Manitoba Hansard — 12 June 1997 (Sitting 60B, 36th Legislature, 3rd Session)

36-3-60b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba ... . . . : ·. ., .� :··\c·.u ��· ·'._ .... ,. DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVII No. 60B -1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 12, 1997 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Member Constituency Political Aftlliation ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Rob lin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim Charleswood P.C. EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S.

Brandon East N.D.P. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Ind. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon. Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P.

MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. - MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David, Hon. Riel P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson PC. PITURA, Frank, Hon. Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet p C. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. River Height� P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa PC. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon.

Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry PC WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P Vacant Portage Ia Prairie

4837 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 12, 1997 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mobile Screening Unit for Mammograms Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Wayne Clarkson, Margaret Corson, Lawrence Lowe and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Obstetrics Closure-Grace General Hospital Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition ofV.E. Sawand, Pat Peters, Ross C. Mantin and others praying that the Legislative Assembly request that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) consider stopping the closure of the obstetrics program at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital. Licensed Practical Nurses Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of J. Jaz, Jan Lau and Stella Lau and others praying that the Legisl ative Assembly request that the Minister of Health (Mr.

Praznik) consider stopping the elimin ation of LPNs from the staffing complem ent in our health care facilities and recognize the value and dedicated service of LPNs across the province. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Obstetrics Closure-Grace General Hospital Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Dispense.

THAT the obstetrics program has always been an important part of the Grace Hospital's mandate; and THAT both people in the community and a number of government studies have recommended against the forther closure of community hospitals' obstetrics programs; and THAT as a result of federal and provincial cuts in the health budget, hospitals are being forced to eliminate programs in order to balance their own budgets; and THAT the closure of the Grace Hospital obstetrics ward will mean laying off 54 health care professionals, many of whom have years of experience and dedicated service in obstetrics; and THAT moving to a model where more and more births are centred in the tertiary care hospitals will be more costly and decreases the choices for women about where they can give birth.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) consider stopping the closure of the obstetrics program at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital. Mobile Screening Unit for Mammograms Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

WHEREAS medical authorities have stated that breast cancer in Manitoba has reached almost epidemic proportions; and

WHEREAS yearly mammograms are recommended for women over 50, and perhaps younger if a woman feels she is at risk; and

4838 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 1997

WHEREAS while improved surgical procedures and better post-operative care do improve a woman's chances if she is diagnosed, early detection plays a vital role; and

WHEREAS Manitoba currently has only three centres where mammograms can be performed, those being Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson; and

WHEREAS a trip to and from these centres for a mammogram can cost a woman upwards of$500 which is a prohibitive cost for some women; and

WHEREAS a number of other provinces have dealt with this problem by establishing mobile screening units; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has promised to take action on this serious issue. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Licensed Practical Nurses Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). It complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. THAT many LPNs have been eliminated from most acute care facilities in Manitoba, including the St.

Boniface, Health Sciences Centre, Seven Oaks, Concordia, and Victoria hospitals; and THAT the LPNs of this province are valuable members of the health care system, providing professional, competent, skilled and cost-effective services; and THAT staffing cuts will only result in declining quality of health care and potentially tragic outcomes; and THAT it will not be long before the negative results of this shortcut effort are realized, just as they were in Alberta; and THAT the elimination of LPNs in Manitoba's health care facilities will lead to higher costs and poorer patient care.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) consider stopping the elimination of LPNs from the staffing complement in our health care facilities and recognize the value and dedicated service of LPNs across the province. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gall ery where we have this afternoon a del egation of 44 doctors visiting the Victoria General Hospital in Fort Garry.

They are from the Health Systems Research Institute in Thailand. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Also seated in the public gall ery we have fourteen Grade 7 students from Holland Elementary School under the direction of Mr. Alex Northam. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan). Also, thirty-seven Grade 9 students from Edmund Partridge Junior High School under the direction of Mr. Rick Kraychuk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Kild onan (Mr. Chomiak).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Louisiana-Pacific Air Emission Controls Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). -

June 12, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4839 The Clean Environment Commission recommended, for Louisiana-Pacific, E-tubes and RTO technology be used to contro l the toxic emissions from the plant. It has been reported that on 84 occasions last year, the RTO technology did not work. I would like to ask the government whether in fact they have investigated this matter and can he confirm that on 84 occasions the RTO techno logy did not work on behalf of the people of the valley? *

(1335) Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, the honourab le member-[interjection] Pardon me, I was consulting with his colleague the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton). He asks about air emissions at Louisiana-Pacific in the Swan River area. The concerned citizens of the valley were consulted on the draft licence prior to its being issued. That includes the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

A clause-by-clause review and discussion of the licence, including the clause that allows Louisiana-Pacific to operate while by-passing the R TOs, was done at the Community Liaison Committee. As well, the by-passes are routinely discussed at the committee meetings. The municipal offices are advised of all by-passes. At the last committee meeting, Louisiana-Pacific's environmental manager reported that they average 250 by-pass minutes per month, with the best month having 5{} minutes, and as I say, that meeting was April 21, and the honourable member for Swan River was present at that meeting. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. The Clean Environment Commission recommends that both techno logies be put in place to control toxins and emissions from the plant. I asked the minister whether there were 84 occasions last year, in 1996, in terms of the R TO technology not working. I would like to ask the government: (

a) can they answer the first question I asked, and (

b) will the government please inform this Chamber and the people what is their analysis, not the L-P manager's or people's analy sis, but what is the government's analysis as the body responsible for the quality of air? What is the government's response in terms of the impact of these alleged 84 occasions on human health in the Swan River Valley area? Mr. McCrae: The air emissions issue is dealt with at Louisiana-Pacific through two systems, one being the E-tube system and the other being the RTO system.

The use ofthe E-tube system all by itselfwould bring emissions within limits that would not be harmful to health and thereby is acceptab le to the Environment department, but when I say that, we also know that the RTO system is there to enhance the quality of the emissions, and it would be of course preferable for those R TOs to be active at all times. That is why our government supports bringing natural gas to that area, which allows the RTOs to operate in the winter months all the time without having to be shut down, but even when they do get shut down-and the honourable member for Swan River (Ms.

Wowchuk), as I say, has been part of these discussions and is aware, at least since April21, of this matter-even when those RTOs are not activated, the emissions are within the levels that are acceptable. Mr. Doer: I asked the minister what was the impact on human health of people in the valley. I asked him whether there were indeed 84 occasions. Those were the first two questions. Madam Speaker, the Clean Environment Commission does not recommend E-tubes and/or the RTO. It recommends both. They obviously had a reason for doing so.

It was based on a public hearing process that te>Qk place in the Swan River Val1iey area, and it was based on recommenda tions they made that both these controls were necessary to contro l the toxins in the area. What action is the government going to take to ensure the Clean Environment Commission's recommen dations-[interjection] Well, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) can answer this question, perhaps. What action is he going to take to ensure that both technologies are in place on behalf of the people living and residing in the Swan River Valley area, as recommended by the Clean Environment Commission? *

(1340) 4840 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 1997 Mr. McCrae: Because we agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the highest and best level of treatment is the most desirable and if it is achievable, then we should work to that goal. That is exactly why the Province of Manitoba has its money on the table with respect to getting on with transmission of gas services to the Louisiana-Pacific plant. I do not know that all the parties are fully committed to this point, but we work in that direction.

Louisiana-Pacific and others and the government urge all partners to make sure that their commitments are in place and that we get that service so that we can bring this to the highest possible level of protection for the air in the area. Louisiana-Pacific Air Emission Controls Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when the announcement was made by the Clean Environment Commission that the RTOs would be installed in the Louisiana-Pacific plant, everybody was very pleased that we were going to have the best possible controls, but I want to ask the government did they know that, even though the R TOs were being installed, they could not operate properly under propane or without natural gas, and were the people in the valley misled to think that they were getting the best possible controls without natural gas being there? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I think everyone knew that the gas fuelled RTO system was superior to the propane-fuelled RTO system, but in any event, the E-tube system is satisfactory to everyone, knowing that we can do better and will do better once we are able to keep those RTOs going 100 percent of the time. Ms.

Wowchuk: Can the minister explain why, when it is during the cold weather that the RTOs are not working and that is when there would be an emission problem, his department did not do the monitoring of those emissions during shut-down times in the cold weather to see what the emissions were, instead of waiting until spring, in April, to do the checking on the emissions out of the RTOs, when it should have been done in cold weather when we would have accurate readings of what was really coming out of that plant? Mr.

McCrae: That is a question on which I would supply further information to the honourable member with respect to the ability to monitor in the colder temperatures. But I am advised that these emissions are-they are called volatile organic compounds. They are called VOCs for short, and the patented E-tube system does take care of the problem to within acceptable levels. However, we can enhance the level of protection through the use of the R TOs, as I have explained. To make sure the RTOs are running at their maximum capacity, natural gas fuel is the best.

That is the proposal that is on the table now, and we look forward to having that brought to fruition at an early date. Ms. Wowchuk: We all look forward to that natural gas coming.

Given that the Deputy Minister of Environment said, should testing and evaluations indicate that control performances of the scrubbers, in conjunction with the RTOs, are not satisfactory, then steps will be taken to require the installation of alternate control technology to ensure that the highest level of controls of emissions from the plant are in place, is this something the minister is considering now since the RTOs are not working properly? Since there is no natural gas, are you looking at other alternatives? Mr.

McCrae: Technology tells us the best option is to get the E-tube system working and the R TO system working on a full-time basis. In order for that to happen, natural gas is needed. We are on record, we have our money on the table to ensure that natural gas comes to the plant so that the highest and best option is the one that can be activated. Student Transportation Safety Standards Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): My question is to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh).

