ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call Bills 15, 5, 6 and then the balance of the bills as listed on the Order Paper. Thank you.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 15--The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 15, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement d'organismes de producteurs agricoles), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: Leave.

Madam Speaker: Leave.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to put some comments on the record with respect to Bill 15 which this government talked about for some time and was introduced in the spring of this session. This bill is the amendments to Bill 28 which this government brought in I believe in 1988 and a bill which caused some concern for people in rural Manitoba and members of our caucus.

Madam Speaker, the agriculture industry in Manitoba and in Canada is facing dramatic changes and there is need for farmers to become organized and have a strong voice because they certainly, particularly here in Manitoba, have not had a strong voice on their behalf. We have not had a government that has been speaking out for farmers. We have had a tremendous loss of services for farmers by the federal government to cut back in services and cut back in transportation support, cut back in research, and we have not had a strong voice from this government to defend it.

So there is need. There is need for a farm organization, but if we are to have a farm organization, farmers should have say in what their organization is and there has to be recognition, Madam Speaker, that all farmers do not share the same views they do. The organization that farmers have representing them has to be chosen by farmers. It cannot be dictated to them.

This legislation that is being brought forward, Madam Speaker, is amendments to a bill, but this is not democratic legislation. In fact, very few farmers are even aware that this legislation is being brought forward. The legislation was introduced this spring, and I might say that the government during their election campaign did not talk about amending the check-off legislation.

I think it was discussed once on an open-line show in Brandon, but it was not part of a platform. So this legislation was introduced in the spring when farmers were very busy putting their crops in. Now we have the legislation which will go to committee and again will come at a time when farmers are very busy taking off their crops. I do not think that the government was very conscientious of the farming community when they introduced this legislation as far as timing goes or when they are going to take it to committee.

There has to be some sensitivity to when the farming community has time. I know there are many members across the way who are involved in the farming community, and they should realize that this month and next month are very busy months for farmers. It will be very difficult for them to participate in the hearings.

I said that we have concerns with this legislation, and, in particular, we have concerns because the previous legislation, the legislation that is being amended allowed the farmers to opt out of the checkoff if they were not interested. It has proven there are very few farmers, approximately 20,000 farmers in Manitoba, under 4,000 farmers are members of the organization right now. That is an indication that there are problems, and it is a problem that has to be addressed.

* (1430)

For some reason farmers are not choosing to become part of the recognized organization right now, which is KAP. For some reason they are all opting out. There are not even a quarter of the members of the farmers participating in this organization. The government has decided to force farmers to become part of this organization. They are introducing a negative option checkoff. The farmers have to pay their money in and then apply to get it back. Now there is nothing wrong with a farm organization being established, providing the membership has been canvassed. At no time have the farmers been asked whether or not they want to have a membership.

I have talked to the Keystone Agricultural Producers about this. I said, if this is the kind of legislation that you want, canvass the members, let them have a vote. If 60 percent of the members want to be members of this organization or 50 percent, 51 percent, let the legislation pass. Then we will have a farm organization, but farmers have not had a say. What the farmers have said through their opting out is an indication that they are not happy. So somebody has to do some work and find out what it is farmers want.

Certainly farmers need an organization, but perhaps, Madam Speaker, what this government should be looking at when they are doing this legislation is giving farmers some options. I believe in the Ontario legislation there are two organizations. The farmers have a choice of the organization that they want their funds to go to. Perhaps if the government would look at that kind of legislation where farmers would at least have some choice, then they might have more people participating, but to force people to say you have to send your money in and then apply for it back is a negative option that we do not support.

You know, you could carry this a little bit farther, and maybe this government is going to introduce legislation that says, all people have to belong to a political party and the party that is in government and then you have to apply for your money back from it, which is what is happening here because, whatever you say, the farm organization is a political lobby group. It is an organization that lobbies on behalf of farmers. There is political clout to that organization.

So, Madam Speaker, I think that this is not a good move, and I would suggest that the government reconsider this and look at the possibility of putting in a clause that would allow for farmers to have a petition signed with the majority of farmers signing the petition whether they would look at a vote for farmers. I am sure we can organize votes on a referendum right across Canada. Surely the people in Manitoba can organize to allow farmers to have a vote. It should not be so difficult, and I would make that suggestion to the minister that let us look at this. Give farmers a say and if this is what they want, fine. If they vote for it, give them the organization.

I heard someone across the way mention unions. Well, in a union you have a vote, and if the majority of the people want the representation, that is what they have. If we are going to have farm organizations, and which I believe we do need, let the farmers have some say in it. They are not having a say under this legislation. This legislation is not allowing for that.

One of the areas that causes concern which is not part of the legislation is on who decides which organization should represent farmers. The body that is now in place to decide is not farmers. It is outside people and I think that it should be farmers who make the decision on who their organization should be. I think that would be very, very important.

Certainly, Madam Speaker, we need a strong voice for farmers in this country, as I said earlier. Farmers are facing some very dramatic changes in this country and I do not believe that this government has done a good job in taking information to the farmers. In particular, when we had the changes to the Crow we heard some words from this government but not a strong voice from them. I guess, in retrospect, I do not really expect much more because the changes to the Crow began under the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney.

They were the ones who started to cut back on that Crow benefit and certainly we had hoped that this government would speak up stronger for farmers and defend or put a fight up with Ottawa to see some of the farm services and supports kept in place. In particular, I believe that this government should have put a much stronger fight to cutbacks that we saw, as I said, to transportation but also to research.

Although the government made some statements, they certainly never went out to visit with farmers or hold meetings with farmers in rural Manitoba to tell them the consequences of these changes and there are going to be dramatic changes in agriculture. [interjection] Yes, and the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) just indicated that he could meet with the Minister of Agriculture any time and talk about the issues. Unfortunately, the rest of the people in rural Manitoba do not have that option. It should be the role of this government to go out and take out information to the farmers on what is happening with changes like this, but it has not happened.

