Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The Committee of Supply will come to order. We have before us for our consideration two resolutions respecting the Interim Supply bill. The first resolution reads as follows:

RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding $1,942,548,615, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set forth in Part A of the Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 2000.

Shall the resolution pass?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I would just seek your advice. I do have a couple of questions. Here are probably a few questions I would like to put forward to the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae). Could you indicate to me as to when the most appropriate time would be to place those questions?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes, this would be the appropriate time.

Mr. Lamoureux: I had chosen to wait until Interim Supply, and I did that for a reason. A number of days ago during the Estimates when Education was up, I had raised a really important issue in regard to what was happening on the standard exams. I had raised it because a constituent of mine had brought the issue to me, and I had made a commitment to raise it during the Estimates. A lot has happened since then, and, as a result of that, I had posed a couple of questions during Question Period but quickly realizing that I was getting very little headway. I thought I would wait until the Interim Supply where I could maybe take my time in posing the questions, and we would not necessary get as much posturing on the issue from all sides of the House. I think what is happening is that, because it is such a strong issue of a political nature, the motivation seems to be one of party politics as opposed to what we had raised a number of months ago, and that is the reason why.

I ask the House to indulge with me while I get on the record some of the concerns that I have in hopes to somehow convince the Minister of Education to see the merits of what it was that I was asking the Minister of Education to do.

* (1640)

In my mind I had thought, and I believe I raised the issue with the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski): is this in fact a matter of privilege because it is limiting the way in which I can represent Manitobans as a whole on a vitally important issue? I did feel personally quite slighted when I was initially told that I cannot talk to Jim Treller. I have not talked to Jim Treller for months. It would have been advantageous for me to have had some sort of dialogue or discussion with Mr. Treller so that I could get a better assessment in terms of where it is this particular individual is going, how this individual feels, if in fact he was off because of health reasons, he had to take time off as a result of that incident back in June of last year. You know, there are so many questions that I would have welcomed to have asked Mr. Treller. I have not forced the issue with Mr. Treller because I do not want to cause more problems for this particular individual because I know that there were issues such as professional misconduct that were levelled against him. I understand that those allegations have in fact been dropped.

I know, whenever an issue of this nature occurs, there is always the temptation to get legal assistance. At the time, again, a number of months ago, that was not even being addressed. The onus, from what I understand at the time back then, was that he would have to find his own lawyer; he would have to pay his own legal bills. Well, Mr. Chairperson, what I would like to know from the government, first and foremost, before we get into the integrity of those exams, is the case of Mr. Treller. I believe that Mr. Treller did what he was obligated to do, what we would have expected all of our teachers that were supervising those standard exams, that this Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae), this government mandated this individual to report that breach.

I would like to refrain from the politics of the Brian O'Leary and so forth. That we will get into, but right now, for this particular answer, what message does the Minister of Education want to send to this particular teacher who followed his directive?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has raised, on a number of occasions now, a matter which is multidimensional in its effects and in its scope. The honourable member centres his comments today around Mr. Jim Treller, and I can understand a member of the Legislature taking a responsible approach and dealing with the matter in the way that the honourable member for Inkster is doing. That is the right and the duty of an MLA to advocate, I suggest, on behalf of constituents in this place. So I have no criticism for the honourable member for Inkster, although he has been critical of myself and the handling of this matter by the government. I can understand where he is coming from even in that regard. I will attempt in a very few moments to explain the situation as I see it today, especially when we know that tomorrow will be a significant day in this whole rather unfortunate set of circumstances.

I cannot be quite as kind to members of the New Democratic Party on this topic as the honourable member for Inkster can be. You have to remember that I am from Brandon, Mr. Chairman, and I sit here as a Brandonite week in and week out in this Legislature. I look at the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), and it appears to me that he is amassing quite a record for himself, a record of double standard and of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy does not surprise me; I have seen it for all the years I have been in this House, and maybe I have seen elements of double standard. But I am noticing in recent times that double standard is becoming more and more pronounced.