Concerns about the government's policy changes in regard to school buses and student transportation have resulted in eroded safety standards. I raised the issue on December 13, 1995; May 16, 1996; March 10, 1997; and again on April 14, 1997. Not only was it this side of the House, but it was also the trustees at the MAST convention. Now the judge presiding over the inquest has raised concerns about the lax requirements and the funding levels for school buses. -

June 12, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4841 *

(1345) I ask the minister: Was the minister aware and did she approve of the now changed standard procedure of a 1 0 percent random check, moving away from the each-unit, each-year procedure of the past? Did she know about it at the same time she was cutting funding and lifting the life expectancy of buses? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I want to correct what the member has put on the record here. She talks about lax inspection standards. There are not lax inspection standards. Every school division is required to test every bus every six months.

That is the regulation. It has been that way for some period of time. In addition to the twice-a-year inspection that they are required to do at a certified inspection station either in the school division or elsewhere, there is 10 percent of an audit done by my department to be sure that the every-six-month inspections were done appropriately. She did not put the right information on the record. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, with a supplementary question. Ms.

Mihychuk: My question to the Minister of Education: Will she confirm that it was her government that decided to do the 10 percent random check in '95; in '95 to extend the life expectancy of buses from 12 to 15.5 years; in '96 to cut the operating supports by $5 per pupil; in '96 to cut the gas-loaded kilometre rate by 2 cents; in '97 to abandon the province's responsibility to replace buses; in '97 to formulate a new financial agreement which underfunds the replacement of school buses? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): There were many, many questions there, and I know I am allowed one minute to answer, which is an impossible situation. I should indicate first of all to the member that we have not cut funding for bus purchases this year. It has actually increased by almost half-a-million dollars. We have increased the transportation grants to urban school divisions. Madam Speaker, we have not decreased the amount of money we are spending on buses.

The difference is that, instead of now purchasing the bus for the school division, we now give the school division the amount of money that is required to purchase a bus. It is now up to the school division-and this was something divisions have asked for-to either contract out or purchase or arrange for transportation in a way that they deem best for their students.

Many divisions had indicated that they did not want the department buying a bus or giving it to them; they would rather get the money, which has not decreased in any way, shape or form, and they can decide on whether to purchase or lease or find some other way of tran sporting. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, with a final supplementary question. Ms.

Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, when will this minister take responsibility for the fact that we have seen an increase in the number of incidents in the decrease of safety standards, and when will this government take responsibility and ensure that our bus fleet is up to standard, as it was in the past? Mrs. Mcintosh: The member has, in the past, been on a school board and knows, therefore, the rules. The rules are that the province will set legislation and does, works in co-operation through two departments actually, Highways and Transportation which licenses drivers, et cetera, and the province which provides money.

School divisions then have the responsibility for obeying the law and seeing that the rules are put into place, Madam Speaker, and she knows that. So, as she pushed for local autonomy when she was school board chair and asks for it when it seems convenient to ask for it, she wishes to take away from school divisions the local autonomy for which they fought so long and hard on issues such as this. So, Madam Speaker, the responsibility for obeying the rules and regulations and implementing them rests with school boards, as it has in the past. *

(1350) Student Transportation Safety Standards Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Highways. My

4842 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 1997 question is concerning the tragic school bus death last year and the need to ensure that such incidents are not repeated. Without doubt, there is general concern that the reduction of school bus inspections has made school buses less safe. As well, there are many more older buses on the road. Given that the bus involved in the tragic accident failed 12 out of 83 inspection points, how many so-called drivable defects can a school bus accumulate before it is pulled off the road? Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, the incident the member is referring to is exceptionally hard for us to accept; the loss of a seven-year-old is a serious, serious situation.

Naturally, the inquest that is going on right now will come up with some recommendations for future action by Education and Highways and Transportation, and I want to assure the member that we are watching the inquest very carefully and will very definitely be proactive on the recommendations coming out of that inquest, but I want to stress that it is premature to comment on anything that is going on in the inquest. We will definitely be looking at the results of that inquest, and we extend our sympathy to all involved in the process. It is very tragic. Mr.

Jennissen: Despite the minister's answers, it is true, though, that one of the minister's own inspectors has said that he has never seen a bus pulled off the road regardless of the number of drivable defects. So how does the minister plan to change this? Mr. Findlay: Well, Madam Speaker. again I want to review with the member the regulation, the requirements of inspection. Every six months, every school bus must be inspected. It can either be done by the school division or by another certified inspection station. My staff certify those inspection stations.

In addition, we audit, doing a reinspection of about I 0 percent of the buses, to be sure the school divisions or the inspection stations are doing the appropriate audit. In addition, every driver is required to do a pretrip inspection of the major points of that bus and report them for correction immediately. Those are the regulations, Madam Speaker, that the divisions and the school bus drivers are to live with. MAST Resolution Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): My final supplementary to the same minister: What is the minister's response to the resolution passed at the last annual MAST convention which calls on the provincial government to remain responsible for the capital cost of purchasing school buses in order to ensure safety, consistency and competitive pricing? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I believe I indicated in my answer to the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) that the Manitoba Department of Education and Training provides money to school divisions to purchase buses.

The amount of money that the bus costs is the amount of money they are granted. They can purchase a bus with that, should they choose to, but it gives them the flexibility, should they choose not to, to contract out or use that money for some other purpose. In the past, the department would purchase the bus, and the school divisions had no other choice in terms of deciding how to use money available for the purchase of buses. So, Madam Speaker, the commitment to providing buses is still there.

What is also there, though, is the right for school divisions to be able to have more autonomy and flexibility in how they choose to exercise that commitment. Tender Process MERX System Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Every year millions of dollars are tendered through the many different government departments and agencies, and the government last year moved toward a system known as OBS in order to try to get more people involved and open up the system so that people will be aware of what contracts are in fact being tendered.

As of June 1, we worked toward a transition into MERX, which again is an online computer program. My question to the Premier is that-OBS, from this government's perspective in terms of getting the departments to comply and having their contracts, was a complete, absolute failure. What is this government

June 12 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4843 going to do to ensure that, with respect to MERX, contracts are in fact going to be listed so Manitobans and Canadians will be well aware of what this government is putting out for tenders? * (1 355) Hon.

Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, some time ago, the Manitoba government did enter into an OBS system for an online bidding system, and the results of that system were that many companies in Manitoba, as a result of the provincial government going on that system, were able to have competitive bids on contracts with the Manitoba government. As a result, many companies that did not have contracts prior were able to enter into some contracts, as well as having online service with the rest of Canada. I think the system bodes well for itself.

The transition over to the MERX system really just enhances that capability for companies in Manitoba to be able to bid on contracts right across the country, as well as bidding on contracts with their provincial government. So I think it is a very positive system and ultimately will prove to be very beneficial to many businesses in Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: Given the minister acknowledges that it is a positive system, one has to question why this government failed in terms of delivering it. My question is to the minister or the Premier (Mr.

Filmon): Why would the Department of Education through Freedom ofinformation we have found out-not even apply to be put on to that particular system, did not put any contracts on OB S. What is this minister and what is this government going to do to ensure that the same sorts of occurrences do not happen under the MERX system? Mr.

Pitura: In any type of system, when you start with a system and get it up and going, there is a period of time which you have to get departments online, but you also have to remember, too, Madam Speaker, that many of the departments, with many of the contracts that they put on the system, may indeed be putting them under another departmental contract number so that this does not show up in, say, a specific department, but it forms part of the overall process. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Premier to read through and ask him to put into the Treasury Board directives that a commitment towards MERX and the tendering of con tracts will, in fact, be something that this government will take quick action on so that there will be some integrity to the system, so that all departments will be participating in it, not just departments that choose to decide that they want to participate. We need a Treasury directive. Will the Premier give that? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will assure the member for Inkster that there will be integrity to the process, that we will do our utmost to ensure that we get competitive bids, unlike his leader who received a $1. 7 -million contract for her company without tender from the federal government. Cancer Treatment Waiting Lists Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, for the past several weeks we have been raising situations of terrible waiting lists in our health care and hospital sector which clearly indicate bad management and cuts and poor planning on the side of this government.

Tragically, today, if an individual requires cancer treatment in Manitoba and they go on a waiting list, they will be No. 250 on a waiting list for cancer treatment. That is a tragedy. How does the Minister of Health explain the weeks and months waiting list for cancer treatment in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): We would certainly agree with the member that that current waiting list is not acceptable. In this year's particular budget, we had some dollars allotted, as I have discussed, to deal with a variety of these areas.

We have discussed bone density, which we are working on. I am pleased to indicate today that we have approved an additional $380,000 for the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation which will purchase a further additional 7,000 treatments. * (1 400)

4844 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12 , 19 97 Mr. Chomiak: For once I would like to thank the minister for actually deliv ering on something. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister unfortunately, those 250 people who are on the waiting list today, who are going to have to wait months and weeks, are waiting despite the fact there is a machine unused sitting at the cancer treatment institute because the government did not approve the funding the last six weeks, the last two months. How does that happen in Manitoba, that people wait on a list for months and months and a machine sits unused?

How does this government so badly manage health care that that happens? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the reason why we get into these issues, and it does happen, the area of dialysis is another one, is because, as we fund various hospitals in terms of their facility budgets or organizations like the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, we try to predict the use that will be required. In the case of cancer, there has been an increased demand. We try to keep up with that.

We approve budgets; no government provides an open ended budget to any facili ty, and we have to make adjustments from time to time, as the member knows. I am pleased to indicate, with this additional money, that will allow that machine he refers to to go into operation. I bel ieve it allows for 5.6 additional staff years for radiation therapists, and it will allow for the treatment of an additional 330 people. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, in so far as this has been an issue for actually years and several months, but specifically this very long waiting list, can the minister indicate to the 250 people who are waiting today when that money will flow-and their families -when that machine will be operational and when they will be able to get the very severe and very necessary treatment they require? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very important question, because anyone who is waiting for treatment, that is the most critical matter.

