Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, there have been discussions amongst House leaders and other members, and I suggest that there might be agreement if we were to proceed with Resolution 28, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), and that Resolution 27, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), would retain its place on the list.
Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed with proposed Resolution 28, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley, and leave Resolution 27, for the member for Swan River, standing in its place? [agreed]
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that
"WHEREAS the Provincial Government has announced plans to reform the education system; and
"WHEREAS as part of the Provincial Government's changes to the school system Canadian History will cease to become a compulsory program at the Senior III level; and
"WHEREAS the removal of mandatory senior high Canadian History from the compulsory category is a regressive step; and
"WHEREAS many groups, like the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, the Dominion Institute and the Winnipeg School Division #1 have raised concerns about weaknesses in Canadian History and have expressed these concerns to the Provincial Government; and
"WHEREAS Manitoba and Canada are currently facing many social and political challenges, which require our citizens to have an understanding of the social, economic, corporate and labour history of all Canadian people, including First Nations; and
"WHEREAS it is imperative that Canada's future leaders possess an understanding of our past if they are to effectively govern our future; and
"WHEREAS new Canadians want the opportunity to gain a thorough knowledge of the history of their new country; and
"WHEREAS history helps to develop a shared sense of identity in all our citizens, and assists in establishing an emotional bond to our nation.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to consider reversing its policy to make Canadian History an optional subject in Manitoba's high schools."
Motion presented.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, it is not often that I can rise to congratulate the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), but I do so on this occasion because I believe that what she has done in reversing her earlier decision to eliminate compulsory Canadian history, I think, she has done the right thing. I think she showed some common sense. As always in opposition, of course, we would like to have seen it done sooner.
We believe that there was much opposition to the minister's decision. It was expressed very fully and clearly by many segments of the population. For many months, many years, in fact, this minister and other ministers appeared to refuse to listen; but, in some senses, this resolution is now redundant because the minister has, of course, changed her mind and has decided to reinstate compulsory Canadian history at the Senior 3 level.
However, Madam Speaker, the minister did do it in a way which I thought was not as open or as clear as it might have been. She reversed her decision the day after the Legislature rose in December. That seemed to me not the right way to go about it. For many years, there had been petitions which we had read in this House to ask the minister to retain Canadian history. There had been letters from some of the people whom I mentioned in my resolution. There have been letters from many societies and individuals across the province asking the minister to reconsider her decision.
But it seemed to me to have been the right thing to do to have got up in this House, in this Legislature, where we presented so many petitions on this issue and to have said openly and fulsomely that, yes, we have changed our mind, yes, we were on the wrong track, yes, we have listened to Manitobans and we are going to change this decision. But the minister, it seems to me, chose not to do that and I will not comment on why or the reasons for that. I would think they would be fairly obvious. But she chose not to face the public debate on the reversal of this decision. I think that takes away from the decision itself in a way.
I congratulate the minister for having made that decision. I am not impressed by the way in which the government chose to do it. It is not uncommon, it is not unlike other incidents in this government's history where they have chosen to hide behind or to take things away from the Legislature and not to discuss things in the Legislature when they are making their decisions.
They are a government which I find does not appear on a regular basis to defend its policies. It sends civil servants, whether it is in Health or Education. I think that is not right. I do not think that is an appropriate use of civil servants, but this government does it quite frequently. It seems to me this way of changing its mind, announcing its change of mind on Canadian history the day after the House had risen, was in the same frame, that it was not prepared to face the public debate on its change of position.
This was not something which people had been unafraid to express their opinions on. People were very clear on this. The Manitoba Historical Society had written to the minister. I believe at one point they had written more than one letter to the minister on the absence of Canadian history from the minister's future plans. The archivist had written to the minister, the museum societies from around the province had written to the minister, the Legions had written to the minister, the Teachers' Society had written to the minister, the historians at the universities had written to the minister. I believe senior citizens organizations had written to the minister. We had presented the petitions of individuals time after time in this Legislature saying, please reconsider your decision.
So it is not that there was no opposition to this. The opposition was very clear. It was enunciated in many ways over a number of years in this House and elsewhere. And yet, when the minister chose to change her mind on this she was not prepared to face the debate in this House.
