Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a number of announcements to make. First of all, the Committee on Industrial Relations which I understand still has some significant work to be done, I would like to call that committee to meet on Monday at 10 a.m. to complete its work. I also would like to announce today that the Committee on Law Amendments, currently hearing presenters with respect to Bill 40, which did not complete its hearing of presenters, I am calling, with leave, to sit concurrently with the House on Monday afternoon beginning at 3 p.m., so I believe leave may be required. Let us make that–I look to the opposition House leader. He suggested the Law Amendments committee could begin its work at 2:30 on Monday. So I would like that announcement to be made. There are more presenters to be notified so that they can plan their day.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will meet on Monday, July 12 at 10 a.m. The Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Monday at 2:30 p.m., concurrently while the House is sitting, to continue to work on Bill 40.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, additionally to the work that the Committee on Industrial Relations has to complete, I would like to refer as well to that standing committee meeting on Monday morning, the bills that we pass through today. I believe they are Bills 35, 43 and 44, plus I believe we referred the medical amendment.

Madam Speaker, can I just look to the Clerks for clarification, whether or not the medical amendment bill was referred to the Industrial Relations committee already? I believe it has been; I am just looking for confirmation. If it has not, then I would announce it is referred to that committee, as well.

Madam Speaker: So Bills 35, 43 and 45 will be considered in the Industrial Relations committee scheduled for Monday, July 12 at 10 a.m., in addition to Bill 39.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would also ask if you could please canvass the House to ascertain if there is unanimous consent for the following with respect to House business to apply for today only, for the Committee of Supply to sit in one section in Room 255 while the House continues to consider the business of the day and for the Estimates of the Children and Youth Secretariat to be considered in Room 255. I believe that resolution is the one remaining from the other committee.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the Committee of Supply to sit in one section in Room 255, while the House continues to consider business of the day, to consider the resolutions for the Estimates of the department of Children and Youth Secretariat. Agreed? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Just for the record, we have not had a resolution to waive private members' hour for this afternoon.

Mr. Praznik: For the record, I have not asked for that.

Madam Speaker: Okay.

* (1440)

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the reason I have not asked for that is, depending on how the day advances, we may in fact want to be dealing with one particular private member's resolution, and the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) and I are still discussing that. So, if that is to be waived, we will waive it at another occasion.

I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that this House, as agreed, now resolve itself into a section of the Committee of Supply to meet outside the Chamber to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Most Gracious Majesty, with the understanding that House business will continue in this Chamber.

House Business

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, those members, of course, who must complete committee work, I imagine now will wish to depart. If they wish to leave their strawberries here for the House leaders, I think they would find that–[interjection] I look to the opposition House leader.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SECRETARIAT

Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will this section of the Committee of Supply please come to order. Given that time for Estimates consideration has expired according to Rule 71(1) and Rule 71(3), I will now put the remaining resolutions to the committee.

These resolutions are to be decided without debate, amendment or adjournment. These particular Estimates are the Children and Youth Secretariat.

Resolution 34.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,388,000 for Children and Youth Secretariat, ChildrenFirst Initiatives, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. [passed]

Resolution 34.3, and indeed the last one in this committee: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $37,000 for Children and Youth Secretariat, Amortization of Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. [passed]

That concludes our business. Committee rise.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committee of Supply): Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might seek leave to report from Committee of Supply.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to report? [agreed]

Mr. Laurendeau: This section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), that the report of the committee be received.

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The committee will come to order. We have before us for our consideration the resolution respecting Capital Supply. The resolution reads as follows:

RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,106,900,000 for Capital Supply for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

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

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: This is the nondebatable one. Is it the will of the House to adopt the resolution? [agreed]

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Chairperson, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, which have been adopted at this session by the three sections of the Committee of Supply sitting separately and by the full committee.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the House–is this debatable?

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Which number are we on, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Chairperson: We are at No. 8, which is not debatable according to my–

Mr. L. Evans: It is a debatable motion.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, this one is debatable. This is No. 8. This is the debatable one.

Mr. L. Evans: Mr. Chairman, does the minister have or does the government have any list of supply of capital expenditures? I know we have had them in the past, but do we have any to present here at this time?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we do and here it is.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I did have a number of questions. I understand this is the line in which I can pose questions to different departments.

Mr. Chairperson: This is the place where you would ask the questions of the different departments, yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. It demonstrates that one can learn by experience. Having said that, I did have some follow-up in terms of Question Period, which I do not think is to any great surprise. I express a little bit of disappointment in terms of, we have consistently articulated inside the Chamber as to the importance of having an independent investigation in terms of what took place at Maples Collegiate between the principal and teacher and now one could even possibly extend it to the administration.