We certainly have not had a strong voice with respect to the Port of Churchill, which is a very important issue for farmers in this province. When you consider the changes in cost that farmers in this part of the country are going to face and the alternatives that they have for transportation, one of the main alternatives they have is the Port of Churchill which is a possibility of a cheaper route to ship our grain out, but we have not heard. We have heard platitudes from this government, but we have not heard very much lobbying going on. Basically, we have heard lip service from this government, but we do not see them lobbying to get the freight shipped through the Port of Churchill as we did when we had an NDP government. If you look at the record, Madam Speaker, you will see that when the NDP was in power, much more grain went through the Port of Churchill than we have right now. So we are not having a strong voice.

With respect to this legislation, I believe that there does have to be representation, but when we do have representation, we do have farm groups, those farm groups have to speak up for farmers. I do not believe that the farm groups that we have right now are speaking up strongly. That is why we have the dropoff in membership that we do have. When we see, as I said, under 4,000 members within the farm organization right now, when we see the number of farmers participating in farm organizations, you have to question why farmers are not participating, and it is wrong for the government to try to legislate that farmers have to participate in an organization. We have to look at giving farmers the option.

The other part of the legislation, Madam Speaker, deals with the commodity group checkoff, and I believe that the same thing applies here. Commodity groups should have the right to raise money for research, and the reason they have to raise more money for research is again they have been let down by the federal government and the provincial government. Governments have a role to play in doing research for crops and other research, but we have seen a great decrease in that under this government. Of course, commodity groups should have the ability to collect a fee, but before they can collect that fee, they should canvass their membership as well.

* (1440)

The group that is looking for the checkoff right now is the canola growers. Madam Speaker, it is approximately 12,000 canola growers in Manitoba, and of those there are only between 300 and 500 who are members. That is a very small percentage that are members right now. I have talked to the Canola Growers Association about this. I feel that there should be a vote, there should be a petition, go out and get the canola growers to sign a petition and if over half of them say they want this, then let them have their checkoff. But, again, this has not happened. There has been no canvassing of the growers saying that they want it. So why should we impose something on them? If producers want it, they should be canvassed. They should be given the opportunity to vote on it. If they decide that is what they want, more power to them, and then we would have a commodity group that was funded, but at the present time that has not happened, and they are being forced to do something without even being given very much information about it.

The government has indicated that the reason they are bringing the legislation in is because the elevator agents, the grain companies want this. Well, I have talked to many elevator agents, and they have said they are not interested in this checkoff legislation--[interjection] Yes, maybe higher up, maybe the elevator companies, but certainly the agents have not been talked to about this, and this is not their request. This is just a request to make things easier for one organization to have a membership, and it is the elevator agents who are going to be doing the work for the organization. A good organization, if it is doing its job, will have no problem getting membership and getting funds sent in. It should not be legislated as this member has.

Now the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) keeps chirping from his seat about the Farmers' Union, and I know the Farmers' Union has always been a thorn in his side, but as much as I respect the Keystone Agricultural Producers and the issues that they address, I wish the member would respect the views of the Farmers' Union, because not everybody thinks alike. A healthy society is based on different views, but of course this government does not like to hear that there are different views. If the member for Arthur, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism will look back at the record, the Farmers' Union did some very good work in their day in representing farmers. They did many things.

Members of government are very sensitive, and they want to have control of everything. It is well known that the Keystone Agricultural Producers, in fact the Past President of the Keystone Agricultural Producers has run; he is a member of this House on the Conservative side of the House here, so we know that the agenda and the philosophies of the Keystone Agricultural Producers is more right wing, and there is nothing wrong with that. If that is the direction that that group of people wants to lean, that is fine, but farmers have a broad base of views. They should not be forced into that one organization as this government is trying to do, and that, Madam Speaker, is what we have objection to. We have objection to the fact that farmers are being forced into an organization without having say into it.

The other part of the legislation deals, as I said, with commodity groups. I have met with the Canola Growers and they have raised their--they very much want this legislation to pass so that they can have funding for research. We have told the Canola Growers when we met with them that there has to be a better way of canvassing the members, and if this legislation passes without having the--I would like to see an amendment where there would have to be a petition, where farmers would have to be canvassed, but I would also like to see an amendment for the organization, commodity groups, that if farmers opt out, if they decide not to be part of--If a certain percentage of them drop out, they are not interested, then it has to be reviewed, that once they have the commodity check-off, if it is not working, that it be reviewed and looked at more carefully than it has and give the farmers an opportunity to have the legislation reviewed or have a referendum on the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I indicated in my opening comments that I have concern that this legislation is being brought in at a time when it is very busy and farmers have not had the time to review the legislation. This is legislation that affects rural people, and I would ask the government to consider the possibility of taking the hearings on this bill out to rural Manitoba. Take it out to several communities and give the opportunity for farmers and rural people to have input into this legislation. I know people sometimes get Perimeter vision and think everything should revolve in this building here, but I am sure that members across the way will support me. I am sure the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) would be happy to have hearings on this bill held in rural Manitoba so that people that are affected by the bill can have a chance to have input. [interjection] Again the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) is chirping away and having some comments, but I would ask Madam Speaker if you would ask him to refrain himself and perhaps--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River is debating this bill in this remaining 40 minutes, 19 minutes remaining, and I would request the co-operation of all members to be attentive. You will all have your turn.

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was indicating, the member for Arthur-Virden keeps chirping from his seat, but, you know, I look forward to the time when he debates this bill. He can tell us his views on it and why he feels that it is so important that we legislate which organization farmers should belong to. I just cannot believe that a minister would support legislation that is so undemocratic in taking the rights away from farmers to make a choice.

I cannot imagine that if somebody tried to pass legislation saying that everybody that worked in stores had to pay fees to a union, I can imagine what the people from the other side would say. They would say, oh, you guys, you are just trying to create unions; you are undemocratic. But when they are bringing in legislation like this, it seems like it is quite okay. By their philosophy, it is quite okay.

An Honourable Member: Well, there is a difference, all right.

Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, there is a difference, Madam Speaker.

We have a very diverse agriculture community. We have people in rural Manitoba who have different views, just as people in urban Manitoba and northern Manitoba have different views. It is wrong to think that they can be all represented, that all producers can be represented by one unified voice. It is wrong to think that. There has to be the opportunity for farmers to have different views, and they cannot be forced by legislation to believe that they will be represented by one voice.