Well, let us look first of all, Madam Speaker, at why the government chose to do this in the first place, and I will acknowledge that it was not this minister who chose to do this. In fact, my guess is that if it had been left to this minister, that decision would not have been made in the first place. But she was left with a policy instituted by her predecessor, Clayton Manness, and it was Clayton Manness who introduced most of the new changes which the government categorizes as reforms, the new changes in education, and introduced a series of very rapid changes at the same time as he began the cuts to education funding.
He had a very narrow definition of education, I think. It seemed to exclude, as we saw, the new program being put into place. It began to exclude industrial arts, home economics, music in some cases, and basic French. And it specifically excluded Canadian history at the Senior 3 level.
Now, I do not think this was unexpected for Mr. Manness. I think Mr. Manness had a view of the world based upon Hayek and other right-wing thinkers which very clearly saw Manitoba as one small part of a global economy. The sense of place, the sense of citizenship, the sense of nation which Canadian history can help to impart--it is not the only thing which helps to impart that, but it is one of the factors--that sense of place in a global society was not necessarily something which concerned Mr. Manness. He had a different view of the world and he was moving very quickly to ensure that those in our school system also encountered the kind of ideological world which he shared.
But he was clear about it and the loss of Canadian history at the senior level, it seemed to me, fit with his perspective. It also fit with his perspective and this government's perspective on education generally. I do not think we have seen any changes from this minister or other ministers on this. It is a very narrowly based framework for education. It is one which has chosen to emphasize what is commonly called math and English or French, and to that extent it has begun to exclude, in the attentions of both parents and teachers and students, other areas of what I would consider to be a broadly based education.
So the curriculum has become more narrow. It was set in place by Clayton Manness for specific ideological purposes. He believed, I think, as many do on the government side, that the only purpose of education is to provide students with a preparation for the workforce. I believe, and I think many on our side would argue, that education is much broader than that, that it prepares students to take their place in the world. The world of work is one part of that, but an active citizenry and an active citizenship are certainly a very important part of that.
* (1710)
That was where we saw the senior level Canadian history fitting in, that it was important. It was not the only factor, but it was important for students in their senior years in high school to have an opportunity to learn in a disciplined and critical manner the major outlines and the major issues that have faced Canadians in the past, and to learn to understand the ways in which Canadians have dealt with those issues in the past, and to be able to apply the critical thinking, the learning, the understanding of other societies, that is, past societies, in their deliberations on the public issues that would face Manitobans and Canadians in the future. That is what we saw as the role of the Senior 3 Canadian history.
But the government was prepared to abandon that. In fact, what they were prepared to do was to allow Manitoba students to graduate with a credit in American history but not necessarily one in Canadian history. In some cases, that was quite possible. Students could take an American history course in their Grade 10 level, and they need not take a Canadian history any further. I had great difficulty in explaining that to the minister, and to both ministers, in fact--I will not single out this one in particular. It was also difficult to get across to the minister the argument that, once Canadian history became a local option, which is what Clayton Manness wanted, then, in fact, school boards, who were being increasingly squeezed by the cuts to funding that this government was putting in place, might find it increasingly difficult to maintain Canadian history as a local option.
When you are facing the difficult financial decisions that school divisions are currently and in the recent past have been facing, you have to make some very difficult choices about the kind of programs that you can make available and the kind of teaching staff that you can provide. So the prospects that we were hearing from many local divisions were that it was all very easy for the minister to talk about local options, but those local options might not always be able to be maintained.
So the minister was, in effect, setting up a situation where the last time that students would have to discuss Canadian history as a collectivity was in Grade 6. In Grade 9 they do have a program in Canadian government and in Canadian political studies, and, yes, there is an opportunity there for some history, but it is not primarily a history course. So it seems to me that this Grade 6-Grade 9 linkage, if you want to put it in the best context that the minister might like to put it in, was hardly a rigorous approach to understanding one's own past. Hardly likely to enable students with the maturity and with the perspective that one might have at the Grade 11, a Senior 11, Senior 12 level, to discuss the future and to discuss the issues that they would be facing.
But the minister continued to deny that this would happen. The minister continued to deny the perspective of historians. I noticed recently in a book called Who Killed Canadian History that the minister has been cited for her decision to cancel the senior level Canadian history. The minister continued to deny the message that the Winnipeg Free Press had for her on the maintenance of Canadian history. She continued to deny the concerns of those new Canadians, whom I had spoken to and who, I believe, had spoken to the minister about their desire for the maintenance of that course.
