Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 122 (30th Legislature, 1st Session)

30-1-122

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XXI No. 122 10:00 a.m., Friday, May 10th, 1974. First Session, 30th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division ARTHUR ASSINIBOIA Bl RTLE·RUSSELL BRANDON EAST BRAN DON WEST BURROWS CHARLESWOOD CHURCHILL CRESCENTWOOD DAUPHIN ELMWOOD EMERSON FUN FLON FORT GARRY FORT ROUGE GIMLI GLADSTONE INKSTER KILDONAN LAC DU BONNET LAKESIDE LA VERENDRYE LOGAN MINNEDOSA M 0 ORRIS SBORNE PEMBINA POINT DOUGLAS p ORTAGE LA PRAIRIE RADISSON RHINE LAND RI EL RIVER HEIGHTS ROBLIN ROCK LAKE ROSSMERE RUPERTSLAND s s s T. BONIFACE T. GEORGE T. JAMES ST. JOHNS T. MATTHEWS s s s s s s s s T. VITAL TE.

ROSE ELKIRK EVEN OAKS OURIS KILLARNEY PRINGFIELD TURGEON CREEK SWAN RIVER T T HE PAS HOMPSON TRANSCONA VIR DEN WELLINGTON WINNIPEG CENTRE WOLSELEY Name J. Douglas Watt Steve Patrick Harry E. Graham Hon. Leonard S. Evans Edward McGill Hon. Ben Hanuschak Arthur Moug Les Osland Harvey Patterson Hon. Peter Burtniak Hon. Russell J. Doern Steve Derewianchuk Thomas Barrow L.R. (Bud) Sherman Lloyd Axworthy John C. Gottfried James R. Ferguson Hon. Sidney Green, O.C. Hon. Peter Fox Hon. Sam Uskiw Harry J. Enns Bob Banman William Jenkins David Blake Warner H. Jorgenson Hon.

I an Tu rnbull George Henderson Donald Malinowski Gordon E. Johnston Harry Shafransky Arnold Brown Donald W. Craik Sidney Spivak, O.C. J. Wally McKenzie Henry J. Einarson Hon. Ed. Schreyer Harvey Bostrom J. Paul Marion Hon. Bill Uruski George M inaker Hon. Saul Cherniack, O.C. Wally Johannson D.J. Walding A.R. (Pete) Adam Hon. Howard Pawley Hon. Saul A. Miller Earl McKellar Hon. Rene E. Toupin J. Frank Johnston James H. Bilton Hon. Ran Mcaryde Ken Dillen Hon. Russell Paulley Morris McGregor Philip M. Petursson J.R. (Bud) Boyce I.H. Asper Political Address Postal Affiliation Code P.C. Reston, Man.

ROM 1XO Lib. 10 Red Robin PI., Winnipeg R3J 3La P.C. Binscarth, Man. ROJ OGO NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova P.C. 222a Princess Ave., Brandon R7B OH9 NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova P.C. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg R3R 1 L5 NDP 66 Radisson Blvd., Churchill ROB OEO NDP 97a Garwood Ave., Winnipeg R3M 1N7 NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3c ova NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova NDP Vita, Manitoba ROA 2KO NDP Cranberry Portage, Man. ROB OHO P.C. ae Niagara St., Winnipeg R3N OT9 Lib. 132 Os borne St. S., Winnipeg R3L 1Y5 NDP 44- 3rd Ave., Gimli, Man. ROC 1BO P.C. G ladstone, M an.

ROJ OTO NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova P.C. Woodlands, Man. ROC 3HO P.C. Steinbach, Man. ROA 2AO NDP 1294 Erin St., Winnipeg R3E 2S6 P.C. Minnedosa, Man. ROJ 1EO P.C. Morris, Man. ROG 1KO NDP Legislative B ldg., Winnipeg R3C ova P.C. Manitou, Man. ROG 1GO NDP 23 Coral berry Ave., Winnipeg R2V 2P2 Lib. 135- 16th St. S.W., Portage la Prairie, Man. R1N 2W5 NDP 4 Maplehurst Rd., Winnipeg R2J 1Wa P.C. Winkler, Man. ROG 2XO P.C. 3 River Lane, Winnipeg R2M 3Ya P.C. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova P.C. lnglis, Man. ROJ OXO P.C.

Glenboro, Man. ROK OXO NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3c ova NDP Manigotagan, Manitoba ROE 1EO Lib. 394 Gaboury Place, Winnipeg R2H OL4 NDP 1Oth fir., 330 Portage Ave.,Wpg. R3C OC4 P.C. 31a Ronald St., Winnipeg R3J 3Ja NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova NDP 41a Home St., Winnipeg R3G 1X4 NDP 26 Hemlock Place, Winnipeg R2H 1L7 NDP Ste. Rose du Lac, Man. ROL 1SO NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova P.C. Nesbitt, Man. ROK 1PO NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg R3J 2G3 P.C. Swan River, Man.

ROL 1ZO NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova NDP 1171 Westwood Or., Thompson RaN OGa NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova P.C. Kenton, Man. ROM OZO NDP 6a1 Banning St., Winnipeg R3G 2G3 NDP 777 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg R3E OR5 Lib. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 10:00 o'clock, Friday, May 10 , 1974. Opening Prayer by Mr . Speaker . 3353 MR. SPEAKER: Presenti ng Petiti ons; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Commi ttees; Mi ni sterial Statements and Tabling of Reports: Notices of Motion; Intr oduction of Bills. The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour )(Transcona), on behalf of the Honourable tbe Attorney-General, in troduced Bill No. 65,

An Act to amend the Law of Property Act; and Bill No. 66,

An Act to amend The Limitation of Actions Act. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: Questio ns. The Honourable Member for Ri el. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Ri el): Mr. Speaker, I direct a questi on to the Mini ster, the House Leader. Can he give the House the undertaking that the Moose Lake loggers will appear before committee at this session of the Legi slatur e? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mi nes. HON. SIDNEY GREEN , Q.C. (Mini ster of Mines, Resources and Envir onmental Manage ment) (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I beli eve I gave that undertaking, and I repeat it for the honour able member. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I think that the Mi ni ster stated prio r was that the annual report ... MR. SPEAKER: Question please. MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister whether or not their appear ance at that committee is in some way contingent upon the production of the annual report. MR. GREEN : Mr. Speaker, I di d produce the last annual report that I have. What I had said was that I was hoping to have the more current annual report, which shows a marked change, and that I thought it would be better to discuss it in light of the two reports, but I haven't received the second one.

I tabled the first one in the House approximately a week ago and the chairman will appear before Committ ee. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Mi nister whether it appears that the report, the more recent report for 1973 -74, would be ready for that time. MR . GREE N: Well now we're back, Mr. Speaker, to my problem. I don't know. If it is, it'll be here. Certainly there will be in formatio n available up to the present time if the report is n't. ORDERS OF THE DAY - ORDERS FOR RETURN MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Orders for Return. The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR.

EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, THAT an Order of the House do is sue for a Return showing the following in formation: (1) the total federal grants to the Province of Manitoba for primary and secondary education in the fiscal years 1969 to date; (2 ) the formulae under which such grants were received; (3) the formulae under which the moneys :received were allocated. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

McGILL: I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Robli n, THAT an Order of the House do is sue for a Return showing the following in formation: (1) the total federal grants to the Province of Manitoba for post-secondary education in the fiscal years 1969 to date; (2 ) the formulae under which such grants were received; (3) the formulae under which the moneys received were allocated. MOTION presented and carrie d. GOVERNME NT BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN : Well, Mr. Speaker, we would like to proceed with fir st of all the debates

3354 May 10, 19 74. GOVERNMENT BILLS (MR. GREEN cont'd) .. .•. on second reading, and then the introduction of the new bills on the Order Paper, then the Supply motion. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Bill No. 43. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Stand ? MR. SPEAKER: Very well. Bill No. 46. The Honourable Leader of the Li beral Party. A ME MBER: . . • Stand? BILL N0. 49 MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 49. The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. SAUL A. MILLER (Minister of Health and Social Development): Mr.

Speaker, in moving second reading on this bill, The Child Welfare Act, Bill No. 49, inadvertently this was not indicat ed at the ti me of first reading, and His Honour the Lie utenant-Governor having been informed of the subj ect matter of this bill recommends it to the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this bill, the revis ions to the Child Welfare Act . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the honourable member first move the bill so then we can debate it . MR. MILLER: All right. Okay. Yes. You 're right. I move, Mr.

Speaker, se conded by the Minister of Agriculture, that the bill be now read a second time. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the revisions to the Child Welfare Act are ess ential I believe because we continue to recogniz e in our soci ety that social needs are constantly changing and important acts have to reflect these changes. Child Welfare Acts go back in history in Manitoba back to 19 02 as a matter of fact, where when we first had the Children's Act, the Child Protect ion Act, the Child Immigration Act, and some others.

Now these separate Acts I think consolidated as what is now kno wn as The Child Welfare Act in 192 4, that's 50 years. In that 50 years si nce that first Act was passed there have been many amendments to the legislation . The Act however has never received a major overhaul, and despite the updating amendments that have been included or deletions over time, it continues to this day as a piecemeal document in which laborio us provisions against putative fathers keep company with outdated concepts of neglected children found panhandling, terms that are no longer current .

The present Child Welfare Act however does sanction a system which works to the benefi t of children and families, and it is not my int ent nor the government's int ent to minimize it s useful provis ions . That it has existed these many years, Mr. Speaker, is a tri bute to the effectiveness of the Act to date, and to the care and the concern of their earliest proponents. But the ti me has come we feel for the in tr oduction of a more up-to-date and integrat ed piece of legislation. The new Act, Mr. Speaker, may be characterized in three ways: First, the procedures are si mplified and streamlined.

The whole document developed over approximately five years, I believe, with considerable effort and input from bot h public and private agencies. It's permeated by concepts of normalization, the family environment, preventat ive services, community responsibility. Those who have drafted this Act have been very concerned that it embody an emphasis upon the rights of children as individ uals, enti tled to an opportunity to achieve their optimum potential. It provides for the apprehension of children without physical removal from home. It allows for informality in court hearings.

It shortens and si mplifies the adoption process, allowing for a greater decentralization of services. MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if I could have the co-operation of all the members. There's a lot of talk going around and it s very difficult to hear the Honourable Min ister of Health. The Honourable Mi nister of Health. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, secondly this Act includes a preventive emphasis. Now if we are to achieve a lasting result from Child Welfare it is ess ential to move more positively to stem the flow of children coming int o care in the first place.

This means supportive services to families in the beginning is provided for in this legislation. And as examples: authorit y for the subs idiz ing of day-care expenditures; expanded provis ion for home-care; child caring and contract services; counselling of unmarried mothers; couns elling to families;

May 10, 1974. 3355 BILL NO. 49 (MR. MILLER cont'd) .••.• assisting parents and children in the family setting. All these provisions have long-term benefits to offer. They are long-term but they are benefits nonethe less. A thir d significant feature of the legislation is seen in the thrust it provides to wards the involvement of local communities in child and family matters. Healthy children and families are the product of healthy communit ies. A measure of community health is its willingness to respond to its problems and to its needs.

An example of community emphasis embodied in the new Act let me mention the expanded role of the Chil d Welfare Committees. Provided in the old legislati on these were expressions of the Children's Aid movement but now given wider scope to respond to community concern for the well-being of children. Similarly the new role of the Review Board will in volve commcnity members in advisory and appeal roles with the Mi nis ter in regard to any and all child welfare matters. A New Treatment Panel which is a new concept int roduced into this bill.

The new Treatment Panel extends the benefit of a multi-di sciplinary consultation to the director, to the courts, to the in stit utions and to the agencies in various parts of the province. Mr. Speaker, I've talked about the general approach underlining our new Chi ld Welfare Act. I perhaps might draw atten ti on of the members to some of the more specific and major in novations that the Act contains. A very difficult problem has been that of reconciling our juvenile correction system with the philosophy and inten t of the Chi ld Welfare policies. In this area not everything is black nor white.