* (1450)

There has been no opportunity for farmers to become involved in this legislation. There has been very little publicity about it. As I say, we just had an election. We did not hear the government members campaigning saying that they were going to bring in legislation like this. There must be the opportunity for farmers to participate. I would ask very much that the government would--[interjection] I beg your pardon? I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I missed a comment from the member.

An Honourable Member: I said it was pretty strange.

Ms. Wowchuk: So I would very much urge the government to look at the possibility of getting this information out to farmers but in particular holding hearings in rural Manitoba so that the government will have the opportunity to hear the views of farmers.

I heard the minister across the way saying that he agrees with that statement. I look forward to him putting that on the record.

The farmers are in a very difficult time right now. We have gone through the change to the Crow. When that was happening we expected that farmers would be very angry, but they have accepted this change. They are feeling very downtrodden that they have no supports from government, and that is very disappointing. There has to be information, and I think that the government should take this opportunity to go out to rural Manitoba and listen to the farmers. As well as having hearings, it would be an opportunity for them to listen to the views of farmers.

Now there are a few members here who said they have listened, but this is something that has to be addressed. I would hope that the minister would take that into consideration and hold those hearings. Again, Madam Speaker, I would hope that the minister would take into consideration the concerns that have been raised with respect to the bill, that this is undemocratic. Farmers have not had a voice in the drafting of this legislation. Clearly farmers have not said that they want a compulsory checkoff. [interjection]

The member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) says that they said so in an election. That is not true. The government did not run on this legislation; they did not put it in their election pamphlets. I have talked to many, many farmers over the last couple of months who are not aware that the government is proposing to bring in this legislation to force them to be part of an organization that they have chosen not to. The negative option checkoff is not a good piece of legislation. I am disappointed in it that the government is taking that step, and I hope that the government will look at the suggestions we have made.

We have a few amendments that we will be bringing in when we get to committee, when we have those amendments drafted, in particular for farmers to have a better say. We will be sharing those with the minister and hope that he will take them into consideration.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, as I had said earlier, there were real changes going on in agriculture, and we have to have better information provided to farmers. But above all we have to look that what we are doing in agriculture, what we are doing in any economic growth in this province, is sustainable, in the future when the next generation of farmers comes along, that there is land, that there is water and that those people who choose to live in rural Manitoba have the ability to do so.

We have to have a government that is prepared to work with the farmers and provide them with the opportunities to grow and adapt to the changes that are coming about in this province, changes that are coming as a result of the dramatic changes we will have because of change to transportation in particular which will affect Manitoba.

So I hope that the government in their wisdom--in their wisdom, as my colleague indicates, in their short wisdom--will remember that as we have the changes in rural Manitoba they must be sustainable, and we must treat all producers fairly.

There are farmers in many, many parts of the province. We cannot only think about farmers in one part of the province. We cannot sacrifice one group of farmers for another. We need to have a government that will speak up for them. Farmers need to have the ability to organize themselves as they choose. Farmers should not be restricted that they should have only one organization that represents them.

According to this legislation, they are being restricted in how they organize them. Other people will say they are not being restricted, but certainly with this checkoff that is being in place right now for one organization without the opportunity for other organizations, farmers having the opportunity to contribute to whichever organization they want, they are being restricted.

Now the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) again says that the farmers voted on April 5. Well, I will tell you, Madam Speaker, in Swan River farmers did vote in April, and they said that they wanted an NDP representative. They wanted a representative who would speak up for them, and that is what I am doing. I am telling this government that the farmers in my part of the province do not agree with this legislation. They do not want to be forced to be a part of one organization; they want the options. This government has to look at giving farmers--If they are going to bring in legislation then give the farmers a choice that they can send their money to whichever organization they want to represent them, and the government is not doing that with this. This is undemocratic. They are dictating which organization farmers have to be part of, and it is wrong.

As I said, Madam Speaker, I have other colleagues who want to comment on this legislation. We will be bringing in amendments, but I sincerely encourage the government to take our suggestion and take the hearings to rural Manitoba and listen to farmers, because the government will be surprised, shocked and surprised, to learn that this is not what farmers want, and they want a choice. I urge the government to give farmers that choice. Thank you.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak, take a few minutes to address the issues under Bill 15, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act.

The reason I choose to make a few comments is because of what has been said on the opposition side about the bill and what has been said about the reaction of the farm community in regard to this bill and what the needs are in the agricultural community in their dealings with governments, agencies and proper representation on agricultural matters. We need only look around during the last 10 or 20 years to realize the huge and dramatic changes that have come about in agriculture. We need only look to the past hundred years or so and realize the very, very dramatic decreases in the farm population in all of rural Canada. It would be to me, if I was living in an urban area and in a very populated country, it would be very scary to me to realize that we had now put the production of food into the hands of less than 2 percent of the people in this country.

* (1500)

It is really scary when you sit out in the countryside and look around you and realize the tremendous power that agriculture has in the world today. Yet, when you surmise the net result of what has happened over the last two or three decades, we realize that that powerful group of a very small group of people in the world has been held at ransom and has been held at bay by the forces that utilize the resources that they produce, mainly the consumer.

The political forces, whether it be in Manitoba, whether it be in Canada, the U.S. or the European nations and/or other countries in the world, had decided in the past that in order to keep a flow of affordable products to the consumer and ensure that the world would in fact be fed, something very dramatic had to be done. Europe, having come out of the First and Second World Wars and the huge famines that they experienced during that time, made a promise to its people: never again would they run hungry; never again would they go hungry. Other nations in the world did exactly the same thing. What it led to is what is now known as the green revolution.

Remember, members in this House, that it is not very many years ago that there was a prediction that by the early '80s we would face huge, huge famines in this world, that this world would run out of food. Those predictions were made in the early-late '50s. Actions were taken by nations to put policies in place that would encourage the production of food, the production of food at very, very affordable costs.

Now what happened? The governments of the day decided that they would put in place subsidies and tariffs to ensure that the food that the consumer bought across the counter was in fact affordable, not only affordable but very cheap. They then in turn made a political decision that they would pay farmers out of taxpayers' funds to ensure that farmers had an income that would encourage that production. That led to the green revolution. We produced in Europe far more food than the population in Europe could consume which created huge, huge surpluses. We did the same thing in the United States and we did the same thing in Canada.