What I wanted to do was to have some dialogue with the Minister of Education in regard to that. I have not completely digested the entire report. I have had the opportunity over the last 24 hours to get a bit better understanding of it. I will tell you one thing, and that is there sure are a lot of blanks, which does even make it that much more challenging. Fortunately, for me, I am somewhat familiar with a lot of the details, so some of the blanks I can actually fill in.

But in Question Period I brought up a couple of issues, and I want to further explore them at this point because maybe I can explain it a little bit better so that the Minister of Education is aware of where it is that we are coming from in dealing with this. Unfortunately, I kind of mixed up my papers after Question Period, so I am somewhat looking at the same time. I know I have a fresh report also, which is not mixed up, but if you will bear with me here momentarily.

* (1700)

What really caused some concern, if you look at the conclusion in Part 5, which is on page 21 which really is–one might think that it is somewhat humorous–but given the nature of the violation, we take it quite serious. What I found quite surprising was 1 and 2. In 1, it is very short because the vast majority of it is whited out. It is: there was a contravention of examination protocol.

Well, I do not necessarily know–[interjection] The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) is showing something that no other New Democratic MLA has shown thus far and starts questioning some of the things that I have been questioning. After I am done questioning on this, I trust and hope that the member for Osborne will be more than happy to continue on with some of the discussions.

Mr. Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable member, if you are going to put a question to the minister, that he should put it through me, No. 1, and not debate the members of the opposition or the other members individually at this time.

The honourable member for Inkster, to pose his question. Thank you.

Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, I guess I got a little bit overeager in some of the background noises that I was hearing to the right of me.

Having said that, what I found really interesting was the second conclusion, and that was that there was not, nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was, a breach or violation of provincial examination security in either June of '98 at the Maples Collegiate or prior, subsequent to June 1998. Then it also makes the quip there that this conclusion is supported by the actions of the Assessment Branch of Manitoba Education and Training. It would be interesting to hear the minister's comments in terms of his own branch, if in fact that is an accurate conclusion in terms of that particular comment. But what I find amazing is the fact that what we have and what we know is that there was a breach, there was a principal, Mr. Brian O'Leary, that did open the sealed box. There was a directive that was sent by this government saying that you cannot unseal these boxes, and we know that that took place. We know that because in this particular incident the minister or the principal said, yes, that he did it. I did not hear any sort of a repercussion for his breaching. One might even go as far to imply that it is almost as if he is mocking the need for security. I do not believe, at least to the best of my knowledge, that there was any sort of a reprimand of any sort.

Well, that is something that we know did occur. There are other allegations that were made, Mr. Chairperson. Another specific allegation, No. 4, and if I may to read that allegation: In January, a 40S mathematics examination went missing under the same circumstances as in June 1998. "Blank" received a copy of the examination from–and then we go into more whiteout. But it indicated, and I quote from the report, page 12: "Blank" indicated that he would be prepared to attest to this in a court of law.

Well, Mr. Chairperson, again the author of this report does not substantiate either way whether or not it actually occurred. This is part of the reason why it is that I think that, if anything, this report substantiates the need to have an independent investigation, because if you read the conclusion that I just read into the record where it is stated that there was not, nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was a breach or violation, we have one that is very clear–the principal has admitted to it–we have a very serious allegation that there were others. We do not know in terms of if it was the same individual. I do not know because of the blanking out and so forth, but I find it hard to give the report credibility when the author of the report seems to be of the opinion that there is no breach. That is what it says in the conclusion. I have a very difficult time accepting that.

I would have expected the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) to have had a difficult time in accepting that and that the minister should have been looking at having that independent investigation virtually upon reading the report. That is something that surprises me, and that is why I said at the beginning why is it the government would not have acted quicker.

There is a reason why I say that. I have consistently argued and articulated the importance of the integrity of the standard exams. Consistently I have done that, and I am disappointed in terms of the lack of action to protect that integrity. I say that because what message–especially if you read the report, what message are you sending out? The report implies that, look, we do not have any problem if you unseal these boxes in advance; it is not a problem at all. That is what one could interpret very easily out of it. Other potential interpretations could then be extended in terms of the whole security of the exams. If it is okay to open the exams, does it really matter in terms of the marking of the exams who is actually doing the marking?