I understand the approvals have been in place, the notifications are going out, and now with that approval, the host facility, the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, will be able to immediately swing into gear to

schedule those patients. That is an administrative matter that they will have to deal with. So, as soon as they can gear up that machine with the people, it is ready now to go, dependent on their ability to make it happen. So I thank the member for his very timely question. Canadian Corrosion Control Stop-Work Order Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that there is some degree of variance in Workplace Safety and Health's usual procedures when a fatality occurs at a workplace.

The police are contacted, as are representatives from Workplace Safety and Health, and once all measures at preserving life and reducing injury are pursued, the worksite is left frozen and left undisturbed. Investigations do not always commence immediately, although stop-work orders can be issued immediately.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour why it took the Workplace Safety and Health Branch three days to seal the worksite at the Canadian Corrosion Control where there was a death as a result of a workplace accident and why it took an additional three days beyond those first three days, in fact a total of six days, for a stop work order to be issued for that particula r worksite where the fatality occurred. Hon.

Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I would say that the department by and large has worked well with companies across Manitoba in terms of workplace safety and health issues in the establ ishment of committees and providing education to employers and employees and developing a partnership with government, employees and employer groups to provide safe workplaces. On the specifics of that question, I will take that as notice and provide that detail for the member. Workplace Safety and Health Investigations-Family Contact Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Perhaps the Minister of Labour can also explain-because it is my understanding that survivors of the deceased are to be kept updated on the progress of the investigations-why, after the initial meeting with the Andrew Kuryk family in June of'94, the Workplace Safety and Health Branch had no further - -

June 12 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4845 contact with the family until the staying of the charges in June of '95. Why did no further contact take place from the department of Workplace Safety and Health that should have been a normal process in this investigation? Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, since I have come into the department, I have discussed issues such as this with the department and encouraged them to be on the job as quickly as possible and to give the families as much information as possible.

I think that you will find that that is the direction that they have taken at this time. Investigations Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Perhaps the minister can explain, then, why nothing was done after the initial investigation ofWorkplace Safety and Health. In fact, no inquest was called until the family wrote a lengthy letter to both the Mini ster of Justice and the Minis ter of Labour requesting that further action be taken in the death of Andrew Kuryk. Why did no further action take place until the family had to contact your departments? Hon.

Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): These accidents are very sensitive ones. The department does a fairly high degree of investigation on it. It does take some time to compile that information and send that to the appropriate authorities. Student Financial Assistance Debt Load Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, earl ier this week in Question Period the Minister of Education argued that while student debt had increased, so had graduates' incomes, and there was no problem of accessibility in Manitoba.

What is so appal ling is that Manitoba seems to be alone in having a Minister of Education who appears to have no understanding of the most significant crisis facing students.

I want to ask the minister to explain why it is that she rejects the numbers compiled and confirmed by every major national education organization from the Canadian Federation of Students to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Alli ance of Student Associations and the Canadian Association of University Teachers whose numbers say that over the last eight years student debt has tripled from $8,000 to $25,000 and that graduate incomes in fact have remained stable. Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): The member may be talking about national statistics here in Manitoba. The debt upon graduation is not $20,000; it is in the order of $11, 000 to $1 2,000, substantially less than the member has put on the record, implying that that is Manitoba's stat. Manitoba's stat, as I say, is considerably less than that, in between $1 1, 000 and $1 2,000, Madam Speaker. Ms. Friesen: The minister might want to consult a recent survey at the University of Winnipeg, which has quite different numbers and much higher numbers than the minister's. Debt Load Remission Program Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I would like to ask the minister to explain why Manitoba, almost alone of Canadian provinces, has refused to have a debt remission program that would provide some relief for students after they graduate and some hope for those students who now see it impossible to continue. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): The member again-I need to reiterate to her, and these are figures compiled by my department this month, the average debt load of Manitoba students is $11, 088. That was last year.

This year it appears that it will have risen to $1 1, 98 1, far, far from the $20,000 that she quotes and alleges to be the figure for Manitoba. In Manitoba as well, the member might be interested to know, only 21 percent of university and college students access student financial assistance. So when she talks about these vast numbers of students in the dire straits she describes, she is not correct according to what our own figures show us here. We have a learning tax credit that I have spoken about before here, the only one in Canada. That is $1 7.5 milli on students get back at income tax time.

I see my time is up, Madam Speaker. I will continue with the next question.

4846 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 1997 * (14 10) Ms. Friesen: Well, we have a Minister of Education who simply wants to throw away 20 percent of students and who is not prepared to talk about debt remission. That is appalling. Royal Bank Agreement Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, to pose a supplemen tary question. Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wolseley, the honourable member for Wolseley indeed did have a point of order. I would remind the honourable Minister of Education to respond to the question asked. * * * Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, and I did not rise on a point of order to say there is no

preamble on second and third questions. I will from now on. I will from this point on. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Will the minister table Madam Speaker, the member asked the question- the agreement that she signed with the Royal Bank this week, and would she tell us whether that agreement Point of Order was made in anticipation of the withdrawal of the CIBC from student loans in Manitoba? Madam Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): The conclusions the member consistently comes to are interesting.

Other words may be used; I will say interesting for now because I do not wish to be unparliamentary. I have to indicate that we still have the third-lowest tuitions in Canada. I have to indicate that when I say the average debt load is around $11,900- Point of Order Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that the minister is answering the question of two questions ago. I wonder if she could focus her attention upon the question I asked her, which was: Will she table the Royal Bank study and explain whether it was done in anticipation of the withdrawal of CIBC as they have in Nova Scotia?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education, on the same point of order. Mrs. Mcintosh: When members opposite, as they so frequently do, have a lengthy

preamble that addresses several points, which is foll owed then by two or three different questions, how is the member answering to know which of the points being put forward requires the answer? Now she has specified the one point she does want answered, I will be happy to do it. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A point of order was raised by the member for Wolseley. The minister gave her comments. You ruled that it was a legitima te point of order. The only thing that would be in order for this minister to do now would be actually to try and answer the question.

It is not in order for her to either give editorial comment on this matter or to question the ruling. If she wishes to question the ruling, she can challen ge it, but she is once again abusing the time of Question Period. I would like to ask you to bring her to order. Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable Minister of Education she was recognized to respond to the question asked. * * * Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your caution. There are to be no

preambles or postambles, so I will go straight to the question. Point of Order Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would wonder again if you would remind the minister, in this case, her role in Question Period is to give answers to questions not to continually-actually she does give these kinds of irrel evant and out-of-order - -

June 12 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4847 editorial comments. You made two rulings against the minister. Will she not accept those rulings, Madam Speaker, instead of showing contempt for Question Period on a continuing basis? Madam Speaker: The honourab le Minister of Education, on the same point of order. Mrs. Mcintosh: I realize the members are sensitive because they are taking the criticism against them. All I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that I acknowledge your ruling. I acknowledge your ruling, and that is what I said.

I acknowledge your ruling on not talking about anything other than the point we are supposed to be up for. If they have interpreted it as applying to them, I cannot help that. I am acknowledging your ruling, and I do not think that is out of order. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the last point of order raised by the honourab le member for Thompson, indeed the honourable Minister of Education should not be adding editorial comment, but I appreciate the fact that she was acknowledging that indeed she was out of order. * * * Madam Speaker: The honoura ble Minister of Education and Training, to quickly respond to the question asked. Mrs. Mcintosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that clarification, and I would like to-the member had asked a question.

She asked, did we have an agreement with the Royal Bank because we were ant icipating the CIBC would back out? No, we had an agreement with the Royal Bank, as I indicated to the member last year, when CIBC signed on, that it was the sole-the member was concerned that it was the sole bank. We said other banks are interested and will be coming on to agreements before the year is out. This is an indication that that has come true, as I had indicated it would. Physical Education Curriculum Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Education.

In January 19 96, the Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association had an

article in their newsletter entitled physical education threatened again, and they were expressing their concern about this government's proposals to withdraw a required course in phys ed at the high school and, then subsequent to that, to eliminate some portion of physical education in order to teach health. The minister, at that time, wrote to the High Schools Athletic Association somewhat chastising them and asking them to print her letter which said that they were premature.

I want to ask her now if she could tell the House: What will the new curriculum be in terms of the amount of time for physical education and health education, both K to 8 and in our high schools? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I do not recall asking people to print my letter, but I may have asked to have a correction made ifthere was an error in anything that went out. I do recall the physical education teachers offering to print a letter, which I appreciate very much. I know that is part of the

preamble I am addressing, but I do not know how we can avoid addressing the

preamble. Maybe I should take that as the question. I have only answered one, so there we go. Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, this is truly unbelievable. The minister said in her letter: I would request that you publish this response in your next issue as a letter to the editor. I want her to tell the House now on this very important issue: What has her curriculum review determined in terms of physical education and health education?

What time allotments are going to be prescribed for the province, since recently we had a student from Transcona complaining that they do not have enough time in phys ed class? * (14 20) Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would be good enough to table the letter from which she is reading, because it seems to be a letter to the editor as opposed to-[ interjection] She was reading from it, and I wonder if she could table it because I think she said it was a letter-

4848 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12 , 19 97 An Honourable Member: Do not let them push you around, Linda. Mrs. Mcintosh: No, no, do not worry. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member tabling the letter, the letter to an editor that I wrote, which I think was different from the letter that I thought she was referencing in the first one when she said high school teachers. However, we have indicated for some time-and I believe the member is aware of this-that, ultimately, physical education will be approximately 75 percent activity, 25 percent health. Health and physical activity go together in tenns of well ness, in tenns of being-the member mentioned in her rather lengthy

preamble that students were worried about having too much health and not enough physical activity. If we take the picture of fitness and wellness and well-be ing, we know that we also have to teach students why the physical activity is important so that they can then go onto a li fe-long physical fitness regime understanding foods, nutrition, health, et cetera, to be a healthier, more well-f it Canadian citizen. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS Co-operative Education Employer Appreciation Banquet-Winkler Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, do I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Pembina have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Dyck: Last evening I had the plea sure to be part of the Co-operative Education Employer Appreciation Banquet held in the community of Winkler. While there, I was able to pay tribute to this innovative program and its participants.

