Manitoba Hansard — 18 October 1995 (Sitting 50, 36th Legislature, 1st Session)

36-1-50

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLV No. 50-1:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 18, 1995

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Aff"iliation Name Constituency fm ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Rob lin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LA THLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. - MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

3957 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, October 18,1995 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Emergency Health Care Services Communi ty Hospitals Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of D. Queskekapow, Carlos Y ana, Elvira G. de Dios and others requesting the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister responsible for Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider making a commitment to the people of Manitoba that emergency health care services in Winnipeg's five community hospitals will remain open seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Emergency Health Care Services Community Hospitals Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes. The Clerk will read. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth THAT emergency health care services are the core of Manitoba's health care system.

THAT Manitobans deserve the greatest possible access to this care. WHEREFORE your petitioners hwnbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider making a commitment to the people of Manitoba that emergency health care services in Winnipeg's five community hospitals will remain open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Economic Development Third Report Mr.

Mike Radcliffe (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic Development presents the following as its Third Report. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your committee met on Tuesday, October 17, 1995, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the financial statements of Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd. for March 31, 1993 and 1992, March 31, 1994 and 1993 and March 31, 1995 and 1994. Mr.

Bob Sparrow, chairman of Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd., provided such information as was requested with respect to the financial statements and business of Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd. Your committee has considered the financial statements of Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd. for March 31, 1993 and 1992, March 31, 1994 and 1993 and March 31, 1995 and 1994, and has adopted the same as presented. Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to.

3958 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 *

(1335) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report 1992-93 for the Co-operative Loans and Loans Guarantee Board; for '94-95, the Cooperative Promotion Board; for '94-95, the Co operative Loans and Loans Guarantee Board. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have fifty Grade 9 students from Churchill High School under the direction of Mr. Lenzmann.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Winnipeg Jets Provincial Funding-Refund Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, during the election, of course, the government promised to limit the public donations for the hockey team to $10 million and to cancel the operating-loss agreement effective May 1, 1995.

After the election, as well as committing up to $37 million and keeping the operating-loss agreement in play, Madam Speaker, the government forwarded a secret payment to the Spirit/Winnipeg Jets takeover of some $5 million which was not 0/C'd and became public later on. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, could he table in this House the written agreement that he has with Spirit on the forwarding of the $5 million and the written agreement he has that interest rates would be returned with the money, and when will it be returned? Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, first of all, there was no secret flowing of any money to Spirit. The only secret is in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I met this morning with the majority owners and once again have confirmed the agreement with them that we have reached before on previous occasions, that the $5-million deposit put forward by the provincial government will be returned to the province along with interest, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doer: I did not hear the end of the statement.

If it was with interest, I would like the minister to table that agreement in this Chamber on behalf of the taxpayers. Operating Losses Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the government stated at the beginning of September that the operating-loss agreement signed by the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) in 1991 as his claim to keep the team here in the city of Winnipeg and pay for the operating losses of a privately owned team, the government claimed that the losses of the team to the province would be $8.5 million this year, outside of the infrastructure money and other funds in the capital fund that are liabilities for the Province of Manitoba. In light of the fact that there were only 6,700 fans at the game, regrettably, last night, and the four-game average is now under 9,000 people, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.

Film on), what is the new projected loss for the team, and what will the taxpayers of Manitoba be liable for under the agreement that the Premier signed in 1991? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, throughout the whole preparation of budgets for '95-96, there has been a range of what the losses could be from as low as about $14 million or $15 million to as high as $25 million, depending on different corporate support, depending on different attendance and so on.

The best information we were provided several weeks ago, I believe, Madam Speaker, still remains to be the best information today, that the projected losses .-

October 18, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3959 for the upcoming season will be in the vicinity of about $17.5 million, of which the provincial government is responsible for half of those losses.

I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that by June of next year, at the end of this hockey season, when you factor in direct taxes to the provincial government versus what we will have paid out in terms of covering our share of losses, Madam Speaker, our Treasury will be ahead by $8 million, and that does not include the fact that our Treasury will also be ahead by approximately another $10 million as our share of the net proceeds as a result of the sale that was concluded today of the Winnipeg Jets. *

(1340) Barry Sbenkarow Salary Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, that is why the minister promised to cancel the operating-loss agreement effective May 1 during the election campaign and broke his promise after the campaign, because it was going to save us money, Madam Speaker. The losses will be up to $60 million, Madam Speaker, counting infrastructure. The proceeds for the sale of the team will be about $31 million, and none of these hockey players in 1996 will be paying their taxes in Canada. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), Madam Speaker, under the operating-loss agreement and the capital liability that we have as taxpayers here in Manitoba, what is the annual salary to Mr. Shenkarow under this agreement, the annual salary? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Well, Madam Speaker, I notice the Leader of the Opposition is smiling, and I guess for him this is a happy day, because today the official agreement to sell the team and relocate it outside of Manitoba has occurred. We know what the position of the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP has been through this entire issue.

They have never tried to be a part of finding any solution, never worked with the community to provide any solution, even though thousands and thousands of Manitobans worked very hard to fmd a solution to keep the Jets here in Manitoba for the long term. We know they have no vision, and they certainly were not in step with what Manitobans were attempting to accomplish. In terms of the specific compensation for the president of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club, Mr. Shenkarow, I will take that part of his question as notice. Mr.

Doer: With a supplementary question, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker and I think his comments about the team and ourselves, the only difference between ourselves and the government opposite is we told the truth during the election campaign. The government made a number of commitments. [interjection] Nobody is happy this team is leaving Winnipeg. We just thought it was the role of the private sector to pay for the losses of the team, not the taxpayers of Manitoba, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, what was the annual salary for Mr.

Shenkarow in the '93-94 hockey season year paid for in part by the agreement signed by the Premier, and in the '94-95 year? The numbers are in. The minister knows the number. Let us let the public know those numbers. Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that there is a process in place to review the budgets of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club. There is an interim steering committee chaired by Mr. Del Crewson that reviews the budget on an annual basis.

There are also certain limitations and restrictions around the budget of the hockey club, that they have to operate in the bottom one-third of the NHL franchises and hockey teams. So those are some protections in terms of the costs of the operating of the hockey team. The interim steering committee goes through the detailed budget, Madam Speaker. Some of that information can be made public. Some of that information is confidential.

3960 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 I certainly will take this very specific question that the Leader of the Opposition has asked as notice and detennine what infonnation can, in fact, be provided to him. University of Manitoba Labour Dispute Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Labour stated it is not an appropriate time for government to interfere in the free collective bargaining at the University of Manitoba, a statement undennined by his government's action in the sugar beet dispute and Bill 22 attack on public sector negotiations.

Professors are out of work, students are being hurt and it appears that this government does not care. They do not care. [interjection] Madam Speaker, I know members opposite are sensitive on this issue. My question is for the Minister of Labour, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister of Labour indicate, now that the U ofM strike has occurred, has he contacted the parties in the dispute to detennine their willingness to commence voluntary binding arbitration, and if he has not, why not? Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, the government is very concerned about this strike, and we want to make sure that the appropriate thing is being done. We do not, however, feel that it is necessary to interfere in negotiations at this time. There is a mediator who is available to the parties on a 24-hour basis. That mediator is free to discuss any of the issues that the parties may wish to raise with him. *

(1345) Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Labour aware, now that negotiations have broken down and are not taking place, either involving the conciliator or not, is the Minister of Labour aware that in the negotiations in the process, the Faculty Association is willing to allow an arbitrator to consider the financial condition of the University of Manitoba in conjunction with public accountability, academic integrity and fair procedures?

Is the minister aware that this was one of the conditions that was placed on the table by the Faculty Association to allow the university to be treated in a fair manner as the professors themselves wish to be treated? Mr. Toews: Yes, I am aware of that. Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, can the Premier, who appoints over half of the University of Manitoba governors and considering that the University of Manitoba fonns an important piece of our economy in this province, indicate to the students-like the one who wrote to us, and I quote: As a student, my entire stake is already on the table.

I have nothing further to ante up so I guess I lose. What is the Premier prepared to do to ensure that the students are not losers in this dispute, Madam Speaker? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I know that the member for Transcona takes great glee in having this kind of major public issue so that he can- Point of Order Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe it is entirely inappropriate, if you would review Beauchesne's, for the minister, particularly the First Minister, to impute motives to members on this side of the House who are trying to do their part to prevent discord in our society, not fomenting it like the Premier is. Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I will review the tape and Hansard and report back to the House if necessary. *** Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your taking this under advisement, and I will ignore the grinning of the member for Transcona when I respond to him. We on this side are very concerned with the fact that the decision that has been made by the Faculty .-

October 18, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3961 Association utilizes the students as pawns in this battle, that it is the students who are the ones who are being asked to bear the consequences of this dispute, that it is the students who have invested in their education, who have taken, in many cases, accommodation here in Winnipeg as they come from outside the city and who are being left in jeopardy of completing their programs.

That is a terrible situation, and we, obviously, are very concerned about it, Madam Speaker, very concerned about it and very concerned about the fact that in issues of this nature the students are the ones who suffer and whose views and whose concerns are not being taken into account when a decision is made to walk out on them like this. *

(1350) Mr.

Reid: Madam Speaker, a final supplementary for the Premier: Since the Premier, as the head of this government, as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council which is his responsibility, as well, and which has the power to appoint the majority of the members of the board of the University of Manitoba, in his powers as the Premier, will he undertake to ascertain whether or not there is a willingness on the part of the parties involved in this dispute to commence the process of voluntary binding arbitration, so that the teachers can get back to teaching and the students can get back t� their classes and not disrupt the activities and the economy of the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, you know, as members opposite who try and portray themselves as protectors and guardians of the collective bargaining approach, the free collective bargaining approach to settling disputes, they ought to know that the professors could walk back in today, this afternoon, and begin to teach the students if there was a will on their part to do so. They ought to know that that is open to them at any time, if they really care about the students. Concordia Hospital Emergency Services Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Concordia Hospital Emergency is the most highly used community hospital in Winnipeg. In addition, Concordia Hospital receives a disproportionately high number of emergency cardiac arrests, and this hospital has developed efficiency and expertise in dealing with cardiac life and death situations.

