LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
April 28, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It complies
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the student social
allowances program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time education,
resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a ministerial statement.
It gives me great pleasure to announce
today a new opportunity for all Manitobans to invest in their province. Due to the tremendous success of Manitoba
Hydro Savings Bonds and continued interest in investing in
The people of
Like HydroBonds, Builder Bonds will be
available to Manitobans only for as little as $100. Builder Bonds are available for a five‑year
term, and purchasers can choose to have their interest compounded over the five‑year
period, paid monthly, or to have the interest paid annually. Builder Bond Series I will go on sale
Tuesday, May 25, with the interest rate being announced May 21. The interest rate will be competitively
priced with the principal and interest on all bonds fully guaranteed by the
Proceeds from the sale will provide a
local source of funds to keep
Mr. Speaker, as Manitobans continue to enjoy
the benefits of the success of HydroBonds, I now encourage all Manitobans to
share in this new exciting opportunity with Builder Bonds Series I.
Thank you.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of
Finance for his announcement here this afternoon and say, on this side of the
House we support the proposal of the Minister of Finance to proceed with
Builder Bonds.
Mr. Speaker, we had a program announced in
1987, the Manitoba Investments Savings Certificates, that I believe raised
money for the
Mr. Speaker, it is always better for us to
have Manitobans investing in their own economy.
It is always better for Manitobans to experience the interest rate
benefits for investments here. It is
always better to take away as much as possible speculation in the foreign
markets‑‑whether it is the American dollar and its exchange rate
that can fluctuate as it has over the last couple of years and affected the
Manitoba budget, or in previous years where we have done well or done poorly on
the Japanese yen or Swiss money. So I
certainly support borrowing in
* (1335)
I would point out, too, that there are no
stated objectives in the release of the minister today. I would have thought that normally when one
issues a bond issue, there is a stated objective of how much money you want to
achieve. We will await the actual
results, Mr. Speaker. We will not have
any way to evaluate it against the expectations of the government, but we‑‑[interjection]
Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) could settle down a bit.
I would like to again say that we support
the local borrowing from Manitobans.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House on
this issue before and have been somewhat supportive of the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) on his issue of HydroBonds.
However, my support began to dim as I looked at the interest rate that
was being paid well above market, and I looked at the commission rate that was
being paid well above the average. It is
no wonder he got the kind of response he did; he paid those people selling it
far more than they could get selling other instruments.
I raised the question with him in
Estimates last year: From the
perspective of the
The Minister of Finance, at that time,
said, yes, it was true, but it was necessary to do that with the HydroBonds
early on because they were a new instrument and you had to do extra advertising
and everything else in order to promote the sale of them, but that those costs
would decrease over time. Well, I now
note that "over time" has come and we now have a new issue, so the
Minister of Finance can run new advertisements and have his face on TV talking
about his new series. So I have the same
concerns.
I also share the concern of the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer) from the perspective of these being announced as an
investment in
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us
this afternoon Mr. Eddie Connery, the former MLA for
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, seated in the
public gallery, we have from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Education
System
Reform
Report Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of
Education released the long‑awaited report dealing with reform of our
education system.
Mr. Speaker, we were shocked to see that
there was absolutely no response of the government in terms of what positions
they would take. Then we were also very
surprised to see that this report was given to the government in February of
1993 but withheld from the members of this Legislature until well after the
provincial budget was debated and passed.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): Why did they have this report
since February of 1993? Why did they not
make it public so that we could evaluate the various decisions the government
was making in Education on the basis of the public input that was provided all
across
* (1340)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, because the report had to be translated. The report had to be translated into
French. That translation was not only to
be technically correct but correct also in tone.
Mr. Doer: It does not take 12, 14 weeks, Mr. Speaker,
to translate a report.
Clinician
Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government did not want
their budget cuts in Education to be positioned against the public input that
the Department of Education received through their task force report.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Education how she can justify making a decision to cut clinicians for special
needs kids in rural Manitoba‑‑the hearing specialists, the eye
specialists, the behaviour clinicians‑‑how she could cut those
kinds of special needs programs in rural
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister
of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, just an additional response to the first question based on the
translation. The translation also had to
be approved by the committee. The
committee had to take the opportunity to view it to see if it met their views
of intent. Then, where there were any
additional changes to be made to meet the requirements of the committee, that
occurred.
In the area of clinician funding, Mr.
Speaker, again I will remind the member that this government funds those clinicians.
We fund those clinicians through our funding formula. There have been 19 school divisions that have
been operating on that system. Now other
school divisions will access the funding for clinicians, and they will be able
to hire clinicians within their own area or join together as a regional group.
I will also remind the member of our
commitment to special needs. Special
needs funding was in the range of $53 million in 1991‑92. It has risen to over $81 million this
year. This government not only maintains
its commitment to special needs funding, it increases its interest in special
needs funding.
Partnerships
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the
minister had this report in February.
The decisions were announced in March and the budget was contained in
the‑‑[interjection] Well, surely the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is not
saying that the government ignored the report they had when they made the
decisions in their budget. I guess that
is what the government is saying. Of
course, that is consistent with every other decision they have made in this
budget‑‑do not study it; do not consider it; just go ahead in a
trickle‑down fashion.
I would like to ask the government how
they could proceed with unilateral action on all the school divisions in
They want education legislation to be
designed to promote partnership and to ensure that formal mechanisms are in
place for such partnerships to function.
How can they proceed in such unilateral ways when partnership is clearly
the direction in which Manitobans want to go?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly believe in partnership, and that is why we are now asking
for the opinion of Manitobans, the direction of Manitobans, based on the
numbers of recommendations that occurred in the report that was released
yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, as well, we also speak for
taxpayers. On this side of the House, we
have a continued concern for the amount of money that taxpayers can provide,
and that is why we did cap the special requirement at a 2 percent increase.
Emergency
Room Physicians
Patient
Safety
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, given the situation at the
emergency wards of the community hospitals, can the minister assure this House that
patient care in the emergency wards will not be jeopardized or compromised in
any way at any of the affected hospitals?
* (1345)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is
the entire hope of not only myself as minister but this government and I
believe of all members of the Legislature.
To assure that is the case, the
In addition to that, in addition to the
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that
response. We too have a copy of the
letter from the
Mr. Speaker, my question therefore to the
minister is: Can the minister assure
this House that there are no staff at any of these hospitals who do not meet
these minimum standards providing care?
We are advised that at least in one
institution, physicians are working who do not have these minimum standards.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued with my honourable
friend's position here because we were advised this morning by the College of
Physicians and Surgeons that they would be communicating, as my honourable
friend is obviously in receipt of, the correspondence which would indicate the
minimum requirements of physicians working in emergency departments.
The inquiry was made directly when we were
so advised as to whether the directive was a result of the present
situation. The answer was no, that they
were putting out this directive anyhow and in the process of repairing this,
they wanted to assure that there was adequate standards being met in any of the
hospitals accepting code red emergencies.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
minister‑‑I do not know if the minister has a copy of the
circular. I will table it for the
minister's information, but my question to the minister is: Can he assure this House, regardless of the
fact of the notice, that all hospitals are meeting this minimum standard?
We are advised that, at least at one
hospital, there are physicians who are operating in emergencies who do not have
the minimum standards as designated by the
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be any more specific than
I have been with my honourable friend already.
We want the hospitals to assure that they are staffed to the
If my honourable friend has some
specifics, maybe instead of sort of holding out a "what if" or a
potential rumour, if my honourable friend had specifics that he wishes to share
with me in private, I will be fully prepared to answer the specifics.
In the meantime, Sir, I have to assume
that all hospitals are abiding by our desire and the
Should my honourable friend have different
information, please provide it to me in confidence, and I will provide him the
assurance he seeks.
Reduced
Workweek
Cost
Savings
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Finance.
This government has consistently over the
years cast itself as the party of fiscal restraint. However, the facts tell a different
story. The fact is, this year's real
deficit, when one adds back the $200 million from the fiscal slush fund and the
hundred million dollars that the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) revealed in
his budget speech, is $862 million, the single largest deficit in the history
of the province. This year, the
government says they will save $15 million on the reduced workweek legislation
to deal with civil servants; yet on April 21, the minister indicated he could
not define what essential services were.
My question for the minister is: How did he decide that the reduced workweek
would save Manitobans $15 million before he had even determined what services
and employees were to be designated essential, or was this again the same type
of financial wizardry that we have been‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
* (1350)
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member plows a long furrow
to finally come to the question.
Firstly, let me state that I acknowledge
that for the year ended, there was a structural deficit, before taking the $200
million away, of $750 million, and the net was more in the area of 560, and
that is a large number. That is why I
found it very perplexing that the members opposite would not realize the
tremendous effort put in by this government to take that structural deficit
from 750 down to 367, basically in half, and probably the only government in
With respect to the question, how is it
that we put a figure on the savings to be achieved through the reduction in the
period worked, Mr. Speaker, we simply took the $3.6 billion in the public
sector and we apportioned some roughly 4 percent saving. We did that within the
civil service, roughly $600 million, applied a 4 percent saving, and that gave
us roughly a $25‑million gross saving.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think "roughly" is
the key word there, because the government has not obviously taken into account
the things which are going to happen in the coming year.
Overtime
Policy
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): This week it was revealed that people were
golfing on Fridays and then getting time and a half on Saturdays to do the same
work in one of the Crown corporations.
My question for the minister: How much overtime will be added to the
government budget, including the Crown corporations, as a result of the reduced
workweek in essential services, or did the government bother to calculate that‑‑obviously
not‑‑before coming up with this prediction, a prediction which
looks like it is going to be consistently‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker,
certainly the MPIC situation is one that we are investigating further. The Crown Corporations Council is looking
into that, because of course the mandate that was given to all the Crowns and
indeed the civil service was that there would be no overtime and trade‑offs
with respect to having to take certain days off.
When the member asks specifically how much
additional money is being put into the overtime budget because of this, I will
tell him specifically, zero dollars.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, there has already been some spent
because it has already come forward in the last week, and that was just the
first week.
My further question for the minister: Will government employees now be getting
overtime rates after 30 hours because that is now defined as the normal
workweek, or will overtime rates go from 37.5 hours, which is the normal
course? Can the minister answer that
question?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whose definition
the member is saying now is the normal workweek. I do not accept his.
The legislation embodied in Bill 22 is
powerful. It is very powerful
legislation. It allows the government,
indeed those other organizations outside of government that choose to use it,
tremendous powers, in many respects to overrule collective agreements that are
in place.
I say to the member, Mr. Speaker, I look
forward to his presentation on Bill 22 which I will be calling for second
reading after Question Period.
* (1355)
Education
System Reform
Special
Needs Students
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the minister
that she was given this report on legislation reform for education in February
prior to the budget that was presented and prior to the announcement that she
made on education funding in this province.
The minister now hides behind the
translation as the reason why she could not act consistently with the report.
I want to ask her, especially as it
applies to recommendation No. 32 dealing with special needs funding, whether
she did read the report when she received it, or was it the translation that
was the problem there for her as well, and why she did not act consistently in
her recommendation on the budgets that was made by this panel. Did she alert her cabinet‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, it seems the member from the other side is saying that on the receipt of
this report, I should completely ignore what all the educational organizations
have requested, and that is to give those educational organizations an
opportunity to comment on the report and to also look at how they would look at
incorporating legally and organizationally some of these requirements and some
of the recommendations and how acceptable they are and workable.
The member indicates that instead of
allowing comment by those educational organizations, government simply should
have accepted the report immediately and totally.
Service
Integration
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I just simply asked her why she
acted contrary to the recommendations in the report, the public interest, as
requested.
Now she says that she is supposed to‑‑we
want her to ignore the recommendations of the public. I want to ask her in that vein since she
received over two years ago a report from the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, recommendation No. 32 does speak to a co‑operation and an
integration of services to provide the most efficient service to students, and
I have told this member previously that there is a committee functioning to do
that.
However, I also have said in this House
that there have been a number of movements already and actions taken in that
area, and I have already given two examples, one between the Departments of
Family Services, Health and Education to look at a 24‑hour planning for
special needs students.
Work has been done in that area. It is ongoing and we continue to look at
other ways for co‑operation.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, two years she has been sitting
on those recommendations. I ask her
now: Will she give us a timetable to co‑ordinate
the service? [interjection] I am asking her.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) cannot define a question. It is mine.
He is having trouble understanding‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin was just
going to put his question.
Mr. Plohman: I want to ask the minister when she is going
to bring in a fully co‑ordinated and integrated system between Family
Services, Justice and the Departments of Health and Education to co‑ordinate
services to the education through the schools.
When will she implement that system?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy during
the process of Estimates to discuss the numbers of co‑operative efforts that
are already in place between those three departments and other departments in
government.
There are many services which are
currently ongoing and there are others to be explored, and government will
actively work in that way.
Workplace
Safety and Health Regulations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, this government has a history of
interference with Workplace Safety and Health committees. It takes explosions like the solvent plant
and weeks of questioning in the House here before they live up to their
commitment.