The opposition came from everywhere, Madam Speaker, and over and over again I challenged this minister and her predecessors to tell me and show me the one petition, the one letter, the one phone call from across Manitoba which had asked her to do this. And never, ever was the minister able to show me any evidence of anyone who wanted this.
So I think that in that sense it seemed to become more and more ludicrous. The government was having greater and greater difficulty in maintaining the argument that this should go. The minister, in fact, made an even more ludicrous argument, was that she was going to have more Canadian history. She was going to drop Canadian history at Senior 11, but there would be more Canadian history elsewhere in the curriculum. Well, I looked in vain for changes in the curriculum at earlier levels. I looked in vain for new curriculum materials for teachers to show me that there was going to be more Canadian history taught in the classroom at the Grade 10 at the Grade 7, at the Grade 8 level, and I found none.
What I did find was that the minister had gone to the Western Canadian Protocol, the people who are looking at a curriculum right across western Canada, and they had found, I believe, that, what a surprise, other provinces actually had compulsory Canadian history and that Manitoba was going to be the odd man out in this situation. We would be standing alone as one of the very few provinces which had no senior level compulsory Canadian history or Canadian studies curriculum.
And so faced with that and faced with the opposition year after year from right across the province on this decision, the government finally decided to change their mind. So, Madam Speaker, I look forward to a new Canadian history curriculum or a new Canadian studies curriculum at the Senior 3 level. But I am afraid that what we have lost in this whole process of indecision on the minister's part or refusal and reluctance to listen to the people of Manitoba over and over again is some very precious time.
We now have a relatively old curriculum in Canadian history. We have wasted time with the Western Canadian Protocol in trying to come to agreements on what Manitoba should be doing in this whole curriculum process. It is my understanding that we are now many years away from a new curriculum in Canadian history. I think that will speak volumes for the record of this government when we come to evaluate it at election time.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): It has been quite an amazing dissertation. I do not have time to answer all of the allegations or just flat outright wrong statements the member has put on the record, but I will try to answer a few and then I want to make my own comments, so I will have to use my time wisely here.
I will start with the last comments that the member made which shows an appalling ignorance of process. It is appalling for someone who is an opposition Education critic to not know that curricula is being prepared constantly and that we had in place, have in place and were planning to have in place, history opportunities at Grades 9, 10, 11 and 12, Senior 3, Senior 4, et cetera.
The member knows, well, pardon me, the member does not know according to her speech, did not understand what was spelled out very clearly by my predecessor and reiterated by me that the content of history currently being taught in kindergarten to Grade 11 would be condensed and taught from kindergarten to Grade 10. The same material covered in 10 years instead of 11, and then in Grades 11 and 12, two advanced courses in history would be made available for students who were going to be, as we know, in the last two years of high school now, opportunities to specialize. Most students would be taking the regular course, but those who know that they are going into science or arts or whatever they have decided is going to be their career option can then begin to load up on their specialty subjects provided that they have to take language arts and math, and they have to take four subjects from a list of six, one of which is history.
The chances of a student not taking history were fairly remote; the opportunity to learn all that they currently learn was still there but learned in 10 years instead of 11, and the opportunity to learn more history by two advanced history courses in 11 and 12 was there.
Those courses, Madam Speaker, have to be prepared. For the member to suggest that curriculum development falls behind because the course was going to be optional instead of compulsory is to suggest that we are going to bring in new curriculum for those history courses that are going to be available for the vast majority of Manitoba students. So I do not know or understand what she is talking about, and I suggest that perhaps she is not that knowledgeable herself about what she is talking about.
I would indicate as well, Madam Speaker, that the member's whole point here in her speech was not that we have done the right thing by deciding not to drop history in Grade 11 as a compulsory but to maintain it as a compulsory, and that that is in response to a number of things, one of which being the stated desire of Manitobans to see that as compulsory regardless of anything else, and we heard that and we responded, her criticism is not of that; her criticism is of the time at which I made that indication to the public.
* (1720)
I fail to understand her point here, because we went through a process of decision making, and when we made the decision, we announced it. We announced the decision as soon as we made it, and I submit, Madam Speaker, that if we had made the decision earlier and I could have gotten the chance to announce it in the House that would have been really great for us and she would have then complained that we took advantage of the session to announce it as a guarantee to get the most publicity for ourselves and to stop her criticism. That is what she would have said.