We spend millions of dollars annually to protect the integrity of these standard exams, and we are sending a message, I believe, that says that it does not really matter, and the reason why it does not really matter is you have to take a look at the actions that have been taken to date with regard to the initial violation of that breach. It is depressing, the lack of action and then only to find out yesterday that this might not have been the only breach, that we might have seen a number of breaches at the same facility.

Well, I indicated to the minister previously that it took a great deal of courage for Mr. Treller, and I have no hesitation in using his name, in reporting the breach to the Department of Education. If you are a teacher in whatever school division–and there are a number of individuals who are teachers who sit inside this Chamber. The minister argued to me that, look, it is your duty; you have a duty and responsibility to report the breach. Well, let us look at the perception of Mr. Treller when he reported the breach. The perception is, amongst many of his peers, that he was demoted as a result of it, and the person who committed the breach absolutely nothing, no reprimand, no slap on the wrist, absolutely nothing happened, Mr. Chairperson. I look at that, and if you add a few more days to the initial breach, you will find that this individual was, in fact, promoted.

Well, I look at that as something in which it is very hard for me to tell a teacher that, look, you have a duty and a responsibility to report when someone violates or breaches the security, when in fact they could say, well, look what happened to Mr. Treller when he did this. Who stood up for Mr. Treller, the individual teacher? There are thousands of teachers who, I believe, could be aware of what has taken place, and, quite frankly, one has to really question the duty or responsibility versus what happened in this particular incident. We all like to think that people are going to do what is right–and Mr. Treller did what was right–but you have to assess the perception of what happened to him as a direct result.

* (1710)

That is the reason why we believe very firmly that this is serious. I disagree with the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) when he says it has a lot to do with nothing, because I believe that this is, indeed, a very serious issue. [interjection] It would be interesting to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer). You know, the member for Brandon East is suggesting the former principal, the Minister of Finance, comment on this action.

I would expect that, had it been the current Minister of Finance and he was the principal, and he had opened up the package and no actions were taken against the Minister of Finance in a capacity as the principal, you would have had the opposition benches, not only the Liberals but also the New Democrats, standing on their feet yelling and screaming cover-up and demanding immediate action if he was even tied in as a Tory in any way, let alone a campaign manager.

In fact, I would even go further to imply that we would have had the critic of the NDP opposition stand up and question the government if this happened to a principal that was really and truly apolitical. It is something that goes beyond party politics. The party politics is what gives it, no doubt, a lot of flavour inside the Chamber, and that is the reason why we suggest, given the political nature of the incident, that the government should not be conducting an internal–within the Department of Education–review, nor do I have any confidence in the school division conducting a review or a so-called independent review of this nature. I think that what is necessary is that we have an independent review, and I am disappointed that the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) to date has not agreed to call for an independent review.

What my intention is to do is to continue to talk to this at least till six o'clock, and if the opportunity is there on Monday, to continue to talk about this issue as much as possible until the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) either says one of two things, the government will not have an independent investigation or the government will have an independent investigation, Mr. Chairperson.

I say that because I am not going to give up on my constituent, who I indicated that I would fight for this on this particular issue, nor am I going to give up on the issue of a provincial directive that this government issued and someone followed. The perception is because that individual followed that directive that he was demoted and everyone was so happy and content just to override the initial breach. Whether you agree or disagree with the competence of the teacher that ratted on Mr. O'Leary–[interjection] Yes. Whether one disagrees with the competency of the teacher that ended up reporting to the Ministry of Education is the secondary issue here. The major issue is, of course, the breach and this government's inability to protect the integrity of the standard exams.

I might stand alone in aggressively challenging the government on this particular issue, but because this individual happens to be the chair of the New Democratic campaign or one of the chairs of the New Democratic campaign, the government seems to be willing to have some dialogue on it. I appreciate that dialogue, but I do want to let the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) know just how serious I am on the issue by indicating unless somehow it is manipulated out of the concurrence and I am not made aware of it, my intentions are to continue questioning this Minister of Education on this issue, if it means going page by page through the report asking for opinions, until the Minister of Education does one of two things, either agrees to an independent investigation or agrees to the report as submitted. I think that is a responsible thing for me to be doing and I plan on doing that.

I would like to see the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) call for it immediately upon my sitting down after posing what I would like to leave with the minister as my question, that is, there is definitely a very clear breach that has occurred on the standard exams. This report concludes that there is no, and I am going to quote it specifically, because I do not want to misquote it. If you ignore all of the whiteout, this report concludes, in part, that there was not, nor is there any, evidence to suggest that there was a breach or violation of the provincial examination security either in June '98 at Maples Collegiate or prior, subsequent to June '98.