We need only to look back to the late '60s and early '70s to realize the kind of chaos that those surpluses led to on the farm and in rural communities, which in my view was the determining factor in the decisions by many, many rural people to move off the farms and into the cities. It caused a huge depopulation of rural Manitoba, rural Canada, the rural United States and many of the other rural parts of other nations.

Madam Speaker, if the farm populations in those countries, in our country and in our province would have been adequately represented by members of their own industry, I believe that we would have had entirely different policy, but farmers in general, right across the world, were unorganized. They did not have spokespeople that were adequately knowledgeable to convince politicians to not make the kinds of changes and make the kinds of political decisions and put the kinds of policies in place that led to the huge surplus situation that we were in. We in Manitoba are no different.

Throughout this nation's history, farming has been and will remain cyclical. There will be times when the farm community will need support in order to meet the economic requirements to keep them on the farm, and there will be times when we have very good times, when the farm community will be in relatively good shape.

We are probably entering the upside of a cycle that agriculture--and it is almost predictable. Yes, that is exactly what happens; it goes in huge waves. So I think we are on the upside of the price swing currently that will lead us into an era where the farm community might say, well, it is really not necessary that we have that kind of representation, and it is really not necessary to be that organized.

Well, let us just look back about eight, 10 years ago when these surpluses were causing a huge hardship on the farm community, and farmers started organizing in a very meaningful way in Manitoba. They formed an organization, and they did so not just out of thin air like this; they held huge numbers of meetings across this province. They debated and decided to put in place an organization that would truly represent the views of all parts of the sectors of the agricultural society.

So they formed an organization which really has 64 elements to it. It involved all the commodity groups, and it involved all the areas of the agriculture-producing part of Manitoba. It even allowed for the representation within that organization of industries in supply management. There was a tremendous effort put to make sure that there would be an organization that could truly speak for the farm community.

Back in the '80s when prices of grain were less than a dollar for wheat, that organization went to Ottawa and spoke on behalf of Manitoba farmers. That organization went to Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes and solicited the support to put forward a case to Ottawa that there needed to be some special help. Out of that effort was born the Special Grains Program. The Special Grains Program which was initiated under the Mulroney administration under the guidance of Charlie Mayer, the then Minister of Agriculture, paid better than $3 billion, almost $4 billion to maintain a farm community, ladies and gentlemen, in this province and in other parts of Canada.

Why am I citing all this? Because there is a tremendous amount of history that has led us to where we are today. Today we are faced with a situation where commodity prices are rising and the need for an organized farm community is lessening, so we need to recognize that this cycle will again come into a downswing. The farm community wants a vehicle that will speak for them, but that vehicle also then needs leadership. It needs good spokespeople. It needs people who have the time or will give of themselves and put in place the time and put out the effort that is needed to make the case for the farm community.

In order to be able to do that properly, that organization needs funding, and it needs funding on an ongoing basis, not on a cyclical basis. It needs a regular flow of cash to be able to put in place an organizational structure that will in fact serve the farm community. Whether it is the canola growers or whether it is the hog producers or the cattle producers or the broiler producers or the grain producers or any of the other specialty crops producers, they need to work together to be able to fend for themselves and protect their interest to ensure the continuation of agriculture, because if we do not do that, Madam Speaker, then you and I might one day walk to our grocery shelves and find them empty.

* (1510)

I say to you, Madam Speaker, that I believe that we are that close to coming to the predictions that were put forward in 1950. I believe we are probably 10 years behind what they were predicting at the time, saying the 1980s could be famine years, because farmers will not put into their crop production exercises more than they think that they can get out of. So they need to convince politicians like myself and yourselves in this House and others, whether they be in Ottawa, in Washington, in The Hague or wherever, they need to convince politicians to allow them a level playing field in this world market that we are into. To do that, we need strong organization.

The second reason we need to put some proper ongoing funding into agriculture organization is to ensure that there be proper research, that there be proper research done to ensure that ongoing varietal development within the system is maintained and enhanced whether it is in the field of canola production--and I say to you that Manitoba was not too long ago considered the leader in canola research. It is no longer the leader in canola research. Other provinces have put in place a funding mechanism that will ensure that proper funding and research facilities are maintained and, in fact, provided for by the farm community.

We in Manitoba are lagging, and I, quite frankly, take some responsibility for that because we have not had the political will in this House to put forward this kind of legislation that will allow for the establishment of a proper research fund, that will allow for proper research to be funded in this province. So we need new varietal development. We need new crop development.

I say to you that we have some tremendous opportunity if we allow ourselves to provide funding of that kind of research. We have seen a tremendous expansion of three crops in this province over the last decade, one of them being the potato industry, the other being the bean industry, and the third one is the corn industry. In order to further that you need the kind of research and development and to provide the funding that has gone into the canola industry. The research that has gone into canola and the canola industry has been largely done by the farm community. Had it not been for that, canola would today not be king in western Canada.

The value of canola production over this last couple of years has probably exceeded the value of wheat production. So I think there is a demonstration there of what can be done if the farm community and the industries put their minds together and put that kind of effort into breeding varieties that are acceptable for growing in Manitoba and western Canada.

I think there are some tremendous opportunities, but beyond that, we need spokespeople, we need leaders and we need to recognize that the farm community needs to pull together and provide proper funding to those leaders and spokespeople that can in fact make the case for them on an ongoing basis, and that is the reason we need organizations.

I am somewhat amazed, quite frankly, colleagues in this House, that the opposition members will question the need for this kind of legislation for the farm community when the NDP party has gone headlong in support of the Rand Formula for the labour people in this province. Are they now saying that they are willing to back off on providing that kind of support to the labour community in this province? Is that what they are saying by the speech that was just made from the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk)? I mean, I would suggest to you what is good for the farmer is good for the labourer or what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So I would think that the opposition members might want to rethink their position on this piece of legislation. There is a tremendous battle that is emanating or is going to come forward in this province and in the rest of Canada fairly soon, and that will include the supply-manage system.