I recently read the mission statement for Garden Valley Colle giate which described the school as, and I quote, an educational community which allows intell ectual challenge, lifelong learning and self-discipline within a respectf ul, supportive environment. This job training program, which matches students with emplo yers in their field of interest, has met with rousing success. It clearly has met all the conditions set out by the school's mission statement.

Since 19 90, approximately 35 students a year have participated, finding temporary work in areas such as secretarial, law enforcement, Canada Customs and working in veterinary offices. Students have the opportunity to test drive a potential career while earning- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Pembina. Mr. Dyck: Students have the opportunity to test drive a potential career while earning necessary high school credits.

Employers have the opportunity to be active community members and have access to an enthusiastic and talented work pool. This is a win-win situation, and everyone at the banquet deserves applause for their efforts in making this program an ongoing success. By changing the educational setting for our students, by adapting to meet their needs and concerns, we all benefit. Madam Speaker, on behalf of all members, I congratulate the students on an excellent job; as well, a special thank you to the staff, including Mr. Giesbrecht and Mr.

Vanstone, and thank you to the parents and businesses involved, who without their active involvement the program would not have achieved so much. Thank you very much. Westman Seniors Day Picnic Celebration Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Turtle Mountain have leave for a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Tweed: Madam Speaker, I rise today with the honour of recognizing the many seniors in the Westman -

June 12 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4849 area of Manitoba as they take the time to en joy some of Manitoba's fine sunshine during the Westman Seniors Day picnic celebration. Last year I had the privilege of hosting both the Westman Seniors Day, as well as the MSOS 55 Plus Summer Games, and I can assure you that these events do not happen on their own. Therefore, I speak from first-hand experience when I say thank you to the volunteers in Minnedosa for hosting this year's event. The popular ity of these events has continued to increase since the Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr.

Reimer) first decided to hold these events outside the Legislature. As a result of this decision, seniors events are now held in various regions throughout the province. Seniors Day in Westman is always a special treat because the organizing committees are so enthusiastic and energetic. Each year, the host community plans an interesting and fun-filled day, and the Minnedosa organizing committee has certainly followed this tradition.

Therefore, on behalf of the many seniors in Turtl e Mountain and all of southwestern Manitoba, I would like to say thank you to everyone involved for their contribution toward the success oftoday's event in Minnedosa. Tim Horton's-Camp Day Fundraiser Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Madam Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? * ( 1430) Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for La Verendrye have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Sveinson: Madam Speaker, I rise today that I may thank on behalf of all members a true corporate citizen.

Every year, Tim Horton's holds a camp day fundraiser. These funds are traditionally donated to the Tim Horton's Chil dren's Foundation which sends monetarily underprivileged children to camp. This year, however, the proceeds are being shared equally by the Children's Foundation and the Manitoba Flood Relief . The result of the hard work by all Tim Horton's staff across Canada was the raising of $1. 7 milli on. Yesterday, Mr. Ron Joyce, co-founder of the Tim Horton's chain, presented Blair Graham, chair of the Manitoba Flood Appeal Advisory Committee a cheque in the amount of $850,000.

This tremendous donation by Tim Horton's on behalf of their store owners and customers will make a significant impact on the current phase of the flood relief eff orts. I was proud to represent our government at this cheque presentation, and I want to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt thanks to Tim Horton's for their generosity. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Committee Changes Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as foll ows: Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton); Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen); Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for Broadway (Mr. Santos); St James (Ms. Mihychuk) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), for Thursday, June 12 , 19 97, for 7 p.m. Motion agreed to. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Thursday, June 12, at 7 p.m. be amended as follows: the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck); the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Brandon West (Mr.

McCrae); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed); the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe). I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Friday, June 13, at I 0 a.m. be amended as follo ws: the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the composition of the Standing

4850 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12 , 19 97 Committee on Economic Development for Friday, June 13 , 19 97, at 10 a.m. be amended as follows: the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render); the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member for Gla dstone (Mr. Rocan); the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson); and the member for Springfield (Mr. Findla

y) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Motions agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have some matters of House Business. I would like to advise honourable members and the table that the government does not propose to proceed with Bill 22, The Law Reform Commission Repeal Act, and instead will be working with Bill 58.

I am saying this because I expect Bill 22 to basically die on the Order Paper, and I think that the table may want to use this information to let potential presenters know that that is the intention so that we can avoid any inconvenience in that regard.

There have been some discussions, and out of respect for the memory of the late Honourable Stanley Knowles, for whom there will be a funeral service on Monday at two in the afternoon, we have agreed that the House would not sit on Monday until 3: 30, that we would forgo private members' hour, that we would sit until six on Monday, resume sitting at 7:3 0 till the normal hour of adjournment of ten o'clock.

That is what we would need lea ve-1 am sorry, Madam Speaker, if l said private members' hour, what I meant to say is we would forgo Question Period on Monday, beginning with, I guess it is called, government orders at 3: 30 in the afternoon. Madam Speaker: For information purposes, Bill 22 will not proceed but will die on the Order Paper. Is there leave for Monday, June 16 , to not sit, to forgo Question Period where the House commences at 1 :30 p.m. and not sit until 3:30 p.m., commencing with Orders of the Day, until 6 p.m., recessing, then sitting from 7:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. Monday evening? Mr.

McCrae: A minor adjustment before we put that question: When I say "commencing with Orders of the Day," it may be that we should be commencing with Routine Proceedings, omitting Question Period, and then going to Orders of the Day at 3:30 on Monday. Madam Speaker: So the House not sit till 3:30 p.m. on Monday, the 16 th, commencing with Routine Proceedings but omitting Question Period, until 6 p.m., and then recessing and commencing at 7:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. Monday evening. Is there leave? [agreed] Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, thank you for that. appreciate your having to put all that to the House.

The arrangements were just very recently arrived at, and we were unable to prepare something in writing for you with respect to that. Madam Speaker. again, on Monday at 7:30, and this would require the lea ve of the House because the House will be sitting at 7:30. At 7:30 Monday evening, the Standing Committee on Agricul ture will sit to consider bills referred to it. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and I are, well, mostly the honourable member for Thompson, but we are working on which bills will be referred to that committee.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit at 7:30 p.m. on Monday evening the Standing Committee on Agricult ure to sit for bills referred? [agreed] Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, and the leave is being sought because the House is sitting at the same time. Would you call Bill 31, please. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bi11 31 -The Livestock and Livestock Products and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos), second reading of Bill 31 (The Livestock and Livestock Products and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur - -

June 12, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4851 Ies animaux de fenne et leurs produits et modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the honourab le member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? Leave has been denied. Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, The Livestock and Livestock Products and Conseq uential Amendmen ts Act is a bill that was introduced to allow for changes to The Livestock and Livestock Products Act which was amended last session and is a result of changes to The Animal Care Act dealing with the proper treatment of animals. The bill deals with changes to the current act regarding aspects of identification, transportation, registration, production and processing of livestock.

One of the main issues that the bill is addressing is the issue of quality control of livestock and livestock products, and we are a ma jor exporter of livestock products. In a changing world that we are facing these days, the standards that people are wanting in other countries are very high, and I do not blame them for wanting high-quality meat. They are paying a good price for it, and they want good quality.

We have had incidents where there have been contaminated products getting into other countries, and I believe that in Japan a few years ago there was an incident where there was a needle in some meat, and that hurts our reputation as a country when we go to export. Certainly, at the level we are farming these days, farmers use supplements and antibiotics when they are feeding their livestock, and it is important that, when they use these products for the safety of their animals and the health of their animals, the product be residue free before it goes to market.

In most cases, farmers do want to ensure that their product is safe, but there are incidents when it does happen that there could be residues in the meat, and this hurts our reputation as a trader. So we have to work to bring our standards in line with international standards, and governments are working very hard to do this. We have the hazardous analysis critical contro l point where we are looking at ensuring that all products are safely handled, and governments, as I understand it, are spending large amounts of money to ensure that safety standards are lived up to.

So what this legislation does is- Madam Speaker: Order, please. House Business Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): I hesitate, Madam Speaker, to interrupt the honourab le member for Swan River, but I believe earlier I asked you to call Bills 31 and others-but 31, 54, 27, 29. I would like to add No. 19 to that list. * * * Ms. Wowchuk: So part of this legislation deals with the application of identification to animals.

There is new technology with respect to identifying animals, and this legislation will bring that in line so that we can take advantage, so producers can take advantage, and one of the things that-want to be done is the modem technology will allow for the placement of quality contro l products, and the animal can be traced back to its point of origin should there be problems with some of the quality in the product.

This is something that is happening in other provinces, and this legislation will be similar to what other provinces are bringing in place so that we have standards across the province and equal treatment and a better ability to trace and keep track of animals that are being shipped to market. *

(1440) The other area of this bill that is being addressed is to deal with inspections. I understand that, in discussions with Manitoba cattle producers in previous years, they were very much insisting, wanting to see inspectors at auction mart sites to be able to track what was going on and be able to investigate where whose animals were being sold. That has not been in place in Manitoba. Other provinces do have these inspectors in place. In Saskatchewan, they are done by the Saskatchewan government. From what I can tell from this legislation, there is the ability for these inspectors to be set up in Manitoba, but it will not be by the government. There will be the

4852 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 1997 ability for the private sector to be doing the inspection. I have to say that in that sense I would hope that the government would play a role in these inspections and ensure that there is a role for government to play in these types of things. I am not quite sure why the government continues to pull back. There are things [interjection] House Business Mr. McCrae: I know that my honourable colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) will find my behaviour quite outrageous this afternoon. [inteljection] See, that is what I mean.