So we see in the City of Brandon, for example, the Leader of the Opposition defending abuse of authority on the part of a city councillor who just happens to be a candidate for the New Democratic Party. We see in the case raised by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in which one, Mr. Brian O'Leary, has acknowledged the inappropriate opening of an exam package in a province-wide examination program. This Mr. O'Leary happens to be the campaign manager for the New Democratic Party in the upcoming provincial election. I mean, there are parallels here.

We on this side of the House have been hearing a number of things said about the Monnin inquiry and all of the things the Premier (Mr. Filmon) should do or should not do or has not done and has done, and a lot of righteous indignation coming from members of the new Democratic Party but a conspiracy of silence. Indeed this afternoon, the two ears in the New Democratic Party listening to my comments this afternoon are all we have to hear what is going on in this committee this afternoon.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Let me just advise the member that we should not draw too close to the lines. We are all aware of what the rules are, and we should choose our words very carefully.

The honourable minister, to continue.

Mr. McCrae: Yes, indeed, we should, Mr. Chairman, and I accept what you have had to say. But I must say, how else are we in this province going to be able to make appropriate decisions about the choices that we make when we have this clear case of a double standard, where we have the campaign manager, the provincial campaign manager for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Brian O'Leary, acknowledging wrongdoing in breaching security respecting the administration of the province-wide examination program, and we hear nothing? We hear a deafening silence from the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Concordia. In fact, there is a conspiracy of silence going on in the New Democratic Party.

* (1650)

The honourable member has alleged, or has passed on the allegation, which, perhaps is a fairer way of putting it, that the reputation of Mr. Jim Treller has been damaged by this set of circumstances, references even to his health, to the fact that perhaps due to the events surrounding Mr. O'Leary's wrongdoing and Mr. Treller's alleged treatment in this regard his health has suffered as a direct result of all of that and that he has had to take time off work as a result of the acknowledged wrongdoing of Mr. Brian O'Leary.

The honourable member has made reference to a gag order, repercussions, intimidation, with respect to Mr. Treller's role here. These are matters which, if true, would be a matter of very significant concern, and I am not in a position to say if they are true or not true, but I do know that some months ago the Deputy Minister of Education and Training asked the Superintendent of Schools for Seven Oaks School Division, Mr. Wiens, to give us a report on what it is the school division is doing with respect to these matters. I have been advised that tomorrow, June 18, we will receive that report, but we read in the public media that Mr. Wiens thinks no harm has been done. This is the same person who is going to be providing us with a report tomorrow who has already let it be known that no harm has been done.

I am not sure about that. The allegations being passed on today by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), which reflect things he has been hearing in his constituency, suggest that perhaps harm was done, significant harm. None of this is to say anything about my concern as a Minister of Education under whose responsibility rests the administration of the whole standards and testing program that we have in our school system. Somebody says no harm is done when there has been a breach of security; how can somebody be so sure about that? I do not know, but I think we need to find out the answers to those questions.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairman, I started off in terms of talking about the politics and the potential politics. It is a very interesting story in terms of the politics of this particular issue. There is no doubt about that. The more specific question that I had asked the minister was in terms of the message that he would want to convey to Mr. Treller. I personally believe that Mr. Treller is owed some form of an apology. I base it on a breakfast round table that I was asked to come to where Mr. Treller and a group of his peers were around there. They were all talking about how Mr. Treller is no longer going to be teaching math because he squealed on the person that actually breached the security. It was most unfortunate to see that sort of perception being given.

So, in my opinion, the perception has cost Mr. Treller a great deal in terms of his reputation. I have not had it confirmed first-hand only because of the gag order that I believe it also has had a serious impact on his health and well-being. If in fact that is the case, I would have expected the minister to acknowledge that there is a need for some form of compensation, for the minister to acknowledge that there is a need to take some form of action that would try to return some of that reputation that Mr. Treller had lost from it. That is really what it is that I was looking in terms of the minister to get a response. Of course, and it almost slipped my mind, the issue of any sort of actions that Mr. Treller might need, i.e., a lawyer in order to assist in defending. He should not have the responsibility, I believe, of having to defend himself, given the information that I have been provided.

Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, I do want to venture into the breach itself. As I indicated, there is really at the core two issues, the one being the human side, and the minister in his next response wants to comment further. I did pose the question already in regard to that, but if he wants to add to it, I would welcome that in his next response, but now I want to move on in terms of the breach.

The question is: was there any harm done? The minister has already made reference to the superintendent implying that he did not see any harm being done. I would argue that a great deal of harm has been done. You have, which is now fairly well known in the educational circles, a serious breach of a standard exam. That standard exam breach resulted in, from the best that I can tell, no action against or no report in regard to the individual that breached the security of the standard exam. To believe that that has no long-term or short-term implications to other school divisions or other teachers, I would think one would have to be incredibly naive. You put into place a process which is there to protect the integrity of the exams. You expect our people who are responsible for the implementation of those exams to behave in a very professional manner, even if that means if you oppose. If I as a teaching supervisor take great exception to the government forcing me to put into place a standard exam, even if I oppose it tremendously, if it goes against my principles that to implement the standard exams on whatever grade levels is just wrong, I still have my job as a professional, and it is part of my job is to ensure that those standard exams are, in fact, respected.

* (1700)

I believe that a vast majority of our teachers would see it in the same way in which I have just finished saying it. Well, when we look at the incident or the actual breach, Mr. Chairperson, it has to now put a supervising teacher of these standard exams in a very awkward position. In committee, I said to the minister it took a lot of courage for Mr. Treller to do what he did. The minister's response was, well, not necessarily courage; he did what he was supposed to do. It was his duty to report the breach.

An Honourable Member: And it did take courage.

Mr. Lamoureux: It did take courage, but he implied that it was the teacher's duty. The Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) is correct. It was his duty to do it.

I believe that if there were breaches that were occurring since then or even prior to then, that the chances of someone reporting a breach today are not that great, Mr. Chairperson. I really believe that. I do not think that a teacher, even though it is their duty to report the amount of pressure that is being put on them, I believe is not acceptable. You cannot give a directive and not stand by the person who follows that directive. I think that that is the way most people, including myself, perceive it. The provincial government has given a directive and is not standing behind it. As a result of not standing behind it, one has to question the integrity of that particular directive.

Now, having said that, I feel somewhat alone in raising this issue. I do believe that if the politics were different, if it would have been a Conservative situation, a Conservative tie-in to it, that I would have at least 25 members of this Chamber that would be hounding on this government and claiming all sorts of unethical actions. I really believe that to be the case. I also believe that you would have 25 members of this Chamber at the very least demanding that there be an independent investigation because of the political nature. If you had a conspiracy of silence or if you had the same situation reversed in another school division which the party ties were that strong as they are in this particular one, but just happens to be for the official opposition, that a Department of Education investigation would not be good enough, that you would have 25 members demanding an independent investigation. If we did not get an independent investigation, they would be demanding your resignation, Mr. Minister. I really believe that.

You have got to be very careful when you comment on the members of the media. You have to be careful because you do not necessarily want to slight people which you want ultimately some day to be able to schmooze a little bit and possibly get them to take a spin which you want to see, and so forth. So I look at this particular issue, and I believe because it happens to be the official opposition and even because it is me as a member of the Liberal Party raising this issue, that the issue in itself is being brought down a little bit in terms of public importance.

I really believe that this is an important issue for the public to be aware of. I believe that for a number of reasons. It saddens me in part that this particular issue has not warranted the type of attention that it deserves, because I believe that standard exams are a good thing if in fact they are properly utilized. I disagree with the Grade 3 level, but I believe that the minister and this department and this government are causing a grave injustice to the integrity of those exams that has an impact on those standard exams and how successful they will be in the future, and Lord knows we pay a bundle in order to implement these standard exams.

I believe that integrity is what is important here. That integrity is being called into question. Because it happens to be the campaign manager of the New Democratic Party and others, I tell you, you would not believe the amount of comment and feedback that I get on this particular issue. The minister makes reference to the conspiracy of silence, the affiliation of the superintendent within the New Democratic Party and the affiliation with the principal within the New Democratic Party. Was there any sort of discussion amongst MLAs in the current New Democratic caucus with those individuals in terms of what should we be doing?