Many young people who enter in to this system is because they have transgressed against some rules in our society, and that is so. However, they are not much different very often from young people who come into the child welfare system because they requi re the protection and the support, which often comes as a result due to the deficiencies of the social environment which molds thei r attitudes and molds thei r behaviour. So the new Chi ld Welfare Act attempts to accommodate this relation ship while at the same ti me preserving the legal rights and status and the protection of the law to these young people.

Equally important Mr. Speaker, is the right of young people to be recognized under the present justice system as ind ividuals competent to distinguish bet ween right and wrong, and competent also to accept the censure of the community for having tr ansgressed against the commtmity's rules and their conduct. The new Legislati on, Mr. Speaker, therefore contains an important modification of pro visi on designed to achieve compatability between the Chi ld Welfare and the Juveni le Correction system. Let me first speak of the Treatment Panel, the proposed Treatment Panel.

This is a board or a committee of people who would be qualified in vari ous professional disciplines which have a beari ng on the rehabi litative process for juveniles. The panel is to advise on the place ment and the program for those juveni les who are judged to be delinquent and are considered to requi re placement in a closed in stitution. The Treatment Panel will similarly advise on the program for juveniles who have been made wards of the Director of Chi ld Welfare or the Chi ldren's Aid Society, and whose behaviour creates problems which may requi re speci al attenti on.

The Act contemplates also, and it is certainly my fervent hope that it will succeed in this, that the Treatment Panel will become a primary source for Famil y Court Judges in reaching their decisi on on the disposition of a juveni le convicted of an offence. And I would hope that the Treatment Panel will become functionally in tegrated with forensi c services which now provide pre-sentence advice to the Judge. In addition to the Treatment Panel the new Act retai ns the concept of the Revi ew Board although in a somewhat altered form.

Under the existent system it is the function of the Review Board to step in and review the disposi tion of a case im mediately after the court order affecting a juvenile delinquent has been issued. The Revi ew Board could then decide to counter mand the court's order in whatever way the board thought fit. Under the new Act the Revi ew Board no longer has the function of establishi ng specific treatment programs, instead the new Revi ew Board is empowered to in tervene on behalf of any child to act as its advocate, to report to the Mini ster on what the Board conceives to be ir regularities or injus tices.

The Board may on its own init ia tive, or at the request of the Minister, or even on the request of any citizen, in vestigate and report on any program service or institution affecting children coming under this legislati on. The Revi ew Board will also act in a general advisory capacity to the Mi nister on child welfare matters.

3356 May 10, 1974. BILL NO. 49 (MR. MILLER cont'

d) Mr. Speaker, I would not deny, and some of you are aware I 'm sure, that under the existi ng legisl ation the relationship between the exis ting Review Board and the Famil y Courts has led in many cases to considera ble difficulty. The relationship has not always been best. Now in these difficulti es unfortunately the young person in conflict with the law was the one that was caught in the middle. Now whether the new system will work out totally, we believe however that it is an improvement.

However, it will depend to a large extent on the co-operation between the criminal justice system and our child welfare system. I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that the months, years as a matter of fact, that have gone in to developing this bil l, but in recent months certainly, a very good collaborative effort was contributed by officials of the Attor ney-General's Department, by the Department of Health and Social Development, and particularly by the Chief Judge of the Provincial Judge's Court and the Senior Famil y Court Judge, who are all invol ved in developing this legisl ation.

And so we will be watching with int erest the successful implementa tion of the process provided in this legisl ation. Mr. Speaker, perhaps one further point: I might be unduly opti mistic, but it seems to me that in this province and across Canada there's a revival of community int erest in contributing volunteer service to the people. In no area of social need is this kind of effort more vital than in the service for the welfare and the protection of children.

The new legisl ation provides greater flexibil it y for the establishment of child welfare committ ees, which are designed as a vehicle for local community participation in child welfare services. We expect that these committees can be particularly effective in the remote areas of the province. The provision of adequate child welfare services in these remote communities is in my view one of the most pressing social problems existing in Manitoba to day and one to which we must address ourselves. Mr.

Speaker, when this Session opened a number of members opposite, and in my own caucus, discussed with me the problems with regard to adoption that have been brought to their atte ntion. It was too late to deal with the matter and therefore the bil l in it s present form does not meet some of the questions they raised.

However, I want to indicat e to members opposite that it is my int ention to bring int o Law Amendments modifications and adjustments in the sections dealin g with adoption to meet the needs expressed by members opposite and members within my own back bench, in order to correct what may be to day an imb alance in the oppor tunit ies for adoptive parents. So Mr. Speaker, with those few words I would urge that this House adopt this bil l so it can go int o second reading and eventually be accepted as legislation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. ARNOLD BROWN (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker I would li ke to move, seconded by the member from Gladstone, that we adjourn debate. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 60 MR. SPEAKER: Bil l No. 60 The Honourable Minis ter of Health. MR. MILLER Presented Bil l No. 60, TheSocial Servic eAd minist rationA ct, forsecond readi ng MOTION presented MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, the inte ntion of presenting this bil l to the House is first of all to update the Department of Welfare Act, which at the moment contains many incorrect and obsol ete references because of amendments which have taken place in other legisl ation. Be sides the general updating there are some more specific purposes which I'd like to explain in the House. Members are aware that Manitoba has embarked on an experimental program to test the efficacy and the problems connected with the provision of the universal basic income.

Some members may recal l that arrangements were made during the lunch hour, when the technical it ies of this project were explained to them; some members attended. It is a very technical, scient ific experiment, and it was felt that members should be given an opportunity to hear what the program was about. The program seeks to determine the work, disincentive effect, if any, of an income tested, income maintenance system. The proposed bil l includes enabling legisl ation covering

May 10, 1974. 3357 BILL NO. 60 (MR. MILLER cont'd) . the financial management and other administrat ive require- ments for this experiment. Members are aware that this is a joint venture in which the Federal Government covers 75 percent of a cost estimat ed at $17 million over a period of, I believe it 's three years. I can report to the House that the design for this project has been completed. It has been approved by the Federal Government and is ready to go. Once the enabling legislation has been passed, we will be in a posit ion to go forward with the program as planned.

It may be of int erest to the House that this experiment is particularly pertinent at this point because the Federal Government and all ten provinces are presently involved in a joint review of the Canadian income security system. Probably no government program has been the object, Mr. Speaker, of criticism, of welfare programs -t his applies not only here but in every other jurisdiction. So it 's really highly appropriate that the development of alternatives be pursued.

This experiment is the largest social experiment ever undertaken in Canada and I anti cipate that this legislati on will receive full and unqualified support from all sioes of this House be cause what we learn from this experiment will be of value, not only in it self but in anything that's done in the future both in Manitoba and in Canada. A further provision of the bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with the government's supplement to the elderly.

Under this program the province will augment the incomes of Old Age Assistance and Guaranteed Income Supplement recipients so as to provide a total income of $200. 00 per month for single pensioners and $383. 00 per couple, effective in July. It is anticipated that the first payment to pensioners will be made in July in an amount that covers the three months of July, August and September. In other words they'll be prepayments on a quarterly basis. Again I would hope that all members will co-operate to in sure the speedy passage of the bill so that the preparati ons can go forward.

The Federal Government has agreed to undertake to co-operate with us in the issui ng and the mailing of these payments on behalf of the province. If administ rative plans succeed, and when the necessary Federal legislation permits, and I gather there's an amendment to be required, the provincial payments would then be simply added to the federal pension cheque. In this way we hope to save a considerable amount of administrat ion and money if the provincial amount is simply shown as an add-on on the Federal OAS GIS cheque.

The other provisions of the proposed legislation are, as I mentioned earlier, house keeping and cleanin g up of various it ems. An example is the repeal of the Old Age Assistance Act, which is really a redundant Act and has been in disuse for some ti me, generally it is up dating of termin ology. So, Mr. Speaker, with this explanation I tr ust the bill will gain favour with the House and will proceed to second reading and subsequ ently be adopted by the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. BROWN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Member from Glad- stone, that we adjourn debate. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 62 . MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 62 we'll stand. I understand that the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party is prepared to speak on Bill 46 if we have the agreement that he be allowed that privilege. BILL NO. 46 MR. SPEAKER: Agreed (Agreed) The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party, Bill No. 46. MR. I. H. ASP ER (Leader of the Liberal Party)(Wolseley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The best experience one can have in considering Bill 46 is to do something I did last evening, that is to take his files on Urban Affairs for the past four years and read them all, starting back in around 1970. It's the most salutary experience one can have. Then one comes to Bill 46. Now as a bill, Mr. Speaker, we've heard a fair amount of debate, none of which centres on what's really in the bill but rather centres on what the bill does not contain and what it ought to contain; and that's fair gain.

Because if you read those files, read the reports, read the briefs, read the tr anscripts, and read the Hansards, on this subject for the past four years, one has to weep; one has to feel a sense of sadness that in four years the great experiment has

3358 May 10, 1974. BILL NO. 46 (MR. ASPER cont'd) •.•.. brought us to this point where we have Bi ll 46, a rather clean up bill, kind of a housekeeping bill, but stil l not meeting the criticis ms and the problems that were warned, that the government was advised of, that the government was urged to take into account from 1970, 71, and 72 and 73. Mr. Speaker in sofar as the bi ll creates the elected mayor, universally elected, it has our support.

We are disappointed to see that the government has reserved unto itself the power of the Cabinet to vary by Order-in-Counci l, or by Regulation, the size of Ci ty Cou ncil. Mr. Speaker, we would appeal to the Mi nister to pull that ouL The people of Wi nnipeg are grown ups; they can set their own by-laws; they can set their own numbers of councillors, just as the people of Manitoba do. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Government of Manitoba why it says that it will in terfere with and set the number of seats, and the wards, and so on, for the Ci ty of Winnipeg, yet it would not for one second tolerate if the next level of government, the Federal Government said, we will set the number of MLAs for Mani toba, We do that. That's our job. We expect, Mr. Speaker, that the same kind of freedom of choice should apply at the juni or level, the municipal and civic levels.

Now I know we've always had a distinction between the municipal governments and the city governments, and that's because of the experien ce, that's be cause of the sophistication of the two ki nds of government, but surely, Mr. Speaker, we can ask the government to reconsi der that aspect and give city council or give the City of Winnipeg the simple ri ght to decide how many members it will have on its own council. The City of Winni peg is not the political ward, the political pawn of this Legis lature.

It ought to be free in the modern face of urbaniza tion that's sweeping the world that this government should come to grips with the reality that the people of Winni peg are quite capable of, and entitled, to set their form of government . Mr.

Speaker, we're disappointed, too, because in all those four years of debate, and really I commend honourable members opposite to spend a little time this summer browsi ng through their files on the four years we've discussed this, because in all those four years of debate we sai d, all of us, don't give us a ceremonial mayor, don't gi ve us somebody who'll wear a Lit tle Lord Fauntleroy cap and have a sword and a chain around his neck, and open bridges.

Gi ve us a head of civic government; give us a man who under the Emergency Measures Act can lead his people when there are problems, a man who can declare the emergencies that the Mayor's Chai r might have to do under disaster, floods, blackouts, and so on, and let's define his positi on. I'm sure honourable members would have no difficulty in agreeing on what those powers should be, and those powers should have been contai ned in Bill 46.

But if there's a final gap, and if there's one area in which -b ecause we can forgive an awful lot; we even can forgive the failure to make meaningful the community councils, the resident advisory groups. We don't forgive that easi ly, Mr. Chairman, because, and that's where you come back to 1970-71 when we began this debate . Mr.