I want to ask the Minister of Health, given that the thrombolytic agents necessary to deal with cardiac arrests must be given in the first 20 to 30 minutes to save people's lives, how are the people in northeast Winnipeg going to be ensured that they will receive adequate treatment to save their life under a heart attack? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, Concordia Hospital has joined with all the other hospitals in Winnipeg to develop an integrated emergency services plan for the city, and as recently as yesterday, all the facilities met as part of the steering committee to develop not only the ongoing implementation now but also the plan for emergency services for the future. I can tell the honourable member that all facilities confirmed that since the last meeting on October 13, the situation is satisfactory.

Each facility stated that the weekend, this past weekend, was manageable and that staff were pleased with the changes agreed to at the last meeting. Facilities also agreed to work co-operatively to ensure that patients have timely access to beds, Madam Speaker. This is done to ensure that the tertiary centres do not get backlogged with patients, particularly during the weekends. Health Care System Emergency Services Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): What is the 24- hour emergency plan for heart attack treatment in the city of Winnipeg, and what will happen to the expertise from Concordia Hospital in this area?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, each community hospital, as a group they have all addressed the issue raised by the honourable member.

3962 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 They have all agreed that each community hospital will have a registered nurse assess all patients who happen to appear at their facilities in the nighttime hours. Individuals requiring immediate attention will be seen by the in-house physician. All nonurgent patients will be advised of alternate services available. Ms.

Cerilli: I want to ask the minister why he is closing both the Concordia Hospital emergency at night and the Seven Oaks Hospital, when a report from a task force dealing with emergency services says the two hospitals are situated relatively in the same area of the city and are linked by two bridges. If one ER curtails night activities, the other should remain active for at least a six-month period to evaluate any shift in patient load. Why is he closing both hospitals when it is going to jeopardize the lives of Winnipeggers? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, the question the honourable member asks today would have been just as appropriate the day after Labour Day, when 42 physicians left their posts at community hospitals in this city and 14 pathologists left their posts and left us with the necessity to develop a contingency plan to safeguard the interests of Manitobans. *

(1355) University of Manitoba Labour Dispute Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Earlier he stated in Question Period that the Premier is concerned about the students in the province of Manitoba, and for good reason, Madam Speaker. In excess of 20,000 students, spending millions of dollars in tuition and books, are looking at what is happening and are being very frustrated. This government took a lead role on the sugar beet industry. They were concerned about the producers.

My question to the Premier is, will he express the same sort of concern that he had for the producers during the sugar beet potential strike, the same sort of concern for the students of the province of Manitoba? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have expressed that concern. I have indicated that I think that it is highly unfair that the professors are walking out on the students at a time when they have made major commitments, major investments, and, in fact, are in many cases expecting to graduate and have jobs waiting for them.

All of this is being thrown aside by the decision that has been made to walk out by the professors. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, does the Premier believe that this government has any role whatsoever in trying to expedite and get the students back in the classroom? Does this government have any role, and if so, what is it? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, obviously, we have the resources of the government available to them. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) has indicated that there is the availability of a mediator to work on it with the two parties to try and help lead towards a solution.

Obviously, there are resources that are available to the two sides, Madam Speaker, but this is a free collective bargaining process, and it does require the will of the two parties to try and solve this problem. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier show his concern for those 20,000-plus students by asking his Minister of Labour to attempt to convene a meeting between the professors and the administration to see if there is anything at all that this government can do in a proactive way? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the major issue that is of concern probably for both sides in this issue is their continued academic freedom. This government, if it were to intercede and impose a solution would be immediately accused by both sides of interfering with academic freedom in this province. This is a situation that requires obviously both sides to work within the bounds that they have available to them. We have resources available by way of - -

October 18, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3963 mediation services from the Department of Labour, and those resources are available to them, Madam Speaker. *

(1400) Health Care System Emergency Services Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the emergency room function in any hospital is absolutely integral to the overall role of an acute care hospital. In Victoria Hospital, there were 33,000 total visits of which 3,600 were emergencies-11 percent, not 4 percent as the Minister of Health has said-and 7 4 percent of their visits fall into either the emergency or urgent category.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if in the light of these statistics which are clearly different from the statistics that the Minister of Health presented in the House, averages from American studies perhaps, in the light of these statistics, will he tell the people of Fort Garry and the people of all parts of Winnipeg that their emergency departments will be reopened until his study is completed? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member often expresses, I believe, support for an integrated system of health care delivery and emergency services delivery, but in the

preamble to his question all he talks about is individual hospitals. Madam Speaker, we are talking about an emergency system comprising seven hospitals and getting seven hospitals to work together to integrate and make efficient the services that they make available to Manitobans so that we can give Manitobans the best service available within the resources that are at our disposal. So, Madam Speaker, the studies with which the honourable member quibbles are not American studies. As usual, honourable members have the U.S.A. on their minds. I do not know why.

But, Madam Speaker, the numbers that we have are taken from the hospitals themselves, and one hospital will have a different number than the other, and they all come together to make an average. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain how telling people to take their emergent and urgent health care needs to Health Sciences Centre or St. Boniface Hospital is even vaguely consistent with his government's oft-repeated policy of decentralizing emergent and nonurgent health care needs to community-based hospitals? How is it consistent? Mr.

McCrae: It would be very nice, Madam Speaker, if the honourable member would be consistent in his approach to his critique on health issues and social issues in general. Madam Speaker, I remind the honourable member that we have capacity in seven Winnipeg hospitals-two tertiary centres and five community hospitals. After the doctors returned to work, we began a resumption of the services in those community hospitals during 14 hours of the day. We have put in place and are putting in place even more resources as necessary at the Health Sciences Centre and the St.

Boniface Hospital, and we are having seven hospitals working together which is something we did not have in the past to the extent we have today. The honourable member should be pleased about that, instead of coming forward one day with one point of view and the same member coming forward with another point of view on a different day. Provincial Council on Youth Crime Membership Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice.

The minister' s statements about, first, the Provincial Council on Youth Crime, second, the Crime Prevention Council, third, the Youth Advisory Council and, fourth, all of that surveillance of gang members by the Winnipeg Youth Crime Intervention Team are haunting this Legislature, Madam Speaker. I say haunting because those initiatives actually do not exist. My question for the minister is, while we are impressed with the minister's vivid imagination, will

3964 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 she tell the people of Manitoba who have growing and legitimate concerns about their safety when she might get around to announcing the membership for the Provincial Council on Youth Crime promised by her and I quote from Hansard-"no later than the fall"? That was, by the way, Madam Speaker, the fall of 1994. Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the initiatives that this government has taken on behalf of youth crime are numerous.

Just let me speak about the position taken on the Young Offenders Act, the changes in the area of Corrections, the addition of more police officers to the street, the close working relationship with initiatives of the Winnipeg Police Services. But, Madam Speaker, we do believe that the community should become involved. We think that no one group can provide a solution alone, and that is why on the community and prevention side, as well, we have been very active with Street Peace, the youth gang line, with the No Need to Argue program which brings young people into both the identification and the solution.

Another way we would plan to have the community become involved is in the process of two youth councils, Madam Speaker, which have been spoken about, a provincial council on youth crime and a youth council. The member seems to have misunderstood the intention. I made it clear during this session that I will be announcing very shortly; however, it did require visits around the province to determine what was needed. Youth Crime Intervention Team Gang Surveillance Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.

Johns): My supplementary: When will the minister then tum her mind to announcing the surveillance strategy of the Winnipeg Youth Crime Intervention Team because she promised, and I quote from Hansard: "I am looking to be in a position fairly shortly to make an announcement about that strategy," back in May of '94. Of course, that is when we had half the number of gang members in Winnipeg. Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, as I have said in this House as recently as a couple of days ago, the surveillance team is operating. The purpose is the sharing of information.

The member would like greater specifics around exactly what information or how that information is shared, but there is some requirement of confidentiality both in terms of process and the kind of information which can be shared. However, the initiatives which he has spoken about in terms of the youth gang line, the surveillance team, they are operative. Madam Speaker, I would just like to say around the youth gang line called Street Peace, the Winnipeg police have identified this as a very valuable tool in dealing with offenders of all ages but particularly gang offenders. Youth Advisory Council Membership Mr.

Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Well, let us try this one. When might the minister actually announce the membership of the Youth Advisory Council, because she told the House she was aiming to have it finalized, and I quote, by the early summ er, end of quote-being, of course, the summer of 1994? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Min ister of Justice and Attorney General): The naming of members to those councils has been a process, one which required the [inteijection] Well, you know, the members across the way have had trouble with process in every question that they have asked.

Madam Speaker, the process has been that there has been an individual who has visited Youth Justice Committees across this province. That person has met with the Youth Justice Committees and through those committees identified exactly what needs are to be met by the purposes of this council, because Youth Justice Committees wanted to have some input into the kind of - -

October 18, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3965 advice that would be offered to them. That process is now complete and the availability of individuals whom we would like to appoint to those councils is now being worked out with those individuals.