My question for the Minister of Labour
is: Why is it, when we had regulations
on Workplace Safety and Health committees two years ago that were passed
unanimously by the advisory council, have we had the minister and his department
intervene, and now we have regulations that do not meet the high standard that
was previously met to the liking of all the members of the committee?
* (1400)
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I have to challenge the premise of the member for Radisson. This
government does not interfere in the work of Workplace Safety and Health
committees in the workplace as she implies. [interjection] Well, the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer) makes a comment from his seat. Come up with some proof. Come up with some evidence. Like most things he says, and his colleagues,
they are more rhetoric than substance.
As I explained yesterday to the member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid), there were problems with administering the particular
regulation that was drafted, and I want to make sure that if I am going to take
a regulation forward to cabinet for consideration, it is one that works
administratively.
She may not be concerned with how the
department operates. The member may not be concerned at all whether or not
there is common‑sense application in the resolution. She may not be concerned that the people who
have to work with it every day had problems with it.
That is just called workplace democracy,
which she may oppose. If that is her
attitude, I cannot help that, but I have responsibilities beyond her rhetoric.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, Workplace Safety and Health
committees are common sense. That is
what these regulations enact. We now
have regulations that are not to the liking of all the group, but there is
still stalling. The regulations are
done.
What is the minister afraid of? Why do we not have these regulations enacted?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I am afraid of is
what everyone should be afraid of, is where we are making our decisions on the
basis of rhetoric and not proper information, as so often happens with members
opposite.
If the member for Radisson would care to
study the issue as opposed to just trying to raise it in the House for the appearance
of caring about the issue, she would find out that the genesis of the issue is
under our current regulations. There is
not an ability to take a particular matter forward that a Workplace Safety and
Health committee has not dealt with after three meetings.
The Manitoba Federation of Labour, in my
discussions with them, very frankly said they want the ability to get that to
the Labour Board. I agreed with
that. I have no problem with that. It is
how we do it in the intervening steps, and that is where there was an
administrative problem we had to work out.
I do not think the member appreciates that.
Ms. Cerilli: If the minister wants to talk about rhetoric,
read the proclamation and then look‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
Ms. Cerilli: I would ask the minister to do something
positive to commemorate this day of mourning and to tell us the date when the
regulations are going to come into force.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, again, it proves I think that the
member for Radisson should do a little more consulting. If she is concerned about rhetoric in the
proclamation, I would indicate to her that the wording was suggested by the
Manitoba Federation of Labour. So I
think she and her apparent supporters should talk a little more often.
Point of
Order
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The inaction on the regulations and the
hypocrisy make the proclamation‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister, to finish his
response.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, if members opposite want to talk
about hypocrisy, all one has to do is to look at the operation of that branch
prior to 1988, to look at the operation of the Workers Compensation Board in
1988, where there were hundreds of files, boxes of files in the basement of the
board. People did not even know what
they were in. They talk a great line,
but in practical fact do not accomplish very much.
Department
of Education and Training
Audit
Contracts
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report
to the Minister of Finance for the members of this House, which I am sure he
has, and it indicates a nontendered contract through the Department of
Education and Training for $4,000.
The reason, as stated in the report by the
Department of Education, for this untendered contract was to provide audit
verification for a number of programs within the department. The reason is that the Internal Management
Audit branch of the Education department had carried out the audit previously,
but were unable to continue in the last two years because of staff cutbacks.
I would ask the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey): Given that we have spent $4,000
on this untendered contract, we have not been doing audit verifications so we
are not sure how much extra money we have spent in the Department of Education
and, in fact, we are looking at a workweek reduction where staff are going to
be off even more hours, can the Minister of Education tell this House how these
actions justify efficiency in administration?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I
gather from the question that the Liberal Party will be voting against Bill
22. They do not want to try and find any
savings whatsoever within the salary line of government.
What is obvious is, through the decisions
that have been made in the past and given the internal audit function in some departments,
we have found in a number of departments that we are looking at our accounts in
a pre‑audit sense and we have been functioning well. It has worked well. In some respect, we have been able to reduce
some of the staff in that area.
Mr. Speaker, when we go outside of
government for a $4,000 contract, that is only a fraction of what would be
required if we had to hire a full‑time staff. Obviously the saving is there. The Provincial
Auditor is well aware of that process.
The Provincial Auditor has the final opportunity to pass judgment as to
our pre‑audit activity, and it has not been found wanting. The process
that we have adopted is one that is in keeping with the Provincial Auditor's
wishes.
Reduced
Workweek
Overtime
Policy
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the
Minister of Finance.
Given his answer, in which to me he
reaches an illogical conclusion, can the minister tell me how he can guarantee,
as he said in the House today, that the overtime costs, any increases will be
at zero?
The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), in his Estimates debate, basically said the overtime policy in
his department has not changed, which means if staff need to work overtime to
deliver a service, they will.
There is a contradiction. Can the Minister of Finance explain that
contradiction?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, there
are basically two issues here.
Certainly we are looking at all of the
overtime costs of government. Whereas we
have brought it significantly under control, in spite of some of the position
reductions within the civil service, still Treasury Board will continue to
review the overtime number within government, and to the extent that we can
reduce it further, we will. [interjection] No, we have been doing it. We have been doing it for several years, and
we make no apology for that.
The member says, now, is Bill 22 going to
cause that number to rise again? The
reality is, no. We have budgeted a
certain amount for overtime that is needed from time to time in government, and
Bill 22 will have no impact on that number.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary to
the Minister of Finance.
Will the Minister of Finance then table in
the House today, given he has all this data for the last couple of years, an
analysis of what the workweek reduction will do as far as overtime costs, given
that stand‑by and emergency arrangements will have to increase in a
number of departments? We would
appreciate an analysis.
Mr. Manness: We never said, and I never said when I
introduced Bill 22, that there would not be some areas of government that would
be exempt from Bill 22. There would be
areas where indeed we would not be forcing through the 4 percent
reduction. That would be taking into
account‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I said, during second reading
of Bill 22, Corrections is a good example.
Corrections will continue and will not
come under the effect of Bill 22. I said
that in speaking. So I do not know where
the member is coming from in her comments.
I do not know what she is trying to state. Throughout $600 million within the civil
service, roughly there will be a $25‑million saving, almost purely 4
percent.
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Implementation
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I have a question for the minister of Autopac,
Mr. Speaker.
The no‑fault auto insurance
experience in
Mr. Speaker, my question to the
minister: Is the government, is the
minister, now seriously considering the implementation of a pure no‑fault
auto insurance system in
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of
occasions, and I am sure the member has read the papers as avidly as anyone,
that we are looking at a large range of options and that, obviously, has to be
one of the things that we would consider.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that answer.
* (1410)
Government
Position
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I wonder if the minister could advise the public
of
Manitobans do not want to face
continuously escalating Autopac premiums, Mr. Speaker, and as the minister
said, with bodily injury claims rising dramatically, we are going to have
further sharp increases.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want the
member to be able to avoid the concerns that he has expressed about the
potential uneasiness that the public of
The corporation followed up on the
information that the member put forward and inspected the vehicle, Mr. Speaker,
and the items that were missed by the private estimates that he put forward as
being savings, first of all, the right front door frame repair was not enclosed. The right front door jamb was not enclosed.
Autopac
Cost Controls
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, we not only want costs not to
escalate, but we want to have costs‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
Mr. Leonard Evans: How does this minister expect to keep Autopac
costs from escalating in the future as they have done each year under this
government? How are you going to keep
Autopac premium rates from rising in the future, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to let that member
continue to put incorrect information on the record. The matter that he raised previously‑‑the
estimate from Bunzy's Auto Body missed the right front door frame repair. The right front door jamb was not
included. The right corner panel was not
included. Penner Auto Body missed the
right front door frame, the right quarter panel, the rear bumper refinishing,
the clear coat, the right rear stripe.
Couture Toyota‑‑right front door frame, right‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is it in order for a minister to get up and
start answering a question that was not asked of him? I want the minister to know that the
gentleman in question‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Cummings: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the
Corydon Auto Body also missed‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the
honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), I would like to remind
the honourable minister that we should deal with the matter raised and should
not provoke debate.
ACCESS
Programs Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, I expect that the
Minister of Education will be attending the graduation powwow at the
Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has cut
up to 16 percent from ACCESS programs, could she tell the House what message
she will be taking to those families and those communities about their
prospects for ACCESS funding?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly have attended the powwow.
I did attend it last year, as well.
It is a spectacular event.
The Government of
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my question related to this year
and it related to this government's funding.
I want to ask the minister, who less than
a year ago said that the federal government's unwillingness to meet its
obligations to ACCESS students is, quote, unconscionable, will she confirm that
her policy of withdrawal from ACCESS funding is in fact taking us down exactly
the same road as Brian Mulroney?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, we have not withdrawn our ACCESS
funding. I have explained to the member
that the federal government, as I explained to her last year, has in fact
changed the way that they fund. They
will not be funding through the provinces.
They will be funding directly to the bands, and last year did not
support the students who were currently involved in their programs. This government did.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, there is a 16 percent reduction to
ACCESS programming.
I want to ask the Minister of Education
again, will she restore that funding?
Will she take responsibility for the funding of those students in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, in the past, the federal
government funding for ACCESS students was funded differently. They are now funding, not through the
provincial government, but they are funding directly to bands.
This government has maintained its
commitment to ACCESS students, including last year‑‑and I say
again, including last year‑‑supporting those students who would not
have been able to continue in their programs.
This government provided over $1 million in supplementary funding for
those ACCESS students.
Women's
Advisory Council
Child Care
Consultations
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, in Estimates this week, the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) admitted that his Policy and
Planning Division was not asked to provide an analysis of the ability of
parents with child care subsidies, most of whom are women, to pay the
additional $1.40 a day in child care fees just imposed by his government.
Did the Minister responsible for the
Status of Women ask her Manitoba Women's Advisory Council, under its mandate of
advancing the goal of equal participation of women in the economy, to look at
the potential negative effects of this surcharge on this necessary component to
women gaining economic equality?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, indeed we as a province have
increased substantially the amount of funding that goes for child care in the
We presently now fund child care at about
four times as much as the Province of Saskatchewan does for a population very
similar to Manitoba. So, Mr. Speaker,
this government has increased and has committed more dollars to child care over
the term of our administration, and we will continue to make child care and
Family Services a priority.
Ms. Barrett: Did the Minister responsible for the Status of
Women then ask the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council to study the impact of the
change in eligibility for access to child care while looking for work from
eight weeks to two weeks, and what effect these changes‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first
answer, our commitment is clear to the women in Manitoba by the initiatives
that we have undertaken in many, many areas and by increased funding, not only
in the child care area but in social allowances, and we provided opportunities
for those who were not receiving their health benefit card to have access to
health benefits while they moved from social assistance into the
workplace. We have increased funding for
shelters throughout the province and many, many initiatives in the area of
violence.
Mr. Speaker, our commitment to women is
strong.
Student
Social Allowance Program
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, since the minister did not ask
the advisory council for either of those things, did the Minister responsible for
the Status of Women ask the Women's Advisory Council to investigate the
probable or possible economic impacts the elimination of the student social
allowance would have on the women of Manitoba who are attempting to get out of
the cycle of poverty? Did she ask their
advice‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, it was one of the recommendations
from the advisory council indeed that had this Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) and this government extend the health care benefits for up to 12
months for those women who, under the NDP administration and up until this
year, did not have access to health benefits as they moved from social
assistance into the workforce. So that
has been a very positive move that has been applauded by the women of
* (1420)
Children's
Dental Program
Meeting
Request
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
A few weeks ago, and since cuts have been
imposed on the rural dental health program, I would like to ask the minister if
in fact he is willing to and has met with the organization to discuss the
rescinding of his decision to cut the program in rural Manitoba.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Not as yet, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, will the minister meet with the
groups, as they have indicated they would like to? Will he meet with them as soon as possible?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I always accept wise advice.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, will
you call second readings of Bills 26, 27, 28, and then adjourned debate on
second readings, Bills 16, 23, then 22.
SECOND
Bill 26‑The
Expropriation Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness, that Bill
26, The Expropriation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation),
be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these amendments to
The Expropriation Act is to address concerns raised by the Department of Government
Services regarding duplication in the current adjudicated process for
determining the compensation payable on expropriation. The amendments will also help to reduce both
the length of time to resolve claims and the corresponding accrual of interest on
compensation awards.
Although the Department of Justice is
responsible for amendments to this act, the Department of Government Services
is primarily responsible for the administration of expropriations undertaken by
the government of
Proceedings before the Court of Queen's
Bench are a duplication of the function already provided by the Land Value
Appraisal Commission, which is a specialized tribunal on land compensation
matters.
This duplication has two major
consequences. First, allowing
expropriated owners to have their case adjudicated in two forums results in a
duplication of legal, appraisal and consulting fees. Second, the resulting delay in settlement
increases the amount of compensation being paid by the expropriation authority.
These amendments will make decisions of
the Land Value Appraisal Commission binding on both the expropriating
authority, as they are now, and the expropriated owner. Both parties have the right to take this
decision to the Court of Appeal when their appeal is based on issues of fact
and law. I would also like to note that
with these amendments, the limitation period for making applications is reduced
to two years from the date the expropriation authority takes vacant possession
of the property.