I think that there is a huge Pandora's box that is there. The report comes out tomorrow. There is nothing in that report that I would give any credibility to, absolutely nothing. I am telling you that today because I do not believe that there is going to be a sense of fairness in that report. I believe, as many of my constituents believe, that it will in fact be a whitewash. I do not question that. But you know something, it will be the poor whistle-blower who is going to pay the price on the human side. It is going to be the integrity of the standard exams that is going to pay the public interest's price.

* (1710)

That is the reason why I asked the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) that no matter what the Minister of Education says or does on this particular issue in terms of its investigation, I am not going to give that any credibility either. I believe that the Department of Education is not in a position in order to investigate what actually took place at The Maples high school. I really believe that. I believe that the Department of Education would do a disservice if they believed that they could investigate this whole issue. That is the reason why I, along with members from my party, believe what is necessary is an independent investigation. That is the reason why I asked the question the other day of the minister, Mr. Chairman, to lobby, to get the Minister of Education to acknowledge that just given the very political nature of this issue, no matter what the report comes down on with tomorrow, no matter what sort of a report that the Department of Education is going to be given, both of those reports will carry zero credibility with an objective public.

I believe that if I sat down with a group of truly independent individuals and I had members from within the department and members from within the school division, at the end of the discussion I would in fact be able to win the argument for an independent investigation. I argue for an independent investigation with the information that has been provided to me. I will continue to argue for the independent investigation for two primary reasons. If the minister believes in standard exams, then he has got to be concerned about the integrity of the system and the very serious breach that has occurred. If the minister believes in justice, and being a former Minister of Justice, justice for the teacher in this particular issue, then the minister will see, as I see, the need to have an independent investigation. There is no need for us even to wait till tomorrow's report. There really and truly is not.

An Honourable Member: People's reputations.

Mr. Lamoureux: Oh, no, reputations are important at many different levels. No doubt the impact of an independent investigation could have a very serious impact on the provincial election that is up and coming, whenever it might be. There is a very good chance of that. I am not going to say that that is not the case. But we can see an independent investigation come to a conclusion, in all likelihood, within three weeks. It is not going to be something that is going to be where you have to get all these groupings of individuals to sit around a table and debate it endlessly and have a 5,000-page report. I do believe that it is important to get someone who has some stature within the community that would be perceived as being apolitical.

I was talking with my colleague for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) as to the types of personalities. One individual who came up was Bill Norrie. Bill Norrie has done work in the past on education-related issues, in particular the boundary redistribution issue. There are many quite capable, competent lawyers that have excellent reputations of being apolitical, Mr. Chairperson, that the government can tap into.

Well, the benefits of that independent investigation, imagine if you are a teacher over at Maples high school and you have someone that is now approaching you from the school division and saying, well, what do you think really happened there, Mr. So-and-So or Mrs. So-and-So? To what degree do I give that confidence in terms of getting fair, honest, open representation of the facts? I think that there is a good argument to be made that if you have someone that comes in from the outside that is really and truly independent and that person who is being interviewed does not have to worry about his or her future as a result of saying something, I think there is a lot of merit to that. I really believe that.

Equally, Mr. Chairperson, if you had the deputy minister himself or one of the deputies, you know, John Carlyle, sitting down with a teacher and John Carlyle says, well, what do you think about this unethical behaviour or trying to imply something? That could, in fact, have an impact, or whoever John Carlyle or the minister actually takes from within the Department of Education. I believe that that, too, will bias the type of comments that could be made and would be made.

I would be very much interested in having a discussion with what I know of the incident with whomever the investigator, an independent investigator. I have very little interest in meeting with the school division or the Department of Education, because I do not give them any credibility, but if it was an independent investigator, I would be quite content on sharing with that individual what I know has occurred in this particular situation. I really believe that an independent investigator would in fact be able to quickly assess what has actually transpired.