But, Madam Speaker, the member seems to have had slip his mind all of those other initiatives that he has disagreed with on a regular basis, failing to come forward with a position on the Young Offenders Act, failure to support Street Peace, failure to support the Youth Secretariat, so let there be no confusion about the number of initiatives which have been put forward by this governm ent. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. If Madam Speaker could hear over the roar from all sides of the House, people would be recognized when they are on their feet. Point of Order Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I refer to Beauchesne's 417, which points out that answers to questions should be brief and should not provoke debate, and I ask the Speaker to keep this in mind and remind honourable ministers of this rule. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order, I thank the honourable member for Burrows for his advice, and I would remind both parties posing questions and also in responding to questions that, indeed, we have some very-I will not say definitive, but we have some agreed-to guidelines, and I would appreciate the co operation of all members in adhering to those agreed-to guidelines. *

(1410) Western Grain Transportation Program Payment Guidelines Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the Western Grain Transportation program which is the result of the cancellation of the Crow benefit has not been without its problems. There have been problems with the sign-up date having been delayed. There have been problems for owners of small parcels of land which have been addressed, and landowners and renters are now facing problems because there are no guidelines as to how they should share the payment.

Will the Minister of Agriculture recognize that there is a problem and call on the federal government to put in place guidelines for landowners and renters on how the money should be shared, as well as call on him to put in guidelines for the arbitration board that is supposed to be dealing with the problems between landowners and renters. Hon.

Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I want to remind the honourable member for Swan River that for the better part of a year, I, along the with the support of all major farm organizations in this province, tried to provide the best advice to the federal minister on this very matter. The federal minister and the government of Ottawa chose to ignore that advice that came not just from the Department of Agriculture of this government but from Manitoba Pool, from the largest farm organization in Manitoba. They chose to ignore that advice.

The questions that she refers to-and I happen to agree with the issue that she is making about some of the problems. They are all of the federal government's making, and it is their responsibility to try to resolve them. Ms. Wowchuk: I realize that these are federal issues, but I am asking the minister to address them on behalf of Manitoba farmers. I want to ask the minister if he will address also the concerns of many farmers who have converted a portion of their land into hay production. That has been done to promote sustainable agriculture, but these people will not receive payment.

Has the minister raised this, and will he take it again to the federal government to tell them that producers are not being treated fairly? Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge where the federal government has accepted some

3966 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 advice, particularly from the province of Manitoba because of our unique land holdings, historic land holdings, I might say, some of the Francophone lots along the Assiniboine River and the Red River. We have an abundance of these small acreages that were originally excluded. I wrote directly to the federal minister, and the federal minister of government has responded and alleviated that particular problem.

Madam Speaker, the issue that she raised, again, I agree with her, and again, we suggested, along with Manitoba Pool, that we simply use the permit books, the permit system, that acknowledged all improved acreages, because she is right. Farmers in their rotation have changed and had been advised to change and encouraged to grow forages in their rotation from time to time. Regrettably, under the system that the federal government has imposed, if the farmer had forage in the ground in '94, he is not eligible for any payment.

Again, this complaint has been made very clear to federal officials, but I seek the support, quite frankly, of her federal colleagues in Ottawa. I seek the support of the nine Liberal colleagues in Ottawa on these kinds of issues. They are very silent on this issue. Education System Language Arts Examinations Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Education claimed that she as minister had no knowledge of Manitobans' concerns about the loss of 250 classroom teachers for 12 days for the marking of Grade 12 exams.

I want today to refer the minister to a letter sent to her on October 5 by the Beautiful Plains School Division which outlined precisely such concerns and to refer her, as well, to the same issues raised by the . Lakeshore School Division and reported in the Interlake Spectator on October 2 and to similar issues posed by the St. James School Division and reported October 17 in The Metro. I want to ask the minister today, as each of those school divisions have, would she reconsider the timing and the method of the marking of these Grade 12 exams? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, let us make clear the implications the member is trying to leave, because after Question Period yesterday I did go and check, having invited her to provide me with copies of letters, which she did not. On my desk, Madam Speaker, was one letter dated October 5, received in my office October 16, processed and placed on my desk October 17, which, of course, was yesterday. I read that letter. I have not been inundated. I had two earlier letters from school divisions saying they could not release the number of teachers that we had requested.

That is not an inundation as far as I am concerned, when yesterday I was inundated, she said, for months by letters from parents and students. There was a false impression that was left. It was somewhat misleading, and that is a perfectly allowable thing because I am not implying she intended to mislead. But, Madam Speaker, I will say that the marking will take place. We are going to have tests and examinations. . They will be measured against a standard.

They will be marked by qualified and experienced teachers who will be available to mark those papers, and students will not lose instructional days as teachers mark those papers. Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I will say for the record that it is the minister's language that says inundated. I asked about the concerns of Manitobans, and it is very clear. It is in yesterday's Hansard and it has been printed. I do not know what she is going on about. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley was recognized for a supplementary question. Ms.

Friesen: Madam Speaker, will the minister tell us what legal basis she has for requiring school boards to provide teachers for marking and to require them, as the Beautiful Plains School Division maintains, to work for 19 consecutive days? -

October 18, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3967 Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, I already indicated to the member and perhaps she did not hear my answer, and that is that we will be hiring qualified teachers, qualified markers, to mark examinations, to mark tests for students. These will be centrally marked so that the measurable standard can indeed be measured on a standard. Teachers were hired to teach. Teachers were hired to mark. School divisions were asked to release teachers. Many school divisions have indeed complied with that request and said they will release teachers.

They have contracts with their divisions, and the division has made a request of them to work as teachers. Energy Audit Program Reinstatement Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Energy conservation efforts elsewhere, in other jur isdictions, have reduced energy costs by over one third. The Toronto school boards are retrofitt ing 525 buildings, resulting in savings of over $20 million per year, and that is on their utility bill. Manitoba has over 700 public school buildings that are in similar conditions.

Given that this government has previously cut its conservation and energy management programs including energy audits, contrary to promises made by previous ministers of this department, will the minister reassess his government's cutback of this valuable program in the interests of all Manitoba taxpayers? Bon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, as the member should know from her past experience involved with the Winnipeg School Division as a trustee, those who administer public buildings, whether they be the Minister of Government Services (Mr.

Pallister), whether they be school divisions, whether they be buildings owned by public Crown corporations, have ultimately a respon sibility to manage within their budget their decisions on what steps they take in terms of conser vation of energy. Retrofitting of buildings, et cetera, are ones that they make as managers of those buildings, and where we have the resources to provide information assistance, we obviously do.

I refer to, as well, that one of the largest providers of energy in this province, Manitoba Hydro, operates a very widespread and effective program in the Power Smart program, so there is a lot of effort being done, but the responsibility for making those decisions rests with the managers, the people who are in charge of those specific buildings. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. George Dickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr.

Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) for Thursday, October 19 for 7 p.m. Motion agreed to. *** Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I request leave to make a nonpolitical announcement. Madam Speaker: May I have the indulgence of the member for Osborne to recognize the member for Gimli for committee changes first? Ms. McGifford: Yes, Madam Speaker. *** Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr.

Pitura), · that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Thursday, October 19, 10 a.m. session, be amended as follows: the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer). I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing

3968 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 Committee on Economic Development for the Thursday evening, 7 p.m. session, be amended as follows: the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger); the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine); and the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Motions agreed to. * (14 20) NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS Person's Day Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I request leave to make a nonpolitical announcement.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Osborne have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, 66 years ago today the British Privy Council agreed that Canadian women were to be considered as persons in matters of rights and privileges and not just in matters of pains and penalty. Obviously, October 18, 1929, was an historic and important day for Canadian women.

October 18 is now celebrated as Person's Day and today in recognition of Person's Day, I ask the House to join me in honouring the famous five who initiated the person's case-Emily Murphy, Irene Parleby, Henrietta Muir, Nellie McClung and Louise McKinney. Thank you. Condolences-Walter Walsh Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a nonpolitical statement. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Flin Flon have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr.

Jennissen: Madam Speaker, I rise today to express our sorrow at the death of Walter Walsh of Leaf Rapids who died tragically earlier this week as a result of a mining accident at HBM&S's Ruttan Mine. All of us feel sympathy for the Walsh family and relatives at this their most painful hour, and we are reminded once again that mining has long been recognized as one of the most dangerous occupations in this country. Walter's death confirms that. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Would you please call Bills 17, 6, 23 and then the balance of the bills as listed on the Order Paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill17- The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act

(2) Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and join in the debate on Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2). The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has already addressed the pellet gun issue and the city's desire to establish an amendment which would permit the city, by means of a by-law, to regulate pellet guns, BB guns and air guns. I think that many of us believe that these weapons are curr ently being misused.

Some of us wonder if there is a proper use for such firearms, other than perhaps for target practice or shooting. Some of us wonder indeed whether these firearms serve any useful practice. Personally, I do not know. What I do know, Madam Speaker, is that in my neck of the woods, that is in the Osborne constituency, especially under St. Vital bridge and at other places along Churchill Park in the Osborne constituency, places where I walk every day along with my dog, I know it is not uncommon here to encounter young boys with pellet guns who are out there basically to shoot pigeons.

This is especially true in winter when the - -

October 18, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3969 river is frozen and these young people go out on the river with their guns. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) This seems to me both a violent and an inhumane practice and one that is not conducive to citizenship, but, I think, as welL it is a very dangerous practice and I am going to explain why. The park that I am referring to is in an area where small children, seniors, families, as well as not-so senior people like me go for walks, bike rides, stop to fish, take the kids to swings and, in winter, enjoy the sports of that season.

Obviously, the presence of firearms-and no firearm is innocuous-does nothing to add to the atmosphere. Certainly, constituents of Osborne feel uneasy around these weapons, and then, of course, there is the moral issue associated with these weapons. Certainly I hope that if this amendment is accepted by the House, that the city moves very quickly to enact the new by-laws which will indeed work to protect citizens and increase the possibility of public safety.

After the terrible incident with a pellet gun in Libau, Manitoba in early October-I am sure most of us recall that incident-some of us on this side of the Legislature are wondering whether we need some legislation which would include all of Manitoba I know that I, as the c_ritic for the Status of Women, have consulted with our critic for Justice and both of us believe that we need to be vigilant in monitoring reports of abuse which involve pellet guns, BB guns and air guns.