The other proposed amendment to this bill
deals with setting the statutory interest rate paid on compensation
awards. The rate of interest payable on
outstanding funds will now be based on the rates set under The Court of Queen's
Bench Act or prejudgment interest. This
would reduce interest costs in periods of declining interest rates because of
the delays encountered by having interest rates set by regulation on a yearly
basis.
The benefits of these amendments will be
substantial cost savings to expropriating authorities and fewer delays in
resolving matters. Also, a more frequent
adjustment of interest rates will better reflect current interest rates. It is important to note that these amendments
will not impair the right of an expropriated owner to have a full and fair
hearing on the amount of due compensation for the expropriation of land.
With these brief comments, Mr. Speaker, I
recommend this bill for second reading.
Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 27‑The
Environment Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 27, The Environment
Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement), be now read
a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be quite brief
on these amendments. They are intended
to be able to provide absolute assurance that certain aspects of our stubble
burning regulations or, as referred to in the bill, the crop residue burning or
remains of vegetation, that we have the complete authority that we may need to
use in order to make sure that all of our intentions will be able to be carried
out in order to provide protection for the health of Manitobans who might be
affected by the smoke as a result of the burning of the vegetation.
Mr. Speaker, there is one specific reason
why we had to make this amendment, and that is that while any number of
government employees can be appointed as environment officers, there was a
quirk in the existing bill that meant that RCMP officers were not classified as
government employees, and while they could enforce under a number of areas on
behalf of government, that there was some question whether or not they could
enforce as environment officers for the purposes of this act. They certainly could provide enforcement
under a number of other sections, particularly emergency measures that were
used last fall.
That is the primary reason for opening up
the bill for this amendment, and at the same time we would use the opportunity
to make sure that the other aspect of the burn regulations, which is that in
specifying a specific time and providing notice of that time that we have the
absolute authority in order to be able to make that a legally binding
notification, rather than go to publishing the regulation in the Gazette under
The Regulations Act. We have to be able
to have quick and ready access to providing the notice this fall.
An example would be when burning is not to
be allowed in the northwest quadrant of the city, the number of municipalities
that might be in that quadrant would be specified and said no burning should be
allowed this day or for a bank of days.
That is very specific and was not necessarily properly accommodated for
in the manner in which we were able to write regulations under the previous
clauses in the existing act. Those
capabilities are adjusted in this amendment in order to assure ourselves that
there will be complete authority to use that type of notification in order to
convey the intent of the regulation to the affected people.
Very simply, Mr. Speaker, I believe that
covers the aspects of this bill that are the important reasons for us bringing
forward this amendment. I would look
forward to speedy passage from my colleagues in the opposition, because while
these regulations are to be in effect primarily following August 1, we also
have other authority that we have given ourselves in order to implement them on
six hours notice. I know that we all
want to make this workable and I appreciate their co‑operation.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* (1430)
Bill 28‑The
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 28, The Manitoba Intercultural Council
Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil interculturel du
Motion presented.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to have the
opportunity to speak on The Manitoba Intercultural Council Repeal Act.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation holds the promise
of a new beginning for the Manitoba Intercultural Council, the ability to
determine a future course which is based on the needs and wishes of the
community without interference or control by government.
Mr. Speaker, last June, this House
unanimously passed The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act. Through the consultations leading to the act,
a strong consensus emerged that the MIC needed to be carefully and fully
examined as to its role, mandate and structure.
It was also clear, however, that there was
no one answer to these issues. Many
suggested that we engage an external, independent consultant to conduct such a
review and report back. As a result, Don Blair was hired to conduct research
and consultations to assess the role, the mandate and the structure of the
Manitoba Intercultural Council and make recommendations, including any
necessary amendments, to The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act.
The consultant developed and distributed
almost a thousand questionnaires to individuals and organizations and held over
a hundred personal interviews and consultations and submitted his report in
December of 1992.
Mr. Speaker, after carefully considering
the Blair report in its entirety, we accepted the recommendations and
distributed the report to some 800 organizations and individuals throughout the
width and the breadth of this province.
With the report, when it was distributed,
I included a letter which stated, in part, and I want to quote from that
letter: that the report has concluded that there is a consensus that there is
no longer a role for government to play in the Manitoba Intercultural
Council. I would agree the time has come
for government to turn MIC over to the communities it serves. Following this
consensus, it would be my intent to support MIC's functioning in accordance
with the views of its membership, eliminating any grounds for a perception of
government control and insolence. By
accepting the main recommendation, to withdraw government's involvement in MIC,
we are working to achieve the goal of empowering the ethnocultural communities
of
Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before us
in the House embodies our commitment to accept the recommendations in the Blair
report. This legislation reflects our
ongoing commitment to the continuing development and evolution of
multiculturalism in our province.
We have demonstrated time and time again
that we are prepared to take positive steps to ensure that our cultural diversity
is recognized as one of the greatest assets we are privileged to enjoy in
Our government has done much in the
promotion and advancement of multiculturalism.
On May 15 of 1990,
The first was a designation of a Minister
responsible for Multiculturalism, and as minister, Mr. Speaker, I am privileged
to have had the opportunity to introduce many positive new initiatives, which
have found favour and support amongst Manitobans. Reflecting that multiculturalism is the
responsibility of all departments of government, I act as an advocate within
government to ensure that policies and programs throughout government reflect
our policy.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
This co‑operative, collaborative
approach to implementation of the multicultural policy has been seen in several
initiatives. On May 11, 1992, my
colleague the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) unveiled the
Multicultural Education Policy which recognizes that understanding, accepting
and building on our cultural and racial diversity is crucial to our economic,
social and community success.
The second undertaking in our
multicultural policy was the establishment of a Multiculturalism
Secretariat. This originally found its
basis in the report of the
The secretariat works with the community
at large to develop and enhance partnerships between communities and with
government and is responsible for working throughout government to identify,
prioritize and implement actions to contribute to the achievement of the
multicultural ideal.
In February of last year, we announced a
unique awareness program launched by the Employment Standards branch in
partnership with the secretariat to better inform ethnocultural communities
about employment standards laws in
The secretariat assisted in restructuring
the citizenship division to include the establishment of the Immigrant Credentials
and Labour Market branch, established, among other things, to deal with this
issue. Recent changes to program
recognition, now credentials recognition, will enable us to better respond to
the needs of recently arrived Manitobans who may have special needs in gaining
Canadian credentials.
In looking to the future, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we can see the need to promote
Our commitment to ensure that services are
available to new immigrants has been reflected in a number of projects within
my department, and we also have ongoing projects with probation services,
Family Dispute unit that will provide for treatment groups for individuals
convicted of spouse abuse who may not be fluent in English. Facilitators have been trained and groups
started in five language groups. This
project has also been carefully adapting material so that our cultural
differences are acknowledged and laws and individual responsibilities are
described. It will be a model for all of
Similarly, our project with the Driver
Testing offices resulted in the translation to 24 immigrant languages of the
beginners drivers test. As well, this
test is now being field tested in simple English to make it more accessible to
all Manitobans no matter what their mother tongue is. The multipurpose form, the legal document
signed upon successful completion of the road test, has now been translated
into five languages with another 19 scheduled.
* (1440)
The third initiative of our multicultural
policy was the opening of an outreach office.
I was pleased to be able to officially open that office on May 14 of
last year. This is an easily accessible
store‑front office which provides practical assistance to groups and
individuals in dealing with departments and agencies of government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fourth
initiative was to establish a legislative framework for the policy. The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act proclaimed
October 24 of 1992 is, as all members of the House are aware, a very important
piece of legislation indeed. Through
consultations held with the multicultural umbrella organizations and various
individuals throughout the community and throughout the province, I heard time
and time again that it was most timely and most necessary to introduce legislation
that did address multiculturalism. Consensus emerged on many thoughts, ideas
and suggestions for that act. We
listened and we acted in response to what was being said, including a clear
statement that this Assembly is committed to the promotion of racial harmony.
We have continued our efforts to combat
racism, an issue which is of major concern to the community as a whole, and we
have within government appointed an antiracism co‑ordinator and an
outreach worker. We have developed and
adopted a code for a respectful workplace within my department which is now
being offered throughout the civil service by the Civil Service
Commission. We established a grant
program, the Bridging Cultures Program announced in December of 1991, which
provides grant support to ethnocultural organizations for projects that combat
racism and promote citizenship.
We have undertaken funding for the City of
Many of our community organizations, Madam
Deputy Speaker, have conducted activities designed to combat racism and promote
racial harmony. Each and every one of
those people that has provided some input and some organization into the
initiatives that have been going on in the community is to be commended for
individual and collective efforts to address this most serious issue. The dedication and commitment of community
groups, organizations and individuals who have devoted so much time for the
betterment of our society is to be lauded, supported and ever encouraged. I hope that all members of the House on a
regular basis do that.
We have seen the business community,
labour organizations and voluntary and other private organizations promote
respect and appreciation for our cultural diversity to encourage full
participation by all Manitobans in all aspects of our society and to recognize
the benefits of a multilingual, multicultural society. Multiculturalism is one of our greatest
strengths, and as a province we must strive to ensure the realization of the
full economic potential that this asset can bring to
The recognition of the economic aspects and
impact of multiculturalism continues to grow, and we must explore, promote and
seize these opportunities. It is
important to realize these opportunities are increasing almost daily. As we see major portions of the world undergo
rapid transformations, we are coming to understand our unique advantage. Our knowledge of languages and cultures of
the world enable us to better compete locally, nationally and internationally
in this ever‑shrinking global marketplace.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said before, the
bill before us today responds to what was said by the community. It is essential that the community be able to
determine its own needs and develop the structures necessary to meet those
needs free of the perception of government control and influence.
We recognize that we cannot dwell on the
past; we must focus on those new and emerging issues which challenge all of us
today.
The Manitoba Intercultural Council has
played, and I am sure will continue to play, an important role in our
community. There have been many, many
individuals who have served with dedication and commitment over the past 10
years, and I know there will be many more to come in the years ahead.
Clearly, there is much to be done and many
great challenges lay ahead for both the community and the council.
The community, Madam Deputy Speaker, will
continue to come together in discussion to focus on the needs to determine what
role they want the council to play in meeting those challenges.
I know that there is the leadership and
strength within the community to rise to the challenges ahead to seize the
tremendous opportunity to form and develop a fully community‑based
organization, fully representative of the ethnocultural communities within our
province.
Indeed, the community has shown its
determination and ability to do so throughout our history. We are privileged to have ethnocultural
organizations throughout our province which undertake diverse activities and
programs which meet the needs of the community and enhance the quality of life
we now enjoy. The dedication and
commitment of countless thousands of volunteers who give so freely of their
time to ensure that
I look forward to the support of all
members of this House for early passage of this legislation to enable the
Manitoba Intercultural Council to embark on its new beginning and to meet the
needs of the communities it serves.
We are truly, Madam Deputy Speaker,
empowering the ethnocultural communities of
One of the three fundamental principles of
our multicultural policy is to enhance the opportunities present in our
diversity by acting in partnership with cultural communities and encouraging co‑operation
and partnership between ethnocultural communities.
This principle recognizes that it is
essential that we all work together to achieve the multicultural ideal and to
ensure that programs and policies are meeting the needs of the community. It reflects, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
necessity of ethnocultural communities working together within an ethnocultural
community, in partnership with other ethnocultural communities and with
government.
We look forward, Madam Deputy Speaker, to
continuing to work together with the community to achieve our shared goals and
aspirations; to meet the challenge of living together in harmony and equality;
and to achieve the ideal of a multicultural society based on the principles of
pride, equality and partnership. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 16‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act
Madam Deputy
Speaker: To resume debate on
second reading of Bill 16 (The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur les ecoles publiques), on the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Is the leave being requested to permit the
name to be allowed to be standing in both names? [agreed]
Thank you.
For clarification of the record, is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for
* (1450)
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like leave to
speak on Bill 16.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this is kind
of an auspicious occasion that I have been given the opportunity to speak on
Bill 16 after the minister's rather spirited defence of her decision and the
government's decision to delay release of the results of the public
consultation on the amendments to The Public Schools Act and the directions we
should be taking in Manitoba education.
It reminds me that Bill 16 was also tabled
in this Legislature after the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) had received
the report of the advisory group and understood what was needed and what was
being asked for in terms of the educational system in the
The minister knows and the government knows,
and now the public of Manitoba knows, I guess, what consultation really means
to this government, and what consultation means is a means of attempting to
pacify people while the government goes about its own agenda of slash and burn,
of undermining in one way or another the province of Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spoken on
other occasions about the failure of this government to put in place an
economic agenda which will support the aspirations of Manitobans looking for
work, Manitobans who want to contribute to the economy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 16 contributes
to the undermining of the education system, the foundation on which those
people are going to build their opportunities in the world of work. We often say that our youth are our greatest
resource, and sometimes even we hear words like that, similar words, from the
Minister of Education and from the government.