I disagree with that claim. I would like for the Minister of Education to agree with me and immediately upon my sitting down acknowledge the need for the independent investigation. Upon doing that, then maybe we can enter into some discussion as to how that independent committee could, in fact, be struck.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond directly to certainly one part of the question placed by the honourable member near the end of his comments. He said that there are two options here, and there may be more, but there are certainly two that the honourable member has referred to. One of them is that there be a further investigation, but he wants me to state whether or not I agree with the report.

I have made no secret, Mr. Chairman, that the report is troubling. Certainly, on a lot of reflection, I simply cannot agree with the suggestion that the breach of the protocol by one Mr. O'Leary–that breach happened. That breach has been acknowledged by Mr. O'Leary, which is the topic of a whole other debate, because New Democrats suggest that, if you have admitted you did wrong, that should end the matter, and everything is okay. If you carry that thinking through to its logical conclusion, you can get some pretty horrific kinds of situations existing.

Having said that, I do not agree with certainly that aspect, while I agree with the aspect of the report and the acknowledgment by Mr. O'Leary. What I do not agree with is that that action, that wrongdoing on the part of Mr. O'Leary, did not compromise test security in the province.

Every day in this House the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and others talk about justice and about how justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. The concern that I have, there are a lot of concerns here, but a major one I have in my present position is the perception on the part of every Manitoba parent and every Manitoba child involved with the public education system that somehow the rules do not necessarily apply, that some children may be given some kind of an advantage over other children in our school system, that maybe teachers can open and principals can open tests, have a look at it, discuss it amongst their colleagues, and maybe students are being told what is in the test.

* (1720)

All of these things, I am not saying they are happening, but I am saying that if we take the position of the honourable member for Brandon East that we are making mountains out of mole hills here or that this is much ado about nothing, if that is the cavalier approach that we are going to take to something so important as the education of our children and this is what is being preached by members of the New Democratic Party, and if that sermon is believed, Mr. Chairman, we do have a serious problem. In that regard, I have serious trouble with the report prepared by Mr. John Wiens, superintendent of Seven Oaks School Division.

I have to take honourable members back about a year. At that time, one of the very hot topics in education debate was that of standards testing. This year it has changed significantly. There is significant support for standards exams in our province. We even have New Democrats who today are probably grudgingly admitting that, in certain circumstances, standards tests are the way to go. It took them a while to see the light, but, again, they have come around, and they have seen that light. But a year ago today it was a hot topic out there in the field of education.

Packages arrive at schools so that these examinations can be administered. On the package, clearly noted: not to be opened until it is time to administer the test, for obvious reasons. This is to protect the security of the exam, to keep anybody from having advance notice of what might be in the exam so that they can bone up on that particular matter. There are all kinds of good security reasons involved.

An Honourable Member: If you only knew what you were talking about.

Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), I invite him to get involved in the discussion. He says: if only you knew what you were talking about.

Mr. Chairperson, the honourable member for Dauphin, I understand, has a background in education. I commend him for that because I think that is an honourable profession, one that I do not have. I have been through this before.

When I was appointed Attorney General in this province, the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) said it is like asking the passenger to pilot the plane, when I, as a nonlegal person, was asked to be the Attorney General of this province. Today, from his arrogant heights at the back over there, the honourable member for Dauphin now ridicules me because I do not have an education background. Mr. Chairman, does that make me any less committed to the education of our children than the honourable member for Dauphin, who smugly and arrogantly from his seat suggests I know nothing about education?

The New Democrats are simply dripping with arrogance around this issue. You know, it does not become the honourable member for Dauphin, who normally behaves himself as an honourable member in this place, ought to behave himself, but for some reason he is all exercised about this O'Leary matter that is being raised by the honourable member for Inkster. Why is it the honourable member for Dauphin is all of a sudden so sensitive about the issues being raised by the honourable member for Inkster? [interjection] I do not know if anybody else wants to hear me, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to hear myself.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please.

Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for Inkster has obviously hit on a very sensitive nerve on the part of honourable members in the New Democratic Party, and it shows. [interjection] Are we back to order, Mr. Chairman?

Going back, as I began before a number of other matters intervened, to June of last year and previous, there was a different environment in education than there is today where there is a very, very significant support for the New Directions in education brought in by this government through my predecessors in this particular portfolio. Today there is a much higher level of acceptance. I know that a principal in a given school may very well have had misgivings or disagreement about the whole concept of standards testing.

