some of your members, Reform counterparts in Ottawa, been raising this issue. Have they been attempting to address it? What are you doing to ensure that they raise the issue in Question Period? You know, a lot of that is informal lobbying that takes place. Has the minister, in fact, lobbied her own political party to raise the issue more inside the Chamber? Well, I think that those are all legitimate ways in which we can assist.

Mr. Chairperson, I digress somewhat. The purpose of posing the questions is to heighten the sense of awareness of the department to a couple of critical issues which I believe the department needs to raise in a more formal way with our counterparts in Ottawa. In an informative, whether it is presentation, whatever it is that you want to call it, let us get a better understanding of what is actually happening. It does not have to be a confrontation. I am not talking right now about the landing fee or the head tax, whatever one wants to call it. That is a totally different issue which I have spoken to in the past, I will speak to no doubt in the future. I can assure the member of that. My New Democratic friends would never allow me to get away without commenting on that issue at the doors.

You know, I have opposed that particular tax in the past and I will continue to oppose it to demonstrate that the courage is there to state in terms of what it is that I feel. But by making that statement, hopefully, the minister now does not avoid the real issue that is before us, and that issue is the need to heighten the sense of awareness within her department and the role that department can have in facilitating more visitors coming to the province of Manitoba, and ultimately I would argue, in a positive way, facilitate more immigration.

A great example of that immigration was when the department–I had taken a tour of a number of garment factories and raised the issue with David Walker, members of your government. We then sat down and before you knew it, we had a committee that was established that had two levels of government and members from within that industry and we had immigrants coming to fill some of those badly needed jobs. There was a sense of co-operation, and I think in certain areas that we need to expand that sense of co-operation.

There are many other ways in which we can be critical of the government and condemn the government. We all know that this government is incompetent in many different ways. That is the reason why I voted against the budget, at least in part, Mr. Chairperson.

But, having said that–that is somewhat provoking debate, and I do not necessarily want to provoke debate–I just want to get the minister to acknowledge that there is a role for the department to be more aware of what is happening in some of those embassies because there will be tremendous benefit for the province by that heightened sense of awareness, just strictly the awareness. If she could address that awareness issue first, and then if she wants to take some shots at the federal government, she can, by all means, do that. Lord knows I have attempted to be critical of this government in the past, too, so fair is fair.

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, again, I am very interested in the member for Inkster declaring his opposition to the right-of-landing fee, his personal opposition. What I am very interested in seeing is a Liberal Party platform position which opposes the right-of-landing fee, which takes a position against their federal Liberal counterparts and actually puts forward a position on behalf of this province, the needs of this province, that they oppose the barriers of taxation, the right-of-landing fee being one. I would very much be interested in hearing the member for Inkster's position on this, that the Liberal Party, his Leader, a former Liberal cabinet minister of the federal government, actually comes forward and puts that on paper and lets the people of Manitoba know where they stand, because to this point I have not seen this.

This government has clearly taken that position. This government has taken a clear and firm position against the barriers to immigration in this province, the right-of-landing fee, taxation, the inclusion of Winnipeg in the group of cities over 500,000 which includes us within a group of cities for the low-income numbers, includes us with cities such as Toronto and Vancouver. All of those points have been raised in an active way by me as minister to the federal minister and in letters to the federal minister.

So these positions are clearly on the record. My department also works with the posts abroad to not only assist but to make very clear Manitoba's active position in wanting to encourage immigration to our province. We work with the posts abroad. We were very concerned with some of the decisions in the posts abroad in terms of the issuance of temporary visas in terms of work. We have very much supported that.

The member references some of the labour shortages which are a result of our booming economy. Manitoba has clearly a booming economy, and it is very useful for us to have programs such as the provincial nominee. My colleague, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), signed the first provincial nominee program in Canada in his previous portfolio.

Mr. Chairperson, all of these are ways to assist us in terms of increasing our immigration, the provincial nominee, our efforts to recruit in posts abroad–

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).