But what the government chooses to do belies its real commitment to the
education of our children and, I add somewhat sadly, commitment to the public
school system in particular.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that this government, over its six budgets, over its five years, a
little less than five years, has not only failed to support the public school
system but has chosen without regard, in my opinion and the opinion of many,
for the implications for public schools, has increased funding to private
schools by approximately l50 percent, perhaps even more than 150 percent.
I shudder to think that not only has this
government increased funding substantially, that there remains taxpayers'
dollars to be committed to private school education. I am not sure whether it was the Liberal
Leader, the member for
An Honourable Member: Scintilla or iota?
Mr. Storie: It is a foot and a half.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member did not
know that a scintilla was a foot and a half and now he knows. So he learned something here today.
The fact of the matter is that neither the
Liberals nor the Conservatives deemed it important enough when they decided to
move to 80 percent funding of private schools to consult, to start to review‑‑[interjection]
I did not hear. They did not think it
was important that Manitoba Association of School Trustees and the Manitoba
Teachers' Society or the parents of the 200,000 public school students deserved
an explanation, deserved some sort of a review of what that would mean in the
long run to the public school system.
I guess I can say as a former teacher in
the public school system and as a parent whose children attend public school
that I have grave reservations about the government's policy and about the
policy that was enunciated by the Liberals in terms of not only the quality of
education in Manitoba but, more importantly perhaps, paradoxically the quality
of life in Manitoba. Because, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I believe that some of the symptoms that we begin to see in
cities across this country, certainly in cities in the United States, stems
from a reflection of the fact that we have forgotten that the way to bring
people together, the way to create tolerance and understanding is to have
people live and work together.
I have always said that the public school,
Madam Deputy Speaker, is the only social institution that brings people
together from all religions and all races and requires them on a daily basis to
co‑operate, to work together, to learn together, to be together. I believe the end result of that is tolerance
and understanding of what it is like to be with people who are different, to be
with people who may speak a different language, who have come from a different
place, who understand the world in a different way. But what the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) sees and what the Liberal Party apparently sees is a series of schools
based on a philosophy, a religion, a cultural group, a policy of exclusion, a
policy which denies fundamentally the reality of Manitoba which we talk about
often, and that is the multicultural reality of Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this in my opinion
is a serious matter, and Bill 16, in my opinion, and the government's policy
with respect to private school funding undermines that important characteristic
of the public school system which brings people together and creates
tolerance. That is why it is so
disconcerting to know that the Minister of Education is now putting roughly $20
million‑plus into the private school system for not one more student,
although it is certainly possible that we will see an escalation in the number
of private school students in the near future.
Why would that be? That would be because
of what Bill 16 does, because the government in its wisdom is choosing to
underfund the public school system in a very serious and, I think, an
inappropriate way.
Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
will only escalate the process of creating a two‑tiered education system
in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, instead of taking on
the task of creating an education system that is based on equality, that says a
student in Flin Flon is entitled to the same quality of education as a student
in River Heights; the same quality of education is the right of a student in
Leaf Rapids or South Indian Lake as it is in Brandon, Manitoba; the reality is
that that equality is being undermined.
Every time this government cuts funding,
every time this government spends another taxpayer dollar on the private school
system when it could be used to support the public school system, the public
school system is being undermined. Its
future is being eroded. Madam Deputy
Speaker, I think we need to ask ourselves what is going to be the long‑term
implication of that for our society.
* (1500)
If we look down the road, if we understand
that there are right now private schools which have not even applied for
support from the public purse but who will be eligible as a result of criteria
established by the Conservative government, we recognize that the potential for
the escalation of the number of private schools is significant. We can see in five years and 10 years, if we
allow this to continue, a society in which we are in fact segregated by virtue
of our income, our ability to pay, by our religious background or religious
orientation, by our cultural background, our country of origin, or a host of
other identifying characteristics.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think
members on that side understand the implications of that kind of process. It is conceivable that individual religious
sects, which hold no particular sway in Manitoba at this time, may be eligible
at some point in the very near future for public support; that the Church of
the Aryan Nation, by virtue of meeting the rather, I was going to say, liberal
criteria that were established by this government, may in fact at some point in
the very near future become eligible for funding.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that
there are no obvious, at least, impediments to any interest group, any
ideological group, beginning a private school in the
When the former Minister of Education
embarked on this new policy of 80 percent funding, I asked him on a number of
occasions to begin the process of identifying the possible implications of this
policy. What was going to happen to
enrollment in public schools? What was
going to happen in terms of funding? Was
the change in funding model likely to increase the number of private school
students? What was going to happen to
the school divisions in the province which were already struggling to provide
basic services, never mind the services that are provided in some of the
wealthier school divisions? What was going to happen to the government's, at
least, apparent commitment to a quality education across the province as their
dollars flowed into the treasuries of private schools rather than into the
public school system?
Well, there has been no consultation on
those issues, and to my knowledge at least, the provincial government, the Department
of Education, has done no thorough review of the ramifications of this policy
and the cost to the public school system as a result of this policy. We know in dollar terms now approximately how
much money is being funnelled into private schools. What we do not know is what the implications
are and what the consequences are for public schools other than to say that
apart from the money not being available, that $20 million‑plus not being
available for the public school system‑‑and it is a little ironic
that the provincial government this year provides approximately $16 million
additional funding to private schools versus the 1987‑88 school year.
That figure just happens to be,
coincidentally, the exact number of dollars, $16 million, which are being
withdrawn from the public school system this year‑‑$16
million. That is the figure that the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) used when she announced her reduction in
education funding. Madam Deputy Speaker,
we can only surmise at what damage is going to be done to the public school
system as a result of that reduction, that $16‑million loss. We know that all of the goals and aspirations
of those divisions who are currently struggling just to provide a base
education can forget the hope that they may have had that they are going to be
able to offer their students some additional and optional courses and programs
in the future.
Certainly, in some divisions, we know that
schools now offer quite exceptional band programs, vocational education programs,
business programs, student services and supports. We know as well that there are too many
divisions that are struggling to provide their high school students with the
minimum 20 credits that are required to graduate.
An Honourable Member:
Mr. Storie: My colleague mentions one
Of course, you can imagine their surprise
when the superintendent said that as a result of this new formula the
contribution from the
So here is the lunacy of this proposal and
of this government's approach to quality education. We have a government committed to providing
80 percent of public school support to private schools and 55 percent support
to a school division in southwestern
Madam Deputy Speaker, that kind of
subverted logic when you are talking about the public school system is
difficult to understand. Those kinds of
statistics could be replayed across the province. Each school division is going to see
significant, negative implications because of the approach the government has
taken to public school funding.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the funding issue, I
think, is critical. I wanted to spend a
few minutes, however, talking about the broader social objectives that we have
for education. I hope that I have made it clear, and I would like to see some
members opposite, perhaps the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), talk about
the role of education, the role the public school plays in socialization, in
giving us that common understanding.
I often thought about what role the public
school played in dispelling some of the prejudice and the racism and the
intolerance that was obvious in
Even second‑generation Ukrainians
who could speak English fluently were the target of criticism, were the targets
of prejudice and racism. They had names
for Ukrainian students in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, what happened? I believe, largely because of the influence
of the public school system, largely because of the fact that I went to school
with people of names representing every ethnic group on the face of the earth,
over a period of time it tends to desensitize you to the differences. It tends
to heighten your knowledge and your understanding of the similarities, to
heighten your understanding of the fact that deep down we are all the same.
We are all equal, and we are all the
same. We have the same concerns. We find the same things funny and we find the
same things sad and we share a lot more than the superficial differences that
sometimes set us apart.
Madam Deputy Speaker, today I do not think
there is any Manitoban who believes that the name Derkach, the name Plohman,
the name
That is what the public school did. The public school brought us together, made
us work together and made us understand each other. What we are doing now is, we are creating an
education system, a two‑tiered education system that is based on
differences and that is going to take us down a path that is going to ensure
that the kind of racially motivated violence that we see creeping into our
society, into the city of Winnipeg, into parts of rural Manitoba is going to
escalate, because we have forgotten that the education system, the public
school system, was one of the institutions that tied us together.
* (1510)
I am not blaming all of those problems on
that propensity to isolate ourselves, whether it is in private schools or in
cultural and social ways, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am simply saying that the chool was the only institution and has been
the only institution that provided young people with that opportunity. It was not a matter of choice. People did not choose to go to the public
school where they could be the targets of racism or intolerance or
prejudice. They went because we had a
public school system, and the end result is tolerance and understanding.
If you want to find examples of tolerance
and understanding, if you want to find examples of young people working to
prevent racially motivated comments and attitudes and racially motivated
violence, then I suggest that the Minister of Education go to some schools in
Manitoba where you have that kind of mix, that very pleasing mix that
represents Manitoba, and they are in our public schools.
I think that we need to protect that
institution with all our vigour, and my concern is that the Minister of
Education, and other people have commented that it is hard to understand the
commitment of a Minister of Education, who clearly has made a choice which, in
my opinion, shows contempt for the public school system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 16, in my
opinion, is not just showing contempt for the value of the public school as an
institution. I think Bill 16 shows some
contempt in other ways, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about the
shortcomings of this legislation in that respect as well.
We have talked about the unprecedented
cutback. We have talked about the
government's decision to keep funnelling money into private schools, while it
cuts the public school system. We talked
about the ultimate end of this legislation as being one of undermining the
school divisions' ability to offer choices to their students, and the poorer
the division, the more binding, the more restrictive this legislation is going
to make that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that there
are many divisions that cannot offer the options that perhaps Assiniboine South
or Fort Garry School Division can offer.
But the fact of the matter is that this is going to make it worse. It is going to entrench the inequities that
exist in our school system, in our school divisions across the province. It makes no pretense even of attempting to
address the problem of those inequities, makes no pretense of attempting to
build on the resources that are available in public schools in rural and northern
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think people
understand that this bill also targets students and teachers, trustees, parents
and the public school system to bear the burden of the education cuts. The government quite frankly had choices. Other people have mentioned the fact that the
government, who speaks so glowingly about no tax increases at the same time as
it has limited school divisions' ability to raise local taxes to pay for
educational programs, has gone ahead and seen fit to increase those
individuals' property taxes by four or five or six times the amount that school
divisions have been allowed to pass on increases in terms of the special
requirement.
Madam Deputy Speaker, of more concern
certainly to the Manitoba Association of School Trustees and to the many school
districts across the province is the government's clear attack on local
decision making. The government in this
bill is basically undermining what has been a very, very long period of
independence on the part of school boards.
They have done it, in my opinion‑‑and I think this opinion
is shared by many‑‑in a very underhanded way.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many types
of tyranny, and this government has chosen the type that is disguised as a
choice. The fact of the matter is the
school divisions basically have no choice.
The government has pretended, in its public comments at least, that
somehow the school divisions have a choice.
They have pretended that by not following the
"recommendations" of the minister, that they do not have to make
sacrifices somewhere else in the system.
The minister has essentially left them no option by limiting the amount
of money, the amount of increase that they are allowed in terms of the special
requirement. The minister knows that as
well as anyone else.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that this move is going to cost us all. There is no doubt that this measure which is
only temporary, we know that at some point the school divisions are going to be
faced with undoing the damage that this bill created. We know that school divisions are going to
have to look at their systems again. I
can use some examples, and perhaps I will just so it is perfectly clear to
members opposite the kinds of choices the school divisions are being made. It is a Hobson's choice. I am aware of one school division‑‑
An Honourable Member: What is a Hobson's choice?
Mr. Storie: It is a choice in which there is no real
winner.
An Honourable Member: It is like being between a rock and hard
place.
Mr. Storie: It is like being between a rock and a hard
place.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one division in
discussing Bill 16 and looking at its options basically decided that they were
going to have to reduce staff to meet the obligations under this
legislation. You compound that with the
implications of Bill 22 which forces school divisions into the same kind of
box. So school divisions, the public
school system is sitting there having been trampled on twice essentially in the
same session.
The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) in
a letter that she wrote to individual teachers and concerned citizens is
calling it an option, and the word option is emboldened in the letter to make
it sound more real. There is no
option. That is what I said earlier
about the worst form of tyranny that is disguised as choice.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister has not
only cut education, but in attempting to impose the reduced workweek
legislation on school boards is creating a whole set of secondary problems for
school divisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, although it is
disguised as options, school divisions are genuinely concerned, teachers are
concerned and many, many parents, to the surprise of some perhaps, are
concerned about the implications of the reduced workweek, particularly the
recommendations the minister has made about how those should be imposed. Again, another Hobson's choice, do you‑‑
An Honourable Member: Jerry, wait a minute, you were the guy who
recommended that the teachers take no salary increase at one time, I think.
* (1520)
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, the former Minister of
Education talks about a proposal I made in 1987 to have the teachers take
zero. The minister chooses his words
carefully because this was not imposed on teachers or school boards. In fact, if the minister wants to discuss
this, I think we want the record to be perfectly clear. What the government did was not only increase
funding to public schools above the rate of inflation, we introduced an
education resource fund of a $5 million‑‑
An Honourable Member: In lieu of what? In lieu of no salary increases.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, if the minister will
just control himself for a moment, I will explain exactly what the proposal
was.