I know how he feels about this, so I will therefore be very brief out of respect for my colleague and the honourable member for Swan River. Madam Speaker, will you add Bill 21 to the list of bills to be called this afternoon? Thank you. Committee Changes Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans); Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk); Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Transcona (Mr.

Reid); Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), for Friday, June 13, 1997, for 10 a.m. Motion agreed to. Madam Speaker: just want to reassure the honourable member for Swan River that I will add the time that these interruptions are taking to her speaking time. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I have one committee change. I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Thursday, 7 p.m., June 12, be amended as follo ws: the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render). Motion agreed to.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, the legislation also allows for the ability to have inspectors at auction marts. That was, as I said, an issue that was raised by Manitoba cattle producers a few ago. That does not seem to be as big a concern for them right now, and they are looking to have standards brought in across the province. When I talked to them, they were not quite as concerned about this section. There is also a

section that deals with people who lose their licence. who will now have the ability to appeal; an appeal board will be put in place. But basically some of the highlights are an appeal board setting up licensing disputes, a new designation of inspectors which are deemed as analysts or auditors. but their duties are not clearly defined. There will also be an increase in penalties for infractions, and the minister can set up a registry for animals which are being monitored by outside interests, likely producer organizations rather than by government. which currently operates one. The end result of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, is that there will be more producer and industry responsibility to ensure proper practices and the treatment of livestock are carried out and less government involvement. I have to say that these are moves that are being carried out across the country, looking for better standards and better tracing of healthy animals, and those are good recommendations. Animals can be traced now from farm gate to the processor on the line, and the quality of the animals and the presence of residues or antibiotics can be known from their place of origin and this can only enhance the quality and accountability.

So, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to send this bill to committee and hear what presenters have to say. The only concern we have is, again, in this bill, it appears that the government is pulling away from its responsibility just as the federal government has pulled away in many cases of inspection. They are turning it over to the private sector. I want to say to the minister that there is a role for government to play to ensure that we have standards, and we will look for further - -

June 12 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4853 discussion at committee to ensure that all of this will enhance our quality, but there also still will be government controls to ensure that the standards that are very important to the liv estock industry and to the export industry and to the health of Canadians as well will be met. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I too would just like to say a few words with respect to Bi ll 31. There are 24,3 83 farms in Manitoba, encompassing 7.73 millio n acres ofManitoba farmland. The scope of this legis lation involves much of what takes place on these Manitoba farms.

I am particularly pleased to see that this bill gives inspectors more power to enter and inspect livestock operations that might be in violation of The Livestock Act. The move toward allowing greater diversity in livestock identification, considering that technology has made tremendous leaps in the area, will also be of increasing importance. This bill also deals with the ownership of lives tock. This might seem unimportant to those who live in the city, but Manitoba has 1. 35 million cattle and calves, not to mention the 1. 77 milli on hogs.

Knowing who these cattle and pigs belong to is of tremendous importance. It should be noted that all of the western provinces and Ontario have already introduced similar legisl ation. Many of the amendments in this act simply harmonize regulations with similar legisla tion being passed across Canada. Our discussions with farmers have indicated support for the amendments. They are generally pleased to see the new developments in technology advance quite quickly in their industry. They are the ones who are driving our gains in agriculture.

When it comes to spending money on capital improvements like new identification systems, Manitoba farmers are among the leaders in Canada. They spend about $49,000 a year on improvements to their farming operations as an average, from what I understand. This legisla tion is really just an attempt to keep up with them. I am pleased that these amendments have been brought forward. The Liberal caucus is happy to agree with the agriculture producers of Manitoba. * (1 450) I had come across an interesting article, Madam Speaker, that was in the Free Press.

It ill ustrated some of the sizes of farms and how we have seen a decrease in the province of Manitoba. Just to quote from that Free Press article, I guess it would have been in May of this year, where it says that Manitoba's farm count alone dropped by more than 1 ,300 between '91 and '96 to just more than 24,000. You know, there are a lot of Manitobans that are out there that want to do what they can in terms of preserving a way of lif e, and that being the smaller farms in trying to allow for individuals to continue on the farm. I just thought it was somewhat of an interesting point that we should be aware of.

Wherever we might be able to take actions that would facil itate, especially the small producers, I think that we should take steps towards it. Thank you. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 31, The Livestock and Livestock Products and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 54- The Animal Husbandry Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Mini ster of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 54, The Animal Husbandry Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant le

Loi sur l'elev age et modifications correla tives), standing in the name ofthe-[interjection] Order, please. I believe the honourable member for Point Douglas would li ke to have committee changes. Committee Change Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Agriculture be amended as follows: Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) for Wellin gton (Ms. Barrett) for Monday, June 16 , 19 97, for 7:30 p.m.

4854 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 1997 Motion agreed to. Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading Bill 54, standing in the name of the honourab le member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Madam Speaker: No, leave has been denied. Ms. Rosano Wowcbuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, The Animal Husbandry Act, Bill 54, is a very short bill and I am not going to take very much time to speak on it. The bill is repealing a few sections that are now being covered off under other bills.

For example, the regulations of branding and identification of animals now falls under The Livestock and Livestock Products Act that we just talked about, and the transportation of livestock is carried under The Animal Care Act, and another

section of the bill, Parts V to VII, are repealed because they are now redundant because the government has discontinued to provide those services. At one time, the government played an important role in building up the livestock herds in this province. The government was involved in an artificial insemination program. The government was involved in the breeding program that provided breeding stock to enable farmers to build up their herds.

It was a very good program, and it helped to diversify and build up the quality of animals that are throughout rural Manitoba right now, but the government has decided that this program was no longer necessary. Although we do not agree with them, we think that there still was a role for government to play in providing these services to both the beef and the dairy industry. The government chose not to provide them. So this legislation is now redundant, so it is being removed.

When we look back at what happened to the dairy industry and to the beef industry in Manitoba and the improvement of the genetic pool of livestock, because of these programs, we have to recognize the importance of them and what they have done to build up Manitoba's beef and dairy herds and build up Manitoba's reputation. We still have a long way to go. In particular, when we look at what is happening here in Manitoba, again, I will refer to the changes that we have seen to the Crow and the increased costs of shipping grain, we are going to have to diversify more and more.

It is very expensive to get started in the cattle industry. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), a cattle producer himself, knows that this is an expensive venture to get started in. I think the program that we had in place to help producers improve their stocks and the genetic lines of their animals was very helpful and would be very helpful for the producers today . There could be a role for government to play with other livestock besides cattle to help to diversify, but as I say, the government has chosen to withdraw that service so the legislation is quite redundant .

My understanding is there will be further legislation that will be brought in, not this session but very soon, probably in the next session, that will eliminate even further-make this act even more redundant and will probably be completely removed from the books. So. as I say, this is a bill that is dealing with removing sections of The Animal Husbandry Act that are no longer valid. We recognize that this has to be done. The other issue deals with animal injuries and transpor tation. Again, that

section is being repealed because it is being covered under another act. With those two comments, we are prepared to let this bill go to committee. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 54, The Animal Husbandry Amendment and Co nsequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered. Point of Order Ms. Wowcbuk: Madam Speaker, a point of order or a point of a clarification, I just want to check back. This morning we were dealing also with Bill 30. We were also prepared to pass that bill to committee. I think we -

June 12, 19 97 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4855 were stopped by the clock and never got to it and that would be under the- Madam Speaker: Just for clarification for the member for Swan River, Bill 30, we had leave to sit about another five minutes this morning, so that the honoura ble member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) could put his comments on record. Bill 30 has indeed been passed to committee. Okay. * * * Bill 27-The Public Schools Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 27, on the proposed motion of the honoura ble Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh), The Public Schools Amen dment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques), in the name of the honoura ble member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: Leave. Leave has been granted. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on Bill27, The Public Schools Amen dment Act. This is a bill which has a number of unrelated changes that are being proposed in one act, one set of amendments rather. It does underline the necessity for the full redrafting and full reconsideration of The Public Schools Act.

It needs to be maintained in modern language. I think there is much of it that does need a plain language version, although many of the amendments certainly are being written in as clear a manner as possible. I do know at election time, certainly there has been discussion of the wholesale amendment of The Public Schools Act. I believe all parties have expressed themselves on this. I also believe that there is a necessity for a guide to the act. I know that some jurisdictions, not in Canada, but some jurisdictions do compile these, and they are very useful in some parts of the world.

A guide to the act, particularly for parents who are becoming increasingly interested and concerned about the actual legal basis of some ofthe provisions or in many cases, as it is today, the absence of provisions for public schools. * (1 500) I think, also, as we see Freedom of Information laws applied to school divisions and to private schools as well perhaps, that the requirement for a guide to the act, a public guide to the act that will enable people to understand the legal bases of the provisions of Manitoba's public schools, I think, would be very helpful.

I offer this to the government as a constructive idea, one that might be a very useful endeavour, but it really should, of course, come accompanying, I think, the revising of The Public Schools Act general ly. So what we have here is a series of changes proposed for public schools in Manitoba, and they cover a wide range of areas. We are going to discuss them each in turn and to indicate some of our ideas and some of our reflections upon each of these, and I know that a number of my other colleagues also have concerns that they want to express.

The first part of Bill 27 aims to vary the term of public school trustees on application to the minister. It argues, and the minister argues, that this will give more flexibility to municipal governments, sorry, to local governments; that it will enable trustees' terms perhaps to be adjusted so that they are aligned with municipal elections and that may be useful in ensuring that there is a wider electorate interested and active in school affairs.