Speaker, we pleaded; the Liberal Party believed that, and if honourable members recall we published a plan as a compromise between the Progressive Conse rvative posi tion, which was to maintai n the two ti er level basically, the Metro system, and the NDP which had, which we feared we said at the time looked to us as total amalgamation. We struck middle ground sayi ng that there would be a merged council, there would be economi c uni on.

That was one of the most equitable thin gs the government did to bri ng the low in come parts of our city, our metropolitan area, in to some kind of a shari ng with the higher in come, because we are one economi c unit, and we said, we are prepared to be one political unit but we are not altogether of the same social and cultural unit, and we asked for that power to the community committees because we opposed the concept of the to tal centraliz ation in most legislation.

We said give us a mayor, popularly elect him, define his position, make him meaningful, and then you can perfect your whole plan by doi ng two things. Gi ve the community committees legisla tive power, limited albeit, but give them power, gi ve them the power to govern their own distri cts. If they want asphalt rather than 6 inc hes of concrete, if they want no si dewalk but they'd rather have a boulevard, that's for them to decid e. So, Mr. Speaker, we couldn't get that. We failed to convince the government to give power, legislative power in 1971 to the community committees.

We asked also for limited budgeting authorit y. We couldn't get that, and it's not in this bi ll. It's clear, as some speakers have in dicated - then of course there seems to be a pretty profound disagreement amongst even members of government, that's not unusual in any government, but even on this point we would like to have seen the bill give meaning, give

May 10, 1974. 3359 BILL NO. 46 (MR. ASPER cont'd) •..•. substance to those community committees by giving them legislative power and slight or modest budgeti ng authority; well that's not there. But as I sai d, the fundamental flaw with Bi ll 46, which makes everything else pale by comparison is that for the fourth consecutive year, the third of Unicity, we do not have a viable economic, fiscal taxing �apacity for the Ci ty of Wi nni peg. That's our sense of sadness when we greet Bill 46. We have the inc redible vision of a government that, and it's really something, Mr.

Speaker, to go through those files, to read the brave new world speeches of the Honourable Mi ni ster of Fi nance, Mr. Cherniack, as he spoke in 19 71, as he in troduced Bi ll 36 the City Bill. It really should be mandatory reading for all of us because, Mr. Speaker, I honestly was in spired when I heard that speech. It wasn't my pleasure to sit in the Chamber, I was in my 1971 posi ti on in the gallery. --(Interjection)-- I hear the Honourable Public WorkS Mi nister suggesting I may return to that posture, and we all face that prospect I suppose at some time or another. But, Mr.

Speaker, if you had read or listened to his speech in I971, March I believe, we believed that we were coming to the millennium; we believed that the City of Winnipeg was finally going to get serious attention. What have we had since then? We have had at least four or five Mi nis ters of Urban Affairs in three years. We have never had a Mi nister of Urban Affairs hold the portfolio long enough to get serious about it . What have we had? The Honourable Mr. Cherni ack, the Honourable Mr. Green, the Honourable Mr. Mi ller, I beli eve, and the Honourable First Mi ni ster. That's four, I think there was one more. Mr.

Speaker, that's not fair; that's not adequate, the people of Winnipeg deserve better. We're entitled to have a minister who will seriously, without the responsi bility of other departments, take this very pressi ng problem of urbaniz ation and devote his career, his ti me in public life for a number of years to solvi ng that. Now the way he's going to solve it is, he's going to say that the world has changed, urbaniz ation is upon us, and what is this city's potential ? Because go back to Mr.

Cherni ack, the Honourable Mi nist er's speech of 1971 ; we dreamed, we dared to believe that this city would clean up its riverbanks, that this would be the Pari s of North Ameri ca; because we have the physical capacity to be that. We dreamed that there would be parks, there would be trees, there would be malls; there would be musi c in those parks, there would be recreation facilities, there would be leisure and there would be planned facilities for the whole city to enjoy the pleasures of what urban living can give.

We t·hought it would be a fun place, that there would be participation by the people through the communit y committee system in this law maki ng process, blocks -v ery much as the Ci ty of Paris operates, through block and di strict government, rural government, We dreamed that there would be a provincial capital commis sion. We believed that this was the obvious 8.1 ccession, just as Ottawa did, Mr.

Speaker, one need only go, as honourable members know, through Ottawa today and see what a jewel of a city it's becoming because of the National Capital Commission having that commitment to beautify, to make it a wonderful place to live or visit. This city is worthy of that kind of treatment because it is our capital city and it is our biggest city, Mr. Speaker, these things haven't happened, not because the government has bad taste, and not because the City of Wi nni peg is in competent in it s government, but for one reason - money.

So in stead of the river banks being cleaned, and the parks, and the driveways, and the malls, and the music, and the leisure, that even the City of Canton has, the Ci ty of Shanghai has, in those terribly, we allege retarded areas of the world, we have not responded to the challenge of urbaniz ation. Instead we sti ll have the same, if not greater, congestion than we had four years ago. We have sti ll the same remoteness where we can only a few weeks ago, and frequently as I travel through this city, we can di scover whole enclaves of people who have been lost for years.

I'm talking about the people on Talbot Avenue, but I've had it in my own riding. I've gone in to places where people have not been discovered except by social workers for years; they don't have radios, and they don't have televi sion, and they don't get news papers, and they are the remote, they are the alienated. And we haven't gone in to that; we haven't solved that. The congestion is still there; the sense of remoteness from government is still there; soari ng land costs.

In 1970 when we began this debate the price of land for a lot was, I would think around $3, 500 fully im proved, maybe 4, 000, today it is 8, 000. And there's something very wrong, Mr. Speaker. We have undeveloped land in the core of Wi nni peg and we have no way, we have

3360 May 10, 1974. BILL NO. 46 (MR. ASPER cont'd) •.... no machinery for creatin g development, and we have gaps in our development plan. We have the transportation problem. We hear day after day, no we wil l not do the McGregor-Sherbrook overpass because we can't deal with that until we deal with the multi- year problem of rail relocati on. The Federal Government has said, here, here's money, go to your railroad relocation; but we can't come to gri ps with that. The Ci ty can't or the pro vi nce can't or we can't reach agreement. So we can't do that; we can't put a bri dge across Osborne to join St.

Vi tal to Fort Garry, because somebody else has got a transportation con cept. Mr. Speaker, I make no charge of the government; this is not the Provinci al Government's problem. But what is its responsibil ity, and ought to have been contained in Bi l l 46, is the machinery, the fiscal machinery whereby these things could be dealt with. I said, we have cheap land, Mr.

Speaker, there are 20 0 acres of land within the perimeter that have been offered for sale for a modest $400. 00 per acre just recently. --(Inte rjection )-- I'd be happy to tell the Minister of the Housing where to go and buy the land. --(Interjection)-- Mr. Speaker. MR, SPEAKER: Order please. MR. ASPER: Yes. Yes. Four hundred dollars an acre. Mr. Speaker, the reason it doesn't sell is that there's no sewer and water, and they don't have the fiscal capacity to go and bring the sewer and water to where we could then deliver to the people of Manitoba, the people of Wi nnipeg, $2, 000 lots. I know, Mr.

Speaker, because I have several years as a counsel to development to municipal government; for five years I was counsel to the Ci ty of As siniboia, and I know what we did there - $2,000 fully improved, 3, 000 cost; that was 60- foot lots. We cry, we weep because we can't do it, and not because the Provincial Government is niggardly, that is n't the problem. The City doesn't have the legi slative capacity, it is of a fiscal capacity, and that's what I appeal to the government to do with Bil l 46, bring in fiscal capacity. Mr.

Speaker, in two and a half years si nce this Bil l 36 came in which we are now amending, the Federal Government has moved to home owner grants, to neighborhood im prove ment programs, land banki ng, and a whole series of fiscal thrusts to make urganization palatable, not only palatable, pleasurable. The problem for the Ci ty of Winni peg is we are dealing with a 1870 tax base. We set this tax base in 18 70. You taxed property, you taxed mills, and Mr.

Speaker, that was fine when we belie ved that taxation by muni cipal governments was a few for service, and I stil l believe that there's room in taxation for that concept -a fee for service. You put 50 feet of concrete street in front of my house, and you put 50 feet of concrete street in front of somebody else's house --(Interjection)-- yes I think we should probably pay the same tax on a mill basis, fee for service, But, Mr. Speaker, for police, for fire, for parks, then we resort to the philosophy, the current philosophy of ability to pay.

Now there is no real sharing of revenue by the province with the Ci ty of Wi nni peg. There have been token gestures, a little bit of in come tax thrown in, but no deal. It's always, please, Si r, can I have some more ? Mr. Speaker, the Government of Manitoba has abandoned the Amusement Tax, and said to the City if you want it, you can have it. Do you know what that amounts to? What? 300, 000, $400, 000 . , • A MEMBER: 600 , • , MR. ASPER: 600,000 from the Ci ty of Winnipeg, 600,000. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that is something li ke . 6 percent of the City's budget, but the Ci ty's costs are going up just li ke the Government of Manitoba's costs by 15 percent per year. So then, Mr. Speaker, after that to kenism, three or four or five or six hundred thousand dollars of the Amusement Tax, the government says, if you want we'll give you the power to tax speculative gains in land. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an experimental kind of tax.

It's going to be years before we see what Ontario's been able to do with that ki nd of tax, what kind of revenue it produces, and whether it impairs development or produces development. So why ask the City of Winnipeg to speculate, to experiment for the kind of tax that can have adverse consequences, when at least it is bei ng experiment within Ontari o now, and we'll get the free look on how it works before we implement it. And so we 're left with ze ro . Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government of Manitoba to set up a structure that combi nes what we did in 19 71 , what they did.

They created political uni on, economic union, and then con stitu tional responsibil ity, but not the fiscal capacity, the wherewithal to carry out those responsibil ities. And we have made no progress. The Ci ty of Winnipeg has been able with its

May 10, 1974. 3361 BILL NO, 46 (MR. ASPER cont'd) ••.•• tax base only to keep even. That means, keep the schools open, put out fires, have enough police, but we have made no progress in three years of urbanization, no progress whatever. And the reason, the fiscal base. Where is the reform? Where are the reformers who were swept into office in 1969 and given a mandate in 173 as big as any govern ment in this province has ever had in popular support, in popular support. Where is the reform? You have a ti cket. You have a ti cket to ride. Why? Well, Mr.

Speaker, the city costs are going up far more rapidly than it 's capacity to raise revenue, and we are heading int o a crisis. That's why I say, go back and read your files from 1970 to 1974. It's everything we said, in

chapter and verse is coming tr ue. We weren't being nit picky politi cians during the debate of 1971, we said this is what our study indicates you've got to do. And now, Mr. Speaker, that we were looked on with scorn, we were ridiculed and everything we predicted has come to pass, because the government failed as we said, as the Liberal Party said when it went to Municipal Affairs in 1971, that this calamity would occur because of the failure to give the City a tax base. Now, Mr. Speaker, the way we've been able to survive is that each year the Cit y of Winnipeg comes to this Government of Manit oba and pleads.

They can't budget, they can't forecast, they can't do long-term commitments because they don't know what ' 'Daddy" will give them next year. So handouts, wards, and, Mr. Speaker, the discretion on how the City will progress has reverted from Cit y Council to the government Cabinet Chamber, and that's wrong, because the Ci ty can't plan if they don't know what they're going to get from "B ig Daddy." Mr. Speaker, let me say that further real property tax rises are categorically indefens ible and yet inevit able, and that's what we're here to talk about , Bill46. The opportunity to move, to stop it . Because, Mr.

Speaker, I repeat, any further property tax rise for the average Winnipegger, or Manitoban, is thoroughly indefensible on social, philosophical and political grounds, as well as the ability-to-pay it economic period. Mr. Speaker, the in equity that 1 s come to our city and our province, and all honourable members know it, is so patent and so absurd, and the government sit s and doesn't do anything. You have two houses, bot h houses ident ical, bot h $25,000 market value. Mr. Speaker, House 1 has a $24,000 mortgage on it , a young couple's just bought it , $1,000 down, and that's their position.