So the member stands up and she says that the reasons I announced this between session rather in session were fairly obvious. I submit they are. They are fairly obvious. We made the decision and announced it, and that is when we happened to make the decision.
The member says that I did that because I was hiding. Well, what was I hiding? It is to my advantage to have that announcement made as publicly as possible, and the sooner that it could be made, the better. So I do not know what she is talking about when she says that I made the announcement between sessions and somehow that was good for us and bad for them, when I submit, it would be the other way around if I had announced that in the House as a ministerial statement or in Question Period or in speeches. I would have gotten a lot more publicity if that is what the member thinks I was after, and she would have had less opportunity to criticize, if she thinks that is what I was trying to avoid.
I mean, her premise absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. She is so desperate to find a point to argue that she actually chooses a point that anybody--anybody--analyzing the situation would point out to her in terms of political naivete that she has got to be a winner in terms of political naivete. I do not understand her argument. She said I had to--I wrote down here--she said I could not face the ensuing debate that might come from my announcing this in the House. Is she kidding? Shake a tree, Madam Speaker. Could not face the ensuing debate on a good news announcement? Where is her logic? I do not understand the point she has made here it all. It defies even what people know about the imagination coming from the opposition critic.
So, Madam Speaker, I have to say that the resolution, of course, is null and void. It is totally extraneous, it is redundant, it is something that has already been done, it is no longer necessary, it is something that is in place. We do not have any trouble with it, obviously, because we have done it. We will continue to have really rigorous and relevant social studies and history curriculum.
I have to indicate that the new Canadians, the veterans, the people that spoke to me so eloquently about Canadian history did a far more effective job than the member opposite. If the member opposite thinks that she can take credit for this decision, she should think again. Her efforts were counterproductive, and the ones who made the difference were the real people of Manitoba who wrote with convincing arguments instead of just standing up, as the member opposite did, and say that you should put this in because we had it in, even though they never had compulsory history in Grade 12. They never saw compulsory history as essential to the end of high school, and we were bringing in advanced, and still are bringing in advanced history for Grade 12, which they never did.
Under our scheme now, students will end up with more history compelled to be taken and more history options available to be taken than ever existed when that member's government was in power. So I think that they should go one step further in the resolution and commend us for bringing in stronger, rigorous, more relevant and more opportunities for history than existed under the NDP when they were in government. I am sure the member is appreciative of that because she is, after all, a history teacher. It is how she earns her living. I know that she appreciates and understands the importance of history, but I think they would have been well advised to have had another person bring those points forward so that it did look and appear to be more impartial from government's perspective.
But we will be looking not just at the Canadian history as is, under the NDP. We are going to be adding pre-European Canadian history; we are going to be adding--
An Honourable Member: God Save the Queen.
Mrs. McIntosh: The members opposite have raised a good point, as well, and I will get to that. We are going to add pre-European Canadian history, which those NDP members never did. We are going to be adding the Asia-Pacific work, as the members opposite have not done in emphasis, not the way that we are going to be doing it. We are going to be talking about modern Canadian history.
In response to the president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, the president of the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents, the president of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the president of the Manitoba Association of Parent Councils, two parents at large, four principals and the president of MAP, we did send out a memo reminding the field about the issue they raised of opening and closing exercises. In response to that, reaction from that which was half the population saying they did not want it and half saying they do want opening and closing exercises, that committee will make the decision, and I would be most interested to know because they have never said what the position of the New Democratic Party is on opening and closing patriotic exercises in school--[interjection] And they are not going to tell us unless we call an election.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) has just said they will not tell us whether they believe in opening and closing patriotic exercises in schools, as requested by all of those people officially of this minister to remind the field. They will not say unless we call an election.
Now, this is the party that talks about Canadian history, the need to inform new Canadians. The Education critic is walking out of the Chamber right now. She is running from the debate.
An Honourable Member: Walking out of the Chamber? She is walking to talk to her Leader.