In this case, Mr. Brian O'Leary has acknowledged that he did the wrong thing and he has expressed regret about that. Unfortunately, if that is all it was I guess we could say that is all it was. But you see, the honourable member for Inkster, who is quite familiar I think with the events that transpired, has raised suggestions that other people besides the initial wrongdoer, Mr. O'Leary, have suffered considerably as a result of the actions of Mr. O'Leary. This is the much ado about nothing referred to by the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans). This is the mountains out of molehills that the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) seems to want to laugh and giggle about this afternoon and ridicule, that real human beings, people who are involved in the education system–[interjection]

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, going back, the department, having been advised of this breach or this alleged breach, later acknowledged by Mr. O'Leary, I think as the department has traditionally done, has tried to show that school divisions are led by elected people. They enjoy a certain level of autonomy within the constitutional framework of the way we do education in our province–I think quite rightly asked the school division to investigate this allegation with a view to giving the department some kind of understanding about what has been done as a result of this wrongdoing, this breach of security, to ensure that it does not happen again. I do not think you see anywhere in the report that there is any reference to what this Seven Oaks School Division has done or intends to do to address this problem at The Maples school or anywhere else. [interjection]

Now the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) wants to get into the act and throw up a little smoke screen by raising another matter he has been raising in the House.

* (1730)

Just while we are on that topic, I should point out, because he did not ask me today about it, that in response to his inquiries in this House, the honourable member for Kildonan, I asked the deputy minister of the training part of the Education department to ensure that a review is conducted. That review is underway. I was asked about this several weeks ago by the honourable member for Kildonan. As a matter of fact, the matter was reported to the vocational schools branch back at the time the motor vehicle accident happened, which is in compliance with the rules.

In any event, what I am trying to say is that the honourable member yesterday made reference to the students, and I wanted to be sure that the students were contacted as part of this investigation. I have passed that on to the deputy minister, and that is what is happening. So the honourable member for Kildonan keeps raising this issue about this unfortunate motor vehicle collision in which people were severely injured and somehow in the same context as the other matter, and one has to say, well, now, why is he doing it? Each time the O'Leary matter arises, the matter of the so-called We Care school accident happened. One kind of wonders why that matter comes up from the honourable member for Kildonan only when the Brian O'Leary issue is being discussed. I ask the question simply, it is one of those questions that does not require an answer because the answer is very clear to everyone that the question is asked of.

In any event, I am a little disappointed to hear my friend and neighbour and colleague, the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans), saying things like this is much ado about nothing. [interjection] Now he says it is only about very little, so we have come some distance here. [interjection] The report does not exonerate anybody. The honourable member for Brandon East has not read this report–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable Minister–

Mr. McCrae: Or he would know that that is not true.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask honourable members wanting to pose questions to wait until such time as it is appropriate. At this time, the honourable minister is attempting to answer the question of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). The honourable minister, to continue in his response.

Mr. McCrae: The problem I have is that what the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) said, and I have a lot of respect for him, as he knows, reflects what we have been hearing from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), and that is that these standards that we hold so dear really only apply to other people.

That is what I am having a problem with as a politician. I will be quite open and up front about that. I am having a problem with it as a politician, okay? As the Minister of Education, I have others issues to address, and they are serious ones. Some people are suggesting this is not a serious matter. People who feel that way have no attachment to the New Directions in education. That is understandable. New Democrats argued against New Directions in education, argued against standards tests, argued against almost everything that this government has tried to do in terms of improving our education system. [interjection]

Well, you know, it is not good enough just to say, as the honourable member for Brandon East is saying, it happens. This is not like Forrest Gump's "it happens." There are other kinds of "it happens." It is the kind of "it happens" that the honourable member for Brandon East says–these test packages, he suggests, are opened routinely. Well, if this is true, this is a problem, because it leads to all kinds of questions about, okay, if they are being opened before they are supposed to be opened, we have a problem.

Now, Mr. O'Leary did that. He acknowledges it. Other people have allegedly suffered as a result of that. Is that something New Democrats are saying is not important? [interjection] Mr. Chairman, the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) was complaining just the other day about the honourable member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) needling him from her seat. Here I am trying my best to answer the question that has been raised in all seriousness by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), because there are people in his constituency who are hurting, I am told, as a result of the actions of Mr. Brian O'Leary. That is one part of it. And it is not clear that there has been no compromise of test security in our province. That is not clear whatsoever.