I think, if that is the case, that is a useful purpose because certainly there have been some school divisions where the turnout has been very low for school division elections. I believe there are many positions on school divisions, certainly in one or two divisions that continue to be by acclamation rather than by election; and, while this may indicate satisfaction with the existing trustees, it may also indicate difficulties in local democracy, the fact that there is not the kind of active participation perhaps that we would want to see in local divisions.

So, if there is as a result of this, an increase in activity of the electorate in school divisions and local elections, increasing numbers of people willing to run for school divisibns to take on the tremendous responsibilities, in

4856 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 1997 fact, that are offered to them, I think that would be a good thing. I think it also gives the opportunity for the kind of flexibil ity that might be required if school divisions are to begin a process of vol untary amalgamation. Now it could have been in place several years ago. The government might have thought of doing this before it went into its fiasco of the Boundaries Commission, but it did not. Now it is offering this kind of flexibility.

It seems to me perhaps backward, a government which had some concern about local democracy and which might have approached school divisions for ways in which vol untary amalgamation could have been considered, might have come up with this particular aspect. There are some concerns that it might be too flexible. Some people have expressed to me the possibil ity that it might be used too loosely by school divisions or school trustees. My own sense is that this is not likely to be the case. It is to enable transition to take place, and it probably would be used quite infrequently.

But I do think it would have been a useful piece to have had in place before the boundary commission went ahead and spent a milJi on dolla rs and created the kinds of very, very difficult situations in many local areas where meetings were held of the boundary commission. It is one of the missing pieces, I think, that could have helped, and the government as usual, when it looked at the boundary commission, wanted to go in with its great centralizing mission, wanted to go in with a big stick, never thought of the carrot first, and essentially created a great upset, particularly in rural Manitoba.

And it tried to brazen it out for a while. There is no doubt about that. It tried round two of hearings and round two of a report, a report which, I think, did not express the letters and the opinions that it had received from rural Manitoba. I went to the trouble of reading all the material that was sent in from school divisions as their response to the first boundary commission report, and I read the report which combined those, and it seemed to me that the two did not match. There was a great deal that was left out of the second report, and so no wonder people responded badly to that.

They responded in a sense that said no, you have not heard what we have said. At the end of it, a million doll ars had been spent, no amalgamations had taken place, the resistance of people to amalgamation was more deeply entrenched than it need have been. The government, of course, lost a piece of one of Mr.

Manness's, the former Education minister, one of his major thrusts in education because, of course, as we look at education today, what we see is from the government's perspective, there is one piece of their overall policy which is missing, and that was the major upheaval of boundary amalgamation, of the changes in numerous contracts across the province as well as changes in elections, changes in jurisdictions. All of that was part of Manness's master plan, and it was a master plan.

It was a long-term strategy, well, actually I should say a short-term strategy, real ly, a short-term strategy for the transformation of education in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, those people who now look at the changes, the rapid change in curriculum. the rapid changes in jurisdiction such as brought about by school choice, the intense difficulties that are being felt by school divisions as a result of the continuous reduction of funding to schools and, of course, the anxieties and the disputes that are being aroused by the standards assessment tests at all levels from Grades 3 to 12, when people look at those and say, look, there is too much change here, there is too much that is happening too quickly over which we have control, they should look back at that master plan of Manness and understand that the one piece that is missing here is, of course, the boundary change.

What Manness had intended was that all of that should happen together. What he was real ly doing was following the instructions of Roger Douglas, a man whom this government delig hts in bringing in and taking him to various meetings to give his speech. It is a speech which has been heard and understood by Klein and certainly by Harris, in Alber ta and Ontario, and it was one which Manness took to heart as well.

What he wanted to do in education in Manitoba was to destabiliz e, just as Roger Douglas did in the economic system in New Zealand: "Hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast." But that is certainly the route that he wanted to take, so that bringing about rapid change, centrally directed over funding and over jurisdictions is certainly part of his important plan. -

June 12 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4857 The minister herself wants to take some credit for slowing this down. She spoke at length in Estimates about this, that they had heard, they had listened to the field. The field had said, slow things down. That is certainly true; they were saying that. Teachers, parents, students, and trustees were having to cope with enormous change with continually reduced resources. It was change which they had not initiated, change which, for the most part, they had not consented to and yet, nevertheless, it is at the field level that they had to deal with it.

They did say over and over again for a number of years, we repeated it in Question Period, we repeated it here in Estimates, and finally the minister acknowledged that indeed she had heard that the field wanted her to slow down. The minister wants some credit for that slowing down-glad to give her that credit. She listened and after several years she did slow it down.

She did in fact take the advice that we had offered so often on this side of the House, that you cannot expect the continued co operation and enthusiasm of teachers, parents, and trustees in the classrooms of Manitoba if you are continually imposing upon them the kinds of rapid change that you have done for the past few years and at the same time reduce their resources and their ability to deal with it. So the minister, I think, should have the credit that she wants and that she deserves, but she must also expect the debt that goes along with that.

The debt, I think, that is owed in rural Manitoba, in particular, is a dismay at a government which chose that central ized route and the distrust of a central ized government's edicts in education. I think there is a long-term debt or long-term difficulties that the government is going to face outside of Winnipeg and perhaps in Winnipeg as well with the implications of the kind of rapid change that they tried to bring to education in Manitoba. * (1510 ) Each, on their own, of the changes that they had decided to bring may well have merited consideration.

They may well have merited discussion with trustees and with teachers across the province, but this government is an authoritarian government, I believe, at heart and in principle, and it is certainly in principle a government which centralizes while speaking in press releases and in bureaucratic language of decentr alization. One of the principles, I think, one should always have in looking at both the actions and the words of this government is always look behind the lines and between the lines, because what the government says is not alwa ys, in fact, very infrequently what the government means to do.

Bill 27 then offers the option of some flexibility to trustees. I think trustees are pleased with this and will use it in probab ly very careful ways. Secondly, the bill creates an amendment to allow the Sou th Winnipeg Technical Centre to have a superintendent or rather to designate as a principal. This makes it not unique amongst institutions, but it adds South Winnipeg Tech to a list of institutions which are specifically named in The Public Schools Act. It, I think, is something which has some difficulties attached to it.

Certainly, there will be concerns expressed, I believe, by the Manitoba Teachers' Society because it is part of a context whereby the government is increasingly becoming much more directive, a much more centralized approach to the role of principal and here I think there are some difficulties from the perspective of the Teachers' Society on what is being added here to a very small list. On the other hand, it is also possible, a mitigating factor, I think, that South Winnipeg Technical institution is named specifically.

This is not an open ended regulation allowing the minister-as happens in some other acts-to name specific schools where this anomaly could take place.

Nor does it leave it to regulation, as is the common practice of this government and, indeed, it is one of the standard practices of governments which are authoritarian and which are centralizers is that they do continue to transform legislation into regulations; that is, they take the power out of the hands of the people in the Legislature and they put it into the hands of regulators, essentially of the cabinet, where every Wednesday morning the regulations could be changed and for a long time no one would be any the wiser. Yet substantial shifts have taken place.

So I am glad to see that the minister has not done that. I think that is a mitigating factor. I am glad to see that this particular bill does not follow that unfortunate tendency.

4858 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 1997 The third element that this bill looks at is the removal of the special levy, and members who have been in this House some-removal, I should say, of the cap on the special levy that was introduced by Mr. Manness some years ago. If you will remember, this was a bill which was very heatedly debated in this House. Those members who were here at the time will, perhaps, remember it. It was, again, I believe part of the destabilizing purpose, intent, ofManness's various bills. It was an attempt to limit the power of local divisions to raise money for education.

In itself, I think this poses difficulties for democracy. I remember myself arguing very strongly against it at the time because if you have local bodies, if you have city councils, rural councils, if you have school divisions who are empowered, delegated the authority to raise certain taxes, it seems to me that that is their job, that is what they should do and they should be accountable for that. What Manness did was to limit the ability of school divisions to do that, to essentially say from the central government that we are going to put a limit upon the amount that you can raise.

It seemed to me a conflict between two levels of government, one which did not bode well for a healthy local government, which I think we all want to see. So now in removing it, one would think that there would be universal rejoicing. But what has happened in the meantime, I think, has a significant impact on how we should regard the removal of this cap. It is, as it is inserted into this bill, a double-edged sword because what has happened in the interim is that the government has gone a long way on its path to creating a free market in education.

What it has done is, first of all, to establish choice in schools. Frankly, I do not think it is going to work in the same way that the government anticipates it, but this is their purpose, is to establish choice and consequently competition for a student population across school boundaries. When you then reinstate, under those conditions, the ability of school divisions now to tax as they can see fit or as their local taxation base enables them, you then have a growing inability to distribute education equally across Manitoba.

When Manness introduced the cap, we did not have school choice; we did not have all of the other elements of marketization of education that the government has since introduced. We have a second area that, I think, bears on this, and this is the enormous increases to private schools that have taken place since Manness introduced these caps. It is another aspect of creating a free market in education, and at the same time what the government has done is to consistently and deliberately reduce the monies available to public schools.

So what they have done is to use the power of the central government to create what they would believe is a "level playing field" between public and private schools, and they have also used the power of the central government to create a competitive system between school divisions. Now what they are doing is removing the cap on the ability of divisions to tax, and, of course, those school divisions which have greater ability will, in the competitive situation which they were not in before, have a much greater ability to attract students, to have a wider range of facilities.

Of course, this is on top of all those government grants that go into south Winnipeg schools and into rural Manitoba schools. all those $40,000 grants for technology, all the grants from Sustainable Development for renovations to curriculum, or from Community Places. There are many ways which the government has found, I think, to fund schools in a rather specialized way. So we do have, I think, market principles beginning to apply, at least insofar as the government is able to make them, to education. We believe on this side of the House that that is fundamentally wrong.