The type of action, like what should happen as a result of it, well, that is something which at this stage I am not prepared to comment on. I must say, my initial response, we had found out months and months ago that this breach of security occurred. I would have been a lot more sympathetic if the day that the breach occurred, for example, you get an admission, yes, it was the wrong thing to do, I should not have done it, and here are the circumstances of what happened, and it will not happen again. The individual who breaks the breach is slapped on the wrist, and so forth.

* (1720)

Mr. Chairperson, a lot has happened since then. I believe that there has been an attempt to cover this whole issue up. That is what really offends me, the cover-up. I believe that there was a serious attempt to keep members of the public and the Department of Education, who has been negligent, in the dark on what actually has taken place. I find that to be quite upsetting. When we look at the parameters as to what this independent investigator should be looking into or looking at, I would suggest to you that there are a number of things, and if the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) saw fit to recognize the importance of the independent investigator, I would be more than happy to elaborate on a few of those points as to what I believe this independent investigator should be looking into.

Right off the hand, it is stating the most obvious: the actual breach itself; what actually took place; what the motivation was behind the breach; who was actually involved in the breach. I have heard all sorts of stories as to why it was breached: a lack in confidence in what it is the province was doing; they wanted nothing to do with it. Was that breach used to facilitate an opposition party inside the Chamber? I do not know, and that is a very serious allegation.

I believe that we have to look at what actually has taken place. I made reference, has the official opposition tried to influence in any fashion the report that is going to be coming out? Well, that is the political side of it. That is the political side in which it is very easy for us to get up and start demanding and calling into question the ethics, and we have seen many examples of that already. But, if we get lost in that aspect of it, believe it or not, I believe we are doing a disservice to the issue at hand, the core issue of the integrity of the standard exams and the core issue of what has happened to this particular individual.

Mr. McCrae: I know the honourable member has been pressing me, and I appreciate all the reasons why. I will acknowledge this afternoon that the things that the honourable member brings forward make it more and more imperative that we simply get to the bottom of what happened in Seven Oaks School Division surrounding this matter, which began with the admitted breach of the security arrangements by Mr. Brian O'Leary, then principal of the Maples Collegiate.

The honourable member will no doubt be a little disappointed in my answer this afternoon because it does not round out the circle, and I acknowledge that. I am just saying to the honourable member that I am as interested as he is in getting to the bottom of this, but having a look at the report Mr. Wiens will be making available tomorrow, I think I owe that courtesy. That being said, by Mr. Wiens's own words, I have reason to be curious. I have reason to be worried about what that report is going to tell us because Mr. Wiens has already determined that no harm was done by this breach.

An Honourable Member: Well, why would he do that?

Mr. McCrae: Well, that does not accord very well with any of the allegations that the honourable member for Inkster is raising this afternoon with respect to Mr. Treller's reputation being damaged, with respect to issues related to Mr. Treller's health, with respect to a gag order brought in by senior people in the school division, complete with intimidation of Mr. Treller and the role of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. All of these questions are now hanging there. If the report that we receive tomorrow does not deal in any adequate way to answer those questions, then we have a problem. We have a problem that no one in a democratic society should feel satisfied has been resolved when it has not.

If you do not think this is important, if you do not think the conspiracy of silence on the part of the New Democrats does not speak volumes about their own ethics and political morality in this situation, let me read something to you, Mr. Chairman. I am reading from a transcript of a radio talk show program on which the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was a guest. Well, he was talking about the Monnin report. This was on March 30, and this is a transcript of that conversation between Mr. Charles Adler on the one hand and the Leader of the Opposition on the other hand: Well, he said: if I appoint somebody to be the campaign manager of our party and appoint him as the secretary to the chief of staff position and the secretary of cabinet, Treasury Board is responsible in these kinds of allegations, I would take responsibility under responsible government and resign.