House 2 is owned by - right beside it , identical, same house, no mortgage, clear ti tle, owned by two retired people. Same tax, Mr. Speaker, same property tax. Now, Mr. Speaker, when did we tax debt ? When did we get the concept that when we tax value we don't tax net value? That 1 s a reform and that's where we have to go. If we believe in the ability to pay principal, then the person who owns the $25,000 house but owes $24,000, has far less ability to pay and has far less net worth wealth tax than the person beside him with the $25,000 clear title house. Mr.

Speaker, if you don't buy that argument, then let's take, let's take - and I admit that the argument is debatable, but put it in another way, the same two houses, forget their debt positions, Mr. Speaker, in House 1 you have four income earners, a mother, a father and two children, and the gross income for that house is $40,000 a year; and in the house beside it , identical, you have two retired people, gross income 6, 000 a year. Mr. Speaker, explain to me why they should both pay the same tax for police protection, for schools, why? And that' s how obsolete our property tax system has become.

Where is the abilit y to pay in that equation ? Where are the reformers from the government side who we expected would rid us of these in accurate taxing systems ? Mr. Speaker, they set up a new mechanism, they set up a new structure. I ask them now to lead the rest of the country in giving it a tax structure that is as modern and shiny as the concept of it s government. It'll work. Mr. Speaker, I propose to the government the following. No. 1 . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

ASP ER: Let us begin, because Bill 46 has got to be passed quickly, because there are elections for the mayor in a matter of five or six months. So, Mr. Speaker, let us pass Bill 46, let us now set up a joint committee of the City and the province to negotiat e and report to this House next year on a proposal for a new tax structure for the City of Winnipeg. Let it be negotiat ed. Mr. Speaker, let it be based on the - and I would recommend and urge the government to adopt one of three positions.

First, that income tax, corporation tax, sales tax, liquor tax, these growth taxes should be shared between the Cit y - not only the Cit y but all municipal government and the province -

3362 May 10, 1974. BILL NO. 46 (MR. ASPER CONT"D) ••.•. just as we insist on sharing with Ottawa on a formula basis and a non handout basis, so that everyone can forecast their budget and have the same growth rate in revenue. That's Position A. Mr. Speaker, I can hear the government saying, and I don't disagree with what they might say; well, he who spends should levy the tax. And I agree; I think there's merit in that argument.

So therefore adopt Position 2, which is, give the City the constitutional authority to levy those taxes, then we'll enter into cost-sharing agreement perhaps between the City and the province. --(Interjection)-- Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member from St. Vital says the City doesn't want to levy those taxes.

I'd talk to the City of Winnipeg then, into saying - be cause that's the only way the Government of Manitoba is going to be clean on the issue - and say, look, just as Canada has said to Manitoba, you want money, here we'll give you access to in direct taxes, direct taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, you levy the tax, you account to your people for whether you're over-taxing or not. Of course we're creating the nightmare. Now, Mr. Speaker, the province can discharge its responsibility by doing as a minimum, likewise with the City of Winnipeg.

Now some cities in the United States and England are now doing that; they're being given their power to levy. As a matter of fact in Canada, in Quebec, in the City of Sorell, Quebec, levies its own sales tax, and so on. It has the capacity. And there are in New York, of course levies. The City of New York levies income tax, sales tax, payroll tax, you know, they've got full constitutional authority. Now I wouldn't recommend that, Mr. Speaker, because what you would have is, you'd have the provincial income tax, the federal income tax and the city income tax; you'd have bureaucracy run amuck.

But what you could do is enter into tri-level sharing, or at least bi-level sharing, the city and the province. And that must be solved. And I'll give you the numbers. Mr. Speaker, there is a third alternative. I said I would suggest three. First, tax sharing; second, giving the city this constitutional authority to levy its tax, whatever taxes it wants which are growth taxes; and third, cost sharing on projects between the city and the province. Mr. Speaker, I reject that out of hand. That's what we 're doing now, and it is now working. Mr.

Speaker, each year because of the constitutional division of taxing authority now, the City of Winnipeg has expense rise, just to keep even, of $10 million a year; and revenue rise, without raising its taxes, of $1. 5 million. That is a revenue increase - rather an expense increase, seven times larger than its revenue increase. Now, Mr. Speaker, that means every year there has got to be a tax rise in the City of Winnipeg under the present system.

Now at the same time that that's happening, because the Province of Manitoba has seconded unto itself almost the sole benefit of the growth tax areas, income tax, sales tax, that are inflationary taxes, you have the cost of government service rising by $70 million provincially, but revenue rising by $140 million provincially. And so each year the Province of Manitoba has the fiscal capacity, as we've been debating for two or three years now, to at least inaugurate new programs to the value of 60, 70, 80 million dollars a year. And that's what's been happening every year for the last three years.

But the City of Winnipeg cannot launch a single new stop sign program unless they can find a borrowing, or unless they can get a handout from the government, or unless they're prepared to raise their mill rate. And that is as I said intolerable. Mr. Speaker, I say we 're heading for a financial crisis. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works. HON. RUSSELL J. DO ERN (Minister of Public Works)(Elmwood): Mr.

Speaker, it is not uncommon for senior governments to introduce new taxes almost every year, and I ask the honourable member whether he thinks that the city should be looking for new forms of taxes to enact in order to keep apace with the demands that they have? MR. ASPER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would agree, I think the Mini ster said that even the province is introducing new taxes every year, and if he did or didn't, it is true we have modest tax changes each year. But --(Interjection)-- yes, but there are also tax cuts every year too.

You may have one year in which you want to influence fiscal policy or monetary policy or inflation so you may cut taxes. There's no chance for the city to cut taxes. But I would agree with him in the second part of his statement and that is, shouldn't the city be looking for new tax sources. Answer: Yes. I don't care how you solve it --(Interjection)-- I do frankly, but I want it solved so badly

May 10, 1974. 3363 BILL NO. 46 (MR. ASPER cont'd) ••..• that either of the two first options: give the city taxing capacity that can get the city to real revenue, or go into tax-sharing agreements, but one or the other. Obviously since I don't want a proliferation of taxing authorities I must say I lean toward tax sharing between all levels of government, just as Manitoba shares with Ottawa. But if I can't get that, I will settle right here on the spot for an amendment to Bill 46 that says the City of Winnipeg shall have the authority to levy any tax that the Province of Manitoba levies.

And the Province of Manitoba will enter into tax collecting agreements to prevent poliferation of bureaucrats. Do something bU:t you can't go on this way because . • • I want to read you something, Mr. Speaker, from the Economic Council of Canada. A MEMBER: That's my speech. MR" ASPER: I don't know if it's been quoted in the House. The Honourable Member for Radisson suggests he may have quoted this before but it bears repeating. The Economic Council in its Sixth Annual Report said this: "Our work suggests very strongly that pressures for increased urban area expenditures are likely to mount rapidly in the future.

" End of quote for a minute. That's the understatement of the year. Carrying on with the quote. "H owever the real property tax, which is still by far the largest source of locally raised revenue from municipal governments, is considerably less responsLve to economic growth than the revenue sources of the Federal and Provincial Governments. Consequently --" And this is the tragedy of Winnipeg -- "Co nsequently" -- I return to the quote -- "the gap between municipal expenditure requirements and the revenue derived by municipalities from their own sources is likely to increas e. " I depart from the text, Mr.

Speaker. The gap between revenue to the City of Winnipeg and its expenses of just doing what it's doing today and not progressing, will increase. And that means we will make no progress to the great urban society - unless. And then it goes on, the Council says: "Without a continuing increase in transfers of revenue from senior government, or further shifts in responsibility to those governments. " And I interject, Mr. Speaker. In other words if the City of Winnipeg is prepared to say to the Government of Manitoba: "H ere we're finished with welfare, we're finished with health, we're finished with police.

You look after it, thereby decreasing our expenses and let us look after parks and recreation". That may be a part solution too. But, Mr. Speaker, we still aren't making progress and I return to the quote. "It will become increasingly difficult to maintain, let alone improve the quality of the urban invironment in which the vast majority of Canadians will be living. " That's the warning, Mr. Speaker, End of quote. Now, Mr. Speaker, in 1977 we will go to the polls likely as a provincial election.

And between now and 1977 the cost of governing the City of Wi nnipeg, just to maintain present level of service - that means no parks, no riverbanks, none of the things we look forward to -t here will be a $30 million rise in the cost of governing Winnipeg, minimum, in the next two and a half to three years when we go to the polls. Mr. Speaker, that is purely wages and supply of goods to the city and nothing new.

Now that means that in the next two and a half years there will be a 20 mill increase, ignoring schools, ignoring the cost of education, but for the general government of Winnipeg there will be a minimum 20 mills increase in the next two and a half years. Mr. Speaker, that is to the average home in Winnipeg, a tax increase of 120 to 150 dollars. That means that we have made no progress; that just means we're going to carry on as we are today. That means we are not clearing slums, that means we are not re-building the interior core . . . Mr.

Speaker, next year by contrast the Province of Manitoba will have a 15 percent increase in its revenue, and an 11 percent increase in its expense, and we'll have a four percent play fund. Without a tax rise the Province of Manitoba will be able to render greater service next year. I mean increasing tax rates. But the City of Winnipeg will have a 15 percent increase in its expenses, and will require a tax rise just to meet those expenses. Mr. Speaker, in 1971, and I urge as a concluding comment all honourable members to go back and read the material that we've all assembled on urban affairs from 1970-71 on.

Read the submissions that came to the Municipal Affairs Committee, when we first debated Bill 36, and everything we warned, everything we feared, the city of West Kildonan's brief, the fears expressed by Elswood Bole, and when the Boundary Commission reported and warned that this would happen, the Premier, the First Minister, described their comment, their work as "a farce". That is what he said, Mr. Speaker, it was a farce. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a farce, there is a farce. The farce is that we have a Minister of Urban Affairs that's a farce. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

3364 BILL NO. 46 MR. ASPER: It's a farce when we say that we said MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May 10, 1974. MR. ASPER: It is a farce when we say that we united Winnipeg, that we created the brand new brave world of the Ci ty of Winnipeg. That's a farce, because we stripped it of the to ols with which to do the job. Mr. Speaker, surely the people of Winnipeg, in which 60 percent of our population are comprised, surely they're entit led to something more. Surely after three years the people of Win nipeg are entitl ed to a via ble city government.

And that's what we appeal to the government to reflect on and to amend Bill 46 to give, to produce, and then they will be ab le to measure their success with city unification. But as it stands today they are no bett er than the Progressive Co nservative administration who in 1961 created Metro, and then abandoned it. And we have no di fference. Mr. Speaker, I commend those thoughts to the Minister, who's not in the House but who may read them in Hansard, and perhaps. we will have amendment before we take the .bill to the - before we take it to the committee. Mr.

Speaker, I have received a bulletin from the back and in concluding I have to say that my comments ab out the Co nservative Government having created Metro and abandoned the ba by once it was born were not original. I 'm paraphrasing everything the ND P said for the past ten years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, the it ems contained in the bil l and the major issues contain ed in the bil l have been pretty extensively covered, and it 's not my intention to deal with the matters specifi cally brought up in the bill because I had an opportunit y to deal with the major issue contain ed in the partner bill to this, which we dealt with at second reading earlier in the Session. But, Mr. Speaker, at a certai n point in debate and at a certai n point in examination of a bi ll, it becomes necessary to decide when the vote comes whether you're for or agai nst the bil l.

And the crit eria for making that decision has to be based on whether you think there is more acceptable in the bill than unacceptable. In this particular case this bil l falls into that category; it 's a matter of weighing the good against the bad in the bil l, and then deciding whether at second reading you can support it . Now first of all I want to say that as a group the Co nservative party does support, and as has been indicated supports the concept of electing the Mayor at large, and so there is no question ab out our support of that principle.