It is not the Americans in my view that in the final analysis are going to decide whether we should have supply management or not in this country. I believe it is western Canadian farmers that are going to question very, very sincerely whether we should maintain supply management or not. When we in fact in Manitoba can produce livestock, whether it be hogs or beef, poultry, whether it be turkey, chickens, geese, ducks or emus, or any one of those kinds of products, that we can produce them cheaper than anywhere else in this country or maybe in North America, why should we then not be able to produce as much of it as we possibly can?

So those questions are going to come, and it is going to take a strong farm voice to be able to put the position and make the case for the farm community, and that is why they will need proper funding, adequately to be able to afford the kind of people that they are going to require to be able to speak for them.

So whether you are dealing with freight rates in the future-- and I guarantee you we will be dealing now on an ongoing basis annually, and we will be negotiating as a farm community with the railways and other transportation firms to either increase or reduce freight rates. We will negotiate with the elevator companies on an annual basis to set handling costs within elevation, to set cleaning charges and all those kinds of things. You need a strong farm organization to represent us.

When I talk about we--the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) asked who is "we." We are the farm community, and I believe that that is the group of people that will need the kind of spokespeople and strong voice to be able to negotiate with, whether it be the transportation company, the grain handling companies or any of the other producers and processors, because that is where it is going to be at.

So I say to you when we look at Churchill, for instance, and we make the strong case to transport more grain out of Churchill, who is going to speak for the Port of Churchill? Is it going to be labour that is going to say, well, yeah, we should put many more jobs in Churchill. Is it going to be the labour unions? I doubt that. Is it going to be the transportation companies, the CN, the CP? I doubt that. Is it going to be the grain companies? I doubt that. Is it going to be the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Grain Commission? I do not think so. It is going to be the farm community that will decide where they can in fact transport grain out of Manitoba in the cheapest manner. If there is a case to be made, if we can prove, or if the farm community can prove that you can haul grain out of Churchill or export grain out of Churchill cheaper than you can out of Thunder Bay or Vancouver, then that farm organization will make that case.

So they need proper funding. They need a funding formula to be able to put all that together. We need to recognize the fact that farmers will become involved in their own destinies to a much greater degree than they have in the past because all these programs, whether it be GRIP, whether it be special grains programs or whether it be the Crow, are gone, so they are on their own. If they are on their own, they are going to have to speak for themselves.

I suggest to the members sitting on the opposite side of this House that, yes, there will be some farmers who oppose this kind of legislation because as the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has said, some people will see this as compulsory funding legislation, which it is not. This is legislation that will truly allow farmers to designate a checkoff, and it will indicate to whether it be an elevator company, whether it is a processing firm or any other firm that they have to make the checkoff, which our previous legislation did not do. At the end of the day, if and when they decide that whoa, this organization is not moving in the manner that we think it should be moving, they can, in fact, ask for their funding to be halted and rebated.

* (1520)

So this is not compulsory, mandatory type of legislation. This is voluntary contribution legislation, absolutely, and this should not be understood and I believe that this will strengthen the farm community's voice. It will strengthen the economic position of rural Manitoba, and it can be the foundation of a much, much stronger agricultural community in Manitoba.

I ask the honourable members in this House to give full and unequivocal support to this kind of legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak on Bill 15 and wish to put on record our party position and my own personal opinion as hopefully one day being able to haul in my crop to the elevator. When I get there it would be a shame if I had no choice because of this government deciding to shove down an automatic checkoff. It is really a form of taxation.

As I speak to it, I speak not only as a potential farmer, and hopefully in two or three years I will be harvesting, and not only that, but as a citizen of Manitoba, all of us have reason to object to this bill. Why? We had a recent example of a negative checkoff. All Canadians were put in a position where we all went through this. Recently, there was the expansion of the cable system, and if the other side will remember, there was a great deal of opposition about the automatic billing for your cable channels.

Thousands of Manitobans, hundreds of thousands, millions of people across Canada objected. Why? Because we did not have the choice in terms of getting our cable channels. It was a form of taxation. It was put right on our bill. It is true you could go down and remove or opt out, but the problem is that it is not a choice when you go to the elevator. It is not a choice in the beginning. The only thing it is is a negative option. After the fact you apply for the rebate.

This, when you look at the farming community, is particularly distressing. Not only have we seen extremely unstable markets, our prices for commodities have been particularly low, we have seen bankruptcies, we have seen our neighbours leave. It has been tragic. It has been very tragic for farm communities.

Closure of schools, our small communities are closing down, and in addition to that we have seen unstable grain prices. We have seen huge debts incurred. We have seen the necessity of large investments as we look to try and increase our production. Now we see the Crow rate subsidy cut. We are getting it both from the Liberals and now from the Conservatives, unfortunately, but our opportunity is here to make a change. This will be an additional tax to farmers at a time when they cannot afford it.

I would say, let us give farmers a choice. Do not make them automatically pay when you get to the elevator. This is a fundamental philosophy, Conservative philosophy. Choice--what happened to free choice? You allow people to choose what organization they wish to represent them. You do not make it mandatory like this legislation is doing, and just like any other organization, call for a vote. If the majority of people choose that, then you are in.

I think that if we look at the negative option, one government in particular took leadership, and I think that this government could learn from them. In that case, we saw from cablevision that it was the NDP government in B.C. that took the lead. You have the opportunity as government to change this legislation, make it democratic, make it an option and make it reasonable for farmers in Manitoba. That is why the negative option is not only of concern to the farmers, and in my case the potential farmer, but to every citizen in Manitoba that as we looked at the cable situation we said no to that. If we had had a stronger voice, we probably would have had another option for cablevision as well, but now that we have learned from that I do not think it would be wise, not prudent, to continue in this manner.

Give farmers a chance. Give farmers a chance to pick which union, which organization they wish to go with. You mail in later on, it is unfair; it is undemocratic and it is a bad idea.

This mandatory tax that the Conservatives are imposing with this proposed bill is very unreasonable at a time when there are rising transportation costs and very unstable conditions in the farm community.

The act actually has organizations applying to a certification agency which does not comprise of farmers alone. In fact, it is comprised of the University of Manitoba, the Manitoba Institute of Agrologists and the Union of Manitoba Municipalities.