So if you do not think it is important, these kinds of matters, that is what the Leader of the Opposition said just some two and a half months ago. Today and yesterday and on each day that the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has raised this wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Brian O'Leary, campaign manager for the New Democratic Party, we have heard deafening silence. In fact, I think I have heard the Leader of the Opposition from his seat uttering words of commendation of Mr. Brian O'Leary. However, he will have to correct me if I am wrong about that. The fact is, Mr. Treller, I assume, and I am looking at the honourable member for Inkster for confirmation, I assume none of these questions would be hanging in the air today if Mr. Brian O'Leary had not inappropriately, wrongly opened the examination package relating to the Standards Testing Program in the province of Manitoba, something that Mr. O'Leary has admitted doing. But, oh, we are going to hear apparently that there was no harm done. So I guess that is okay. To those who want to sustain a conspiracy of silence, I guess it is okay.

You know, when I look back over the events of the last year, Mr. Chairman, and I see the various things said about this person and that and I think of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and his gratuitous pot shots at innocent individual people even as late as yesterday, people doing their work in the public service or wherever they happen to be as if they are somehow distantly acquainted with the members of the governing party in Manitoba, then they are fair game to take pot shots at. Never mind people's reputations; that does not matter. Never mind people's physical health; that does not matter. If you are not a New Democrat, I guess you can just take those sorts of pot shots and it does not matter; if you are not a New Democrat, it is fair game to take pot shots at people.

An Honourable Member: Why not?

Mr. McCrae: There we go. The honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has just confirmed by saying why not as he sits there laughing about the acknowledged misbehaviour of his own campaign manager, Brian O'Leary. He is giving him the old thumbs up, as I speak.

Now, Mr. Chairman, are the New Democrats serious or are they not serious about appropriate activity in the political realm? I repeat, I would take responsibility under responsible government and resign. Who said that? That was the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Crescentwood.

An Honourable Member: Concordia.

* (1730)

Mr. McCrae: Concordia, I am sorry. I quote: Well, if I appoint somebody to be the campaign manager of our party and appoint him as the secretary to the chief of staff position and the secretary of cabinet, Treasury Board is responsible in these kinds of allegations, I would take responsibility under a responsible government and resign.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues have been very high and mighty in these last months, Mr. Chairman. They have been very righteously indignant about every little thing that has been happening here in the province of Manitoba. We know some of the things that have happened in the province of Manitoba have not been right, and significant actions have been taken. What actions has the Leader of the Opposition taken with respect to his own campaign manager, let alone himself, when he says he would resign when faced with similar circumstances?

So the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) wants to talk about an independent inquiry. I guess what he is saying by making that request is that the superintendent of the Seven Oaks School Division is simply not independent enough. I suppose one could argue that. But all I am asking at this stage is that the honourable member be patient at least until tomorrow until I can have a look at the report which is expected from the Seven Oaks School Division. But, given the history of this thing, the time some of this is taking, I can understand the honourable member's concern. Given the allegations that he is hearing, the honourable member is probably in such a position that he would likely be asked to make information available to the very independent inquiry that he is asking for.

So I do not know that I can let him name the participants in such a hypothetical, at this point, inquiry, if the honourable member is privy to certain information. Now, I know sometimes it is secondhand, sometimes it is not, but I cannot really talk about that very much at this point. I am, to say the least, concerned.

From a political standpoint, I mean, it is the double standard here that bothers me so much. I mean, we have a conspiracy of silence respecting this. We have outright defending and supporting of a city councillor in Brandon who inappropriately abuses his authority, who just happens to be the candidate for the NDP in Brandon West, and the Leader of the Opposition outright defends that person's behaviour and, in this case, silence.

The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) referred to the role of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Who has been the president up until recently until defeat by a democratic vote, who has been the president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society but one Ian MacIntyre. And what is he doing now? Well, he is seeking nomination for the New Democratic Party in River East.

The honourable member for Inkster refers to party politics and the political nature of all of this. Who am I to say, except with all those questions he leaves me here in the Legislature, he leaves me to deal with all these questions, and what do we get from the New Democratic Party with respect to all of their friends?

Some Honourable Members: Silence.

Mr. McCrae: A conspiracy of silence in this House, and who knows where else that conspiracy may exist?