The proposal was that if school boards and
teachers, in the collective bargaining process, could achieve a zero increase
on the base salary, they could negotiate on all other issues. If they could achieve zero, which would freeze
the base, they could access the $5‑million resource fund. It was completely voluntary. It provided an option for teachers and school
divisions who had told me that the‑‑
An Honourable Member: How successful were you?
Mr. Storie: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not
successful at all. I quite acknowledge
that fact. The point is that there was
no coercion. The point is there was no
imposition of the government's will. The
point is there was no interference in the collective bargaining system. There was absolutely no interference‑‑[interjection]
Well, the proof is, of course, that there
were no zero percent negotiated increases, that the teachers and the school
boards to their‑‑I was going to say chagrin but that is probably
not accurate‑‑but unfortunately fell back on the same old system
using arbitration. What I was trying to
do was inject a note of creativity in the collective bargaining process, and I
failed. I freely admit that. I do not regret, however, making the effort.
I do not think that school boards that I met with, the people that I spoke to,
ever suggested‑‑
An Honourable Member: The point is that creativity, there is nothing
wrong with it. Right?
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, of course, there is
nothing wrong with it. Certainly, I
learned something and I think the Teachers' Society learned something by it, as
did school divisions‑‑
An Honourable Member: So acknowledge it now.
Mr. Storie: So acknowledge what? I acknowledge the fact that we were funding education
and this government is not. I
acknowledge the fact that we were giving inflation‑‑contrary to
what the Minister of Education says, we were giving increases at inflation, and
as my colleague from Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) pointed out yesterday, this government
is not. I mean, you cannot call a 2
percent reduction, you know, matching inflation.
The bottom line is that this whole process
undermines the authority of school boards, undermines the confidence of
teachers, undermines the confidence of parents and jeopardizes students. That is what it does. In plain and simple terms, every school
division, every parent in
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not accept that
this government did not have choices. I
have already said that they are giving private schools, the same people that
are paying $7,000 or $8,000 tuition for their students to attend private schools
are being given a break by the taxpayers of
I do not know whether the Minister of
Education has yet realized it, but if there is genuine concern over the
increasing cost of education, and there should be, that the proposal that they
have worked in Bill 22 does nothing to change that. Bill 22 does not reduce the base costs, is
not going to reduce the subsequent costs, once this government is past this
particular phase, once this government is gone, for future governments.
The fact of the matter is that this is a
political solution that has been imposed on a very difficult problem. The minister and some members of the front
bench over there may feel that somehow this is a politically and publicly
palatable‑‑that is alliteration‑‑politically and
publicly palatable solution.
The fact of the matter is, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that this is a charade, that it does not solve the problems in the
public school system. It simply creates
additional ones. It exacerbates it, if
you will.
The unfortunate fact is that Bill 16 is a
result of a consistent pattern that this government has displayed, certainly
since it received a majority in 1990. I
am afraid to say, because I know that you are in some sense attached to that
particular group, but I know that you do not share their philosophy, that you
share the philosophy of this side, that our public school systems deserve
compassion, that we should not be treating the public school system with
indifference, that it deserves better.
We cannot forget that the public school
system educates still today almost 95 percent of the students of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to say that
this bill is part of a pattern, if you will, that developed shortly after the
1990 election. That is a pattern of
heavy‑handedness, a pattern of disregard for the authority of other duly
elected, duly constituted groups.
There have been so many examples in the
past few weeks of that that it is frightening.
I relate only one, and that is, the government's and the Minister of
Family Services' (Mr. Gilleshammer) reaction to the crisis centre in Flin Flon. The minister had alternatives.
The crisis centre board and myself met
with him and presented him with alternatives, but there was no interest in
those alternatives. The government, the
minister had made up his mind, and in this case, Bill 16 and Bill 22, the
minister has made up her mind along with her colleagues. It does not speak very well of the
government's supposed commitment to consultation, to listening to the people‑‑
An Honourable Member: And partnership.
Mr. Storie: ‑‑to partnership, to co‑operation. Do all of those things simply go out the
window as soon as this group gets around the cabinet table? Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, the decisions
we are seeing from this government, and as much in the area of education as
anywhere else, reflect an ideological approach, a political approach, a cynical
approach to policy development in the
The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), I
know, did not take any kind of perverse pleasure in axing the 66 clinicians
that she axed in her department, but the fact of the matter is that the minister
does not have to put up with the repercussions of that decision. It is the public school system that does,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is unfortunate.
Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill
16, The Public Schools Amendment Act. It
is interesting to note that there have been some reforms before this bill,
namely, a new education finance plan that was introduced last year, and for the
first time the plan disengages divisions' funding patterns from some historical
base and allows them to receive and spend what they require to deliver a given
standard of service. This approach is
called the resource‑cost approach to education finance, and it can be
fairer or has the potential to be fairer, especially if all divisions are given
the funding they need to deliver a set standard of services but are still left
free to determine how they will actually do this in practice. The problem, of course, is that the government
of the day sets the standards, which may be fair or may not be fair.
* (1530)
Bill 16 limits the right of divisions to
raise funding from their tax base, and that is the main component of this
bill. Of course, that is the main thing
to which our party objects. We believe
that the most objectionable part of limiting their ability to raise funds is
the interference in local autonomy; that in spite of the fact that trustees are
elected to represent their constituents and the people who voted for them, they
do not have total control anymore, as a result of this bill, to levy the kind
of taxes that they feel are suitable for their local district. What it means is that the government, through
this bill, has decided that they know best, that they are going to determine
what the upper limits are and how much money they can raise. We object to this. We think that it is not democratic. It is
interfering in the democratic rights of duly elected school trustees.
Just like all of us had to campaign and
have our names on a ballot and go to a lot of work to get elected, the same is
true for trustees all over the province of Manitoba. They knock on doors. They meet voters. They talk to people about educational
policy. Once they are elected, including
any members in this Chamber who are former trustees, then it is their
responsibility and I believe their right to determine what level of taxation is
suitable to carry out the policies that they were elected for. As long as that
system is in place, I believe we have a good system which normally is not immune
but independent of political interference.
I believe that that has come to an end because this government has
decided that they know better and they are going to put caps on. Therefore, they are going to interfere in
local autonomy and decision making.
There are some specific issues in this
bill which are of concern to myself and to other trustees in this
province. For example, several weeks ago
I was talking to a trustee in River East School Division. Her concern had to do with surpluses.
Now, I do not know very much about
surpluses in school board budgets, but I assume that they are there for a
reason. This trustee was telling me that
one of the things that they had set aside the surplus for was a contingency
fund.
In fact, I think it depends on how you
define it. I do not know how much the
surplus is in River East School Division.
I think it is also a matter of definition. You can call it a surplus; if you are the
government of the day you are going to call it a surplus.
I believe the school board would probably
prefer to call it a contingency fund or an emergency fund. They may well have it earmarked or designated
for special purposes. This is a very
common practice in many kinds of organizations.
For example, for three years I was on the board
of directors of a housing co‑operative.
I also was involved with establishing a housing co‑op. So I know that it is common practice in the
co‑operative sector in the housing market to have a contingency reserve,
and normally it is 3 percent of your operating funds.
This is something which is mandated by
Manitoba Housing‑‑well, it used to be Manitoba Housing and Renewal
Corporation, I guess they still exist on paper anyway‑‑and also by
CMHC, who provides 75 percent of funding for provincial housing.
They require co‑operatives to have a
contingency reserve, and it is there for a reason. The reason is that if, for example, all the
roofs in your housing project need to be replaced in one year for some reason,
because of some emergency that the money is there to do it so you do not have
to go running to government and say, we need money to make these needed
repairs. The money is set aside, a
certain percentage of the budget is set aside every year in a contingency fund
so that when it is needed the money is there.
I suspect that when school divisions have
a contingency fund or an emergency fund or even if you call it a surplus, as
the government is doing, that it is there for a reason, that it is there to be
used in emergencies or for some special purpose for which it has been
earmarked. But the government has
decided that they are going to require them to spend the surpluses.
Another concern of school divisions,
particularly School Division No. 1, is the funding for special needs students
and special needs programs. It is very
interesting and very disturbing to look at their statistics and to talk to
their teachers and talk to their school trustees.
The most recent statistics that I saw
which were presented by School Division No. 1 showed that 43 percent of all the
special needs students in
There is a reason for that. First of all, it is a very large school
division, and also it contains almost all of the inner city of
So those children go to schools in
Winnipeg School Division No. 1.
Consequently, they have this statistic which says that 43 percent of all
special needs children are located in Winnipeg No. 1 School Division. So this is a particular concern and a
particular problem and a particular challenge for the trustees of Winnipeg
School Division No. 1.
They have responded to that need, and they
have responded to that challenge with what I believe to be very innovative
programming for those students. I
suspect that there are many, many more teacher's aides in classrooms in that
school division. I know some of those individuals, and recently I was talking
to a teacher's aide about the high‑need students in her classroom, and
she was giving me the numbers of students in one classroom who are diagnosed as
having alcohol fetal syndrome, and that is a very big concern. There seem to be many individuals who have
been diagnosed as having fetal alcohol syndrome. Those children have many problems, and they
need the extra resources and the extra teaching staff to assist them. So Winnipeg School Division has responded by
putting staff and programs into place to meet the needs of that group.
Another special program they have that is
very interesting is the adolescent parent centre where an old school building
was completely taken over and renovated, beautifully renovated by School
Division No. 1, for adolescent parents, and they bring their babies to
school. It is quite fascinating to go on
a tour of that school. I would recommend
that everybody go on a tour of that school.
It is very, very interesting because they have nurseries. They do not have a child‑care centre
like many schools do; they have a nursery.
So there is a room full of babies in that school, and the students spend
part of their day with their babies and the rest of the day in a classroom.
That is a particular need to which
Winnipeg School Division No. 1 has been very responsive. I think they are doing an excellent job. I happen to know one of the staff there, and
I think the staff are very caring and very understanding, and it is allowing
adolescent parents to finish their high school education. Many of them in the past probably dropped
out, but now, because of more concern by individuals and by the staff and the
school division and parents and society, those students are encouraged to
continue in school.
Now, there are not just one or two
schools, but I believe there are many schools that have child‑care
centres in the school so that parents can bring preschool children with them to
school, have them looked after and continue with their high school education
and indeed graduate. It is good to see
that that kind of response has been made and that the support systems are in
place to encourage them to finish their high school education because we know,
statistically, there is all kinds of information that shows that there is a
very high correlation between level of education and level of income and that
the more education you have, the higher your income. There is also a correlation between education
and employment, that the more education you have, the more likely you are to be
employed.
* (1540)
In fact, it is very interesting to compare
it by geographic regions. For example,
in the city of
So those are some of the current concerns
that teachers and educators and school trustees have particularly in the school
division that Burrows constituency is located in. There are also other issues that educators
and we as an opposition party are concerned about that are the result of the
budgetary decisions of this government, not only in the Education department
but in other departments as well.
For example, the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has eliminated the student social assistance
program, an excellent program which was helping students who could in most
cases no longer live at home to continue their education. The Minister of Family Services has
repeatedly said, well, this was the only one in Canada, the only province that
had a student social assistance program, as if that was some sort of rationale
for eliminating it, I think the rationale being that he and his cabinet thought
that it was okay to be the only province and therefore dropping down to the
lowest common denominator. I think that
is a very fallacious argument.
If you have the only program in
The minister has acknowledged, I believe,
that they can apply for city welfare.
Well, yes, they can apply for City of
The minister suggests that they should get
a part‑time job. Well, some of them probably will get a part‑time
job, but will they be able to earn enough money from a part‑time job to
support themselves, to both live and go to school? I think that is doubtful.
First of all, there is a dearth of part‑time
jobs. Secondly, most part‑time
jobs pay very low wages, probably minimum wage. It is unlikely that a high
school student is going to get either enough hours or enough part‑time
jobs in order to support themselves so that they can continue in school. I think it is an unrealistic expectation by
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
The Minister of Family Services also made
changes in the child daycare area which I believe are going to have negative
impacts on students' ability to complete school. For example, the daily fees have been
increased by $1.40 a day for child care.
This is of concern to parents who are saying that they cannot afford
that increase, especially parents on social assistance. So they are going to say, well, if I cannot afford
this, I am going to have to take my child out of child care. Many of those
parents are either in high school or university or a community college or a
business college and they are going to drop out of school.
This is jeopardizing their future. It is jeopardizing their chances to get a
better education. It is jeopardizing
their chances to get a better job. It is
jeopardizing their chances to have a higher income. So we believe this decision by this Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is one that is going to be detrimental to
securing an education for those parents who have children in child care who
cannot afford the $1.40‑a‑day increase.
The other policy of the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) that we and many parents in the child‑care
system are very concerned about is changing the number of weeks of paid or
subsidized child care in order to find employment, which is being reduced from
eight weeks a year to two weeks a year.
I have been getting lots of phone calls about this.