However we think that under normal ci rcumstances that whether the Mayor is elected at large or not elected at large, but elected by the council, is secondary to the general di rection and to ne of the bill, which puts the more arb it rary powers into the hands of the provincia l Ca bi net and fails to create that independent identit y and power structure that's necessary for the city to develop it s own int egrity, and for it to operate in the knowledge that it is to a greater_ extent than indicated in this bill, than this bill gives it, a master of many of the decisions that should be left more extensively in the hands of the city.

So what we 're saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we 're opposed in principle to the increased powers taken int o the hands of the Ca binet, Li eutenant-Governor-in -Council, and we think that the princi ple involved is serious enough, particularly in this bi ll, that we cannot go along with the bill at second reading. So on that basis we consid er that the bad in the bill exceeds the good in the bill, and we want to point out that as a result of that since you must come to a decision whether you're for or against the total contents, on base we're opposed to it . Well, Mr.

Speaker, we haven't been afrai d in the past to stand up and say when we are for or agai nst a bill that this government has broug ht in. We opposed to a man the original bil l creating the Ci ty of Winnipeg. We had reservations abo ut the cuncept at that ti me. We felt that the anomalies and di fficulties that existed in the prior structure could be overcome with a more in direct approach without destroying the structures that had been built up in the greater Winnipeg area, and for many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, which won't be related here again.

We opposed the bill at that ti me and we still feel vindicate d in our opposition to it at that ti me. There are some things in the bi lls that have been brought before us of course that tend to rectify some of the di fficulties , minor di fficulties, in the operation of the city. But as I say again the major thing here is that we created a large urban area that represents over half the

May 10, 1974. 3365 BILL NO . 46 (MR. CRAIK cont 'd) . . . • . population of this province, and the important matter contained in this bil l that we can't agree with is that the powers delegated to that group that govern that, over 50 percent of our population, are going to be put more at the whim and fancy of Cabinet decis ions , and we oppose it as a matter of princi ple and we will support, as will be seen at the committee stage, we support the idea of the Mayor being elected at large. We consider though that matter to be minor and the other matter of principle here which is the delegation of powers.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against Bil l 46 . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radis son. MR. HARRY SHAFRANSKY (Radiss on): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Wellington, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Public Works, that the House now resolve into a Commit tee of Supply to consider of the Ways and Means - that Mr.

Speaker, do now leave the Chair and the House resolve its elf int o Commi ttee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried, and the House resolved it self into a Committ ee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HAN USCHAK (Minister of Education)(Burrows): Mr.

Chairman, as we approached the Hour of adjournment I had an opportunity to make a very brief response to atte mpt to clarify one point, and namely the department's reaction to the CORE Committ ee Report. I intend to deal with that at somewhat great er length, either in my comments at this time or later in the debat e. Final ly toward the latter part of the evening yesterday you will recall, Mr.

Chairman, that we did get around to talking about school finance, and this of course is a topic that is very very dear to the heart of the Honourable Member for Riel, and this of course I well understand because there-was a great period of time that in a former government that he occupied the same post in Cabi net that I do now, Although I must indicat e that I expected thi s type of response from him on the day that I presented my Est imates and not a couple of days later.

However, I suspect that perhaps at that point in time the rules of the House li mit ing debate to a half hour probably also milit ated against him and he wasn't able to do so.

I can appreciate his sens itivity for a number of reasons: (1 ) this being a post that he at one ti me occupied; and (2) when he sees evidence of a great er measure of partici pati on by school divisions in the decision - making process that this may tend to irritat e him somewhat, particularly when he recalls the days when some of the decis ions that he made, that his govern ment made, the proposal that his government made, and it was purely a unilateral one, pro posing collective bargaining on a regional bas is, which you will recall, Mr.

Chairman, from your days as teacher, that met with the disapproval of everyone. So rather than the dictato rial methods that may have been in existence at that time - although I'm not sure who the dictator was, whether it was the Minister or perhaps someone else in the Cabinet . I would suspect that it was not the Minister, but probably someone else, and seeing the change come about in the method of government would certai nly irritat e him. He spoke of the percentage increase in the mill rate. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest to you that when we're talking about the impact of education costs on the taxpayer, we have to consider it in it s total context, and we have to consider particularly the net effect that it has upon the pocketbook of the taxpayer. The Honourable Member for Riel said that they tri ed rebate, and it didn't work, they gave it up. Well there's an attempt to compare apples with oranges . You will recall Mr. Chairman, that the type of program that the former govern ment had insti tuted was not at all like the one which we have.

It was a flat $50. 00 rebate, but what makes ours different from, and I 'm happy to say superior to, and I will explain why, to the tax rebate program that the former government had, was that ours does take int o account the abil it y-to-pay factor, and that in our program all reap the benefi ts from it s owners and tenants as well. And it is not a program -y ou know the honourable member tends to refer to our tax rebate program as one of giving money back to the same people, which is wrong,

3366 May 10, 1974. SUPPLY -E DUCATION: (MR. HANUSCHAK cont'd ) . which is absolutely wrong. It is a form of income re- distr ibut ion. It's a form of income redistri but ion which was one of the main planks of the New Democratic Party platform during the last election, during the previous election when we were elected government for the first ti me, and it is one that we have endorsed since the day that we came into existence.

Now the honourable member also spoke about some of the problems that some of his constituents are being faced with in the completion of income tax forms, that the people who have never completed an in come tax form in their life, and now they have to complete an income tax form to receive the benefit of this additi onal measure of equity that we are extending the people of Manitoba via thi s form of income redist rib ution, and that that is so me sort of a great burden upon them. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I would like you to know that during the last election campaign I did knock on many doors in my constituency, and I'd be most happy to take the Honourable Member for Riel - there will be an excellent opportunity for it because there is an election.

Now of course, I don't know whether the Co nservative Party of the Province of Manitoba is on the same wave length in their platform with the federal party, and to what exte nt they will partici pate in assisti ng their federal candidates to get re-el ected, but I can assure the honourable member that I'm most anxious to see my candidate re-elected to the House of Commons, and I will certainly do all I can to assist him, and I' d be most happy to take the Honourable Member for Riel int o Burrows Consti tuency, int o the homes of the 72 percent of the voters who voted for my party's government during the last election, which 72 percent by the way, Mr.

Chairman, represented 72 percent of those who voted, which re presents over 50 percent of all the voters on the voter's list. They were well aware, and they were well aware of the program that we proposed to the people, and they voted for it .

I want to hear the honourable member's reaction of the people in Burrows to our tax rebate program, and see if you could find anyone in there who would consider it to be some form of a hardship upon him having to complete, to si t down for a few minutes, for a few minutes - and the honourable member knows that it takes no more than a few minut es cause he's talking about that person living on a fixed income who has no more than a few figures to fill in on the Income Tax return form. Now he may not know that because I don't know what his sour ce of income is.

He may have to resort to a more sophist icated process of completing his income tax return. But I know that mine is quite sim ple because my source of income is one that it took me a matter of 10 or 15 minut es to complete my tax return form and --(Interjecti on)-- yes, very si mple. And the Honourable Member for Charleswood wouldn't understand either. --(Inter jecti on)-- I kno w, and he wouldn't understand. So it takes that minimum - the person li ving on a fixed in come no more than a matter of minutes to receive the benefits of a form of equit able in come redistr ibut ion that we've provided.

Then of course the Honourable Member for Riel went on to talk about the burden on the taxpayer, not taking int o account - just let me refresh your memory, and for the benefit of the Honourable Member for Swan River, take a home of - let's say that the assessed value is $5, 000, at 10 mills, what does 10 mills represent ? $50. 00 the minimum of $15 0. 00 is 30 mills.

The Honourable Member for Swan River can go through his constituency and he will find out many many people who by reason of the institution of our program aren't paying any taxes at all, and he will find them. --(Interjection)-- Yes, of course, they're all good people.

You know when the Honourable Member for Riel talks about the burden imposed upon the pro perty owner by educat ion costs, you know, he seems to forget that in the year that he was Minister of Education, either in that year or the year before, because he was minister only for a brief time before his boss pulled the plug and called the election in 1969, just for a matter of months, But, Mr.

Chairman, I note that in 1968 the taxpayer's share, the burden of the educat ion costs resting upon the property owners was to the extent of 44 percent of a total education cost, forty-four percent in 1968 and which is now, which commencing in 1969 it commenced to decrease to now for the last three years, Mr. Chairman, for the last three years the property owners' share of educat ion costs has raised between 21 and 25 percent. Think what you want at 25 from the 44 when the Honourable Member, when the party of the Member for Riel was in government.

Now the Honourable Member for Riel says that the Fo undation program has fallen int o disrepair. You know, Mr. Chairman, it has fallen int o desrepair; yes I will admit that. It's fallen into dis repair, and you may want to ask me whether it is our int ention to repair it , and

May 10, 197 4. 3367 SUPPLY - EDUCATION (MR. HANUSCHAK cont'd) •.... my answer to you is, no it is not our inte ntion to repair it. It's not our intention to repair a program that was poorly built to begin with, and the answer to that, Mr. Chairman,the answer to that --(Interjection)-- Yes. All right, buying votes by givi ng the people a type of program that they want, a type of program that they deserve, not in a year before an election.

There is no election being called now, and in this year we've managed to keep the tax burden down within the range that your friends the school trustees say that it ought to be at, between 20 and 30 percent to enable the trustees to retain their measure of local control. You ask aay trustee and find one who will disagree with that, and the Honourable Member from Swan River can talk to Swan Valley trustees also, and ask them and ask them what level of local support they would deem desirable to enab le a school board to mainta in the measure of local control that they feel they ought to exercise .

Now it is not our intention to repair a machine that was a wreck from day one. A machi ne that was built not to adapt itself to times of rapidly es calating inflation, such as we have now. Therefore, Mr.

Chairman, that machine has to be replaced with another one, with one that would be more flexible ; with one that would function in a way and would give effect to the type of program that may be indic ated by the general direction in which we are moving now; and the general trend in which we are moving has been indic ated by the grants that the honourable member is critica l of, which he refers to as a patchwork job, our student equalization grants. Mr .

Chairma n, I would suggest that any honourable member go into any of the less affluent school divisions in the province and get their reaction to the unassigned student grants that we pay, and see what they would have to tell you ab out them. And secondly, Mr. Chairman, to replace that wreck with a formula, with a program that would be able to respond readily, effectively, and equitably, to education needs to provide the type of program that the people of the provi nce deserve.

Now a number of honourable members wanted my response to -w ell in fact the Honour able Member for Riel made mention of the fact there are no new programs. Well I hope to deal with that, ei ther later during this in terval of time or if not then, later in the debate. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that there will be ample opportunity, in fact, the opportunity may be more appropriate to get into more detailed discussion of the new programs after, if and when, we complete the debate on my salary.

At that time we will give each and every one - and I'm quite prepared to give each and every one of our programs a very detailed and a thorough airing and discussion. We're proud of our new programs and they deserve that type of consideration, and we still have what ab out 14, 13 - 1/2 hours remaining, so we have plenty of time, and I hope that I'll be ab le to deal adequately with all the programs, withi n that short space of time. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I did make a couple of brief comments to clarify in the minds of honourable members our response to the CORE Report.

There was a tendency on the part of many to think in terms of our implementation of some portions of the CORE Report, and I did want to make this point very clear that what is happening now and the changes in the high school program is our response to it.

The response provides, and agai n I wish to reassure honourable members for the more traditiona l schools to continue with their number of com pulsory subjects, and also allow for student-initia ted and school-based credits to allow the reformed schools to, or those that could be labelled as such, to widen their programs further but again retaining the compulsory credits. I wish to remind you, Mr. Chairma n, that at all times whatever change is introduced must be done so with local approval and not by depart mental dictate, as had been the practice--and I will come to that in a couple of minutes.