I would question why they would choose to have this form of organization rather than looking at farmers having the ability to choose when they would go to the elevator or choose at any time to participate. My concern here is an organization has lobbied the government and the government is giving in. Why are they lobbying? If you look at what I understand, the Canola Producers have a membership of 400 members presently at $100 per member. They are looking at an annual budget of $40,000 for the organization. What will it be in the future? You are looking at 12,000 members, $100 each time. You are looking at over a million dollars for the organization. Obviously they are going to be appealing to the government to bring in legislation like this. It is basically a cash cow for them, but it is an unfair legislation.

I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), because I know that he is a very reasonable man who has lived on a farm, lives in a rural community. Many of his neighbours would object to this, this automatic checkoff, negative checkoff, so I am appealing to him, and in his wisdom he has seen that our suggestion--and he has agreed to it--to take out the committee hearings to rural Manitoba, that shows wisdom and consideration. What I am saying to the minister: Have a look at this program. It is really a mandatory, negative checkoff, not something we wish to impose on the farmers of Manitoba or on the citizens of Manitoba.

I appeal to the government to reconsider, and when they go out to rural Manitoba, to listen to the farmers there as they speak on behalf of farmers and communities in rural Manitoba and express their desire for free choice and the opportunity to choose which organization they belong to. Thank you.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I move, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that the debate on Bill 15 be adjourned.

Madam Speaker: No, it is standing. Leave was previously granted to allow the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who has 39 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

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

* (1530)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, yesterday I did get the opportunity to put at least on the record some of the concerns that we had. I would like to be able to expand on them. In fact, this bill takes a number of the points from the blueprint or the action plan, whatever one might want to call it, from the government dealing with education.

There were really six aspects to The Action Plan as the former Minister of Education brought to this Chamber. Essential learning was the first, followed by education standards and evaluations, school effectiveness, parental and community involvement, Distance Education and Technology and teacher education.

Madam Speaker, what we have found is that this particular whole plan that the government has brought together is somewhat questionable in terms of just exactly how much listening was done. We were pleased to see in fact that over the election there were some changes that were adopted, in particular around the Parent Advisory Councils. We had always believed that the teachers did have a role to play on the advisory councils so we were quite pleased to see that particular change in heart from the government, because, in fact, the parent councils do have a very vital role to play. In essence, one of the best ways you can improve the quality of education is by getting the parents more involved in what their children are doing in school. Anything at all that government can do to help or to assist in facilitating parents and community leaders getting involved, and teachers I should say, getting involved in a child's education, the better the quality of education that is ultimately going to be delivered.

Also, Madam Speaker, there was an issue which we had talked quite extensively about in the past and that was the whole role, the idea of suspending students. Again, a very significant issue and an issue in which we believed that this government when it originally proposed the bill on suspensions to allow teachers to suspend there was a great deal of concern in terms of consistency, how one teacher might even from within one school suspend a student compared to yet another teacher in that very same school. Consistency is in fact very important.

Speaking on strictly suspensions, it is far too easy for governments, when we say suspensions that we should actually be talking in my opinion and the party's opinion more towards things such as in-school suspensions. Nothing frustrates me more when I hear of a student who has been suspended outside of the school and there is nothing put into place in order to ensure that that student is not just going to be having a one-week holiday roaming the streets or doing who knows what, Madam Speaker. Both society and that particular individual and most importantly that individual do not benefit by those types of suspensions.

There is in fact a greater role in terms of thinking on what we should be doing when we talk about suspensions. We have to be creative. Some school divisions have in-school suspensions and have set up specific programs to deal with suspensions. It would be nice to see more school divisions move in that same sort of direction.

I have often talked about a code of conduct or behaviour. In fact, in the most recent election the Liberal Party proposed a province-wide code of behaviour, conduct in all of our schools. I do believe that is needed, that there are some things in which, no matter which region of the province that one lives in, that we have to understand and appreciate that the fact of the matter is, there are certain aspects of behaviour that should not be tolerated whatsoever in our schools.

Madam Speaker, there has to be an element of respect for the teacher. There has to be an element of respect for the student and, in fact, all individuals who are involved in our educational facilities. Quite often we forget that there is a lot more to the educational system than just the teacher and the student, and you have to take into account the support staff, the parents, and as I indicated earlier, the community leaders.

I have indicated that we do believe that we do need to make our schools safer by suspending students to a place which would in fact keep the students involved in some capacity, and I want to reemphasize that point. I am actually no longer the critic for Education for our party, but it was an issue which I followed and I will continue to follow.

I know the member for the Maples (Mr. Kowalski) was wanting to speak to the bill. Whether it is going to be in second reading or in committee stage or ultimately third reading, I am sure he will be given that opportunity to be able to say a few words. I know that he is definitely looking forward to this particular bill going into committee to hear presentations because, Madam Speaker, it is important that we hear from all the different people who are out there who have a lot of knowledge about educational reform.

This is a bill that does have many positive aspects to it but there are areas in which we do have some concern, and we look forward to seeing this particular bill heading off into the committee stage. Thanks for the opportunity to say a few words.

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

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to add my comments on Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act, that was introduced by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) prior to the summer recess.

I have had the opportunity to read through this piece of legislation and to consult with many of the principals, a good number of parents in my community and some teachers on this piece of legislation and also on Bill 6, I might add.

To be honest, I have never been a teacher in my working life and, of course, did not have a clear understanding of what it is that teachers and principals have to undertake by way of responsibilities and duties throughout the school day and throughout the school year, so I did make an effort to communicate with those that perform those functions on a daily basis.

I found that there seems to be a consensus on certain areas of the legislation, pro or con--and I will get to those in a few moments--amongst the principals, that is, and that in some cases some of the parents' groups are somewhat unclear on what the intent of the legislation is and the meaning because there is to this point in time no guidance having been provided by the Department of Education to the parents' groups that are currently operating within the community.

One of the things that I find interesting is the fact that the minister is now appearing to indicate that some of the parent groups and the policies that the school boards have had in place for a number of years are in some ways deficient and that they do not function. That is the perception that has been left with some of the parent councils and by some of the school trustees that I have had a chance to talk to. In fact, one of the teachers in my community even referenced the fact that when former Minister of Education Mr. Manness came forward with his discussion documents called Renewing Education: New Directions - The Action Plan and also other documents that he has come out with in addition to that document, it left the impression with teachers that teachers were doing a lousy job. This is a quote, Mr. Acting Speaker: that you teachers are doing a lousy job. You need a kick in the pants. That is the impression that is left in the minds of the teachers whom I spoke to in my community and they are their words, not mine.