I presume that many other members are
getting phone calls about it. I hope
that they are getting phone calls from the staff and the board members and the
parents of child‑care centres in their constituency, because these
parents are very upset and legitimately so.
They are saying to us, we do not think we can find a job in two
weeks. The result is, we believe, that
they are either not going to be able to get employment, because they will not
have child care or they will not be able to return to university, because they
do not have child care.
Child care is one of the most important
factors in women entering the paid labour force. I think that is one of the reasons why our
caucus has been saying that the policies of this government discriminate against
women because many of these policies impact more negatively on women than on
men in our society, and this is another example. In fact, it has been all women who have been
phoning me about the changes to child care. I hope there are some single‑parent
men who have children in child care, but I have not had any phone calls from
them.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) has still not answered our questions adequately about the
difference between spaces and cases, but we will have a chance to ask him that
in Family Services Estimates in a day or two, either on Thursday of this week
or Monday next week or the week after, whenever we get to the child care
section of his budget. We believe that
far more than 400 children are going to be affected by capping the number of
spaces.
The minister is decreasing the number of
spaces from 10,000 to 9,600 and in their original press release suggested that
400 spaces would be lost, but now we have correspondence from the minister's
office, the child daycare office, going out to family daycare centres and to
parents talking about the specifics of his policy, and they are no longer using
the word "space." They are
using the word "case."
The way it has been explained to me by the
staff at the Manitoba Child Care Association and by the Family Day Care
Association and by parents who operate family child‑care centres, they
are telling me that in the past, two or three children filled one space because
often there were two or three children who were part time and they occupied one
space, but in the future, that is no longer going to be true. It is going to be on a case‑by‑case
basis.
So I have repeatedly asked the minister,
does this mean that there might be 800 or 1,000 children who no longer have
access to child care? The minister has
not answered my question adequately, but I am looking forward to asking more
detailed questions in Family Services Estimates. Once again, the point that I am making is
that this is a policy of this government which is adversely affecting the
opportunities for parents to get education and, in particular, parents with
children.
Another current issue which we really do
not know where the government is going on has to do with school
boundaries. A trustee that I talked to
in a division other than the one that I am in says that they are very concerned
that this government still plans to change the boundaries in the city of
The trustee is very concerned about the
implications of that policy. I share
those concerns because the result would be, for example, that you may have‑‑what?‑‑eight
or 10 trustees or seven or nine trustees representing the whole city. You might even have city‑wide districts
for those people to run in, and then it would be a matter of those people who
had the most money for advertising would have the best chance of getting
elected or re‑elected in a city‑wide school division.
That would totally change the nature of
being a trustee in the city of
We hope that this government and this
Minister of Education do not change the boundaries to make one school division
in the city of
We have also been very concerned about a
number of cuts in the budget of the Department of Education, the cut of speech
pathologists, the child psychologists and other clinicians. These people
provided services to special needs children, and we believe that those needs
are not going to be as fully met, if met at all, like they were in the past.
(1550)
Today we have a very interesting story in
the Free Press with the headline, Province Unveils Education Report. I am looking forward to reading the report,
but the summary is interesting. It says that there were 106 recommendations in
the report, that the task force cost $175,000, and there were 1,172 public
submissions.
The story in the Free Press today is by
Paul Samyn, and some of the recommendations are summarized here, and they are
quite interesting. The ones that I see
here I would have to say that I agree with most of them. So we will be looking forward to seeing the
minister implement these recommendations over the coming months and the coming
years, although we do not want to give them too many years.
The first one that is highlighted in the
newspaper report is that the welfare of children is of paramount
importance. I think that is kind of a
universal statement that all of us could agree with. There must be greater consultation with the
public and others with a stake in children's education, and certainly
consulting with more people is something that probably everyone can agree with‑‑nothing
contentious there.
The next one is that the right to a basic
education be defined and guaranteed to all students. I think that is another good
recommendation. I think it is quite
often helpful to have definitions which can become standards by which you can
judge whether or not people are obtaining an adequate education, and perhaps
guaranteeing the right to an education may give people certain rights that they
can insist on that they may not have now.
The next one I would like to comment on is
that children in home schooling receive accredited diplomas if they meet
accepted standards. Last Friday I was at
a conference. In fact, it was a rather
interesting experience because the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) and I were
both there and there was no one there from the government.
The people were quite surprised that the
government caucus was not represented.
In fact, it was a pretty Tory‑blue audience, and I think they were
quite disappointed that nobody was there from the government. They were quite surprised that two people
were there from the NDP caucus. So that
was an interesting experience.
I happened to talk to a parent who is
involved in home education, and she was pointing out that they get‑‑I
wish I could remember this‑‑either minimal or no support from the
Department of Education. I think she
mentioned that there is no consultant any more for home education. I should maybe ask the minister if that is
accurate or not. But they think that
there could be a lot more resources provided to parents of home education. I cannot remember the numbers. I think there are something like 700 children
who are involved in home education.
The next one is French Immersion programs
be offered where there is sufficient demand.
I am rather surprised to see that recommendation. I did not know that was not the case
now. I know that in some school
divisions like Winnipeg School Division No. 1, any heritage language program
must be offered if the parents come forward and if the children are
registered. If there is a certain
minimum number met, then the school division must provide the program, and in
Winnipeg School Division No. 1, I believe it is 18 children.
That is why we have the English‑Ukrainian
bilingual program, and several other bilingual programs because where there are
a sufficient number of students the program must be provided, and the English‑Ukrainian
bilingual program is the program that my children both graduated from at
This recommendation that French Immersion
programs be offered where there is sufficient demand is really no different
than the policy of school divisions like Winnipeg No. 1, which says that
parents can request a bilingual program if the numbers warrant it. Perhaps the thing that is different about
this recommendation is that if the minister acts on it, it could be available
everywhere in the
The next recommendation highlighted in the
newspaper article is that aboriginal language programs be offered where there
is sufficient demand. I think that is an
excellent recommendation because what we are discovering is that, when
appropriate cultural services and programs are being provided, it is very
beneficial to those students, and when people have pride in their status, pride
in their ancestry, pride in who they are, that is very helpful to their self‑esteem,
to their learning and to their finishing education.
That is why some school divisions have
already responded to this with special programs, for example, Winnipeg School Division
No. 1 has an all‑aboriginal high school known as Children of the
I know that it has made a big difference
in rural communities. For example, my
colleague and friend Rev. Stan McKay says that at Fisher River, his home
community, they gradually increased the grade levels every year of elementary
school and high school on the Fisher River Reserve, and that when the students
could take their entire schooling up to Grade 12, that the first year that
there were graduates from Grade 12, there were more students graduated in that
one year than in the entire history of the reserve, that is students graduating
with a Grade 12 diploma.
It obviously made a big difference to
those students to be able to go to school with their classmates from the
reserve on the reserve, instead of being bussed off. When they were bussed off, the dropout rate
was much, much higher. I suspect that we
are going to see that kind of effect in the inner city of
This recommendation specifically refers to
aboriginal languages. I think that is a
good idea as well, because as they say in the Ukrainian community, language is
the key to culture. Culture is very, very important to people, and I believe if
aboriginal people have their language, if they are able to retain their
language, it will help them to retain their culture.
* (1600)
That is not just something that I
personally believe, but that is what the leaders in the aboriginal community
are saying, is that we must preserve our languages in order to preserve our
cultures. We know that many aboriginal
languages are in danger of dying in
The next recommendation says: Students have the right to be treated fairly
and with respect; students have a responsibility to respect school property and
comply with behaviour and dress codes.
That would seem to be self‑evident. I think everyone can agree with that
statement. I think it is a balanced
statement, because not only do people have rights but people have
responsibilities. I think wherever there
are rights there should be and there are responsibilities.
That is certainly true in many pieces of
legislation, for example, The Residential Tenancies Act, formerly, the
preceding act, The Landlord and Tenants Act.
It talks about tenants' rights.
It also talks about tenants' responsibilities. The act talks about landlords' rights, but it
also talks about landlords' responsibilities.
So I think it is good.
It may even go into a code of ethics or a
code of standards or some sort of code that could even be publicly posted in
every school in the province saying, these are students' rights, and list those
rights. You could have a parallel that
said, these are students' responsibilities.
A couple of them are actually spelled out. Students have the right to be treated fairly
and with respect. Students have a
responsibility to respect school property and comply with behaviour and dress
codes.
I am not sure about the dress codes. I think probably respecting school property
is reasonable. I think you get into a
problem when you try to enforce dress codes.
Certainly it has created lots of problems in the past.
I remember something that happened to me
when I was in Grade 13 in
I personally would have an objection to a
dress code, unless of course it is, for example, a private school that wants to
have a dress code. I have no objection
to a private school doing that.
The next recommendation is: Parents have a responsibility to ensure their
children are fed, clothed and sheltered to the best of their abilities and to
teach them basic values. I agree that
parents have this responsibility. I am
not sure how the education system goes about ensuring that they meet this
responsibility. Certainly, this has been
a very contentious area in the past. For
example, when parents and people in the community have said, we need a
breakfast program in the school because children are coming to school without
having breakfast and they are fainting.
They are not learning because they do not have food in their
stomachs. Educators and many others have
said, let us provide a breakfast program, and that has happened. We have many,
many schools in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 with breakfast programs.
But the people who argued against it have
said, it is not the school's responsibility, it is not the educator's
responsibility to feed children at school.
It is the parents' responsibility to feed children at home. I think there is some validity to that
argument. It is a very, very difficult
balancing act to decide which you are going to do: Insist that the parents exercise their
responsibility; but when they do not, you have a problem at school with kids
who have not had breakfast and they do not learn and they are not achieving
like they should. Then you have to
decide which is better. What are you
going to do?
Then the second part of it is to teach
them basic values. Well, I think all of us could speak for 40 minutes on what
we think are basic values and we would probably get 56 different views, and if
you asked the Speaker privately, you would get 57 different views. I do not think it would necessarily break
down on party lines. I do not think you
would get consensus in the Conservative caucus as to what basic values are, and
I do not think you would get consensus in the NDP caucus or the Liberal caucus,
although it might be a lot easier in the Liberal caucus to get a consensus from
seven people than it would be in larger caucuses.
But I think it would be impossible. You could never get a consensus either
amongst political parties, or amongst educators, or amongst school trustees, or
even students, as to what basic values are.
So I think that is an impossible task to say that parents‑‑well,
I guess, if it is parents teaching basic values, yes, I agree parents should
teach basic values, but I do not think you will ever get agreement as to what
those basic values are.
The last recommendation that is
highlighted here is that the government should grant teachers recognition as a
profession through a separate act. Now,
I think there are problems with every organization coming forward and wanting
an act of the Legislature to recognize their profession, so that is something
that I would withhold judgment on.
Besides which, we have not had a chance to read the report or caucus it
yet, so it is probably better that I do not say anything about whether we agree
or disagree with that recommendation.
In the story itself, it says that the
report says, parents should have access to records and files on their children
as well as full partnership in decision making regarding educational programs
being considered for their children.
Well, I think that having access to records on file is a good idea, but
I think it raises a number of problems of confidentiality, for a start, and I
would like to read the full recommendation and the rationale for it. Then it says:
The parents should be full partners in decision making regarding educational
programs.
I think that is a good idea; however,
parents already have lots of opportunities and do not exercise them to the
extent that they could. For example, I
have been on the parent council at
In fact, it used to be much higher when it
was the Community Improvement Program Committee and they used to bring in food.
They used to bring in pizza. We used to
have Vietnamese food; we used to have Ukrainian food. At every meeting, we had a different kind of
food, and the attendance was wonderful.
It is amazing what happens when you provide food. In fact, when you provide food at our caucus
meetings, you get a much better attendance as well, one of the advantages of having
a Monday night caucus meeting as opposed to Wednesday mornings. Maybe meeting on Wednesday morning is getting
us ready for cabinet. However, I am getting off track. I am also attending meetings at
I think if parents came out in large
numbers and if they sat on committees and if they really wanted to get
involved, the opportunity is already there, but many parents do not take
advantage of that opportunity, and that is disappointing. If they did, I think they could have a much
greater influence in the education of their children. I think schools would welcome that. I think most schools are open to that and, in
fact, changes are being made in that area.
For example, the next paragraph says there
is also a call for parents to have a role in a school advisory committee that
would provide advice to the principal and the school board. Well, I have been nominated by two schools to
be on those school advisory committees.
I was nominated at
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
are opposed to the main part of this bill which we believe takes away autonomy
from school divisions and local decision making from local school
divisions. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, I hesitated a minute to
rise there to speak to this bill. I did
assume that perhaps one of the government members might want to defend what
they had put on record. I think we have
only had one speaker on this bill so far from the government side and that is
very disappointing for a bill which in fact changes the direction of political
responsibility in
An Honourable Member: Oh, about 29.
Ms. Friesen: ‑‑29 members, that there might be
one who might be prepared to stand up and put on record their support for this
bill, because it is a very unusual bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. One would have
expected to see from the government perhaps half a dozen speakers. Perhaps even every member of that side of the
House would have liked to have put their position on record, because in every
one of their constituencies they are certainly going to feel the impact of the
consequences of this bill, not just in the changes in funding that it implies
for school boards, but also in the changes in political direction and
responsibility that this government is making in all parts of Manitoba.