Certainly, if any additional incidents of misuse of these weapons begin to emerge from other areas of Manitoba, we will certainly be calling for a careful reconsideration of the current legislation. We believe, of course, that rural and northern Manitobans deserve and need the same kind of safety-both safety and the sense of safety-that urban centres like Winnipeg need. Just to wrap up this

section on weapons, I want to note that pellet guns, BB guns and air guns are not the kinds of guns used to put meat on the table in order to feed a family. As I said earlier, some of us wonder if there is any reasonable use for these firearms and if they have any valid role in our province whatsoever. Anyway, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has already spoken about pellet guns, and undou btedly the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) will address the entirety of this bill.

My main focus is the part of the amendment which permits council to establish a program of tax credits and grants for renovations to heritage buildings and amendments to the planning and development legislation. So I want to turn to the question of tax reliefs for heritage buildings. When the minister introduced this bill in the House, he made the point that there were a large number of heritage buildings in the city of Winnipeg, and he pointed out that these buildings were an asset and a legacy to the city. I could not agree with him more.

Some of us who have lived in Winnipeg for a long time regret that some of our heritage buildings have vanished; they have been demolished or generally worn down in states of disrepair. I am going to return to that and talk a bit about it later. I think when the minister introduced the bill into the House he also made mention of Winnipeg's history and its reputation as the Chicago of the North. I believe he made mention of Winnipeg's rapid expansion during the late 19th and early part of the 20th Century.

I think he pointed out that because of this rapid expansion great numbers of buildings went up in the city of Winnipeg, particularly in the areas that we know as the Exchange District and Market Square. I think we all have our favourites in these areas or along Main Street. Some of our heritage buildings of course exist in other areas of the city. Some of them exist in the Osborne area. This is true along Roslyn Road where there are several fine heritage properties, homes.

I also point out the Roslyn Apartments which is at the corner of Osborne and Roslyn Road, that very famous red brick apartment which most of us I think

3970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 have been in at one time or another and recognized as a beautiful heritage property. *

(1430) In speaking about this bill, I want to congratulate the City of Winnipeg on its excellent work and research on heritage buildings. I refer specifically to this report called A Report on Proposed Municipal Initiatives to Promote Retention and Use of Heritage Properties in the City of Winnipeg. I believe it is this particular report that gave birth to these

part icular sections of Bill 17. I would also, as well as congratulating the minister, like to congratulate Giles Bugailiskis who is the urban planner for the City of Winnipeg and has his office in a very fme heritage building, 395 Main Street, the old Hamilton Bank, and also Councillor Glen Murray who has been extremely active in heritage planning and heritage work. In fact, I am told by Mr. Bugailiskis that without Glen Murray the city would not have done the work that it has done.

So congratulations to all these people, to Heritage Winnipeg, as well, particularly to its president and people there who have tackled many heritage issues like the Union Tower, the elevator in the Bate Building, Greenway School, and this is just to mention a few. I want to point out too that early work in heritage was done by Eugene Kostyra in the 1980s. I think that the work undertaken by Mr. Kostyra at that time was very, very important in formulating and subsequently moving heritage policy.

The point that I am making here is that Winnipeg has recognized the need to preserve its heritage buildings, and this is certainly something that we can be proud of. Sadly, of course, there has been the loss in historic buildings, which I mentioned earlier. We have not always protected our buildings. We have not always recognized the historic importance of our buildings. Personally, I regret the loss of the old City Hall, that famous gingerbread building, and I am sure there are members on both sides of the House who share my regret.

I also point out the loss of the Alexandra Hotel, which was an embodiment of a historical era in Winnipeg, and it is shameful that we no longer have that building; also the loss of the Childs Building, that beautiful building that we used to have near the corner of Portage and Main. These are classic buildings and in losing these buildings, we lose not only the buildings, but of course, our heritage and our culture because these building are irreplaceable manifestations of Winnipeg's character and Winnipeg's history.

Most of us, I think, are familiar with the fact that several years ago Winnipeg's steam plant shut down, and certainly the closure of that steam plant did nothing to further heritage buildings in Winnipeg. The closing of that plant left many downtown heritage buildings and their owners not only high and dry but, one assumes, in winter very cold.

The shutting down of the steam plant also left the owners of these buildings in an economically unviable position because how could they sell the buildings without heat, how could they use the buildings without heat and especially since there appeared to be no hope of heat. Two examples here are the Capitol Theater and the Metropolitan Theater. These are buildings that I remember from my past. They certainly have a place in my personal history, and of course, they have a place in Winnipeg's public history.

We hope that this kind of legislation will do something to assure that those buildings will not go the way of all flesh. In other words, we appear to have lost much, and it is important to protect the rest and so the legislation is most timely. It seems to me that the minister is behaving responsibly in introducing this enabling legislation. As to the value of historic properties and buildings, I do not think I probably have to convince people on this side of the House or on the other about the value of historic buildings. I would probably be preaching to the converted.

I am sure that we all know, love and value Manitoba's history and these visible manifestations of its history, otherwise why would we undertake to serve our province as legislators. -

October 18, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3971 The old buildings in Winnipeg have the elegance, the craftsmanship of earlier eras, particularly the buildings that were put up at the turn of the century. The warehouse buildings in Winnipeg have been acclaimed as the finest grouping in terms of style and variety and size in Canada, so I think it is important for us all to know and recognize that these are not just old buildings but are buildings of continental significance. I think it is important too, once again, to recognize that these buildings are outward and visible signs of our cultural ethos.

They are part of the informing spirit of a historical period. History is given specific and concrete shape in these buildings. To lose the buildings is not to lose a few acres of bricks and mortar but to lose our cultural and historical roots, to lose part of whom we are. My side of the House's respect for who we are is clear in our defence, among other things, of Grade 11 history in the school system.

I want to add in passing, and some of this has already been done, that government at all levels could perhaps be more active in honing and preserving our image as protectors of heritage buildings if we would set an example, if we would move into heritage buildings, if we would actually use these buildings and I know some of this has been done here and some of it has certainly been done elsewhere in Canada. I have been speaking a little bit about the culturat value of our buildings. I think it is important to recognize that our heritage buildings also have economic value.

It would indeed be foolhardy to speak of heritage buildings without pointing out their economic value. Historic buildings and properties have a wonderful record in attracting tourists and generating revenues. Historic buildings are fascinating; they appeal to our curiosity, our fascination with the past. All of these qualities are embodied in our historical buildings.

When we think of the relationship between the economy and historical buildings, we can think of places like Halifax's Historic Properties, the Old Town in Quebec, Gastown in Vancouver, Old Montreal, and, of course, for Winnipeggers, we can think of The Forks in Winnipeg itself. These are all wonderful examples of partnerships between business and historical properties and they have all been extremely successful, in fact, incredibly successful. But let me add again that the economic argument is not the only one, and indeed the economic argument may not be the most important one.

Nonetheless, a thriving and vibrant business and commercial district, as experience shows, does attract tourists. It does bring added capital to our community. I am sure that many of you, as I have done, have attended the Cobblestone bicycle race, for example, on July 1 in the Market Square, Exchange District. It is not just tourists who attended that, but, of course, citizens of our city interested in going to the core of our city to see what was happening.

One of the other, I think, important reasons for supporting this amendment and supporting tax credits for heritage buildings is the revitalization of the core area. I know that a program of grants has already been established, but certainly a program of grants and tax credits would be valuable in bucking the trend, or maybe I should say the race to urban sprawl, which seems to have characterized this government's policy. The government's urban policy seems to have been a duel between developers and planners, with developers invariably winning.

Since most of our heritage buildings are in the core of the city, tax credits would be one way, and perhaps an important method, of revitalizing the inner city areas, creating interest in the inner city, filtering some funds away from the outlying areas to the core of the city. * (1 440) As I have already said, tax credits may assist in filling-! guess I want to look at the metaphor of the doughnut-in the hole of the doughnut. So important here, I think, also is the question of safety, or, at least, the question of perceived safety.

If our downtown buildings are restored and so bring retailers, business offices, government offices, if these areas are renewed, if the garbage is picked up, then people will begin to feel safe in the inner city, and then people will begin to go to the inner city. Citizens, I think we all agree, have the right not only to be safe but to feel safe. If citizens conclude that an area is safe and interesting, as well as offering a variety of goods and

3972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 services, then there is no stopping people, as we have already said, The Forks, the historic properties in Halifax. Trying to park at The Forks on Saturday morning is increasingly difficult and, I think, attests to the fact that people love The Forks. People want to go there. It is attractive to them. Having been in Halifax this summ er and having spent a lot of time in the historic properties in the core of that city, I can certainly attest to the fact that it is almost impossible to move.

In Halifax there is this wonderful meeting of natural beauty with careful and intelligent planning, the same kind of meeting, I think, of natural beauty and sound planning that we see in The Forks. One of the other things that I wanted to mention briefly was that a few years ago I was part of a committee called the Urban Safety Project for Women and Children. What we found in that committee was that if there were lots of people on a street, if there was a diversity of buildings, all these kinds of things contributed to the success of a neighbourhood.

So it seems to me that granting tax credits can only work for safety as well as beauty and economic security in downtown Winnipeg. To date, I have been talking about buildings, but I just wanted to say a word about houses because I do not see anything in the proposed legislation which would prevent heritage homeowners from benefiting from such a program of tax credits or grants.

Although it seems to me that this could be open to abuse and become a scam for funnelling benefits unfairly, it would seem to me that if the by-law was carefully prepared and judiciously administered that homeowners could also stand to benefit from the by law, because the truth is that owners of heritage homes are often constrained by what they can do with their home, and of course they should be constrained because if they are not restricted they may destroy the heritage quality of their home. But one of the problems with the restrictions is that these owners often have trouble selling their houses.