* (1540)

They related that to me just this week in my discussions with them. I find it distressing that that would be the impression the teachers would have. The teachers, I am sure, try very hard to try and do the jobs to the best of their abilities and are making every effort to ensure that our children are nurtured, the learning environment is a nurturing environment for our children and it is done in the safest fashion possible, but to hear the teachers now saying that they sense that the former Minister of Education's policy meant that the teachers were not doing a good job leaves me with some concern that that would be their perception and that was the message that was conveyed to the teachers.

I imagine one of the things that contributed to that opinion by the teachers may have been the fact that teachers were excluded from participating in the Parent Advisory Councils. We know that after some consultation with the parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, school boards throughout the province that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) now relented and changed to allow for the inclusion of teachers to sit in or to be elected to Parent Advisory Councils where those teachers would have children within that school. I think that is a positive move. I think we should not in the initial discussion document have excluded teachers from being involved.

I think teachers have a positive role to play on Parent Advisory Councils. I know I have had the opportunity to sit in on Parent Advisory Councils within my own community and to listen to some of the comments. I know my own wife is involved on one of the advisory councils. I have been there and listened to the comments by other parents. They are very actively involved. There seems to be a philosophy within the parents of the community, I guess that is the phrase I want to use, that at the elementary school level the parents are very much active in the school life of their children.

They are very active in the parent advisory bodies that we have. We have had Parent Advisory Councils in the Transcona-Springfield School Division--12 since 1978, and there are policies that are in place to guide them for quite a number of years now. They have worked very effectively in advising not only the principals, teachers but also the school trustees as well because I have been at many school board meetings in my community and seen the various parent councils come before the school board meeting and make representation on a variety of topics.

I suppose one of the things that could change, and I am not exactly clear on how this functions, but it would seem to me that there needs to be a change in the communication that takes place between the Parent Advisory Councils and the elected trustees. There does not seem to be a clear method to allow that two-way communication to take place. So if I was to look at one area where I might want to make some changes that would be it, to allow the good ideas to flow in both directions so that there is that open communication.

One of the things that I noticed, judging by the legislation that is here and in talking with the parents of my community and the trustees and those that work within the schools, there does not seem to be a clear understanding of the word "advisory." In what capacity will this take place and how will it direct the parent councils as they try to perform their duties? Does it mean that they will then have the abilities to be involved in the day-to-day activities of the school? Will they be involved in matters dealing with personnel, including the hiring and firing of teachers and principals or will they be there to advise on matters pertaining to the budget, to the discipline of students that are within the schools itself?

I mean, there are many matters that are unclear in my mind on what the intent of this legislation is. Even the parents that I have talked to are not clear on what the intent is. I know, and I will relate to it a bit later in my comments because Transcona-Springfield School Division No. 12 just last week at their school board meeting released the policy document for school community councils, and they have left out the word "advisory" out of the title for those councils. I will get into the discussion on the document itself and the way they have laid it out.

One of the things that in my discussions with principals on the Parent Advisory Councils, every principal I spoke to was in favour and very much appreciated the work of the Parent Advisory Councils that are currently in place and see them playing a very significant role in the daily activities of the school. Where there was some difficulty was with the powers that could be assumed by a council, a Parent Advisory Council, in matters dealing with discipline--as the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) indicated a few moments ago--in dealing with hiring and firing and the personnel matters of the school, et cetera. The Parent Advisory Councils I talked to have expressed some concern about them themselves having the power to be involved to the level of hiring and firing of staff. The principals themselves are concerned that the parent councils would assume that responsibility taking away the ability of the principals to make recommendations to the elected body of people that we have, the school trustees, who are normally making those decisions now.

One of the issues that was raised by one of the principals in my community when he referenced the possibility that if Parent Advisory Councils take on the ability to hire and fire, for example, that there may be an opportunity for a special interest group--their words--to come forward and to apply for the right to have a parent council, and that these special interest groups would then be able to implement their particular mandate, the thing that they were most interested in accomplishing, thereby potentially undermining the ability and the rights of other parents within that school division. That was something that seemed to strike a chord amongst both principals and the Parent Advisory Councils that I currently have within the community of Transcona. It seems that the minister needs to clarify the intent of the advisory councils, and I have not seen any documentation to this point to indicate that the minister has given a clear direction or an interpretation of the word "advisory" because that seems to be the word that is used by the minister time in and time out.

The Transcona-Springfield School Division, as I indicated on September 8, released their document; the administration council of the Transcona-Springfield School Division recommended this policy. It was discussed by the school trustees; there were several parent councils represented in attendance as there were staff working within the division as well as the people who helped pull this together. There were several people. There was a group including the school trustees. Teacher and parent representatives also sat in on the advisory body in the establishment of this school communities council, which, I point out again, left out the word "advisory" out of it because they were unclear as to the role or the meaning of the word "advisory."

Unfortunately, and I need to get some clarification on the opening statement that is made in the document here regarding the establishment of school councils, where it says that school community councils are to be established at the local community school level, and then it says: Each school may establish a school community council.

The terms seem to be in contradiction with one another, and I anticipate I will get a clarification on that at the earliest opportunity.

It also says in the document here, and it has pulled out parts from the legislation and from the discussion documents that the Department of Education released, that a minimum of two-thirds of the school community council must be parents or legal guardians of children who are attending the school. Now we know that there has been a change now to include the teachers on those school councils as well.

One of the things in reference to the school community councils that the parents referenced and the principals referenced in my discussions with them, and I know it forms part of the discussion document, New Directions, the action plan, wherein the Parent Advisory Councils are said to play a role in the development of the school budgets. Well, I asked that question specifically of the principals to find out what role and duties they play in the development of the budgets for their own specific schools, and what they told me was that the principals have very little in the way of discretionary spending that is given to them, discretionary spending powers, and that most of the items that are flowing from the budget that is directed by the school trustees come about as a result of the FRAME document, I believe. There is very little latitude that is given to principals outside of that. Certain monies have to flow as a result of the FRAME formula as it is referred to.