Just as the government is trying to create a market system in health care, it is trying to do the same thing in education. We believe that,

whereas the market can distribute some consumer goods efficiently, it does not deliver the public goods of health and education in a fair and equitable manner. That is what the government is trying to do, and it is trying to do it rather quickly in Manitoba. It also seems unable to speak about it in abstract terms, but that is exactly what it is doing because the government essentially believes that the free market will distribute efficiently. But it will not distribute fairly, and that, to me, is the higher principle in terms of the distribution of public goods.

So we have seen, over the last number of years, cuts of minus 2, minus 2, zero, minus 2 again, zero to public schools. We have seen that at the same time as the cost of instructional materials has been rising, and so school divisions have been placed in a terrible vise, a vise grip -

June 12, 19 97 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4859 of declining ability to meet the needs of students. You do not have to go very far outside this building to find teachers and parents, trustees and students who will give you example after example of that. Indeed, we had hearings last year in the Legislature, hearings on Bill 72 and on other education bills where the public came out in large numbers to speak to us about the impact of education cuts on their school divisions. Madam Speaker, I thought that many of those hearings, and they often went late into the night, were very instructive.

I very much value the way in which the public comes to speak on those bills, often comes at very short notice, comes with a great deal of expertise, waits in tum for many hours sometimes to speak, sometimes has to go home again and then come back again, sometimes after midnight. So those public hearings told us time after time of the inability of schools, particularly in French immersion schools, to find textbooks. We heard of College Jean Bel iveau where their-no, it is not Jean Beliveau, it is Col lege Bel iveau. Mixing my metaphors, Madam Speaker, Colle ge Beliveau-perhaps it was College Jeanne Sauve too.

It was one of the French immersion high schools which had serious difficulties in geography text and in maps.

I believe that it was using wall maps from the 19 60s where of course the world looked very different, particularly in Africa and Asia, than it does today, and some very striking examples that were given of classes of over 50 I believe in one of the Interlake school divisions, of adult classes that were becoming increasingly difficult to maintain through the lack of funding, example after example of the difficulties being faced in the public school system, difficulties that were intensifying as a result of the increasing cuts to public schools and an enormous resentment of the way in which the government has, by decree, changed the allocation of funding to private schools. * (1 520) So what we find is public schools which are charging what might be called user fees, sometimes of $20, sometimes much more, $200 and $300.

As we look at the shift in transportation policy over the last few years, we are also going to see user fees of even higher amounts being charged to families who have been long in immersion programs and whose children must not only take transport but must stay over lunch at school. Those families, some of whom I have talked to, are simply not going to be able to afford to continue their children in the educational programs that they have chosen.

These same parents know very clearly that private schools have had their funds increased, sometimes by 10 percent, sometimes by 13 percent, sometimes by 12 percent, in ways in which the government would rather not talk about, ways in which they do not publicize, ways in which they choose to hide.

It is very odd that a government which wants to stand and live and die by the principles of the free market is simply afraid to talk to Manitobans about the changing allocation of public goods for education and the increasing transformation of Manitoba schools into a market system and one whereby those who have will be able to purchase, those who have not will simply fall by the wayside.

We heard that kind of discussion and that kind of I think very genuine and understandable resentment from many of the people who came to speak to the public hearings, many of whom might support the existence of public schools but who saw an intense unf airness and a deeply felt unf airness at the increases, the vast increases to private schools, at the very same time that the public schools were being decreased, and that is where the government I think has lost the confidence and lost the trust of many Manitobans.

It is that intense sense of fair play which I think exists throughout all parts of Manitoba that led to those kinds of assumptions. I was disappointed that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) did not have the same sense of-I am looking for the word, Madam Speaker-concern about the kinds of discussion which can be brought forward in public meetings. The other day in discussion with the minister over the special needs review and my concern that there not be public meetings there, the minister said that she really did not want-and I am quoting from Hansard on June 4.

The minister said, "I do not want this review" this special needs review ''to degenerate into what some of the other public reviews have degenerated into where the opposition member gets choices ... and the typical NDP rents a crowd and

4860 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA June 12 , 19 97 brings them out to repeat endlessly the same presentation over and over ... -a ll calculated to appeal to the cameras and the press and the people they can hopefully turn against the government or whatever they can do-as they always do, Madam Speaker, as we know " It "is too important to me ... to play politics with it." That is what the Minister of Education thinks about public meetings. That is what the Minister of Education thinks about hearings on bills.

That is the Minister of Education's view of all of those hundreds of teachers and trustees and parents and in some cases students who came to speak to her last year or any other time about the impact of government policy upon their lives . It is simply what she says, it is a degeneration into something that the opposition has to say. That is quite a damning comment, I would say, upon the role of democracy and the role of the public in public affairs and, particularly, the role of the public in education, because education is something on which all Manitobans have an opinion.

Whether they have children in school, whether they are grandparents or whether they have no children at all, it is something which everyone wants to express themselves on. Well, I think they should be very careful in expressing their opinion to the Minister of Education. It does not appear to be from those comments something which is accepted in the way in which members of the public might intend. The minister regards anything that is critical as simply not part of a normal public discussion. Madam Speaker, the proposal to remove the special levy then, I think, is a double-edged sword.

It has some elements that are welcome and some, given the changed conditions of Manitoba education, I think it may indeed lead to increased inequalities in the funding of public schools across the province. A further element of this bill enables school divisions to dispose of buses. Now, this is an innocuous sentence in itself. I read with a smile of the way in which the minister introduced this as introducing greater flexibility into school divisions' options about transport and buses, and indeed it does. This is why you always have to be careful with this government's press releases. The words belie the intent.

Read between the lies. Never believe anything a government press release says. Al ways find the evidence. Alw ays look behind it and, particularly, when the government gets off onto its little rants about progress and change, or as the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) did the other day, we are moving forward, he said. It was sort of an appeal to a language of the future which belies the kind of regressive and really destructive aspects of government policy.

Buses, certainly, the school divisions, now that they are-as a result of other government polic ies-required to take on the purchase and the management of buses, are certainly going to look at this ability to dispose of buses in a different way than the minister does.

They will look at it, as they certainly have at changed government policy, as another attempt to offload costs on to school divisions, to cut costs for the provincial government so that it can show what it believes to be a healthy balance sheet, while at the local level, whether it is municipal governments, school divisions or other elements of local government, the increasing difficulties of keeping together the kind of public infrastructure that generations of Manitobans had built, that becomes increasingly difficult.

The government appears to want to tum a blind eye to that, certainly to turn its deaf ear and to continue with the kind of pompous and self inflated language of change in the future that it continues with day after day in Question Period. The issue of the offloading of buses, although it is not specifically in this bill, it is made reference to by the ability to dispose of buses as the school division sees fit.

I do not want to get into the details of what has happened in recent days over the death of a child as a result of some considerations about the safety of school buses-certainly something the coroner will be dealing with. There will be a lengthy report, but I think the government has to rethink this. The government has to look very, very seriously about the kinds of regulations it has in place. It has to look very carefully at the inspections that are required. I think it should be a warning to the government in all of this offloading on to local authorities.

Local authorities are essentially taking the burden from this government of maintaining a public infrastructure which is vital to all Manitobans, and this should be a warning sign to them and one that they should take very, very seriously. -

June 12 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 486 1 Madam Speaker, this bill also removes a number of

definitions from The Public Schools Act. I look forward to discussing this with the minister in committee. It removes, for example, the definition of what is a full-time equivalent student. We have looked els ewhere in legislation in this and The Education Administration Act and looked for other

definitions of that and have been unable to find anything which defines it so precisely as this particular section. That does give cause for some concern because, of course, it is one of the bases, not the only base, but one of the bases for the funding of education.

It is something, I think, which needs to be explored with the minister so that at least we have some legislative reflection on what the implications of that will be. * (1 530) Finally, Madam Speaker, and most importantly for this bill, is that it aims, as the minister said, to clarify the language over the ages during which a child has the right to attend school. Yes, it is true, the bill actually is much clearer. It uses specific months and dates, and it makes something which has been applied in different manners in different school divisions much more systematic.

But, again, always read between the lines, always ask the minister for evidence. Never believe a government press release. It certainly does clarify, but it also has the potential to diminish the rights of students to attend school in the manner in which they do now. This is, I think, where our most serious concern is. The bill argues that students will have the right to attend school from the age of six to the age of 21, or a diploma is achieved, whichever comes sooner.

That is the crucial phrase, "whichever comes sooner," because what has been possible in the past for school divisions is some flexibility, particularly at those ages between, say, 17 and 21, when students may well have achieved a version of a diploma but may want to come back. They may then take a few months in the job market and find that the qualifications that they had or the direction they had taken in high school was not the one that they wanted. It was not the one that was going to benefit them. They may find other skills which they then want to develop.

So they have in places, for example, we could name R.B . Russell, we might name the high schools in Transcona-1 would imagine the high school in Sturgeon Creek very much has a population like this of students who are going back to achieve different qualifications or additional qualifications often up to four or five or more credits. There has been a great deal of flexibility for school divisions in this. The second group who may be affected-and, of course, the consequences of this bill are that that may not be able to continue.

The minister now is going to define, as according to this bill, the regulations for a diploma. Given the context of this government where education is being reduced to a basic minimum, core subjects-this is their essential goal in education-the government may indeed-we cannot tell from this bill, and I do not trust this government-define a basic minimum of diploma beyond which students may not return to high school unless fees are paid. Again, coming back to the market system.

So, Madam Speaker, this act has the potential to diminish the possibil ity of continued learning, and that, I think, again, should remind honourable members, always start with a position of disbelief on government speeches. The throne speech, I think, not just this one but earlier ones, has talked endlessly about the importance of lifelong learning, and yet here we have a bill which opens the door to the reduction, to the diminution of lifelong learning. I think this bill may also have some consequences for special needs students.