The department recognizes tha t a simple statement of change is not enough and therefore there is need for assista nce from the department of a variety of types: consultative services, workshops, packaged materia ls, guidelines, and schoo1 and student init ia ted credits, special attention to schools of special needs, and research on the impact of the revised program on school practice. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that the CORE Report was recommended for establishment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would remind vi sitors in the gallery that photographs within the Chambers are not allowed.

The Ministe r of Education. MR. HANUSCHAK: ... and this was a committee recommended by the previous government in 1969. We did proceed on a basis of that recommendation to establish the committee and it has reported, and the department while recognizing that many of the CORE Report's good ideas, and recogniz ing the profitable discussion that it generated throughout

3368 May 10, 1974 . SUPPLY - EDUC ATION (MR. HANUSCHAK cont' d) • . Manitoba, it has responded to the CO RE Report, and I underline the word "respo nded" not approved, but responded to the CO RE Report, and I underline the word "r esponded" not approved, but responded to the CO RE Report through, as I have men tioned, the revised high school program.

If honourable members will read the revised high school program they will find that it does not enforce a single type of some radical program but rather it recogniz es that di fferences in institut io ns occur, and it permits flexib ilit y through allowing school di visions to look at their own resources, their own goals, and thereby develop a program accordi ngly. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews advocated - I think what he referred to as a tough academic system.

On this point I would tend to agree with the comment made by the Honourable Member for Riel when he said, that in comparing education programs we tend to look at our own experience and compare that with what we see about us today. Now the Honourable Member for Riel will recall -- (Interjection) -- yes, because the Honourable Member for St.

Matthews' teaching experience goes back to the days of the previous government he will recall and -- (Inte rjection) -- yes and I want to talk for a moment or two about those days -- (I nterj ection) -- about thos e days of the existence of an education program designed for the promotion of an elist ist society.

I want to talk about thos e days of di ctatorship in the education system. -- (Inte rjections) -- and I want to talk about, and I want to talk about those days about those days of di ctatorship not as a politician but also as a teacher, about those days of di ctatorship of that government and of that government. You kno w my days of teaching go back to when the Honourab le Member for Lakesid e was still, as the saying goes, "w et behind the ears" yeah. You know, my teaching days go back over a quarter century. The honourable member may not know that. Who was the government in 194 7 . . . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. EN NS: On a point of order. I don't take particular issu e with whatever the Honour ab le Minister wishes to say, but the record should be clear that in the year of 194 9 I was en gaged in the noble professio n of teaching myself. Now, for a fellow that's been wet behind the ears in those days, but I wonder what particular year the Honourable Minister entered the teaching professi on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Mi nister of Education. MR. HAN USCHAK: You kno w, look in g at the high schools in those days, you kno w, whom di d we find enrolled in them?

We found enrolled in them those who, in the opinio n of someone, were capab le of conti nuing, completing their high school course and goi ng on to un i versity, and that's the way the system operated then. So of course if you're going to run that type of high school, you know, if you're going to select the best - and I'm using the word "b est" with some measure of caution because that's "b est" only taki ng, you know, one or two factors into account in measuring the ab ilit y of the individual, but best on the basis of bei ng ab le to handle a post secondary education academic program - best in that sense.

So they were weeded out and only those were left - and honourable members kno w exactly how that occurred -o n the departmental examinatio n system, those who in the opinio n of the teachers and the principal appeared not to have the makings to make the grade, and they di dn't write the final examination set by the Department of Education. They di dn't write them. - (Interjection) -- And I' ll come to the honourable member's woodpile before we're through with my estimates. During the 14 hours remai ning we'll talk about his woodpile.

I have a thing or two to say about his -- (Inte rjection) -- Yeah: I have a thing or two to say about his woodpile. Those di dn't write, so naturally, you kno w, one would then take a look at the examination re sults and find, you kno w, 60, 70, 80 percent passing rate, whatever, and it was on that basis that schools were in a sense merit rated. The teachers rated themselves. -- (Inte rjection) - Yes, next door to the wood shed. Yes. Yes. But what about the student who wasn't ab le to make the grade? Who di dn't qualify for admi ssion to the high school in thos e days? What happened to him ?

We don't hear any mention about him. We don't hear any mention ab out him, whether he was trained or equipped for work. Yes, he worked in the Thirties, when the honourable member - well, some time after, I guess after he reti red from the Northwest Mounted Police that he served with. Because, you kno w, I believe -- no, I really believe that he served with the Northwest Mounted Police, because -- (Interjection) -- Yes, because I would suspect that he and the Honourable Member for Bra ndon West are of about the same generation. The Honourable Member for Bra ndon West said that he

May 19, 197 4 3369 SUPPLY - EDUCATION (MR. HANUSCHAK cont'd) . . went to school shortly after Confederation, so that puts them in the same period in history in the days of the Northwest Mounted Police. They've talke d about the good old days and about the standards, and about the high standards in those days, and standards being diluted and so forth, and eroded.

I don't know what standards there were in the Northwest Mounted Police when he served in there; perhaps, I don't know, perhaps all he had to succeed in doing was avoi d putting spurs on backwards and once he succeeded in doing that he was promoted to Staff Sergeant, I don't know. This I don't know. But the honourable member knows full well -- (Inte rjecti on) -- the honourable member knows full -- The honourable member has a question ? But the honourab le member knows full well that it is absolutely impossib le for the school system to tamper with standards for the practice of any occupation or profession.

It is not the school system that dictates the standards. The honourable member knows that. The honourable member knows that whatever the advance ment in scie nce and technology requires and demands of the practice of medicine today, that is what determines the standards. And that whatever scientific and psychological research and advance of 25 years ago demanded of it, those were the standards that were practiced in medi cine at that time.

It wasn't the school system that determined the standards, but it was the sum total of the general process of a development of society that dete rmined the standards and the school had to gear itself to train and prepare our students to take their place in society to meet those standards. Therefore, if the standards in any occupati on, any profession in the field of science or mathematics would in crease, then the school system had to get in step and do like wise.

And I would challenge the honou rable member to go in to our schools and find me and produce me the slightest shred of concrete evi dence of any erosion or dilution of standards of education.

And I would also want, in the process of doing that, I would also want the honourable members to define to me what they mean by standards of education so that we know what we're measuring, to make sure that we're applying the same measuring stick to the same thing, and I would suggest to the honourable members that when we talk about receiving value for our dollar, for our educati on dollar, that the value for the dollar spent in education today, the value received is far greater than the value received for the education dollar of 25 or 30 years ago; and taking in to account whate ver general changes society may have undergone, discountin g that the value is still greater to day than it had been previously.

Now of course the honourable member wouldn't know, the honourable member wouldn't know, because, you know, as capable as the honourable member may be in many respects, but I would doubt whether he has any children enrolled in school and therefore I would suggest that he talk to his grandchildren, that he talk to his grandchildren who may be enrolled in school. Talk to his grandchildren -- (Inte rjection) -- brig ht as dollars, I'm sure they are, and I'm sure that they're much brighter than the Honourable Member for Swan Ri ver. I'm sure of that, and thanks to our education system of today.

Of course, of course they're bright. Of course they're brig ht. And let his grandchildren tell the honourable member what they're going in our schools today. I want the honourable member to go and visit the homes, the homes of our children in the schools today, see what they're doi ng, and if the honourable member doesn't know -- (Interjection) -- By gum, yeah, and I can speak to the honourable member, Mr.

Chai r man, as a Minister and as a parent, and I happen to have a child enrolle d in this school system and so do many other honourable members in this House, and you will find kids staying up to one, two o'clock in the morning working on assignments in school, and that's a hell of a lot longer than the honourable member or I stayed up in high school to do our assignme nts, or particularly those of us who learned how to be at the examinati on system of that day, because that was the only criterion used for being promote d from one grade to another.

And the hon ourable member knows that, or if he doesn't he may have been told by those who attended school several decades after Confederation upon his retiremen t from the Northwest Mounted Police. Now, talk about, you know, talk about options, about oh, what a te rrible thing we're doing. You know, we 're putting these poor Grade 9 students in a position where at the end of Grade 9 they have to choose between this option, that option, and how are they going to make that te rri ble decision. Well, you know, there was a ti me . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Speaking of time, the Mi ni ster 's time has expired. MR.

HANUSCHAK: Okay, Mr. Chai rman.

3370 May 19, 1974 SUPPLY - ED UCA TION MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Br andon West. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman , I just have a few thoughts that occur to me as I have listened to the responses of the Mi nister and, before getti ng in to that area, I'd like to menti on that the Honourable Member for St. Boni face really explai ned to the Asse mbly why we are all so concer ned about the educati onal esti mates and the programsthatare now be in g proposed by the departme nt.

It•s because we have such a great deal of respect for the educati onal system in Manitoba, because we have so much faith in the im portance and what that education al system can do and what it means to future generation s, that we are st andi ng here today, many of us , expressin g some serio us reservation s about the dire ctions in which this Mi nist er is attemptin g to take the system, I thi n k we •ve had some most thought provoki ng contrib ution s to this debate.

We talke d about the CO RE report and the part of that report which the Mi nist er now is proposi n g to in troduce in to the high schools in the credit system.

Well, I don•t kn ow whether the Mi nister said that; he said so many thi ngs and in such a vari et y of ways, but he did in di cate that out of the CORE report came certai n re commendation s that are now bein g proposed in the credit system of the high schools, Well, wherever they came from, they see m to re late to the CORE report, If the Mi nister wishes to deny the CORE report completel y then I thi nk he should stan d up and say so and then we coul d get on with the debate. We•ve been in to the fi nancial problems.

They're the over-rid in g problems perhaps , and they•re the ones that hit most dire ctly home and most im mediatel y to the taxpayers in Manit oba. I•m not familiar with the problems, the specific problems in every division , but I kn ow that in the School Divis ion of Brandon their total budget for educati on is up 15 percen t. But that part of the budget which is now required to be produce d by special levy locally is up 50 percent, and that is a very im portant in crease to the local taxpayers in the cost of education . So that in di cates , Mr.

Chair man, that the assi stan ce in relation to the total cost of education that is comi ng from the provi nce dire ctly, is not keepin g pace, and that poin t has been made. The commercial taxpayer is bein g parti cularly hard hit across the length and bre adth of this provi nce. Commer cial taxpayers are reaching a poi nt when they are fi ndin g it extremely diffi cult to conti nue to pay the rising cost that is bein g assesse d to them.

The Mi nister assures us that next year some re lie f is on the way, that there•l l be new plans; that the old system of foundation grants wil l be thrown out as never be in g a good system in the first place. He dis dai n s to offer any repairs to that system and he has a better system, but it' l l ba next year. Let me talk about the Mi nist er's explanati ons in relation to the credit system and how it represe nts his program of decentralizi n g authority in the Departme nt of Educati on.

He•s told us that for the student-i nit i ated reports the school division s will be res ponsi ble and this , he says, is an in di cation of how this government is decentralizin g authority. Mr. Chair man, r 1in k about that just a little bit. Is that really decentralizin g authority? Or is that decentral izi n g res ponsibil ity? Is that what he•s doi ng? Is he now saying, "We ll, we•ve got a new system and we•re goi n g to have student-i ni ti ated credit courses but the local school division s wil l be respo nsib le.

" An d that means that we can no longer look dire ctly to the Mi nist er of Education ; if we have troubles with this new system, he can si mply say, " Well, we gave that respo nsib ility to the school division s. " Mr. Chair man, a decentraliza tion of authority of the decision -maki n g process would, in my view, have been a complete consultati on with those school division s about the credit system which he is now telling them they will put in to effect by not later than the fall of 197 5. Why wasn't that done ?