We are being ridiculed by members of the New Democratic Party, the arrogance of it. I ask them to look in the mirror. These honourable members who have been so high and mighty and righteously indignant in these last few months, I ask them to look in the mirror and apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to everyone else. You cannot have it that way. You cannot be believed if you apply one standard on the whole world and fail to accept that standard for yourself. You cannot be taken seriously if that is the way you conduct yourself.

I should not be preaching to the honourable member for Brandon East, but it is the honourable member for Brandon East who says that this problem that is being raised by the honourable member for Inkster is much ado about nothing, and he says that we are making mountains out of molehills.

Mr. Chairman, that is not an acceptable reaction. Is the honourable member, who now says it is being blown out of proportion, is he trying to say that everyday that we hear honourable members opposite tell us, oh, there is a horrible crisis going on here and there is another crisis going on over there, is he saying it is okay for us to blow everything out of proportion but do not let anybody else tackle a matter that is a serious matter?

Honourable members opposite today are using all their best attempts at humour, and in doing so they really do say to me that have at work a clear double standard on the part of members of the New Democrats. It is a very human thing. I understand how it happens. Honourable members opposite have failed to take seriously something that Mr. O'Leary himself has taken seriously by acknowledging that he did wrong and expressing regret for doing so, but there is no regret on the part of members of the New Democratic Party, because by shouting me down hope to cover up this matter further. I do not think it becomes people who have been so self-righteous about issues of late.

So now they say call the inquiry knowing full well their minds are made up whatever happens. The honourable Leader of the Opposition says he intends to take no action relating to Mr. O'Leary. Of course, we know where the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) stands, because he waxed eloquently all afternoon yesterday about the wonderful virtues of one Brian O'Leary. We know exactly where the member for Crescentwood stands on this matter.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask honourable members to just tone it down about three notches. Hansard is having a great difficulty hearing all your words, and I know that they would like to record this for everybody here or read in the future. So could I ask honourable members who want to put these statements on the record to do so when they are recognized. At this time, the honourable minister has the floor. The honourable minister, to continue.

* (1740)

Mr. McCrae: I do not know how much time I have, but I should wrap up. Mr. Chairman, I simply find it hard to understand how honourable members who have taken such great umbrage at the wrongdoings of people who are not closely associated with the New Democratic Party, how that is somehow a pretty serious matter.

I recognize there are differences. There is no question about that. We have recognized the shortcomings in the actions of our people, but we do not see that happening when there is a shortcoming on the other side. We do not see that test that they apply to us being applied to themselves. This is something that I think does bear having some attention brought to it, but that is a separate matter from what is being raised by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). It disappoints me that I cannot get support from honourable members opposite to the whole issue of the security of examinations in a provincial scheme.

The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) formerly was with the Education department. Surely he should, I would have thought, have some kind of respect for a province-wide system that requires levels of security. When somebody makes a mistake other people get hurt. That is what I am hearing by way of allegation here. I cannot see the kindness in people who suggest that that is much ado about nothing. I cannot see a kind spirit in people who suggest that to ask questions about this is making mountains out of molehills.

Mr. Chairperson: I hate to interrupt the honourable minister, but at this time I have the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) having a discussion, I think, because I am hearing them very clearly in stereo. If you want to carry on that conversation, could you do so in the loge, so you will not interrupt the proceedings? Thank you. The honourable minister, to continue.

Mr. McCrae: To conclude this answer, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member wants a certain line of action to be taken, either agree to the report, which I have said I cannot do, or to have something else happen. Now, the honourable member needs to understand, I think he does, or let us say to be reminded, and the member for Crescentwood certainly knows this. The Department of Education has very significant powers under the Constitution of our country with respect to education in our province. There are sanctions, very, very serious ones available to deal with issues when they arise. I do not want to be doing something that would be inappropriate to the–[interjection] That is right.

I would not want to be doing something inappropriate to what actually happened, because I know there will be members on the opposition side of the House who would have comments to make about that. But that means, again, here they are just coming to the defence of a wrongdoer, and I do not see how there is anything to be gained by New Democrats for the way they have been handling themselves today in this House, by rushing to the defence of someone who is an acknowledged wrongdoer. Well, that wrongdoer has acknowledged and expressed regret about it, and so honourable members opposite, oh, it is okay then. Oh, he said he is sorry, or whatever it was that was done. I have to be concerned. [interjection] I think there is something for lots of us to do, here, Mr. Chairman.