Special needs students, particularly the older ones, have benefited, have been able to return to school or to be maintained in schools by the public school trustees certainly until the age of 21 or, as it used to be, the age of majority plus three years. It has been very flexibly interpreted by many school divisions. It is possible that now this option is going to be closed off, and, of course, this comes at a time when the government is also reducing the options for special needs students elsew here. We know that there are continuing concerns about the St.

Amant Centre and its future as an educational institution. We know that the government has a special needs review in place which may also be altering the conditions of education for special needs. Anyone who talks to the family of a special needs student knows that one of the most serious problems that they face is when the child has to leave school,

4862 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12 , 19 97 because there are so few options for young adults after that. So any diminution of those options for young adults with special needs should concern us and does concern us as a result of this bill. This particular

section also contradicts the advice that the minister received from her Advisory Committee on Education Finance. I have quoted from this document a number of times, because it really does not in many ways seem to have penetrated the government's policy making secretariat or that in the Department of Education, because in many areas, for example, in the funding of private schools, the government goes in a diametrically opposed direction to the advice it receives from this committee. This committee is composed of all the significant, the ma jor stakeholders as they are called, in public education.

The committee advised on adults in public schools that it supports the provision of funding and the payment of residual fees in support of K to Senior 4 education up to a maximum of a diploma plus four credits. The four credits could be any mix of vocational and academic courses. That is straightforward advise. I think it is also very sensible advice. It keeps the flexibility that school divisions have had. It keeps some element, the beginnings element, perhaps, of lifelong learning.

I would not want to claim, by any means, that that is any definition of lifelong learning, but at least it is a start, but instead of which the government moves in exactly the opposite direction. It is going to enable the minister to define the diploma. There is no guarantee in this act. The minister may want to clarify that at committee there is no guarantee in this act that advice is going to be followed. That is very, I would suppose for members of the committee, very disappointing, but it is also I think an indication of the priorities of this government that education is being directed by the bottom line.

It is being directed by an ideology of the marketization, the free-market economy in education, and it is being directed to a policy which will lead to increasing inequality across Manitoba. I have some very, very serious concerns about aspects of this bill. Some of it I think will be useful, but I know that many of my coll eagues want to speak on this, and so we will take some more time to discuss this bill. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, was wanting to put some comments on the record with respect to Bill 27 this afternoon. It is an interesting bill, to say the very least.

I am somewhat disappointed in it in the sense that I think what we could have seen, or what we should be seeing from this government, is a more serious approach of trying to deal with the whole issue of governance within our public educational system. The first part of the bill talks about the schools trustees and how long they should be serving, one year. two years. three years. and so forth. I can recall. and this would be going back somewhere around 19 88, when the government talked about the need to review the numbers of school divisions, the numbers of school trustees.

In fact. it was even an election issue for us back then. It was not untiL I believe, the 19 90 election where the government indicated that, yes, they were committed, actually doing something with this particular issue. Shortly after that election, I can recall questioning the government in terms of: When can we anticipate that the government was going to take this issue off of the back burner and put it onto the front burner?

It took them a while until they finally realized that the status quo was not good enough. and what they did was they commissioned the former mayor, Bill Norrie, along with other individuals, to sit around a table, canvass Manitobans, and come up with some recommendations in terms of what it is that they should be doing with the school divisions. A great deal of effort, resources, in particular, dollars, and add to that just the sheer number of people-and we are not just talking provincial dollars, because I attended some of those meetings that went to the public.

The presentations were very extensive and, you could tell, well thought out in the sense that we had documents that had all sorts of statistical information. One that comes to mind right offhand was Winnipeg School Division No. 1, to some of the smaller school divisions in rural Manitoba that put a lot of effort into trying to put forward presentations. We saw not only from school divisions; we also had from teachers. We - -

June 12 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4863 had from the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I can recall its presentation. A great deal of thought and effort went into that. We had average Manitobans come before-Manitobans that were just concerned about the way in which we were administering the public education through the school divisions. * (1 540) There was a phenomenal amount of effort that was put into a cause, and that cause being trying to better define the way in which we should be delivering public education. When they came out with the recommendations, they were fairly significant.

We saw a sizable reduction in the number of school divisions; a number of the inequities that are there today were, in fact, taken out, at least in part-not in entirety, but at least in part-to try to have more equity throughout the province. And the government took absolutely no action. Nothing was done after that particular report. In fact, worse, the government says, well, we do not want to suffer any sort of a political wrath that might be out there. We are not prepared to lose any votes over this particular issue.

They did not think about what was necessarily in the best interests of Manitobans in the governance of education. Instead, they took the cowardly act of not taking any sort of action, of trying to resolve a problem that has been there and has been there for years, Madam Speaker. I find that is unfortunate . I have spoken to private members' resolutions dealing with this issue in the past. We have pointed out some of the inequities that are there.

Even if you look at the city of Winnipeg, and I made presentation myself representing the party when the commission was going out seeking public input, I said, look at the city of Winnipeg. How do you justify a school division the size of Winnipeg No. 1 compared to a school division the size of Norwood? How do we allocate resources in terms of fairness for those with special needs? Compare a school division like Winnipeg No. 1 in its requirements compared to a school division such as St. James. Look at the tax base.

Look at the disproportional amount of dollars that people who have to pay property tax in Winnipeg School Division No. I and compare it to other areas. (Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Mr. Acting Speaker, I would have liked to have seen, in fact, the commission even go further. There are other injustices that need to be resolved in education today, in the financing of education, and I have raised this particular issue in Question Period. The Minister of Education is too easy or passes the blame on to the federal cuts from transfer payments.

She does not understand who has the responsibility here for K to S4, or K to Grade 12. What we have seen is that growing reliance of financing education on the property tax over general revenues, and this government, as the government prior, in fairness, has done absolutely nothing to address that issue. Quite frankly, I find that is one of the biggest mistakes that this government has accomplished.

If the government wanted to do something for public education, it needs to look at how we govern it because the current status quo system, I believe, is not right, and the government should not just be sitting back accepting virtually nothing in terms of the change in the way in which the school divisions operate today. We have resistance from even within our own party in terms of the numbers of school divisions, the numbers of school trustees, and what it is that they should be doing.

Yet, we are prepared to take a position on this, the issue of the funding of public education, the lack of appropriate funds going to public education from this governm ent-a huge disappointment. So when I look at the first part of this bill, you know, I say here is a minister who is tinkering around with one aspect and not dealing with the broader issue, and that broader issue needs to be addressed. I really believe, had this government not been succes sful in acquiring the ma jorities after the '88 election, that in fact this government would have been forced to take some sort of action.

It would never have been able to get away with the mistreatment of our public educational system today-and the Mini ster of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh) gives a big sigh- An Honourable Member: Yawn. Mr. Lamoureux: Or yawn. The Minister of Education needs to wake up and see and hear what she is being told, and it is not good enough just to try to pass the blame. You cannot blame, ifthere is anyone to blame, Madam Minister, with respect, with all due

4864 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA June 12 , 19 97 respect, with respect to the financing of education, the abuse or the lack of action in dealing with the governance issue, it is this minister and this government over the last nine-and-a-half, coming close to nine-and a-half years, on taking no action. No doubt I will get other opportunities, because it is an issue in which that no doubt I will get future opportunities.

It was unfortunate in the sense that I would have liked to have had more of a presence in one department, or a presence in one department, but because of other departments being debated in the Estimates, I was unable to actually pose any questions to the minister in this educational Estimates, series of educational Estimates, but I look forward to being able to not only next year but even in the interim to attempt to try to influence this Minister of Education to be more assertive in her cabinet as she attempts to be assertive inside the Estimates.

I did get a chance to listen at least in part and watch this minister and the critic from the New Democrats. As I say, I did not participate, unfortunately, but I am sure I will get many other opportunities. Having said that, I will say she is somewhat aggressive in her thoughts. What she needs to do, Mr. Acting Speaker, is to look at what public education needs today and to take those thoughts and be as persistent and as aggressive as she is in the Chamber in trying to defend what the Conservative cabinet has told her to defend and take those issues and be just as aggressive inside her caucus.

Many would argue that she is somewhat frustrating sometimes inside the Chamber in the way in which she attempts to deal with issues or go around the issues, but what we want to see is a Minister of Education that is, in essence, going to be able to get its fair share in terms of finances. We want to see a Minister of Education that is going to have the will to seek change in some of the basic levels of governance, on the whole issue of the school divisions. You know, I made reference to Winnipeg I and St. James. I am sure the Minister of Education is well aware of St.

James because she was a school trustee from St. James-[interjection] All school divisions in the province of Manitoba are very important and are very special in their own way, but the minister is not doing them a favour by completely ignoring the needs. *( I 550) Let me give you an example, and this is something that I said when I made a presentation to the Norrie commission, and that was that if you want to argue that school divisions should be based on communities, then I would advocate that what you should be doing is breaking up School Division No. I.

Why should you allow for some school divisions to be strictly community based and other school divisions not to be community based? Winnipeg I compared to Norwood is a great example of that. So there has do be some consistency in policy and there is none. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Education says: It is coming. [interjection] I will hold my breath, and she suggests that it is coming voluntarily. I should not say I will hold my breath because I will end up passing out.

I do not believe, unless the government is prepared to directly get involved. that we are not going to be able to see the types of results that are necessary today. The Minister of Education will say, oh, the member for Inkster wants the heavy hand of the provincial government to come down on the school divisions. Well, no doubt, in time, if you wait and are prepared to be apathetic or completely disregard the best interests of delivering public education, maybe in time it will happen as more school divisions themselves start to recognize the benefits and start working together.

But is that going to be three years, five year

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-3-60b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 3rd hansardpdf 60b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ba6d5071a4a8d6aa3a17cd8980d96fc4559f6fc5

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