* (1610)
Those members across the way who have
children in school or grandchildren in school, I would have expected would have
been delighted to hear their defence of this bill. One often hears them call from their seat in
sometimes not quite polite terms, but on this particular bill they believe that
it is what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) would call a tax. What did you call it, a tax saver's
bill? Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is
the level of political argument on that side of the House in support of this
bill, I think the Tory party has sunk perhaps even a little lower than I had
anticipated.
So the lack of political support by the
government for this bill I think is very, very disturbing. It is one that affects every area of
This particular bill, Madam Deputy
Speaker, sets a new direction in
But this government has taken local
democracy in another direction. It has
simply said to local school boards, who for generations now have taken the
responsibility for raising school monies and for setting the standards and
directing the schools in their area, what this government is doing is
essentially reversing that and suggesting and implying that school boards in
fact should no longer have that kind of authority, that it is no longer their
responsibility to decide upon what the needs of their particular local area are
and that it is the needs, Madam Deputy Speaker, of a local area which all those
trustees over the generations have been elected to determine and to raise taxes
on that behalf. They are very local,
very close to the taxpayer and hence directly accountable to the taxpayer.
Who is going to be accountable in this
case? The school boards have a
direction, another autocratic decision by this particular government, that they
will not be able to allow taxes to rise beyond a certain amount no matter what
the local needs of that school are, no matter what the parents of that district
tell them, no matter what their electors tell them. The limitations upon local autonomy, I think,
are sending
I am not sure that when people elected
this government, they counted upon this kind of autocratic decision from a
central government, but that has happened in so many areas of this government,
increasing centralization and increasingly taking authority and accountability
out of the hands of local people.
School trustees, I think, have a very
special place in Canadian history and perhaps in Canadian mythology in the
sense of icons. I remember visiting the
art gallery
It is a picture of a group of parents,
male in this case, of course‑‑it is a 19th Century painting‑‑and
it is one that shows the school trustees as farmers, as local people and as
wrestling with the very basic decisions that are at the heart of a
community. The teacher is a young woman,
and there is obviously a tension in the painting between the teacher and the
school trustees. That tension between
teachers and trustees that is represented in that painting is one that we find
in Canadian literature, as well, if you know the books of the, I think it was
the 1930s, by Martha Ostenso, As the Geese Fly.
There too‑‑or Wallace Stegner or Sinclair Ross, some of the
great writers of prairie Canada‑‑the teacher, the school trustee,
the school board certainly always figure as part of the very elemental parts of
every town and village across western Canada.
It is there in the literature, it is there in our icons of painting, and
it is there I think in the experience of anyone who has lived, not just
obviously in small towns, but what grew to become the major cities of western
Canada as well, a basic element of democracy and accountability that this
government has turned on its head.
It has been historically an area for very
active politics and an area where many people have been able to become involved
as trustees where they have made their contribution to their communities in a
very direct way.
I do not know how many members of this
House began their political life as school trustees, but certainly I am sure
there are a number of them. Right across
Similarly, women themselves, finding an
opportunity that is close to home about an activity in the area in which they
had very close involvement, the education of their children, they found it the
most immediate level of political culture.
Yet here again we see a government which is now undermining the
commitment of those people who not only historically, but in our present day,
make enormous sacrifices and are struggling every day with the difficulties
that they face with reduced budgets from this government, with the increasing
difficulties they are finding in meeting the demands of families as they try to
find a future for their children. And
they pin their hopes for that future on education.
So the trustees are I think at the
forefront, the cutting edge, if you want to use the current jargon, of a
community's hopes for its future. Their
opportunity to be accountable, their responsibility to those local parents has
been undermined with one stroke of this government‑‑a government
which, I will repeat, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not prepared to get up and
defend this bill.
One minister has spoken on this bill, and
to my knowledge no one else has spoken on it‑‑an important bill
which reverses the political accountability of Manitobans and which not one of
them will get up and speak on.
I have spoken of the role of school
trustees and the importance of the task which they undertake, the fact that
they do it, in many cases, for no remuneration or for very little remuneration,
and that they face the problems in a microcosm that our province is facing
generally. To undercut those people and
those contributions, I think, is very misguided of this government and
certainly something which I think they will come to regret, because when we
look at our public schools we are looking at one of the institutions which
binds us together.
We are not a country which has a state
religion. We are not a country which has
many symbols that do bind us together.
In fact, one of the symbols which has been said to bind us together in
the past has been the monarchy. I was
most interested to find the recent report of the minister makes the singing of
God Save the Queen optional. O
* (1620)
It is interesting, because I certainly
look forward to the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) on
this, who often at least seems to me to be a very strong monarchist. It is one
of the services that the monarchy has provided, perhaps not in recent weeks,
but certainly in a historic framework, that symbol of unity. It is interesting to see yet another symbol
of unity perhaps undermined in that particular report. I do not know whether that is the intention
of the committee or not or whether the government will particularly accept that
account.
It is interesting. I know in my own classes when I ask my
students, what is our form of government, first of all they simply do not
understand that we are, in fact, a monarchical society. When they finally are shown the Queen on a
dollar bill or they are shown the Queen on a coin and accept that there are
some principles of monarchical government, they are actually quite astounded by
it. So it is not perhaps that that
committee is out of step with the times, but it is one of those symbols of
unity which will I think likely continue to be eroded.
In those circumstances, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the importance of the public schools as a meeting ground, as a place
where a common culture is transmitted to the next generation, that role becomes
increasingly significant. The pressure
upon trustees, particularly in the inner city, I think, where so many new
migrants, new Canadians, are centred, the role of the public schools there is
increasingly important.
Here we are again. We see a government which is extremely
shortsighted and which really has only one solution to anything and that is to
cut, to erode local responsibility and to erode the accountability of school
trustees. I regret that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and I think this government will come to regret it as well.
Schools are one of the basic investments
of any community. I wish that we had
some success in persuading this government that education is not a drain on the
provincial coffers, but that it is an investment, an investment in the
future. The government is all too quick
with its slogans, its references and rhetorical flourishes to the argument that
education is the key that opens the future.
When it comes down to looking at the
record of this government in education, there really is only one key to
understanding their response. That is
simply that they regard education and public education in particular as a drain
upon the public treasury. That is the
way they have treated it.
This bill is simply one more in a long
series of cuts and slashes and undermining that the public school system has
suffered since this government took office.
Education is the basic investment of any
community. It has always been seen as
that, whether it was those school trustees who are portrayed in that 19th
Century portrait or the ones who are spoken of in the literature of Prairie
They have always viewed it as the key to,
first of all, the maintenance of their own community and the survival of those
communities across western
The key to the survival of their future is
the maintenance of their children in that community, and the key to that in a
knowledge‑based economy is increasingly going to be the kind of education
which they can provide.
So a school trustee now, who faces the
year‑by‑year cuts of this government and then is prevented from
raising in a particular year, over a number of years, the amount of money that
is required, that a community might agree is required, that a community might
want to raise money for and the community might want to see their education
system, in spite of what is happening in the halls of the Tory party, a
community might want to see that as investment, but in fact they are prevented
from doing so by this bill. So the very
decisions which trustees have made year after year, generation after
generation, are now being turned on their head by this particular government.
Education is one of those areas where a
community can come together and pool their resources as they did in the past to
hire teachers, to provide common facilities, eventually to provide curriculums
that were common across the province, to provide for inspection and monitoring,
to provide the special services for students in special education, or
increasingly in Manitoba, to provide the immersion programs, the language
programs which I think we are justly proud of and in some cases justly famous
for, and which are all being eroded by the lack of commitment to public
education of this particular government.
That pooling of community resources is something
which is now, which makes, of course, tremendous economic sense. No parent, well, very few parents, should I
say, are really able to educate their children on their own up to the Grade 12
level. Certainly home schooling is possible for some parents in some
communities up to certain ages, but certainly I personally know very few
parents who could educate their children up to the Grade 12 level, at least to
their own satisfaction.
So the pooling of resources, I think, is
an important one. The creation of curriculum, the creation of levels of
advancement in education, the pooling of those community resources which have
given us a Department of Education, which have given us local schools, which
have given us specialized schools and specialized programs, all of those things
make enormous sense, and that is what public investment is about. That is what the public sector is about, but
this is a government which is committed to taking away the public sector from Manitobans.
It is not committed to government. It is not committed to the public sector, and
the hallmark of this government in the end will be its attack on the public
sector, whether it is the attack on public sector wages, whether it is the
selling off of Data Services, whether it is the selling off of the Queen's
Printer, whether it is the tipping of the balance to private education, the
underfunding and the cuts and the diminution of the responsibilities of school
trustees. All of these speak consistently
to a government which is not interested in the public sector and which in fact
wants to take away from the public sector.
I would go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, to
defend the importance of the public sector, particularly in a province like
* (1630)
I would love to hear the defence of this
government on this bill, one speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a bill which
reverses the trend of generations of
It is totally inadequate. It bespeaks very much of the attack on the
public sector that they have made and continue to make.
An Honourable Member: Let us see the senator get up and defend it.
Ms. Friesen: Well, that is true. We do have a potential senator in our midst,
do we not? I thought we had 29 potential
senators, do we not? I mean, you are all
waiting for the phone, are you not? How
many of you are there? [interjection] Thirty.
Well, I wonder who I was not counting?
Capping the tax or capping the
responsibility, really, which is what they are doing, of school trustees is I
think an area that bears a great deal of examination. I would again wish that all of those
potential senators on the other side of the House would get up and speak on this
bill. It would make most instructive
reading, even listening. I would be
prepared, I think, to certainly sit and listen to the Minister of Urban Affairs
(Mr. Ernst) defend this bill, or any of the other potential senators.
Put some effort into defending this
bill. Put some effort into telling us
why you constantly attack the public sector and why you are prepared to reverse
the whole political accountability of
It is a large and significant shift. I think one of the areas that many of my
colleagues have spoken on is the unfairness with which this can and will be
applied. It is unfairly applied, because
there have been some school boards, those who have had perhaps better resources
than others, those who have managed to be fiscally conservative in the last few
years.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
Those people, because they are starting
from a lower base, because they have already made the kind of cuts in education
that this government welcomes, that this government wants to see from them,
those people, because there is now a percentage cap on the amount of extra
funds that can be raised, are going to be penalized.
So school boards who have already made
those drastic cuts, who have already, I think, in their own minds contributed
to the decline in the quality of education in Manitoba, who have cut the school
trips to the museum, who have cut perhaps the trips, the expedition to the
Legislature, who perhaps no longer have physical education as often as they did
or should, who perhaps no longer have the kind of specialists in the school
that they need and have had in the past, those kinds of school boards, or those
school boards who have already made those decisions, are now going to be doubly
penalized.
Because they start from the lower base,
they are going to be faced with making even more stringent cuts. Again, we will see that the equality of
education across
That should be, I think, of great concern
to all
I cannot believe that this is something
which any government and any MLA in this Chamber would welcome. So that is why it puzzles me, Mr. Acting
Speaker, that there is no defence, that there is no explanation, that there is
no discussion from all of those potential senators on the other side of this
House for this particular bill.
I have met, Mr. Acting Speaker, with some
of these school boards, and in particular the school board representing part of
Springfield, the Transcona school board, and I know that the MLA, my colleague
from Transcona, has spoken at length on this, and I do recommend his speech to
many members in this House because it is a speech which details quite clearly
the difficulties that particular division is going to face. They are one of the divisions which might
indeed be faced with having to return money to their electors at a time when
their electors and they themselves know that education needs every penny that
it can get.
What a peculiar and what a terrible
situation to place those school trustees in, they who are accountable to those
local electors, they who are accountable to parents who have children with
special needs in their schools. They are
accountable to the parents and the families with children in bilingual
education, whether it is French, or in the case of Transcona also a very
significant Ukrainian immersion program that is run.
This is a school division which has made
great headway and has put a great deal of attention for a long period of time
now into special needs education. In
fact, they are one of the school divisions which has blazed a trail in that
area. And that is expensive. Children need extra attention. There are often adjustments which need to be
made to buildings. There is a question
of the time and of the provision of teacher aides, of changes that might need
to be made to curriculum, and a greater need of conferences on the part of
teachers to ensure that the needs of both the class and the child themselves
are being met.
To put a school division and to put those
school trustees in a position where they cannot be accountable to the parents
of those children seems to me, again, a very, very unfortunate and a reversal
of everything that we thought educational responsibility stood for in
I emphasize again, no speeches from the
other side of the House, no members prepared to stand up and defend it. One would expect at least the member
opposite, the Minister of Agriculture, the MLA for
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think, if we are to
look at the overall argument behind this bill, I would say that what it is
doing is limiting the ability of trustees, parents and teachers to meet the
needs of their own children. It is, in
that sense, another tip in the balance against public education.
What we have seen from this government is
a whole series of cuts to public education.