That would be in my vie w a decentraliza tion of the decision -making authority, but to take that decision away from the school division s and then say, "Now you•re goi ng to be res ponsibl e for the program, " well, Mr. Chair man, this is a real shift, isn 't it? This is a way of playing the blame game, eh, and saying, "We ll, if thi ngs go wrong it won•t be us that•ll be in trouble; if the childre n in your division fi nd that when they want to en ter post-secondary educati on they haven' t the proper qualifi cations, we didn't do it.

We told you you were responsi ble for those courses ." Now, we•ve all agreed that qualit y in educati on is the im portant thi ng. I hope the Mi nis ter agrees with that, We•re looki n g for quality in the educati onal proces s . Quality is the byword. But where will the quality control be if all of the respo nsib ilities for approvi ng or otherwise of stude nt-in iti ated courses now rest with the division s of the school system in

May 10, 19 74 3371 SUPPLY - EDUCATION (MR. McGILL Co nt'd) ..... Mani toba ? Where will they be ? The Mi nister holds up three fi ngers and says we have only three student-i nitia ted courses , three of the 20. That is -- well, I•m havin g diffi culty in readi ng the si gn language that•s coming from the other sid e. A MEMBER : What did he say? MR . HANUSCHAK: Mr. Chairm an, I said that MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR . HANUSCHAK: On a poi nt of explanation, MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please, The Min ister will have ample opportunit y to clarify his remarks. The Member for Brandon West. MR . McGILL: Mr.

Chairman, I feel this is a fundame ntal flaw in this whole proposa l, that the Min ister and his administr ation have decided that they are goi ng to have a credit system in which there will be stude nt-in iti ated courses , approved by the school division s and the responsib ility for which I suppose will be shared by the school division and the student. Now, we•re getti n g such a wateri n g down of responsi bilit y here that it1s goin g to be very difficult for us to place our fi nger on who really is responsi ble for what will happen in the next few years in our school system, and I would hope, Mr.

Chair man, that the Min ist er will have some suita ble explanati on of this problem as I see it, that he has in dicated to us is jus t one manifesta ti on of his in tenti on to decentralize the decision -maki ng process in the Departmen t of Education. I see it as no decentralization of decision -maki ng. I see it certai nly as a watering of the responsi bility of a decision that•s been made within the departmen t and, as far as I know, not fully consulted with the school div ision s, nor thei r school trustees , nor with the school superi ntendents, but sim ply they have been told this is goi ng to be it.

Now, what will happen to the variety of backgrou nds which the students will then possess under the new system when they attempt to enter post-secondary educati on, if in deed they do? This problem may not occur to all of the students, but certai nly a large proportion will enter some form of post-secondary education. It's in that area, I thi nk, that the school division s are facing their greatest responsib il ity.

Surely they have to be aware now, that for all of the students in thei r high school system, they have to somehow sort out and make sure that when the stude nt finish es he'll be able to enter into that course which he hopefully, and at some time in the three fi nal years of his high school trai ni ng, he will have decided upon. So, Mr. Chairman, we're stil l in a position of havi ng many many reservation s about the credit system which the Min ister proposes , I thin k it' s such a major change in the whole high school system in Manitoba that we need to have more assurances.

We need to kn ow that this system is goin g to work. There have bee n members on this sid e of the House, many of them, I've heard no one speak in favour of it over here. There are many on the other sid e of the House undoubtedly that are in favour of it, but not all of even the government sid e favour this sytem which the Min ister is now proposin g. This is vita l. This is im portant to the future of the education al system. We want to kn ow where the responsi bi lity lies. Quite clearly, if the Min ister is goi n g to in iti ate it, he •s got to be responsibl e. Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Min ist er of Education . MR. HANUSCHAK: I got the im pressio n from the Honourable Member for Brandon West that the mai n thrust of his comments at this ti me deals with the question of decentraliza tion of authority, which in his opi nion he in terprets to in dicate an abdi cation of responsi bi lity. Well, Mr.

Chairman, may I suggest to you that surely surely the honourable member must have some confidence in the ability, in the judgment of his local school trustees, because we•re not talki ng about the entire high school program, we're talkin g about a maximum of three courses per student that may be student-i nitiated. Three out of 20 credits . Three out of 20. Now, the answer to his question is very si mple. There is no abdication of responsibility.

There is a move toward a shari ng of responsi bility, a move toward each level, the provi nce and the school division , accepting that measure of responsib ility that ought properly be thei rs, in so far as the provi nce is concerned, the responsi bility to see to it that what is recognized as the general universal needs and content of an education program that will always remai n there. But there's also recognition of the fact, Mr.

Chai rman, that students have varied in terests, are of varyin g abilities, that the needs of no two communities " are alike, that the resources of no two communities are alike, and hence this is an opportunity to cater to the varied needs of the students to capitalize on the resources that are available within the local commu nity, and to maximize the existen ce and the presence of them, and therefore the opportunit y for students

3372 May 10, 1974 SUPPLY - EDUCA TION (MR.

HANUSCHAK Con t •d) . • . . , to ini tia te thei r own courses, or for school divis ions, for school divi s io n s to in itia te courses that they feel they could offer effectively and which would be of inte rest and of value to the students enrolled in their schools, Now the Honourable Member for Brandon West says, "What•s goi n g to happen to that st udent when he reaches the post-secondary level?" I would like to ass ure the honourable member that the st udent completin g Grade 12 is goin g to be in a far better position than he ever could have hoped to have bee n under the system under the former government, which I will come to in a moment or two, Because at the present time we do have the str ucture to offer st udents a proper guida nce and counselli ng ser vice, to see to it that the st uden t .. , In our schools, If you and the Honourable Member for Robl in get your nose out of the lockers of st udents, sn iffing around amongst gym socks and boots lookin g for si x-packs of beer, and wal k in to the Guida nce Co unselling office, you will fi n d that that se rvice is bein g offered in our schools, An d the honourable members will fin d that that ser vi ce is bein g offered which perhaps -- and I•l l admit that neither the honourable member nor I, nor most others of us in this House received it; that we had to make the choice when we were locked into that rigid system of education that was deliver ed ba ck in those days -- but that the assist ance is there to enable the st udent to make a proper choice bearin g in mind whatever his post-secondary ambiti ons and aspiration s may be, to see to it that if his in terests lie in the engi neerin g or the scie nce fi eld, that he takes the proper background in mathematics , the sciences: chemistry, physics, whatever, If it 's in some other field, that he takes the proper pre-requisites to enable himself to continue with whatever course of stu dies he wis hes to pursue; that that ser vice is available, even available to a much greater exten t than ever before.

I also wish to remi n d honourable member s , or just comment on a statement made by, and perhaps -- you' re in the Chai r, Mr, Chai rman, and I kn ow that you can' t participa te in the debate at this time, but when you were not in the Chair you did refer to the fact that, after all is said and done, let the parents not forget that there' s a certain measure of responsibil ity resting on thei r shoulders .

An d I fi nd, to a much greater extent now than ever before, that when it comes to selection of courses , that the school, the pupil and the parent is in volved in making the decis ion , An d if any parent hasn •t bee n involved, I would suggest that it ' s probably that parent' s fault and not the school system' s fault, I kn ow many, many, many parents who have bee n involved where st udents brought home, not only the application form in which they can indicate the subj ects of their choice, but coupled with that, some supporting information to ass ist the parents in ass ist ing their children in makin g a proper selection of courses , Now I sa id a moment ago that the student graduati n g from high school today is in a far better posi tion than he ever was before.

Goi ng back to my early days in teaching, when I did menti on earlier it was a case of surviva l of the fittes t, those who showed some promise of abil ity to pass a final examination were given the opportunity of writin g the departmental examinati on; those not, there was a high school leavin g certificate that was provided then, A high school leavin g certifi cate which really wasn 't worth the paper that it was writte n on, An d then that former gover nment - and that was before the days of the previous government - it realiz ed that there was somethin g wrong with the system; that it didn't really meet the needs of all the st udents , So what did it do?

It came to the conclusion that the answer to the problem is to revise the En glis h program. Someb ody said it's all because the En glis h program is extremely heavy, particularl y in Grades 11 and 12 .

We'r e goin g to split the Grade 11 En glis h program in half and some st udents who, in the opinion of the teachers, the principals, are more competent, more capable, they' ll be allowed to take the complete Grade 11 En glis h program and others wil l take hal f one year and half the next year, An d those taking hal f will take one or two subjects less because they were given four years to complete Grades 10, 11 and 12 as opposed to three years . Be cause you must remember, Mr.

Chai rman, that goin g back to those -days and contin uing for many days thereafter, a regulation remained in effect which the previous government inherited and enforced. And talk ab out the lock step, rigid, dictatorial system, when there was a rule that if you failed two subj ects - it didn •t matter which two subj ects it was - if you failed by more than two subj ects , rather, you had to repeat the whole year, You had to repeat the whole year.

Yo u could have failed two subj ects in which it could have been demonstrated by a battery of professi onals that you ju st do not have the abil it y to handle that subj ect, and despite the fact you may have got 80s and 90s in the remai nin g subjects ,

Ma y 10, 197 4 3373 SUPPLY - EDUCA TION (MR. HANUSCHAK Cont'd) •.•.• it didn ' t matter, if you failed more than two you repeated the whole year. So in the days of the Lib eral government we•r e going to split the English, we•re going to fragment the English program, and that•s going to solve the problem. And we lived with that for five or si x years and it created absolute chaos, and the previous government will remember having to rectify that problem.

And those of us in this Chamber who are teachers may also recall their involvement in the rectific ation of that problem, where students came along with half a Grade 11 English course, and half a Grade 12 English course, and then they applied for admissio n to Uni versity and by that ti me the half course, the offering of the half courses was dis continued and they found themselves in a predi cament where they had to repeat the complete course. So then, Mr. Chairman, the Tories came into office, and they took a slightly different approach.

They came to the conclusio n that not all students are of university calibre , therefore not all students should be compelled to take a University Entra nce program, and that therefore we should offer an alternative - and this was about the time that the plans for the expansi on, well in fact for the development of what we know as Red River Community College today, was under way - and that we should offer two programs.

We should continue the Uni versity Entra nce program, which had been offered for many decades, as well as the vocational program whi c h had taken root in some schools and primarily in Tee Voc High School in Winnipeg, and commercial offered in many schools, and in addition to that we should offer what was called a General Course program. And the General Course was desig ned for those who -- and I want to be very careful about this. I want you to take note of this , Mr. Chai rman.

At the end of Grade 9, at the end of Grade 9, you know, these students have to make this decisio n, that three years hence they'r e going to commit themselves to eit her going to University or not going to Uni versity, and on that basis they're going to decide the route that they're going to follow throug h their high school career.

If they decide to tackle the Uni versity Entrance route and at so me point they find that that is not their cup of tea, then for them it was somewhat easier to transfer into what was known as the General Cou rse route .for th ose -- the General Course was that leading to admissio n to post-secondary instit utions other than Uni versity - there was some provisio n for transfer for them. And you talk about choosing options at an early age, but for the students who chose the General Course route at age 14, at the end of Grade 9, just consider this , Mr. Chairman, the type of decision that he has to make.

He chooses a General Course route and he proceeds and he finds perhaps in mid-Grade 10 , Grade 11 , that perhaps he performs better than, he finds that he has underesti mated his own abilities , or perhaps had not assessed properly his own interes ts, or a combination of both, and he finds that he ought to be in the Un iversity Entrance program. What did the system of the day under the Tory government say to hi m? "T ough luck, Buddy. You go right back to square one and st art off on the Uni versity Entrance route again. Right from square one. " Those were the options , Mr.

Chairman, those were the options that you offered, that you offered the students when you were the government, SOME MEMBERS: Shame. Shame. MR. HANUSCHAK: And talk about flexib ility of options , when you tted them down to that rigid route at 14 years of age. "Ah" , you will say, "Ah yes. Wit h the assista nce of counsellors." With the assista nce of what couns ellors in 196 4, 19 63 ? Wit h the assis tance of what counsellors ? A number of counsellors you can count on the fingers of your two hands. Be cause you know what else was occurring at that time ?