I find it, then, unusual that the minister's intent by way of Bill 5 says that parent councils now have to play a role in the development of the budget for the schools. When you compare that to the minimal role that the principals now play in the development of the budgets, how is it that we are going to transfer some of those duties or all of those duties and responsibilities to the parent councils? When it is so minuscule the amount of participation that principals play, where are we going to get that for the parent councils?

* (1550)

So unless the minister is intending that those powers will come from the school board trustees, who are duly elected, I thought, and transferred to the parent councils, which is the only way I can see that that would take place. If that is the case, the minister is then saying that we are going to water down the responsibilities of the elected school trustees and give those powers to the parent councils.

One of the other issues that is also described as the powers that are going to be given to the principals and the parent advisory councils is that dealing with the issues of student transportation, the bus transportation for the students. Well, it has been an issue that has been very much in the minds of parents within the Transcona-Springfield School Division, at least during the five or so years that I have been the MLA for Transcona. It seems that every year, in August and September, I get a multitude of calls from concerned parents who have been advised that they have lost school bus transportation.

Now, other members of the House may get similar calls from their own constituents either saying that there has been a change in policy or that there has been some change in how it is calculated on the distance. It is my understanding that the provincial formula that is in place mandates a minimum, that students living 1.6 kilometres from the school should be provided transportation. There has been a discussion amongst the school trustees in my community and the parents about how that is interpreted. Does it mean from the door of the home, the edge of the property, the edge of the school property, the door of the school? It can make a significant difference to some parents who have very young children.

We all know that there are cases where students as young as five and a half years of age can enter the school system in Grade 1 and that those students within the city of Winnipeg here, for example, that could live 1.599 kilometres from school would be ineligible to be bussed. They may have to cross several major traffic arteries within the community, and that could put at risk those very young children who have not maybe received all of the instruction that they need on how to proceed safely to the schools. So there is quite a bit of discussion taking place within my community, and I listened to the comments of the parents who came before the Transcona-Springfield School Division board meeting last week. We had the parents reciting or saying over and over again that they were very concerned for the safety of their children, their very, very young children, as they attempt to get to the schools and then back home again.

I looked at the policy, and I have talked to officials in the Department of Education. I have talked to the parents. I have talked to the trustees to find out if there is a way that we could make improvements to allow for the safety and the ability of the students to go to and from school safely.

One recommendation I might make for the Minister of Education that would impact and, I think, instill some sense of security in the minds of the parents who are now worried is to look at the formula that is used, the 1.6 kilometre formula that is used, and to allow the formula to change in such a way that would take into account the age of the children, the distance that they have to travel and perhaps any safety hazards that may be along the way between the home and the school, in other words, dealing with traffic, the neighbourhood, the environment that the children have to walk through, and to do that in a graduated way so that perhaps children from the age of five to eight years would be eligible for school bus transportation to and from school and taking into consideration that fact that we want to look at reducing the distances for which transportation would be provided, also, take a look at the fact that there are hazards that are in there that should be part of the criteria for the determination of whether the children are eligible or ineligible for that transportation.

Now, the same could apply for the older children, perhaps from nine to, I think it is, 12. That is the next point where the transportation cut-off point could occur in that those children may not be bussed unless there are certain hazards along the way, certain safety factors preventing them from going to and from school safely and maybe setting at that point that transportation should be provided at the 1.6 kilometre range.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

I throw those suggestions and put the suggestions out for the minister's consideration. I know I have had a chance to talk with some of the parents in my community as recently as last evening, who approached me again at a community function, that they want to see some changes in there. When I proposed those ideas, they seemed to think that it was worthy of further discussion to arrive at some means or some consensus of ensuring that the very young children, I am sure we all have a serious interest in protecting, will be able to go to and from school. So I throw that out for the minister's advice.

Bill 5 itself, The Education Administration Act, has three distinct sections, including the duties of principals, the school advisory councils and the suspension of pupils. I talked about two of the areas, the duties of principals to some degree, as much as I understand it and was explained to me by the principals and the school advisory councils.

The other area I would like to talk a bit about is the ability to suspend pupils from schools. Now, in the Transcona-Springfield School Division, we currently have policies in place that have been developed by the school trustees over the years to provide some direction for the principals within the various schools of the communities and the teachers and how they are to deal with certain matters related to behaviour that is not considered to be normal, both by the students and also dealing with any parents or any other outsiders that may come into the school property. It seems to have worked very successfully, from what I am told by the principals that I have talked to. The principals themselves are now wondering why the minister is looking at making these changes, unless there are some other school divisions in the province with which I am not familiar and the impact that it might have on those divisions if they do not have a policy, but our particular division does have a policy, and I am told that it works effectively.

The principals have told me, and I was shocked to learn, that there are cases where adults come onto the school property and create a disturbance, in some cases, under the influence of certain substances, and it can create problems. Fortunately, we have had very good services provided in a very timely fashion by the District 4 police so that when a principal calls, it becomes a priority call and the police will respond quickly to the needs of the school.

One of the other areas that the principals described to me was that occasionally they will get parents who will come into the school, walk right past the office, go right into the classroom and want to take on the teacher, I guess, to strip off the teacher for whatever reason. That, I believe, needs to be corrected. That is an education of the parents, though. That is not a change required in the policy. The principals and the school trustees can educate the parents of the proper protocol or the proper procedures. If a parent has a problem with some of the policies of the school or the education direction that the children are receiving, then it must be done in an orderly way to involve the principal, the school trustee, if necessary, and the teacher, at a meeting that can be arranged that is mutually convenient to everyone, not just to walk into the classroom. So there are ways that it can be dealt with, but unfortunately not all parents are educated as to what would be the proper way to do that, and we have had circumstances within our school division where the principals have had to deal with situations such as this.

We have also had occasions where certain people have come into the school, and I know it was in the media just, I believe it was, in the last year and a half where we had what some might consider to be gang-related activity. Now, whether that is an appropriate term or not I am not sure because I do not believe--

* (1600)

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The hour being 4 p.m., as previously agreed, it is time for private members' hour.

When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) will have 16 minutes remaining.