Whether we are looking at the post‑secondary level or the
community colleges, the cuts that we have seen there over the last three years
are cuts to public education, education which is the most easily accessible in
financial terms to
We have also seen cuts to public education
at the provision of monies for people on student social allowance; one of the
most, I think, still appalling and unbelievable cuts that I have seen from this
particular government, to take students who were in school, wanted to be in
school, were making a commitment to finish their high school education in a
province which, by the minister's own admission, has a dropout rate of 27
percent, these were the students who were in school, who wanted to complete
their education, and they have essentially been shown the door.
There was no golden key for them to open
the doors to economic and educational opportunity. What they got was a key which locked the
doors to them for educational opportunity, the very people who had made the effort
and were struggling to complete their education, in some cases against a great
deal of odds.
To take that particular group, those 1,200
or 1,300 people and to essentially throw them onto welfare or onto the street,
because on welfare they will not have the opportunity to go to school, I think,
is one of the most appalling decisions that even this particular government has
made.
So tipping the balance against public
education and in favour of private education, that is where this government is
leading. Their one activity, their one innovation in education overall, other
than cut, other than that one tool that they have got in their tool kit, their
only innovation, has been to the Workforce 2000 program.
* (1640)
Whereas I have said before, Mr. Acting
Speaker, there may indeed be training merit in some of those aspects of the
Workforce 2000 program, it is, nonetheless, a private training program which is
not open to all, which creates no new jobs and which is not accountable to any
particular elected body except very indirectly, and we will see what kind of
questions the minister is prepared to answer on that when we get to Estimates.
But it is certainly not one where we have
any sense of who is being selected within these companies for training, whether
it is management or whether it is labour, how many women are being selected by
management for these particular training programs. All of this may, indeed, in
certain companies, be dealt with very equitably. That is quite possible. But we do not know because it is private.
The only new investment of this government
in education has been the investment of those public monies, essentially, into
a privatized educational product.
An Honourable Member: And I take it you are not in favour of it?
Ms. Friesen: Well, if the senator had been listening, the
senator would have said, as I have said many times, there may indeed be
training merit in Workforce 2000. I have
said that many times. The issue is that
it is private‑‑privately chosen, privately selected, no
accountability. So I think those are
points that he might want to take into account.
What we are seeing, of course, and the
case that I am making, is that not only is this government tipping the balance
against public education, but it is tipping the other side of the scales in
favour of private education, and Workforce 2000 is one example of that. Similarly, of course, people have spoken on
many occasions on the increase and the continued increase in funding and the
expectations of funding for private schools in
Although I noticed that the minister's new
report, which he may or may not accept, does want to use the term
"independent schools." I think
probably "private schools" is a much more accurate term that we
should be looking at. Independent
schools, one would assume, were schools which were independent of government
money, and that clearly is not the case in
Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, this is not a
criticism of the kind of education which goes on in those schools. We have very little way of knowing about the
level of education that does go on in those schools. Some of them, I am sure, are‑‑what
would I say? I think the basic point is
that really that we do not know that they are private. They are run by private boards. They hire their teachers privately, and they
follow, to a large extent, the provincial curriculum. That, I think, is another area where private
schools do in fact depend upon the public system for the provision of
curriculum, in many cases, for the training of teachers. They are trained by the public expense in
But they are, first and foremost, private
schools, and they do want to remain that way.
I do not think there is any doubt about that. The importance of private schooling is of course
in the selection of the students and in the nature of the ambience of the
school, whether it be religious or whether it be of a different kind. These are indeed private schools and want to
remain so.
So I am surprised at the report that the
minister has received, recommending that change from "private" to
"independent." I am not sure
that it really will be an accurate description of the kind of schools which are
being increasingly funded by this government.
They are, I think, being funded, Mr.
Acting Speaker, at the expense of the public schools, and that is what concerns
me most, because the main concern, it seems to me, of every government in
But, Mr. Acting Speaker, school boards are
now being prevented from having that same opportunity, and so the balance is
again being tipped in favour of the private schools who can continue to raise
fees from parents, not all of whom are wealthy‑‑I quite accept
that. In some schools, they are; in some
schools, they are not. But the option to
raise fees and hence to have exclusion and selection on a different basis than
perhaps some of them have been accustomed to is an option which is open to
them. And the option of expanding their
facilities, of improving their facilities, of hiring more teachers, of having a
better ratio than is there in the public schools, all of that is contributing
to yet another tipping of the balance in favour of private schools.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there does come a
point when the government will have done that so often and to such an extent
that in fact private schools will be more and more attractive to a larger
section of the population, and that may indeed be the way in which this
government wants to go. That is a
political decision and it is the one they are making. I personally believe that this is an
abdication of responsibility by government.
Only government speaks for the public schools, and they should do so
loudly and strongly.
I believe we have had a good public
education system in
* (1650)
They are going to have teachers who are
not going to have professional development days, for example. This government thinks so little of education
that it is prepared to say to teachers, no professional development days, when
every expert, it seems to me, that I have read recently, says that the one
thing we must be doing is training and retraining our teachers. They are under such enormous pressures these
days that you simply cannot expect, and should not‑‑we would not
want to expect teachers who graduated 10 or 15 years ago to be in the classroom
without any kind of extra training, and teachers do not want it either.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
So I think the kind of teachers that this
government is going to lead us to are teachers who are facing larger classes
and who are under pressure, who are undervalued by this government, and it will
be in the end a different kind of public education system than we have seen
over‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Is it the will of the House to call it
five o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 5 p.m.‑‑wait a
minute here. We were doing which
one? As previously agreed, this matter
will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton), and also will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 18‑‑Angela
Chalmers
Mr. Bob Rose (
WHEREAS Angela Chalmers of Brandon,
Manitoba won a bronze medal for her performance in the 3,000 metre race at
Barcelona Summer Olympics; and
WHEREAS it is important to recognize the
commitment and hard work it takes to achieve such a feat; and
WHEREAS Angela Chalmers has been competing
since she attended
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba congratulate Angela Chalmers on her victory in
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba also send best wishes to Ms. Chalmers in her training for
the upcoming Commonwealth Games.
Motion presented.
Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me
today to propose this resolution in the House.
I am hopeful that for perhaps a change in our normal pattern that we can
all agree in the House this afternoon to pass this resolution sending on our
congratulations to Ms. Chalmers.
We need to be aware, I think, that to
reach the Olympics is indeed a feat in itself when you consider that there are
almost 3 million registered competitive athletes in
Of course out of that to represent
When we strive to provide a quality sports
experience, quality coaching and fair play for our athletes and enshrine these
characteristics into the Canadian sports system that is athlete‑oriented
and respected, we can look to Angela Chalmers as being a front runner and a
role model.
Angela Chalmers is a role model in many
respects. Historically the participation of women in athletics in Canada is not
all that great, and as the young females become older they become less
interested in sports so encouragements for females in athletics is
necessary. This has been recognized by
our government in
The presence of a positive role model like
Angela Chalmers and what she has achieved through hard work and training and
dedication to her sport and by breaking down some of these male stereotype
sports barriers provide young female athletes with encouragement and confidence
and someone they can look up to and someone who can make a dream become a
reality.
Also, Mr. Speaker, there are very few
indigenous Canadian youth who reach national or international sports
prominence. Angela Chalmers is one. The
indigenous approach to sports closely parallels the original Olympic ideal of
blending sport and culture. Sport in the
indigenous community is based on a pragmatic approach where traditional aspects
of sport are closely integrated with other features of social life.
Sport is of a fundamental importance to
the social fabric and sense of survival of indigenous people. This perhaps explains the success, or at
least partially explains the success, of Angela Chalmers in the Olympics. It is, however, of secondary importance, I
think, to the role that athletes play as role models in the community. Elite athletes are important examples for
native youth, and as a native, Angela Chalmers is an important example to the
indigenous community.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, publicly, we
do not recognize high‑performance athletes as much as we should, perhaps
because we are oriented to team sports and professional athletes who appear
nightly on television and are covered extensively in our sports pages in the
newspapers. Unfortunately, we do not
always continue to recognize our high‑performance athletes in the public
and through the media. Athletes, with
few exceptions, are relatively unknown.
Public interest rises, of course, before major world events like the
Olympics but drops rapidly afterwards.
We do take pride in Angela Chalmers and in
her accomplishments at the Olympics in
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to
be able to say a few brief words with regard to the resolution that the
honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) has presented with respect to
Angela Chalmers of Brandon who, as mentioned, not only reached the Olympics in
Barcelona and reached a goal in itself just to participate in such a high‑profile
athletic competition. From all the
Canadian athletes young and old, men and women who work countless hours in
achieving their goals, whether it be to win a specific medal but, most
importantly, just to participate.
I feel that the accomplishment that this
young woman has in fact achieved, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself with the
dedication and the hard work that she put in to be able to compete at this
level representing
We congratulate her on this side of the
House, Mr. Speaker, also knowing that she and others can strive and achieve and
show that it does not matter what age, what nationality or whatever you are,
you are trying to achieve something to represent your country, and she has done
that.
It is a proud moment for all of us, a
proud moment for her and her family and a proud moment that Angela has achieved
what she has and, within the aboriginal community, I think that the sign for the
future is there for all young people in
Mr. Speaker, I know how hard it is to work
and to achieve what Angela has done. We
have all done it in certain categories and in certain situations, for certain
participations, for certain competitions.
To be in
I know that we here on this side take
pride in Angela's achievements. We take
pride in the hard work that she and her coach have put through, the time and
the effort, the support the family has put in for Angela's participation. We hope, Mr. Speaker, and we certainly do
support this resolution and support the honourable member and Angela.
*
(1700)
I would like to on behalf of our caucus
and members on this side say, congratulations, and we wish her well, a
tremendous achievement. We wish her well
in her training. We wish her well in her
preparation for the 1994 Commonwealth Games.
I do hope that this one situation is an indication to all the young
people who want to achieve something like Angela has done, not only for
themselves, for the communities, for their province, for their country.
So, Mr. Speaker, we wish Angela the very,
very best. Thank you.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have a friend by the name of
Baracat El Sala (phonetic). Baracat is
the 3,000 metre champion from the Los Angeles Olympics 1984. Baracat, when he won that medal, became a
national hero and is to this day treated with great respect in
So I have absolutely no difficulty
standing up on behalf of my caucus to say that I share in the feelings I
believe of every member in this Chamber, that Angela deserves the respect and
the support and the admiration of all of us.
A thought crossed my mind as I was reading
the resolution and listening to the remarks of the member for Ste. Rose. This is a question I would like to propose to
the government. Have we offered Angela
an Order of the Buffalo Hunt? I do not
know whether we have.
It seems that we proffer these things
quickly and easily to people in other areas, why not to someone from our
province who has achieved so much on behalf of all of us? The thousands of hours of training, the
commitment and the sacrifice, the letting go of so many other things that a
young woman might like to be involved in in order to achieve this does a credit
to all of us. Perhaps, while I support the resolution of the member for Ste.
Rose, and I congratulate him for bringing it forward‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Mr. Alcock: The member for
Nonetheless, I think that we might want to
consider this one a second time. Maybe
the member wants to go into his caucus and suggest that we provide the same
kind of honour to this young lady that we have to other members who have
achieved so much on behalf of
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have no
difficulty in making the support for this resolution unanimous. I hope we can see it pass today. Thank you.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
do not want to prolong debate, and I would like to see this resolution
passed. I would like to add a few
comments on this resolution.
I join with my colleagues the member for
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) and the mover of this motion, as well as the previous
speaker from the Liberals who have added their support to Angela Chalmers and
the achievements she has had up to this point in time.
I want to just say that I have the
pleasure of knowing one of her former coaches who coached her at
The important thing is the dedication and
the willingness to sacrifice to get to that goal. That does not just come very easily at
all. It takes encouragement, because
there are many times when it really hurts.
Your body hurts from the training. You are injured in some way, and you
have to work your way through it. You
have to get up and go out and train. You
have to do that every day. There is just
no way that you can get around it if you are going to be a champion. It takes very strong mental discipline, as
well as the encouragement of people around you, athletes that you work with to
give you encouragement, your coach, your family.
I know the coach that I talked about did
his part in ensuring that Angela was able to continue in a dedicated way with
the kind of training that she began so that she could one day be a champion. He talked about picking her up every day and
taking her to the track to ensure that she was there, that kind of thing.
Everyone needs that kind of support in
their lives. We hope one thing we can
learn from this is that we do lend assistance and encouragement to young people
that may want to start down this very difficult road and one day be a world
champion, whether it be our own children or whether it be other young people we
know. They do need that support, and
they cannot do it on their own.
Having said that, I do not take away from
the tremendous achievements of Angela Chalmers as an individual, because she is
the one that did it, ultimately. When
you are running a race, ultimately it is you against the world at that
point. No one else is going to do it for
you. So therein lies the tremendous
character and dedication to duty and to accomplishment, in the actual race.
I want to add my support to Angela
Chalmers and wish her well in her future competitions and endeavours. The road can still be very rocky. There are many things that can go wrong. So she needs our support and our well wishes,
that is for certain, in the years ahead.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
resolution? [agreed]
Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).