I accept my responsibility to do something about this and will indeed do. I remind honourable members I have had this report only a very brief period of time, and it is reasonable to suggest an appropriate level of caution be exercised in moving forward and taking other action. It is pretty clear to me that there is certain action to be taken by members of the New Democratic Party as well, and they have not recognized or accepted their own responsibility here. That is something they will have to answer for. I just say, look in the mirror. That is all I suggest in that regard, but the honourable member knows school divisions actually exist because the Department of Education allows that to happen.

An Honourable Member: Big Brother.

Mr. McCrae: Big Brother, as the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) points out. Indeed, we are being asked daily in this House to take actions which would show less respect for the autonomy that school divisions do have. That is why the school division was asked to do this in the first place. A year ago my predecessor could have taken some pretty draconian measures if she had been so disposed. No, she felt that it would be appropriate to ask the school division to investigate and to give a report as to what the school division was going to do to preserve the security and integrity of the standards testing system.

An Honourable Member: What are you going to do?

Mr. McCrae: I hear honourable members opposite saying: what are you going to do? Well, I am sure they are very interested in what I am going to do, but I can say to them as well what are you going to do, what are you going to do, except it is inappropriate to use the second person in this House. So I will not do that again.

I will say to the honourable member, through you, Mr. Chairman, for Inkster, that I am indeed looking very carefully at what is the appropriate thing to do. Keeping in mind, my issue is not about Brian O'Leary. My issue is not about the New Democratic Party and their lack of integrity on this matter. Those are not my issues. My issues are the children of this province. I will not sit in my seat and laugh myself silly and act like a buffoon all afternoon in the light of my own campaign manager's wrongdoing. I will not do that.

I will put the interests of the children of this province first and report to the honourable member just as soon as I can about what I do propose to do.

Mr. Lamoureux: I think it is in part you need to at least set the stage. There are really two issues that we are talking about. The first one is the integrity of the exams. The second one is the individual that was involved and the perception that took place, so that members have a little bit of an idea of actually what has taken place. There was a meeting last June. I believe it was in which I was at a breakfast meeting, and, upon leaving Garden City, I was approached by an individual who was a former teacher at the school, at the Maples school, I understand. He brought me over to a breakfast meeting in which there were a number of teachers that sat around this breakfast table, and they made me aware that there was this breach in the security for the standards exams.

This Mr. Treller was, in fact, demoted from teaching math, and I am talking about the perception. This is the perception that the teachers, his peers, had on the teacher, that he was demoted into teaching computer lab, keyboard. If you think he has agreed to moving, you are on a different planet. He did not agree. He did not. He wanted to be able to say–he perceived it as a demotion. His peers there perceived it as a demotion. You should not attempt to defend Brian O'Leary on this particular point. I am talking about the perception. This is the individual, and this is the human story. The human story of this is that you have someone amongst his peers believing that he was demoted because he in fact ratted, if I can use the word "ratted" on the principal. Those teachers were intimidated, and there was a group of them that I sat around with. Now that particular teacher has taken–from what I understand because he has been banned to talk to me. The teacher cannot talk to me; he has been instructed that it would be wrong for him to even have any sort of conversation with me. Having said that, I understand that the teacher even had to take sick–[interjection]

Well, I know that I placed phone calls to the individual. Then I had a New Democrat give me a call saying that he has been banned to talk to you from the administration.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Let me remind the honourable member for Inkster, as I have in the past, that his questions should be put through the Chair to the minister. He should not be entering debate with members of the opposition at this time or having discussions with them.

The honourable member for Inkster, to continue.

Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. The emphasis is because here you have a teacher that did what he was supposed to do. He had a duty and a responsibility to do it. As a result of that, look what has resulted on that human side. What message does that send to other teachers? I can tell you the message it sent to the teachers who sat around that breakfast table, and there must have been at least a dozen of them, was that Mr. Treller should not have ratted or should not have told the Department of Education about the breach. That was the message that was sent.

So there is the human side of the story, which is being, in my opinion, easily forgotten. Then there is the side that causes a great deal of concern, I believe, on the broader issue, and that broader issue is the long-term impact on the standard exams.

* (1750)

You have three political parties inside this Chamber that supposedly support standard exams. If you support the concept of standard exams, a part of that concept is there has to be a security component to it, otherwise these standard exams are nothing but a joke. That is why we believe in order to improve the quality of public education, the standard exams are important. So if you believe that that is to be the case, then you have to be able to stand up for the security of those exams. That is why it is an important issue and warrants the attention given inside this Chamber. After all, on average we sit 91 days a year; we are only into day 62.