Mrs. McIntosh: Well, she is standing in the Chamber talking to her Leader instead of sitting in her chair and listening to this important debate on her resolution. She will not even sit in her chair to hear her resolution debated because she is running from the debate because she does not know where she stands on opening and closing patriotic exercises in schools. She has no position. She, who brings in all of this stuff on Canadian history, has no--
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I really am concerned about the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). I think she has lost her senses. Instead of debating the issue, she made reference to the Education critic leaving her seat, leaving the Chamber, when, in fact, that was not happening. She was actually talking to our Leader. We actually do talk to each other; I do not know what happens in that caucus.
I am very concerned about the minister not even being close to being relevant. I would like to ask you to bring her to order. Her behaviour has become increasingly bizarre, and I think she should at least stick to the debate on this rather than get off on these kinds of tangents.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education and Training, on the same point of order.
Mrs. McIntosh: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, the member clearly put forward a resolution that said that new Canadians and others should learn all about Canada's history, and she said that we should--[interjection] Excuse me, I am trying to speak and I am being interrupted by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I would like to speak on this point of order.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) introduced a resolution about Canadian history and how important it is that all aspects of Canadian history be made available and be given the opportunity to all students in our Manitoba schools. Yet, the opening and closing patriotic exercises, which do deal with Canadian history, which was raised from the floor by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) during my comments on the debate, during my portion of debate, he asked me then to start speaking about the Queen.
Now, absolutely relevant to the debate, absolutely relevant, and I then asked the question, why in this resolution about the importance of all aspects of Canadian history did the member consciously and willfully leave out any reference to opening and closing patriotic exercises when she knows that all stakeholders have asked the field to be reminded of them? The point of order is to this relevant, quite relevant.
* (1730)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I would urge all members that our rules are very specific, that debate should be relevant to the motion, although latitude is allowed by numerous speakers in this House on several occasions.
Madam Speaker: The honourable minister, who has three minutes remaining, to complete her debate.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I think that the new history--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. May I please ask for the co-operation of all honourable members. Only one member has been recognized to speak. That is the honourable Minister of Education and Training. It is disruptions as occurred in the last five minutes that do cause general disruption in the House.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the need to have students fully aware of our Canadian heritage, our history, and our current situation. Our new, rigorous, relevant curricula will provide that. It is being developed in conjunction with the Western Protocol. That timetable is the timetable that is on, and that timetable is on whether history at Grade 11 is compulsory or optional. We will have enhanced history. The members opposite should know that when we are complete in our New Directions for history, we will have more compulsory history and more optional history available for students in Manitoba, with new, improved curriculum much better than ever existed when they were in office.
Also on a very relevant point, the fact that Canada is part of the Commonwealth and the constitutional monarchy, the whole issue of whether or not history education should include opening and closing patriotic exercises, as was asked by the field to remind the field to be consistent in it, that decision will be made by the very people who asked to have the field reminded.
It would behoove the opposition, who claims to care so much about all students being fully aware of the Canadian heritage, to take a position on the issue. Do they believe in opening and closing patriotic exercises, yes or no? To say they will not make a decision as to whether or not they believe O Canada and God Save the Queen should be sung in schools until an election is called is just absolutely them rushing away from an issue, them deciding that they cannot face an issue, them deciding that it is too sensitive to face because half the province approves, half do not.
The regulations right now that were there when they were there say that the opening and closing exercises should be adhered to, and the field asked that they be reminded of that. The field has now asked to re-examine that issue. I am quite pleased to have them re-examine it, but all of us need to remember that the history of Canada is important to the students of Manitoba. They cannot say one thing and ask for history, and then run from history at the same time. That is what they are doing.
I am pleased that the only criticism the member could find in this is the timing of our decision on it. But her worry about the timing on it is flawed in logic, absolutely, totally flawed in logic, and anybody with two ounces of brains between their ears can see that. So, if her only criticism is that we did not announce it at a time pleasing to her, she should re-examine. If this had been announced in the House, she would have been the first one up to accuse me of announcing it in the House and getting maximum publicity for it. So the resolution has already been acted upon; it is no longer relevant. The member should rethink their own utterings about Canadian history, and not just talk about the things they think are safe. They should also talk about the things that are true.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I, too, want to put a few words on the record with respect to this particular motion.
Madam Speaker, I can remember the Minister of Education quite well that was there prior to the current minister. When Mr. Manness came down with a lot of fanfare in terms of the whole new educational reform package the government was proposing to Manitobans, there were a few key issues that really came out in the sense of very strong negative reaction from the public.