So I am saying to the honourable member, I am listening to what he is asking, I am taking note of the recommendations and suggestions he is making. I want to get to the truth of this matter. Manitobans need to know the truth of the matter. When the honourable member talks about Mr. Treller, I get very strong feelings inside as he talks about that, and for obvious reasons. If these things should turn out to be true, they are very serious matters.

What kind of message does Brian O'Leary send to other teachers across Manitoba when he can break the rules with impunity? What kind of message does that send to the children, that a school principal in this province can break the rules and not very long after get a promotion to assistant superintendent in the school division? What kind of message is that? Will Mr. Wiens's report tomorrow answer that question? Mr. Chairman, stay tuned.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, a question for the Minister of Education. Obviously I am going to have to learn to accept, I guess, that some arguments I just cannot necessarily win in terms of calling for an independent investigation today.

Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, I do believe that the minister will have the report tomorrow, and no doubt he will have a couple of days to review it. Can I at the very least get a commitment from the Minister of Education that this government or the Department of Education will not lead any form of an investigation, that the Department of Education will not lead any investigation into this matter, given the very political nature, given the allegations of NDP conspiracy and the Tories want blood through the jugular on this particular issue? Given the context of the issue, will the Minister of Education, at the very least, commit today to not having an investigation from within his own department? If he is not satisfied with the report that he receives tomorrow, if he is not satisfied with that report, will the Minister of Education commit to an independent investigation as a form of an appeal of that particular report?

Mr. McCrae: I do not think that we should conclude at any time that I would want to be part of any review or investigation that does not have some integrity, some quality in it. I know what the honourable member is saying; I know that he is saying that there are politics at the school division level, where there is already some report being prepared. I do not want the honourable member to be misled into thinking that that is the result of investigation, because, to be fair, the deputy minister asked the school division: what have you done about this wrongdoing on the part of Mr. O'Leary, the school principal involved?

That is basically what is being inquired into here, and, for the life of me, I cannot figure out either why it has taken so long to get the answer. But we have been told that tomorrow we should have it. And so I am not going to compound the problem by any kind of thought of any kind of further review that would not be anything but independent.

Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? The question before the committee: is it the will of the committee to adopt the resolution?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: Agreed and so ordered. The resolution is accordingly passed.

The second resolution respecting Interim Supply reads as follows:

RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding $39,639,880, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted, as set out in Part B of the Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 2000.

* (1740)

Is the committee ready for the question? Shall the resolution pass?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: The resolution is accordingly passed.

This section of the committee shall rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted two resolutions respecting Interim Supply, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), that the report of the committee be received.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways (Mr. Praznik), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of ways and means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The Committee of Ways and Means will come to order, please. We have before us for our consideration two resolutions respecting the Interim Supply bill. The first resolution reads as follows:

RESOLVED that towards making good the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenditures of the Public Service, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000, the sum of $1,942,548,615, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set forth in Part A of the Estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000, laid before the House at the present session of the Legislature, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund.

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

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: Agreed and so ordered.

The second resolution reads as follows:

RESOLVED that towards making good the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenditures for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000, the sum of $39,639,880, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in Part B of the Estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000, laid before the House at the present session of the Legislature, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund.

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

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: Agreed and so ordered.

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has adopted two resolutions respecting Interim Supply, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), that the report of the committee be received.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Praznik), that leave be given to introduce Bill 32, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1999 (Loi de 1999 portant affectation anticipée de credits), and that the same be now received, read a first time, and ordered for second reading immediately.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Praznik), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider and report of Bill 32, The Interim Appropriation Act, for third reading.

Mr. Chairperson: The Committee of the Whole will come to order to consider Bill 32, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1999.