You got the program in and then you realized, "Oh, by 3um, we• ve got to get a counselling servi ce going. We have a counselling program in effect but it isn' t really geared to meet the needs of our system. We have to upgrade our counselling program. " So the Department of Education looked around and this - I'm speaking from my own experie nce - looked around and found that there was a committee est ablished within the Winn ipeg School Divisio n, revising the couns elling program, updating it for the Winnipeg students, be cause there was none on a province-wide basis at that time.

So the government of the day contacted the Winnipeg School Divis io n and said, "N ow look. While you fellows are devising a counselling program for your students in Winnipe g, would you mind sending us a copy, because, you know, we •d like to apply it on a province-wide basis. And, Mr. Chairman, it was from those beginnings that a counselling program for the province

3374 May 10, 19 74 SUPPLY - ED UCATION (MR. HAN USCHAK Cont •d) , •••• began to take shape, And today our opposition has the gall to criticize us ; that we're putting these 14 -year-olds in a very di fficul t position having to make these choices that's going to affect their entir e lifespan, and so forth, But they've forgotten, they' ve forgotten or maybe they don't know, and they probably don' t, be cause they're too busy snif fing around in students • lockers. They probably don •t know how many lives they may have ruined by the rigid system in which they had locked in the students of their day.

I made a brief comment about this a moment ago and I find that any ti m e anybody mentions , you know, the word "wo rk�,' there's applause. You know, "he ar hear. " That's what the opposit ion st ands for, you know. Hard work, slugging it out, you know; and we•ve heard mentio n on many occasions during the past four years, oh, such honourable members as the Member for Souris-Kil larney, the Honourable Member for Swan Rive r, the Honourable Member for Pembina, who often say that, well, what does the government know about work ?

Al l these former school teachers over here, you know, school te achers, they don't know anything about work. Well, all right, let's talk about work, Let •s talk about work in terms of the Honourable Member for Swan Rive r. You know, the way he would define work; working by the sweat of one's brow, The Honourable Member for Pe mbina. Whether he has or not I don't know, but that's the way he atte mpts to create an im press io n that he defines work in those terms. I woul d take the Honourable Member for Swan Rive r -- no I wouldn•t .

He•s a few years older than I am -- but anyone on that side, and I•ll take him up and we1ll work si de by side, and any other member on this side of the House , and we can demonstrate . --(Interjectio n)-- Yes, yes. And I•ve milked cows and I've cut cordwood and I1ve dug Seneca roots which the honourable member over there probably doesn•t even know what they are. His constituen ts do. Ask his constituents from Barrows and Pelic an Rapids; they'll te l l him, but I'm sure he doesn' t know sinc e he hung up his spurs . Well prior to that he had no opportunity to learn. --( Interjectio n)- l'm not sure.

No, the Socie ty for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani mals woul d have got after him, No I don't think he did that. I don•t think he did that, But again , I repeat to the honourable member when he talks about work, go into the schools, go into the homes of our students, and see what they're d::>ing, See what they're doing and speak to them, speak to their parents, and then express an opinion on whether or not the students of today are working or not.

Now I was very pleased, Mr, Chai rman, that the Honourable Member for Rie l wanted - he did make an attempt to get the debate on this ite m, namely my salary, to di rect itse lf to the question of philosophy of education, He said that we•re in a state of drift, Well again I sa y, perhaps the honourable members of the Oppositio n aren' t aware of what is going on in the school syste m, aren' t aware of what is going on in the schools within their own const ituen cies for the reason that I've mentio ned twice earlier , and I don't want to repeat again the exer cise that the Honourable Member for Roblin see ms to enjo y engaging in from ti m e to time.

But may I suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, that the general nature and the type, the manner in which the approach that we've taken toward the funding of education, the steps that we•ve taken over the past few years, the nature of the activity of various bran ches of my department, are indi cating and are demonst rating to the people of Manit oba that the move is to ward restor ing to the school divisio ns some of that which over the years they have lost, and also that which perhaps legis lation they have paid li p ser vi ce to, that• s claiming the school divisio ns had, but in actual fact never really had it, and that is local autonomy, local control, the opportunity for school div isio ns to plan and arrange their own order of priorities which the Honourable Member for -- in the last row -- Sturgeon Creek -- I•m so rry, I was going to say Assin iboia, but it•s Sturgeon Creek; which the Honourable Member for Ass iniboia, he finds amusing, but may I suggest to the honourable member, which he probably wouldn •t know be cause he was not in this House when his party was the gove rnment and he may not have had an opportunity to take a close look at the grant structure that we had; he may not have had an opportunity to familia rize himself with how the grant structures were moving away from, via the int roduction of funds that are not earmarked for one purpose or another, but funds which enable the school divisio n to assign their own priorit ies to how their grant structure, which they pride themselves in , how it locked, how it tied the school division's hands, how it locked them into certain programs, how it put them in a st raightjacket, how it minimized their opportunity to undertake any type of experimentation, any type of innova tio n, any type of variation of the school program

May 10, 1974 3375 SUPPLY - EDU CA TION (MR. HANUSCHAK Cont•d) ..... to meet the needs of their community. There just wasn•t that possibility at all, Mr. Chai rman. I believe the Honourable Member for St. James wishes to ask a question. MR. GEORGE MINAKER (St. James): Mr. Chai rman, I wonder if I could ask a question of the Mi nister at this point and maybe make a comment. MR. HANUSCHAK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the honourable member wishes to make a commen t I•m sure it will be regarded as a speech.

I have no objecti on to his maki ng a brief comment, which of course will be regarded as a speech. · MR. MINAKER: I•ll wait until the Mi nister ' s fin is hed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mi nister of Ed ucation . MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Chai rman, now that is one, that is probably the main, the most sign ifi cant thrust of our program, of our education program, to

(1) Recognizin g that there are certain basi c universal needs that must be met, but in addition to that, to allow a school division the freedom, the autonomy to manage their own affairs. One of the other concerns of ours, Mr. Chair man, is the Fr ancais Program, Bi ll 113. At the present ti me, honourable members know this is of concern to us. This is a bill brought in by this government.

We are committed to assist with its implementation , recognizin g of course the autonomy of school boards, but it certai nly is our responsi bility to do what must be done, what can be done, at the provin cial level, and to see to it that this bill is implemented for the be nefit and advantage of those,. for .the be nefit of those who wish to ta ke advantage of it. Honourable members may know that at the prese n t tim e there are a variety of programs bei ng offered, or rather I should say that the manner in which Fren ch is used as a language of in struction is handled in a number of ways.

There are those schools wherein in struction is probably about 90-10 , 90 percen t Fr ench, 10 percen t English. And then there are other schools where in struction is about 50- 50, 50 percent Fr ench, 50 percent En glish, and this is all very well. And then there are others, and others are of the opi ni on that perhaps it would be better if we would have a combination of those two in one; you kn ow, where you would have the 50-50 program and the 90-10 program. And Mr. Chai rman, as honourable members would know, this is a new program.

This program will require some careful study and research over the next while to determi n e which of the methods is the most effective. Perhaps all are equally effective dependi ng upon the make-up of a community or whatever other relevant factors there may be, I don•t know.

But I would like to say at this point in tim e that we have committed ourselves over the past number of years toward offering assist ance in the funding of demonstration projects to enable school divis ion s to experi men t with new programs, programs that may be very closely related to their own needs, as to the socio-economi c condition s of their school division or whatever. Then it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that consideration could also be given to offeri ng si milar assi stan ce toward the experimentation with differen t forms of in struction in the use of Fren ch as a language of in struction .

Now I know there •s concern about this , Mr.

Chai rman, and as I have said before, and I wish to repeat again, it is not my in tention to encroach upon the autonomy of any school board, but it certai nly is my in tention to point out to the school board our responsibility for the delivery of an education program in the provi nce of Manitoba , and in any school division s where there may be a desire to experiment with varied forms of in struction , usi ng Fren ch as a language of in st ruction , I 'd be quiw happy to consider their proposals within the parameters on the basis of which the guideli nes and the basis of which demonstration projects are bei ng made available ia general, that to other programs that si milar consideration be also extended toward this area of in struction .

After all, it ' s as much a part of education program as anythi n g else and hence deserves the same considera tion . Surely somethi n g could be worked out in consultation with the school b oards. Now, the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, who is not in his se at at the present ti me, he did ask whether we in Manitoba make use, utilize the fi ndi ngs of various research te ams, the research work that has bee n conducted in the United States.

Oh, and he mention ed a number of areas of concern, the use of para-profession als, open area, conti nuous progress, semester in g, etc. and well, I must say that certai nly the educators in the provi nce of Manitoba take note of research work that' s bei ng conducted elsewhere, but many of them - and I thin k very properly so - on occasion they do question the meani ng of the implication s of these results as they may relate to the Manitoba scene. In some areas the research findin gs may be relevant and

3376 May 10, 19 74 SUPPLY - EDUCAT ION (MR . HANUSCHAK Cont•d) ••.•. and applicable , but in many they may not be , even dealing with the same area of concern. And this, by the way, Mr.

Chairman, this question as to, you know, the transferability of the relevance of research findings in education from one country to another, --(Interjection)-- Yeah , a study of this has been undertaken not only between two states, two communitie s, but on an international level, and this study involved over about a quarter of a million students in about 20 countries, and I think that there was sufficient evidence that in some areas we do have to undertake our own research. Now, because there are strong differences in cultural groups and differences which influence learning , and this government, Mr .

Chairman, has been prepared to recognize this , this educational fact , by promoting special programs such as establishment within the Department of Education of a native education section, and I certa inly do hope that later in the consideration of my estimates that I will have the opportunity to deal at length with the native education

section within the Department. Another example is the encouragement to several projects dealing with education of Hutterite children. MR. CHAIRM AN: Order please . The Member for Flin Flon. MR . THOMAS BARROW (Flin Flon): Thank you, Mr . Chairman . Mr . Chairman, I have chosen this opportunity to register my concern over a number of issues of deep concern to the people of my constituency and other constituencies in Northern Manitoba . The issues which I put before you and the reason for choosing this opportunity to do so will be obvious in a few moments .

By most standards , the people in southern Manitoba view the North as the most prosper ous area of the province, as a place to go for good jobs and good wages . In 1970, for example, the average income of those filing income tax returns at Thompson was $7, 101; Flin Flon and The Pas were comparable. In places like Gillam it was higher . For the whole North, the average income of those filing returns was $6, 135, and it is of course now considerably higher . For instance now, the average miner can make $12 ,000 a year, and that's good so far but that •s on ly one side of the story.

That is the side of the story we like to talk about, the story of the north which is prosperous. We talk about the modern new townsites with the most up-to-date conveniences , the new hospitals, the schools and the paved streets . But the other side of the North, Mr . Chairman, is the one we don•t talk about and neither has the opposition talked about it . The opposition has very good reason not to talk about it , sin ce both the Li beral and Conservative Parties , during their long years in power , created the other North .

Our fault as a governme nt lies in not pursuing a more dire ct, deliberate course of action in correcting their mistakes. The other North I• m talking about is the remote North, the communities, where the people, primarily Indian and Metis , are kept away from our sparkling new growth centers, places where the average income on Indian Reserves , Mr.

Chairman, in 196 9 was $1 , 735, where the people in places like Cross Lake had an average income in 1970 of $2, 6 00, where it•s a well-established fact that the life expectancy is far lower than the provincial average and the infant mortality rate is far, far higher , where substandard housing is con sidered normal. No one thinks anything about it. And where it' s taken for granted that the mainstay of the community is the monthly welfare cheque. As I indicated earlier , Mr . Speaker, this is a problem that has existed for many years in remote northern communities .

My concern at this time is mainly arising from the fact that while the problem continues to ge

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-1-122
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 1st hansardpdf 122.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a817d1fa9dabc19eec02738461fac9d9841c69a0

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