One of the biggest ones, of course, was the decision by government at the time to drop Grade 11 history as being a compulsory course. What we saw was a great deal of resistance. A good number of individuals, both opposition parties, lobbying and questioning government in terms of why it was doing what it was doing, and we even went through a number of days in which the Minister of Education showed absolutely no indication whatsoever of how Canadian history was going to be compensated prior to them reversing their decision. The minister states today, and in the past to a certain degree, that the Grade 11 was going to be compensated through additional teachings within Grade 1 to Grade 10.
But at least a part of the argument at the time was that you get, for example, a great deal of new Canadians that come to Canada, and they do not necessarily start off in kindergarten, that there was a very real need to ensure that the Canadian history would remain a part of that core curriculum at Grade 11 because the vast majority of Manitobans, with the exception of a very few, believe that it was absolutely essential that that course remain compulsory. I was quite pleased when the government of the day reversed its position and went back to Grade 11 history being compulsory.
I think, in part, it gives some hope that at times the system can work, that if you apply enough pressure to the government of the day when we know that they have done something clearly wrong, that, in fact, enough pressure can, in fact, be mounted to get the decision reversed. So, whenever I see government doing what I believe, along with what others believe, is right, they should be applauded, and I would applaud the government on coming to its senses and reinstituting Grade 11 history as a part of the core curriculum.
There are many other issues facing education. Through Question Period I did address the whole issue of the God Save the Queen in which the minister had made reference in addressing this particular issue. The Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) is right. There is some relevancy to that particular issue, but I never heard the Minister of Education take an actual position on it. I would recommend to the Minister of Education that what she might want to consider doing is something similar to the Lord's Prayer or at least allow the school Parent Advisory Councils to make that decision on a school-to-school basis.
The only one that I would suggest is the singing of our national anthem. I think the opening of the school day in singing of O Canada I think is absolutely critical. It is very important, it is very symbolic, and it is something in which I strongly believe in, and as I know the Premier (Mr. Filmon), as he chose to ridicule those that thought that God Save the Queen should not be sung did also include O Canada as a critical thing that needs to be happening at the opening of our school day. But it would be nice to see the Minister of Education rectify that particular issue.
It was virtually a nonissue prior to her involvement actually. At least, I cannot recall ever hearing about that particular issue until the minister in fact--I think it was a memo that she had sent out that really generated it, and then we have this law that is on the books that says every school has to have a closing ceremony. Well, I would look to our pages inside the Chamber and those that are not here today and ask them to reflect on the last time they sang God Save the Queen inside their schools. You will find in reality very, very few, I am not aware of any offhand that sing God Save the Queen at the closing of the school day. It is not to say that it does not exist. I am told that, yes, some school bodies do. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that the minister is the one that made that an issue. The minister can easily close that as an issue, and it is something in which I would like to see because I think there are broader more important issues that have to be addressed in education.
* (1740)
The single most important issue, I believe, is that of how we finance public education and the chronic underfunding that we have seen towards the funding of public education over the last decade. I will not speak at length to that because I do have a resolution that hopefully will appear in which we will get a little bit more time for debate. I am sure there are others that might want to comment on the whole history as being a part of the core curriculum. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, before I get into the debate of the resolution, I simply want to indicate that I had an opportunity to visit one of our schools this morning in my constituency and talked to the administrators and some of the teachers there, and am very positive about the direction that we as a province were going in education, very supportive, in the things that we were doing.
I guess it is good to go back to the grassroots, as the members opposite talk quite frequently, or they say we have no idea what has taken place out in the field. I would suggest that I think we have a fairly good idea of what is taking place out there, and some of the sentiments that our teachers and that our administrators have. Certainly the mood is positive out there, and it is gratifying to hear that. Even talking about some of the changes that are taking place within education, the response was positive. Certainly they are working hard as I think all people are working hard, and so they were very supportive of the things that we were doing. I just want to congratulate them for the work that they are doing out there. Our administrators, our school boards, our teachers are doing an excellent job of preparing our students for the tasks that they have lying ahead of them.
Canadian history in schools. It is interesting that the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) made some comments about, first of all she started off by supporting the things that we were doing and then very quickly turned towards the negative side. So I would like to put some information on the record today about the things that we are doing and the things that are taking place.