Does the honourable Minister of Finance have an opening statement?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill 32 is required to provide interim spending and commitment authority for the 1999-2000 fiscal year pending approval of the 1999 Appropriation Act. You may have noticed that Bill 32 is different from previous Interim Appropriation Acts. It now has two parts for 1999 and 2000 expenditure authority, Part A that provides authority for operating expenditure and Part B that provides authority for capital investment. This is to accommodate the change in accounting policy being implemented in 1999-2000 with respect of recording and reporting of tangible capital assets of the province in accordance with standards issued for governments by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Under our previous accounting policy, the amount of expenditure to purchase an asset was recorded in the year that the asset was acquired. Under the new policy, the cost of acquiring an asset will be amortized over its useful life. In 1999-2000, this amortization charge will include the amortization expense for any asset acquired and put into use during the fiscal year as well as the annual amortization expense for assets acquired in prior fiscal years that have a remaining useful life. The amortization expense will continue in future years until an asset is disposed of or reaches the end of its useful life. Essentially, amortization charges will be recorded annually in Part A, estimates of operating expenditure to reflect the support each asset provides to the operations of government along with all other expenditures required to carry out programming in a given year.

The cost of acquiring an asset will be authorized through Part B capital investment. This authority is only in place for acquisition of assets on an annual basis and will lapse at the end of each fiscal year. This means that, for multiyear projects, this authority represents only the expenditure required in a given year. An abatement clause has also been included to rescind the special warrant which currently provides spending authority to facilitate government operations. The amount of interim spending authority included in Section 2 of Bill 32 is $1,942,548,615 or 35 percent of $5,550,138,900, which is the amount to be voted as contained in the 1999-2000 Part A Estimates of Operating Expenditure. This amount is expected to last until approximately the end of July 1999.

* (1750)

Section 3 of Bill 32 includes an amount of capital investment authority of $39,639,880 or 35 percent, which is the amount to be voted as contained in the 1999-2000 Part B Estimates of Capital Investment. This amount is expected to last until approximately the end of July 1999.

Section 4 allows for the recording of the amortization of a capital asset over the recognized life of the capital asset. The amortization of the asset becomes an annual expense for which there is no cash outlay.

Section 5 provides authority of up to $100 million to make commitments beyond the 1999-2000 fiscal year to ensure the completion of projects or fulfilment of contracts initiated but not completed prior to March 31, 2000. Expenditures on these commitments may not be made in the 1999-2000 fiscal year unless additional spending authority is provided.

Section 6 provides that expenditures made under the special warrant issued pursuant to Order-in-Council 158/1999 shall be deemed to have been made under the authority of this act and the said special warrant shall cease to have effect on the coming into force of this act. This Order-in-Council was approved to provide interim funding for the 1999-2000 expenditure authority pending approval of an appropriation act by the Legislature.

Section 7 stipulates that once another appropriation act is passed, any funds expended or committed under the authority of this interim appropriation act will be deemed to have been made under the authority of the subsequent appropriation act.

Section 8 simply affirms that money expended under the authority of this act must be duly accounted for.

Mr. Chairperson, with these comments, I commend the bill to the members of the committee.

Mr. Chairperson: Does the critic for the opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yes, Mr. Chairperson, just briefly on behalf of our Finance critic, I want to put on the record that we are passing this with limited debate to make sure that the civil servants and others in this province who require payment receive it over the next period of time. It is very important to get this passed, I believe the Minister of Finance has indicated, certainly by Monday, and we are trying to do it today to make sure there is absolutely no problem.

I also want to note, too, that the reference the Minister of Finance has made to the separate allocation in terms of capital is part of the process that needs to be undertaken with public finances in this province generally, which is to ensure that we follow standard accounting procedures, something that is not in place in far too many areas of government. So that is certainly welcome, because I think it is important for us as a public body to represent our books in a way that is as clear and transparent and in accordance with accorded normal accounting principles as it is for any other private or public institution, so that is certainly welcome.

With those brief comments, we are prepared to pass this as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall we group the clauses? [agreed]

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 32, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1999, and directs me to report the same without amendment.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), that the report of the Committee of the Whole be received.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, if there is perhaps a willingness for the House not to see the clock so we can complete this process and bring in the Lieutenant Governor, it would be most appreciated.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to continue to proceed and for the Speaker not to see the clock should we not reach that point by six so that we can have Royal Assent of the bill? [agreed]

Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Garry Clark): His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

* (1800)

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill in Her Majesty's name.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, the hour being after 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.