It seems to me that this is all wrong, that we want a city where heritage homes are desirable, where there is encouragement to preserve the character and grace of Winnipeg heritage homes. I do not know how many character homes have been lost because of a lack of tax credits or whatever. I know that there are some grants available, but it seems to me this proactive legislation is desira ble when it comes to homes too. Before closing, I have three other points that I want to make.

First of all, I want to comment on the use of the term "renovation" in Bill 17 because this term "renovation" in Bill 17 disturbs me, even though I have been using it. The problem is that I think there is a need not to strip away the history from a building, and I want to quote from William Morris here. William Morris, of course, was a Victorian master of all trades but especially those related to architecture, to design, to crafts manship [interjection] A socialist too, and especially a master of craftsmanship in the preservation of buildings.

Morris said, we must not follow the fatal idea to strip from a building its history. Let us put protection in place of restoration. Thus and only thus can we protect our ancient buildings and hand them down instructive and venerable to those that come after. My point then is that it is our duty and ultimately the duty of the by-laws from the City of Winnipeg to respect the historical character of our buildings, and I am sure the city has every intention of doing this.

I think there is a need, too, to point out, as is pointed out in the Appleton Charter of 1883, that there are a variety of activities or a variety of ways of caring for heritage buildings and the way in which we choose to do this depends on many factors. We can preserve buildings. We can restore buildings. We can rehabilitate buildings. We can reconstruct buildings and we can redevelop buildings. All of these may be very valid levels of intervention, and what is important is respect for the existing fabric. That is absolutely fundamental, respect for the existing building itself.

The level of intervention should depend on many things: the nature and heritage value of the -

October 18, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3973 building, the goals of the conservation, the scale of the artifact and the financial and human resources available. My point again was that the term "r enovation" as it appears in the proposed amendment is slightly disconcerting as it implies a major overhaul and a high degree of intervention. But, as I said, I have great faith in the leadership of those interested in heritage at City Hall, Glen Murray and Giles Bugailiskis, so I am sure that they will be very anxious to preserve the heritage character of buildings.

The second point that I want to make in closing is to note that this is enabling legislation, an amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act.

Once this bill leaves this House, one hopes that the City of Winnipeg will expeditiously proclaim the amendment and enact the necessary by-law in order to protect the heritage buildings and, by implication, to encourage the city to thrive economically, physically and socially, for I think we all know that a diversity of buildings, a blend of old with new ensures a variety of uses, ensures a variety of activities which, in turn , encourage people and business, which, in turn, mean and encourage community.

In a healthy community, people become keepers of the street peace, and this gives way to a peaceful atmosphere for individuals and business. If we can revitalize our buildings, if we can preserve our heritage, we may also create community and we may also do something about the street peace. The third point I want to make in closing is that, and have made this point already, but, again, it is important for Winnipeggers to take credit for the significant renewal of buildings, homes and communities in the inner city. We have done fme work, and though we have done fine work, much remains to be done.

If we can manage our regional growth, if we can keep regional growth under control, if we can encourage the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to provide broadly based, compre hensive leadership, and I certainly encourage him to do that, to provide broadly based, comprehensive leadership, then we may be able to protect the advances we made in the '80s, the advances and the protection of heritage buildings, and the advances made in the early '90s. In closing, then, I want to point out that our heritage buildings do not live by bread alone.

All the tax credits and all the grants to heritage buildings and properties will come to nothing if this government continues its current policy of no regional growth managem€<nt. The lack of policy these days leads one to imagine a widening circle, dead in the middle with decay, slowly spread ing outwards, a city that eats itself from the inside out. That is exactly what has happened in the city of Detroit. That seems to be happening in the city of Winnipeg.

I think we see this evidence in the boarded windows downtown, for rent and for sale signs, litter and garbage everywhere, homeless people, citizens afraid to be in the streets of their city. *

(1450) You know, in many ways the downtown sections of Winnipeg appear to be a modern wasteland where alienation and dislocation and despair are the order of the day, so I call upon the minister once again to demonstrate some sound leadership to turn this around.

I suggest that the minister chat with his cabinet colleagues, tell them to send some of their high-flyer developer friends flying and then sit down with some regional growth management people, invite some downtown residents, invite some business people, invite some ordinary people, and then he will be in a position to inaugurate a broadly based political process which will involve the whole of the community. It is time to turn things around in Winnipeg, and I think it is time to put people first. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: Is there leave for this matter to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

3974 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18 , 1995 Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to close debate on Bill 17 from our side of the House, and I will be quite brief in my comments. Both the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and the member for Osborne (Ms.

McGifford) have spoken very eloquently about two of the major components of Bill 17 , those dealing with the enabling legislation to enable the City of Winnipeg to enact by-laws dealing with pellet guns within the city of Winnipeg limits and also the ability of the city to deal with taxation issues around heritage buildings to enable the city to, one would hope, strengthen and increase our stock of heritage buildings. The other general area that the legislation includes, or as the minister said, more minor issues dealing with planning and development legislation and granting of land use variances. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, my own comments are that this legislation is good legislation. We have stated and spoken with the minister that we will be approving this legislation and not attaching amendments when it goes to committee. I would like to commend the minister and the government for implementing this legislation. I would like to make a couple of comments more generally. One is that the member for Osborne spoke earlier about the minister's comments that Winnipeg was the Chicago of the North.

As a resident of Chicago for eight years in the early to late '60s, I can understand where the minister has the connection in some ways. There are many beautiful buildings in the city of Chicago, many of them newer than our heritage buildings, but I would like to suggest that in one area, and this goes more to the issue of pellet guns and that part of Bill 17, I would hope that we do not become the Chicago of the North in the whole area of safety and crime because Chicago has a well-deserved reputation as being not one of the better cities in North America to live in that context.

As the minister stated in his remarks when he opened with this bill, it is essentially a bill that provides opportunities for enhanced local government autonomy and accountability. In the areas that Bill 17 deals with, that is true. We see this as an example of something that we would like to see a lot more of, which is co operation between the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba. We all know that there are several major issues under-not under investigation-in the public eye today as we go down to the last week before the municipal election campaign.

There has been a creative tension between the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba for as long as there has been a city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba. That will never change, given the control that The City of Winnipeg Act gives the province over the dealings of the city itself, and given the fact that the city incorporates the vast majority of the population of the province of Manitoba as well as the financial resources and social and economic resources of the province. There will always be those tensions.

It is important that we try as legislators and as people who live in the city of Winnipeg to bridge those gaps that appear and to alleviate those tensions wherever possible. Bill 17 does that in the areas that it deals with; Bill 7 did that in the last session. I would just like to close my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by asking the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to take a look at the requests that have come to the province from the City of Winnipeg's city councillors over the last 1 0 years.

I have received a listing from the mayor's office, and I know it is available if the minister would ask for that, some very interesting areas that the city has asked for action on the part of the province. They cannot do anything about these requests until the province makes changes and amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act.

So I would ask the minister to carry on the good work that he has begun with the government with Bill 7 and now Bill 17 , take a look at the requests the City of Winnipeg has sent to the province in the last eight years and bring back in the next session another bill amending The City of Winnipeg Act to deal with the other issues of importance that the city has requested of the province, or, at the very least, hold discussions with the new city council on some of these issues that have been raised. In some cases, they have been raised by more than one city council. - -

October 18 , 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3975 With those words, I, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, would commend the government, and we are prepared to pass Bill 17 through to committee. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, very briefly on Bill 17 , we understand the main component to the bill is to include new legislation to allow council to regulate the sale and possession of weapons other than those covered in the Criminal Code of Canada, and we think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is, on the surface, a very positive thing.

Legislation is also to allow the council to establish a program of tax credits and grants for renovations to our heritage buildings, and Winnipeg has this very distinct downtown area, in fact, not only within the downtown core area but virtually throughout the city of Winnipeg, characteristics to it. You compare, let us say, Winnipeg to Edmonton or to Calgary, what many people will talk about in terms of the difference is, of course, how much heritage so many of our buildings have.

This is something in which the newer cities-and, in most part, if you take a look at Calgary, it is a fairly new city, especially when you compare it to Winnipeg. So, if there are things that we can do to encourage that preservation of our heritage, I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is positive. One of the unfortunate things that I have never really had the opportunity to see-and it is somewhat tragic was the old City Hall. I have seen pictures. I was too young, I guess, possibly to see it. I do not know when it was actually taken down. I believe it was during the '60s. I was born in '62.

So I believe it was still there when I was born, but, unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to see it at least live. I can only see it in pictures. I think maybe this piece of legislation will assist or will be of benefit in terms of future generations with the many other heritage buildings that we have throughout the city of Winnipeg. To that end, again, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what it does is it allows the city to proceed in an orderly fashion in doing what it can to preserve some of these wonderful, beautiful buildings that we have. * (1 500) Amendments to planning and development in legislation, again, is something else that is talked about. We have no problem in terms of seeing this bill go to committee at this stage. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is Bill 17 , The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act(2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 6-The Public Schools Amendment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques, standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), is there leave for this matter to remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied. Standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), is there leave that this matter remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Deputy Speaker: No? No, leave has been denied. Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise and finish off the minutes that I have left to speak on Bill 6.

Bill 6 is a very important bill to consider as legislators because it deals with the area of education which I think is of the utmost importance to not only students and staff within the province of Manitoba but for the future economic viability and sustainability of our province.

3976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 My concerns with Bill 6 are basically in four major areas. The first area that I have a problem with is the lack of public input before the bill was put together, before the bill hit the floor of the Legislature. I want to reiterate the comments that others have made on Bill 6 in terms of the importance of obtaining the views of the public before legislation comes into the House.

I suppose that could apply to any bill that hits this House but in particular Bill 6 since it does deal with the public schools in our province and the fact that the vast majority of our students and graduates and people who live in the province have come through the public school system.