We have only had a few hours of debate in this Chamber on this particular issue. In my opinion, until this minister acknowledges the need to have that independent investigation, the debate should continue on this particular issue, because what we are talking about is an important component to public education. You talk to Manitobans and they will tell you that a quality public education is something that they want and something that they are demanding. That is why I am quite disappointed in the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) in not being able to protect the integrity of those standard exams.

If we reread the report, a great deal of it has been whited out, if you read the report, what we have found out is that this is not the first time. Allegedly, it has happened before. In one of those allegations, the individual says, I am prepared to swear it in court. That is a pretty serious allegation. Do we have a school division, do we have a principal, do we have a superintendent that just mocks the whole standard exams? What about professionalism? That is important.

You can have your own personal opinions on government policy, but we expect a certain amount of professionalism that is out there. You follow provincial directives. If there would have been some sort of a reprimand or some sort of an action taken against Mr. O'Leary, and you did not have the perception problem with Mr. Treller, well, then, it would not necessarily be the issue that it is today. I tell you something, you know there is something rotten here, and I think it goes even deeper than the standard exams, but I am going to stay away from that component because I believe very firmly that the Minister of Education, if he does not take some form of action, given now that I know that you are talking about multiple breaches, I think he is doing a disservice to the standard exams.

If you do not take that action, then why even have the standard exams? Wait until there is an administration that is in government that is prepared to protection the integrity of those exams. The minister's response to my first question is, well, if you admit that you did a wrong, then it is okay. Well, Mr. Chairperson, that is a cop-out.

An Honourable Member: I did not say that.

Mr. Lamoureux: No, no, no, that is what he is inferring that the principal or the New Democrats are saying. Well, I will tell you something, Mr. Chairperson, think about what this report implies. That is that any teacher in the province who wants to be able to open up an exam, well, we will leave it up to the administrator or we will leave it up to the principal and they will determine it. You know, as long as you did not hand out, I guess, the exams the night before to all the students, then it is okay, it is not a breach, and we will leave it strictly on trust and faith that that is going to be the case.

Well, if you are prepared to accept that, then what about the other end in terms of the marking of the exams? Remember the money that we put aside to make sure that no one even knows where the exams are being marked from. Well, again, all of these things are a part of a package to ensure that the integrity of the standard of the exams is there.

So when people try to imply that we are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, well, I think that they are doing a disservice to public education and the importance that Manitobans put on public education, because I believe the standard exams are here today because the public sees the merit of those standard exams. That is the reason why, Mr. Chairperson, I believe that this is a very important issue, the broader issue of standard exams.

That is not to comment on Mr. Treller. As I say, the human side of that is something which I would welcome, and maybe we will go into a bit of dialogue on that human side.

An Honourable Member: Next week?

Mr. Lamoureux: It might be next week in which we do that. Having said that, we have to look at the report and what the report says. The Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) has a bit of an advantage over me in the sense that even though I did approach the Minister of Education the other day and I had asked him if I would be able to take a look at the report and I would keep it strictly in confidence, not share it with anyone and so forth, the Minister of Education denied me that opportunity, but he has seen the entire report. I have not seen the entire report. So he has an advantage that I do not have.

What I do have, and if you try to digest what is there, I am not–I know a number of weeks ago I was calling for an independent report, but I cannot accept this report that has been tabled by the Minister of Education. I believe that we have to take the next step. I said it at the beginning, and it is even referred to inside the report: This report has been prepared by me as superintendent of the Seven Oaks School Division No. 10, on behalf of the board of trustees. Then following that–I am not too sure if it is on page 4–yes: finally, I submit this report believing it to be factual, objective and impartial.

These are words from the superintendent who is the educational advisor for the New Democrats, whose individual principal happens to co-chair the campaign. So that is the reason why weeks ago I was calling for an independent investigation, and because of the political nature of that dynamic, the Minister of Education should not be doing it internally within the department, that in fact it is warranted to have that independent investigation. This report, from what I can read of it, does a disservice to the standard exams, does a disservice to Mr. Treller. That is why I ask, and leave a moment for the Minister of Education, will he today make a commitment to an independent investigation?

Mr. McCrae: I can tell the honourable member that I will not treat this matter so cavalierly as we have seen done today by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans), the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), and as has been made so abundantly clear by the Leader of the Opposition, that the double standard is so apparent here, so clear, that we will simply not allow our education system to be threatened by attitudes like the ones we are seeing here in this House today.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now being six o'clock, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour now being six o'clock, this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until Monday next, 1:30 p.m.