There are many ways in which history can be taught to Manitoba students. When a greater effort is placed on incorporating history into all grade levels, it will become second nature to speak about history when teaching every subject. Recently, on April 10, 1997, in the Legislature, a member opposite suggested that Manitoba students would be graduating from our high schools without having studied Canadian history at a senior level. In fact, students must study social studies, including history, until the end of S3.
What the member overlooked in stating this was the fact that students in Manitoba schools will be learning, through enhanced curriculum from kindergarten to Senior 2, subject area content on social studies and related topics at grade appropriate levels. This enhanced emphasis allows our students to learn about the importance of Canadian history content and citizenship prior to the end of the Senior 2 as well as at Senior 3 and will ensure that earlier on students are introduced to the important concept of citizenship and their roles and their responsibilities.
In addition, Manitoba students will have the opportunity to study advanced history in their final year of school. I would also like to add that our students must study from a list of compulsory complementary subjects, four out of six, and one of those six in history. In Manitoba we are addressing the teaching of history in various ways.
First of all, I would like to spend some time talking about the aboriginal perspectives. Aboriginal perspectives will be integrated into curricula to enable students to learn the history of Manitoba and Canada before European settlement and, equally important, to give the perspective of aboriginal people since that time. Each subject area will address the perspectives, contributions and accomplishments of aboriginal people as appropriate.
The goal in integrating aboriginal perspectives into curricula is to ensure that all students have opportunities to understand and respect themselves, their cultural heritage, and the cultural heritage of others. Aboriginal perspectives apply to learning experiences for all students. However, there may be unique and particular learning experiences that apply specifically to aboriginal students. The goals of aboriginal perspectives for aboriginal students are as follows: to develop a positive self-identity through learning their own history, cultures and contemporary lifestyles and to participate in a learning environment that will equip them with the knowledge and skills needed to participate more fully in the unique civic and cultural realities of their communities.
Next, the goals of aboriginal perspectives for nonaboriginal students are as follows: to develop an understanding and respect for the histories, cultures and contemporary lifestyles of aboriginal people; to develop informed opinions on matters relating to aboriginal people. The aboriginal perspectives will be integrated in Manitoba, kindergarten to Senior 4 in all curricula.
Students with Senior 4 will be offered new courses that may include opportunities for further in-depth exploration about Canada and Canadian issues. The issues will include studies about our aboriginal people as well as provide opportunities to explore the rich cultural diversity of our country and of our province.
Under the leadership of the Native Education Directorate, all government education branches are committed to the incorporation of the aboriginal perspectives into the Manitoban and Canadian school system.
Some examples of activities include the department has established a K to S4 task team to examine all matters related to the education of aboriginal children in Manitoba in the light of aboriginal self-government and the devolution of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which is known as INAC. As INAC develops, its administrative responsibilities for status Indians and First Nations in Manitoba accelerate their movement towards self-government. It is important that implications for Manitoba Education and Training be examined.
The directorate is also a member of the intradepartment task team. This task team is examining future relationships between aboriginals and Manitoba Education and Training and preparing information which will identify K to S4, post-secondary and integrated issues and present strategic options for addressing those issues.
A bibliography of Manitoba-based aboriginal language resources developed in collaboration with the Manitoba Association for Native Languages was completed and distributed to Manitoba schools in June of 1997. As well, workshops to foster greater parent and community involvement in education and greater cultural awareness were provided to government staff, school administrators and teachers to assist them in their delivery of relevant and bias-free education programs.
The Native Education Directorate will work closely with the Program Implementation Branch to ensure that professional development requirements in aboriginal education are included in school plans. A two-year aboriginal language project to develop a generic levels-based curriculum framework for aboriginal languages was jointly undertaken by all jurisdictions of the Western Canadian Protocol. This project will be completed in December of 1998.
The mandate of the Native Education Directorate is to provide leadership and co-ordination for departmental initiatives on K to S4 aboriginal education. The objectives of the Native Education Directorate are to ensure a corporate approach to aboriginal education within Manitoba Education and Training and to promote the removal of systemic barriers to aboriginal students' success in education and training. The directorate also collaborated with the University of Manitoba and the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 to make available summer institutes on aboriginal education.