I think that in itself right there should qualify people to have some kind of input into legislation that we pass in this House that has a bearing on the people of Manitoba but, also, because the rules and the regulations and the legislation that we pass in the area of education represent such an opportunity for this province to grow. I want to make sure that in any future legislation concerning education that comes to the House that this government make an absolute, honest, complete, thorough attempt at collecting public opinion and soliciting public input right from Day One when considering legislation.

The second major concern that I have with Bill 6 is that the final result of the proposals contained within Bill 6 will increase the amount of responsibilities on each and every school staff from one end of this province to the next. In particular I think the administration of each school is going to fmd themselves with a continuing growth in the amount of responsibilities that they have to undertake while at the same time this government reduces the amount of resources available to the principal and vice-principal in the schools from one part of the province to the next.

It makes no sense to me at all to increase the responsibilities of the school's administration on the one hand and take away the very tools they need on the other hand to help them do their jobs in a satisfactory manner. This is the reality of what this government is doing right now, and Bill 6 is no help in that regard. The other staff within the school who are going to be negatively impacted by the proposals contained within Bill 6 are the teachers who are on the front lines and deliver directly the education to students in our classrooms.

I believe the same principle applies here as what I talked about just a minute ago in terms of the administration. What we see as a trend in our schools these days is an increase in the . amount of responsibility put on teachers, fewer teachers within the system to take on that responsibility and fewer resources in terms of dollars, in terms of time and in terms of personnel to help teachers to deal with the increasing load of responsibilities that are being put on the shoulders of teachers. Mr. Deputy Speaker, my backup in saying this, my background is that of a school principal.

I have seen firsthand the kind of results you get when you take a group of people and arbitrarily increase their responsibilities without, at the same time, increasing correspondingly the amount of resources available to the people who are expected to teach our students within the schools.

Another area that I think is going to end up with a big shift in its responsibilities as a result of Bill 6 are the school trustees we elect every so often to represent taxpayers, to provide the authority to offer good quality education to the young people in our province, and that of course being the trustees who sit on the various school boards across the province.

My worry about the role of the trustees is that it is my concern that the provisions ofBill 6 will, on the one hand, take some of the responsibilities away from the trustees and centralize it within the office of the Minister of Education, but at the same time we are taking a lot of the responsibilities that the trustees have had in the past and giving them to a parent advisory council. As a school principal at Rorketon, I helped in setting up a parent advisory council, and I understand the value of parent input and parent advisory councils in each of the schools.

But we have to remember some very important things about parent advisory councils. - -

October 18 , 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3977 First of all, they are advisory. They do not have the legal responsibilities, the legal liability, the insurance liability that an elected school board has. They do not have the protection in certain areas that trustees have. We have to remember that school boards are incorporated; parent advisory groups are not. Through that incorporation, trustees have a certain amount of protection in dealing with everything that a school division deals with over the course of a year. Parent advisory groups do not have that advantage.

Therefore, we must be careful in the kind of responsibilities that we shift from the school board in any area to the parent advisory groups. Of course, I really fear that the other shift that is taking place in education today is a shift of responsibilities from the trustees to the Education minister's office, and that while it does not present the kind of legal and insurance problems that may occur as in the first case I outlined, I think there are some political problems that occur with centralizing to too great an extent the decision making in education in the hands of one person, the minister.

The fourth major area of concern that I have has to do with the amount of commercialization of our schools that I fear will take place as a result of the provisions ofBill 6. What the bill is attempting to do-l think probably in this area the heart of the bill is in the right place insofar as they are trying to provide some sort of protection to students from the selling of illicit drugs, illegal weapons of some sort, goods that are illegal or harmful on school properties. Now, on the surface of that, I think that is okay.

I would always agree that we have to take steps to protect the students and to protect other staff members at schools. My worry, though, is that what would maybe start out as a good plan might evolve itself into something a little more hideous. * (1510 ) My first concern deals with the legitimate school fundraising activities that go on in every part of our province. I would not want to see a school be put in a situation where a fundraising event became jeopardized because of provisions contained within Bill 6. I think that is a concern that all MLAs in this House should have.

I think it should be a concern of the cabinet, and in particular, the Education minister must keep that in mind as we proceed through the debate on Bill 6. The other part of this

section on commercialization that I worry about is the effect that the large corporations, the large parts of the business world, will have on local business. The schools in which I have been a teacher and school principal have basically been small schools within small rural communities, small rural communities that are battling it out with larger towns, larger centres, larger cities, who have larger corporations set up within their jurisdictions to do business.

The business community of very small communities in rural Manitoba cannot compete on a toe-to-toe basis with large multinational corporations, and I fear that this could be another way of funnelling money from rural Manitoba into the larger centres. After all, I question whether it is the right thing to do. Do we actually want to subject our students in schools to yet more comm ercialization? My feeling is that they are subjected to enough of that on television, on radio, in newspapers, the gazillions of fliers that end up in our mailboxes every day.

I think that commercialization has gone too far already without-inadvertently, maybe introducing it into our schools through the provisions of Bill 6. Those four areas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the areas that I am mostly concerned about with Bill 6. I realize that I have more minutes to talk on this, but there is no point in going any further when I have made all the points I need to make, and I would like to close off what I have to say on that note. Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to make a few statements about Bill 6, an amendment to The Public Schools Act. When the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) moved Bill 6 for second reading on June 7, 1995, she clarified more or less the intent ofBill 6. In a relatively short

preamble she stated that Bil1 6, an amendment to The Public Schools Act, was part and parcel of the

3978 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18 , 1995 govemmenfs grant strategy for educational renewal. In fact, the word she used was transform. Now, after seven years of that kind of transforming, eyebrows automatically lift for members of this side of the House, especially when they hear the word transform. Let us hope that the transformation will be somewhat positive,. but I believe that students, parents, educators and the public have reason to be jittery, have reasons to be sceptical. The transforming may well be toward a leaner, meaner system, not doing more with less but doing less with less.

The transformation may well be ideologically driven and top down. It has the potential to stress law, rule, regulation, dictum, overcollaboration, co-operation and flexibility. This piece of legislation appears to have been created in relative isolation and does not appear to have been based on broad consultation or wide public input. In her introduction of the bill for second reading, the minister stated that one of the primary aims was to increase school effectiveness by improving the environment for learning in the classroom. That was the primary aim. Other aims, secondary aims, were not mentioned.

No one is going to argue against improving the environment for learning in the classroom. Improving the classroom learning environment is exactly what thousands of teachers in Manitoba do every day, and they do this day after day after day. The minister stated that this improved learning environment in the classroom is somehow the result of Bill 6 or will be the result of Bill 6. Her exact words were, and I quote: The Public Schools Amendment Act will ensure-will ensure-that the environment for learning is safe, secure and nonthreatening.

I am not sure why the minister used three adjectives which are more or less identical: safe, secure, nonthreatening. He is basically saying that Bill 6 will ensure a secure classroom learning environment. Is the assumption that classroom learning environments were not secure before Bill 6? That is an assumption with which very few teachers would agree; besides, how can a bill ensure this? How can a classroom environment, allegedly not secure, suddenly change because of Bill 6? Is this the magic transformation, the magic renewal the minister hinted at earlier?

But the minister could argue that I am nitpicking, that I am splitting hairs. Perhaps what she really meant to say but never actually stated was this: In a few schools, conditions exist that are not optimal for students and for teachers. The minister should have said that. Is she saying, as Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), I am putting in place some legislation which will give more power to principals to deal with these abnormal or irregular situations which negatively affect students and teachers because, after all, a positive, progressive school climate is very important for learning.

We all agree with that. The all-encompassing nature of the bill, however, suggests that harsh measures are needed now, and they are needed everywhere. The minister herself says, and this is her quote: The bill will increase the authority of school principals to deal with persons whose actions or proximity threaten to compromise safety within the school or interfere with its safe and orderly management. Now, principals have always zealously guarded the safety of their school. I am not sure that principals were consulted or that their opinions were asked for with regard to this bill.

Normally, if a threatening situation arose in a school, let us say, if the life or the welfare of students or teachers were threatened or endangered, the principal would not hesitate to telephone the police. I am not sure whether all principals need or want this new authority. Once again, all school principals are affected by this bill. All are lumped together, there is no discrimination, no realization that the extra discipline, the extra muscle that might be needed by a few principals in a few particular schools, is probably not needed at all in the ma jority of schools. It is a question of overkill.

In Tommy Douglas's unique phraseology, it is like cracking a peanut with a sledgehammer. -

October 18 , 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3979 Also, the bill has the potential for a very wide variety of

interpretation. When the minister stated that the bill would give increased authority to principals to deal with persons whose actions and proximity threatened to compromise school saf ety, what exactly does that mean? The minister probably meant that the principals should have extra clout to deal with dangerous trespassers. However, it could be interpreted far differently. In how many ways could school safety be compromised? Let me count the ways: a student running down the hallway, a janitor carrying a stepladder. A bill's

interpretation could be significantly different from what the minister intended. Another phrase that is open to all kinds of semantic acrobatics is the phrase: Persons whose proximity threatens to compromise school safety. How are we to judge proximity? Does it mean in the classroom? in the school? on the school ground? near the school? How far from the school? Persons are being judged, supposedly by the principals who did not ask to be judges, on their actions and their proximity to schools. Now, schools are pretty open-ended places. All kinds of community events and meetings take place in schools.

All kinds of interesting people visit schools. In many northern schools elders wander in and out, participating whenever their input is needed. Schools hold open house. Schools have fundraisers. I would hate to see the school become a closed, paranoic little cubicle with a principal looking over his shoulder for intruders. The partnership among the school, the parents and the community needs to be open, trusting and flexible. We learn from one another; a heavy-handed boot-camp approach is anathema to real learning. Fear and paranoia have no place in the learning situation, in the learning environment.

Education should be immune to fear and paranoia, but I am a realist enough to know that a certain degree of fear and paranoia is out there and that it is a moot point whether this bill, Bill 6, decreases that fear and paranoia or paradoxically increases it. In a two-tiered world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where the have-nots soon outnumber the haves, a certain degree of uneasiness can be expected, and this is the most painful part of Bill 6, that it addresses only symptoms and not causes.

It is an attempt to instill some kind of rigour or discipline in the educational body, aimed at the mistaken belief that a few dangerous individuals can be separated, identified or punished, because they are a threat to that e9-ucational body.

There is no recognition that, as more and more people are fighting for survival, the stresses generated cannot be wished away with merely a get-tough attitude and a few provisions from Bill 6. * (1 520) There is no crisis situation yet, and as the minister herself admitted, we have a good educational system run by dedicated professionals, but as the economic prosperity promised to Manitobans keeps eluding them, then there will come a time when the pent-up frustrations and anger and hopelessness felt by so many Manitobans, especially the more disadvantaged ones in Manitoba, will also be felt within the educational system.

It is very easy to drift into a law-and-order mentality, let's-get-tough-with-crime mentality, let's get tough with those who hinder the creation of positive learning climates, while ignoring the real reasons, the economic reasons, for that unrest. As I stated earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act, deals with symptoms, not causes. It is legalistic, and it overreacts.

For example, in the minister's own words from June 7, as she introduced Bill 6 for second reading, she said, quote: The amendment provides a legal basis for removing and prosecuting drug pushers, sexual predators, gang leaders, nonstudents and other undesirables who pose a threat to the students at the school.

3980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18, 1995 Now that is quite a catalogue of evil, one that I would hardly associate with education or educational institutions, but perhaps I have lived a sheltered life and the schools in which I have taught did not experience threats from drug pushers, sexual predators, gang leaders and other undesirables. In fact, I am not sure whether those people ever existed in our world or in our communities, but perhaps they did and perhaps they still do.

If they did exist and if they are a threat, one still wonders why nonstudents are lumped in with sexual predators and drug pushers. In fact, most teachers and most principals do not really consider themselves students, along with janitors, carpenters, school committee members and so on. As for the phrase "undesirables," the minister's own phrase, "undesirables," it is a most unhappy phrase. It could refer to just about anything or anybody an education minister or a principal or a person authorized by the school board could want it to refer to.

Undesirables, like beauty, are often in the eye of the beholder, and, again, we are not dealing with causes. Of course, no one wants drug pushers in or near their school. Of course, no one wants gang recruiters in or near their school, but pushing the gang recruiter one block back from the school does not address the cause of gangs or gang violence. Furthermore, drug pushers, pushing them one block further back from the school does not really remove the drug abuse.

What the minister is using is the American get-tough on-crime approach and sticking that approach into an educational framework where it probably does not belong. But, in reality, that only sanitizes the issue; it does not deal with causes. It is a California model because, in California, if the streets become more violent, you hire more cops, you build more jails. Never mind what caused it, never mind that bad tax laws which protect the rich leave no money for social programs or job creation and that the disenfranchised keep lashing out more and more.

It becomes a vicious cycle, and, of course, once that starts, there is more violence, more need for more policemen, more need for penitentiaries. It goes on and on. That is the kind of growth industry we do not need in this province. Surely the issues of child poverty in this province, the lack of housing in the northern part of this province, the lack of meaningful jobs or any jobs for the young in this province cannot be viewed as isolated phenomena. Now, I was happy that the minister, a few days ago, did say some jobs are created for our young people in the summ er.

She mentioned 700 jobs for the urban Green Team, 400 for the rural Green Team, and I am very happy with this, but it is only a drop in the bucket. Thousands and thousands of other young people did not find jobs. So, when the minister talks about undesirables and keeping them out of the school environment, who created the undesirables? Every child born in this province has the potential for greatness. Why are there undesirables? Do we once again blame the victims?

Certainly, we do not want drug pushers near our schools, but would the young person selling drugs be doing so if that young person could find decent employment, and would the gang recruiter in schools? Would the teenagers that feel a need to join gangs, would they still have that need if they had decent self esteem, if they were grounded in those solid altruistic family values that the Tories are so fond of holding up as an ideal? The undesirables that the minister makes reference to, would they still be undesirables if other criteria were used, if they had been raised in affl uence instead of poverty?

I will point out to the minister when she uses the word "undesirables" that great leaders and teachers from the past, from Christ to Mahatma Gan dhi, did not scorn the outcasts and the undesirables. In fact, they created their kingdom for these undesirables. They created hope for them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 6 gives principals the right to document

an act of trespass and engage the assistance of police officers if warranted. By decree this act increases the penalty from The Petty Trespasses Act with a penalty of $25 to a major monetary penalty of possibly $1,000 to $5,000. That is a tremendous increase, a two-hundred-fold increase in some cases. I am not sure how trespass will be def med. Some people who are neither students nor teachers can normally and legitimately be on school property. Cocurricular activities, community meetings in schools, adult -

October 18 , 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 398 1 education, late night usage of gymnasium could all create problems with identifying who should and should not be in a school at a given time. - We do not want to limit community access to our schools. We had an adage in our last school; at least our principal used it extensively. The adage was, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now that may not be a great adage for educational innovation, but it is for the kind of restructuring the minister is advocating in Bill 6. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Bill 6 is cracking peanuts with a sledgehammer.

In the few cases where principals feel they need more power to safeguard the learning environment, the school climate, I am sure solutions could be worked out among the stakeholders, which include educators, parents, students, advisory councils, school boards, law enforcement agencies. In fact, in the past there have existed community police projects in several high schools which led to a reduction in violence in schools. Community police projects might well have been part of that answer that the minister did not look at. Bill 6 attempts a global solution for localized problems.

It does not mirror flexibility or even sensitivity. It reflects a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucratic approach to education, an approach that Tories usually condemn. Therefore, it is surprising that the laissez-faire, hands-off approach they espouse for business they do not espouse for education. It is nonintervention for the marketplace, and it is heavy handed intervention for the schools. I assume, and I admit to being somewhat biased as an ex-teacher, that if there is one group in society that knows what it wants it is a group of educators.

It is doubtful that much consulting was done with educators before this bill was drafted. I doubt that this bill, Bill 6, reflects the most serious concerns of educators. This bill is not entirely without value but broad-based consultation does not underpin it. As a housekeeping bill it has some merit and I am sure many recommendations at committee stage could improve this bill. My colleague for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has referred to this bill as thin. Well, it is emaciated, it is starving, it is indeed very thin.

It is hardly the bold vtston that the minister mentioned when introducing an earlier bill, Bill 5, when she stated and I quote: The status quo is no longer sufficient for a society that is moving toward a new millennium, unquote. I agree. Schools are infinitely adaptable, and, yes, schools must be safe. Indeed we need to work out detailed policies and programs that address the root causes of violence in our schools. Bill 6 addresses symptoms, not causes. In working out detailed policies and programs, we must work from the bottom up and not the top down.

Conflict resolution and violence prevention can be built into the school curriculum. Schools should continue to focus on early and ongoing identification for prevention of violence, and in some cases more staff development is needed. But in the era of cutbacks, Filmon Fridays, lost professional development days, it is difficult for teachers and principals to muster the resources and the time needed to properly address the issue of school safety that is so urgent for some schools, not all schools.

We all want saf e schools, we all desire a safe learning environment for our children, but if we are serious then we are not interested in cosmetics. We are interested in addressing root causes of violence in schools. It would be naive and irresponsible to assume that we can address the issue of violence in schools from the top down when the real issue is the fact that the violence we decry is spawned by poverty, by unemployment, by lack of hope. The minister talked about the new millennium and the fact that the status quo is no longer sufficient.

She is absolutely correct, but let us make certain that Bill 6 is heading in the proper direction. We cannot nor do we want to maintain the status quo. The new millennium the minister talks about, the new century indeed, but I hope however that the new century we are aiming for, that Bill 6 is aiming for, is the 21s t Century, a century of bright hope and not, and I repeat, not the 19th Century whose dogmatic factory-model educational system has been so colourfully chronicled by Charles Dickens. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

3982 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18 , 1995 * (1 530) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? I just want to clarify one thing with the House first. The honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), the resolution had been standing in your name with 22 minutes remaining and leave had been denied. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I rise to speak to Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act.

This piece of legislation increases the authority of school principals in dealing with persons whose presence or activities on school property threaten the learning environment or the safety of persons rightfully on school property. The legislation gives principals the right to engage the assistance of a police officer in removing a person from school premises who is misbehaving. This bill increases fines that may be imposed.

In response to this question from opposition members, when the bill was introduced in the previous Legislature, the then-Minister of Education stated that the impetus for the bill was ambiguity in the present law surrounding the rights of principals in evicting undesirables from school property. The then-Minister of Education stated that the present legislation does not provide sufficient deterrents nor basis of prosecution of off ences.

I will take the then-Minister of Education's word for it, but my experience as a community police constable in the north end of Winnipeg, we dealt with many incidents of youth that had to be evicted from schools, and we always found and a ways and means in order to do it. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) Once again, this bill bears the marks of the simple solution that this government applies to so many problems. We support this bill, as it will protect the interests of students and educators.

However, we point out that the impetus for this legislation is an increase in the number of dropouts and graduates who hang out at schools, threatening the learning environment. This legislation will do nothing to prevent this problem. It can only give educators an iron fist power to push the problem off school property. It has been amply demonstrated in the past that the increasing penalties and enforcement powers do little to change people's behaviours. Madam Speaker, we welcome this bill passing on to committee, and we look forward to presentations from the public. Thank you. Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St.