* (1750)
Next year, I would like to look at human diversity. Manitoba is a rich mosaic of people with a diversity of cultures, languages, religions and other characteristics. These aspects of human diversity should be recognized, accepted and celebrated to create learning environments that prepare all students for full participation in society, that provide students with opportunities for cultural and linguistic development, and that encourage intercultural understanding and harmony. The government acknowledges the diversity of cultures within our province and has made human diversity an important consideration in the renewal of education.
In May of 1992, Manitoba Education and Training released Multicultural Education, A Policy for the 1990s. This document provided a conceptual framework for multicultural education in Manitoba. Recent departmental activities in support of multicultural, antiracism education include: first of all, all curricula will be developed in a way that integrates aboriginal perspectives, gender fairness, human diversity, and antibias-antiracism. This means that learning outcomes and curriculum frameworks, as well as, foundation for the implementation documents will reflect these elements in a meaningful way.
Draft curriculum documents will be subject to a review by reaction panels drawn from the field that represent a cross-section of perspectives. Parent groups, organizations and others that may provide a multicultural perspective will be invited to participate on reaction panels on a document-by-document basis. Learning resources selected to support the new curricula will be expected to reflect the inclusive approach we are undertaking.
The nomination process informs for the nomination of educators who are to be the members of curriculum steering committees and specifically call for educators who are experienced in aboriginal education, second language teaching, multicultural and antibias-antiracism education. Through this mechanism, we will ensure that individuals involved in the development process are sensitive to and are experienced in multicultural and antibias-antiracism education.
Heritage and international language studies are considered very important by this government, and this is one reason why Manitoba is participating through the Western Canadian Protocol for collaboration in basic education with Alberta and Saskatchewan in developing curriculum frameworks for international languages and bilingual education.
There is also a parallel initiative involving all the Western Canadian Protocol provinces and territories in developing a framework for aboriginal languages. These frameworks will provide a basis for the development of new curriculum.
Antiracist-antibias education. Effective schools strive to create and maintain inclusive school programs and environments that welcome diversity and challenge bias and discrimination. Antibias-antiracism educational approach is a critical element in the development of curriculum documents and school environments so that students can experience learning in a safe environment and can develop the required knowledge and skills.
Another important aspect of our work to increase the awareness of antiracism and antibias education is to give teachers professional development opportunities in that area. For example, the department has, first of all, cosponsored with the Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba, several summer institutes on aboriginal education; provided in kind support such as distribution of information and printing of promotional materials for the Manitoba association of multicultural education. Professional development workshops are geared to educators and the community in general on multicultural and antibias-antiracism themes.
Last section I would like to turn to is the sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development is the process of integrating and balancing the economy, environment and society through a consensus-based, decision-making process, so that in each of these areas the economy, the environment and society can be sustained for future generations.
Well, Madam Speaker, in conclusion, in light of the past and continued support for sustaining Canadian history in Manitoba's public schools, I recommend to the members of the Legislature that there is no need to support this resolution. Therefore be it resolved that this resolution be defeated. Thank you very much.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Madam Speaker, it is a great opportunity to indeed speak upon this topic of Canadian history, although I feel that the resolution is one that is redundant because this particular government has seen wisdom, in fact, in enhancing this particular topic within our educational facilities here within the province.
I was slow to my feet, Madam Speaker, on the basis that I was reading from a history book that was prepared by members of our community putting to print our particularly colourful history that we have in Portage la Prairie. I think that one must appreciate that history is one of the elements that form our foundation to which we all can say who we are. We are indeed products of our environment, and our history is, in fact, that environment. I want to place on the record this afternoon my complete support for the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) in her endeavours to, in fact, enhance and strengthen in our schools through the offering of history courses throughout the grades right through the S3 level.
I do believe that all of our children will benefit from history courses whether they will be specifically called history or through the components that are offered through geography or through social studies, elements of our very colourful history that are offered within the curriculum of those particular courses. I must say that I personally have benefited through our public education system that offered history that is very much part of, or relevant to, our province and our areas to where we have all had the opportunity to grow up here in Manitoba.
I must say that they are within one component of our geography and highlighted--my particular family and their struggle as immigrants here to Canada, how they broke the sod and, in fact, contributed to this province's very colourful history. It was through a lot of trial and hard work that this province has now benefited from those endeavours of not only our family but of others that went without, so that they could better this land that they now call home.
This history which I speak of is, in fact, one that offers us a lot of strength and can indeed--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) will have 12 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).