James): I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act. It is a privilege to be able to speak on something so important as the education of our children and our public education system. What we are talking about here is really a bill that is a shallow attempt to deal with something that is very serious, and that is the fact that we do have some trespassers, some interveners in our school system, people that some have described as undesirables who are attending and coming into our public school system.

I know a case in point in the north end of our division, a group of individuals, not students, individuals that we would probably call members of a street gang who came forward in a concerted, organized fashion-what would it be?-to seize, enter and apprehend an individual that was a student in this one high school. That type of organized criminal-! would say-activity is truly one that is unacceptable. However, Bill 6 is not going to prevent that; Bill 6 does not deal with prevention.

It is a valuable bill in that it increases the fine from $1 ,000 to $5,000, but it does not deal with the real issue; it does not deal with the need for more police officers in our communities, a closer link between our law enforcement agencies and the public school system. That is why this bill is a shallow attempt at dealing with a serious situation. This situation is not unique to schools in Winnipeg. In fact, it also happened in The Pas that I am aware of , -

October 18 , 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3983 happens in numerous situations where individuals will attempt to enter and disrupt the school system. It is not only street gangs, but there are other individuals who will come in with their own agenda, and these are few and far between, Madam Speaker. For the most part, I would say that the public school system is opening their doors to the public, and I think that that is a positive event.

We are looking at more and more what we call community schools, schools that are linked with our public library system, schools that are attached to our community centres, schools where we encourage the participation of our community and parents. These are models that we indeed want to cherish and promote. This bill, I think, is really dealing with a small number of cases and not dealing with it very well at all, Madam Speaker, not dealing with it at all. The issue of identifying trespassers is one that we hope will not in fact impede the public school's process of opening doors.

For example, Madam Speaker, if you have an administrator who is not particularly eager to have the public join us as partners, some of these questions must be dealt with. It is truly a measure that is dealing with a very small and organized group of individuals hardly concerned about this penalty. Their objective is to sometimes gain access to what they would consider customers, young people who may be vulnerable to their sales pitch in terms of perhaps trying to gain access to the student body to sell drugs, to recruit young people into gang-related activities. These members of society need to be excluded.

We do need protection from-we do need programs that deal with these things. This bill is really, I believe, Madam Speaker, an attempt by the Filmon government during the provincial election to say they did have a plan; and, when you look at the bill, you realize that it is nothing more than a few words. It is a very shallow attempt at dealing with a very serious situation, and, again, it is mostly wind, not substance. When you look at the government's record of dealing with disruptive behaviour, both external influences and within the school, it is very shallow, very minor, and not treated seriously.

It is a shocking record from a government that actually says they will take a strong stand in terms of youth crime, that they will take a strong stand in terms of dealing with street gangs, but the record proves that there are a lot of measures that are really what we are now referring to as Casper committees, committees that we get the press release long before the formation of the committee, long before any real substantial action is taken. Basically, an attempt to say, yes, we are there to deal with the issue when in reality the issue was to have the appearance of doing so, not the reality of doing it. *

(1540) Madam Speaker, what we need is for a serious review of preventative measures in terms of dealing with trespassers, dealing with students that are excluded from the public school system. Much of the problems are now being dealt with in a very reactionary way. They deal with punishment, and very little is being done with prevention. For example, the move by many school boards, and encouraged by the government, to move towards expulsion is one that is-and I support a zero tolerance policy that many jurisdictions have taken, zero tolerance towards students being violent, to carrying weapons into schools.

The question is: What is the role and responsibility of the government to provide another avenue for those young people to have an education? Where are those students who are not functioning in a regular classroom going to go when you expel them, Madam Speaker? Out on the street, seems to be the only option provided by this government. As they are expelled from the public school system, their options are very limited. Their options are, you stay at home, you go and associate yourself with other like-minded individuals, not something that we particularly want.

I mean, are we saying that we are encouraging street gangs? They are not functioning in school, expel the kid onto the street, and there they are going to be a very easy victim for any street gang to pick up. What the responsibility of this government is, which they have neglected to do, is to provide an alternative setting for people who are not functioning appropriately in the public school system, a program

3984 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18 , 19 95 which addresses the needs of those young people, reaches out to them, find out why they are behaving in that way, provide programs and have them go back to school. Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility, through The Public Schools Act, of this government to provide an education for all students. What is their mandate for those students that are expelled? What options have they given to those students? Indeed, it is very limited.

The only options available are often those that are provided by individual local teachers who are providing homework for these students, who are providing opportunities for them to continue to get an education, but there is no leadership from this government, no leadership, no alternatives for young people. Madam Speaker, it is indeed a situation that is going to require, I think, collaboration, collaboration on the part of this government, collaboration by individual school divisions and school boards, collaboration by the students and collaboration from the communities.

However, this bill and this government, through its inaction, lack of consultation and regressive policies, has meant very limited opportunities for young people. What we are looking for is a change. What we are looking for are alternatives and options to deal with some of the important situations that are occurring in our neighbourhood. What has happened to the program that was extremely successful, and I had the opportunity to talk about earlier, was the police in schools program? Our member from The Maples (Mr.

Kowalski) is very familiar with the program, a program that was successful, a program that actually worked jointly. We are not talking about our law enforcement officers patrolling the halls to take care of disruptive students; we are talking about partnership. We are talking about the police officer being in the school, conducting regular hours. Only once a week for a couple of hours a week made a drastic difference in those communities. That program was pulled, a program that was successful, that had a record of success, that was a preventative program, and one that we do not have in effect now.

We have heard from this government, we are going to look at tackling youth crime; we are going to tackle street gangs. I say one of the ways to do that is to reinstate a program that works, a program that is not a Casper program, a program that was working, that does work and does mean that you are working with the police department in harmony with schools, a program that I know that every school that I am familiar with wanted the program to be included in their schools. Every high school in Winnipeg No. 1 that I am familiar with requested that program be extended to their schools, a program of success.

That is a program, and I know that there have been many success stories because of that program, stories we do not hear about because the media like to draw attention to cases where there is some glamour, there is some violence. There has been something that has happened that is inappropriate and you see that it is splattered on the front page of the paper, and you have youth gangs controlling schools or some other headline that is totally inappropriate.

A program that was in effect like the Police in Schools program, in effect prevented those types of youth activities, organized youth gang activities, in fact, mediated between various factions in our communities and prevented those programs. Do we see a headline, Prevention Works? It is very difficult, Madam Speaker. What we have tended to do is sensationalize cases, and I think this is what this bill in fact does. It feeds right into it.

What really is meaningful are programs like the Police in Schools program, programs that are dealing with the community, bringing in community members into schools so they feel like it is a partnership. Those are the types of things that we would like to see in our public school system. We want to see a public school system that can deal effectively with trespassers but has an open-door policy to the community. Thank you. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. -

October 18 , 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3985 Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 23-The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 23, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Speaker: Stand. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few comments on the record on Bill 23. Bill 23 appears to be not a major piece oflegislation, certainly not of the scope of other pieces of legislation, such as the balanced budget legislation that this government has brought in this session. However, Madam Speaker- * (1 550) Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I wonder if l might ask all those members who are having private meetings if they would either move to the loge or outside the Chamber. Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, the provisions of this act are basically in three major sections. The first sections are provisions that permit the government to examine medical practitioners or former medical practitioners who are under investigation. The second group of sections protects members of any government board or review committee from liability in the performance of their duties if they act in good faith.

The third area deals with trust accounts to be held and administered by personal care homes. Madam Speaker, of course, prior to hearing any public presentations at the public hearing process, we do not have major concerns with the first two sections of this piece of legislation. However, the

section that deals with accounts to be held and administered by personal care homes, we do have some concerns with this and would hope that the government in debate on second reading and most assuredly in the public hearing process will address some of the concerns that I will be raising briefly and that others in our caucus will be addressing in more detail, most particularly the critic for Health in our caucus. The present act allows personal care homes to hold funds in trust for residents and allows the government to make regulations for them. That is a legitimate thing for the government to do.

Personal care homes do have and should have some connection with funds in trust for some of their residents if it is deemed necessary. However, the new act seeks to outline some of the factors by which personal care homes can deal with these funds. Now, I guess generally one could ask, well, why would you have any problem with legislation that clarifies something. I would suggest that often we would not have trouble with that kind of situation, but we do not believe that the sections of this act that deal with that clarification in fact clarify in the right way. We have some major concerns with that.

Personal care homes under this act would be allowed to deposit funds from residents in trust in interest bearing accounts and the interest from those accounts could be used for the quote, benefit of residents generally. Now, we do not know why this is in here, and it is quite a general kind of statement, that the interest could be used for the benefit of residents generally. I suppose an argument could be made that the specifics of that would be dealt with in regulation.

However, we have had concerns expressed on this side of the House with the fact that there are pieces of legislation that this government has brought in where literally every single element of the legislation is dealt with by regulation instead of being dealt with in the legislation that we have the authority to debate in the House.

3986 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 18 , 19 95 That is the problem you get into when you leave the area so wide open that is dealt with by regulation when you do not have an opportunity to debate in the public domain the implications of those regulations. Granted, Madam Speaker, it is a fine line, because the whole reason for having regulations is so that you do not have to have every detail outlined in the piece of legislation. That is the reason for regulations.

We do not disagree with the concept of the need for regulation so the legislation itself is more policy document, and the details that provide the government with the guidelines as to how to implement that policy are dealt with in regulation. However, we feel that you need to have enough information on the policy in the bill itself to ensure that the public at large and those of us who represent the public at large in this House have a degree of comfort or, if not comfort, at least understanding about what those regulations will do.

It is kind of a convoluted way of saying that we think this piece of legislation is not nearly as clear enough as it should be. We wonder why the government puts in the legislation. Why is it that personal care homes need to have this ability? The only thing that we can come up with is that the gov

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-1-50
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 1st hansardpdf 50.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	27c4bb3c86dde02e5cdbf9e55bffbd53c267013d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).