Manitoba Committee Hansard — 9 July 1980 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 24, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-pe24

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker WEDNESDAY, 9 JULY, 1980, 8:00 p.m. Printed by The Office of The Queen's Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN,Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY,Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER, Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vie SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Riel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Vir den Roblin Os borne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC PC lnd NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Wednesday, 9 Ju ly, 1980 Time 8:00 p.m. CH AIRMAN Mr. J. Wally McKenzie (Roblin) MR. CH AIRMAN: The Commit tee will come to order. Bill No. 31, we have a Mr. George Marshal!, a Trustee from Transcona-S pringfield School Division, who would like to make a repres entation tonight on Bill 31. What are the wishes of the Committee? Proceed, Mr. Marshal!. May I also advise the Committee that Mr. Uruski requested this letter be distributed to the members, you all received that one, the members of the Committee, that has been filed.

We also had some documents entrusted to my care the other day by Mrs. Plattner, and she only has only one copy. I think the Clerk is going to look after that so that there will be a copy for both political parties that are here. Proceed, Mr. Marshal!. MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Min ister, honourable members. I would like to thank you for this extension of the democratic process so that I can speak tonight. I would like to speak on a favourite topic of mine, and I would like to say that I am speaking on behalf of myself.

Although I am an elected trustee, I am not speaking for the Divison or for MAST, of which I am a Director at large. I am speaking as an elected trustee. I am speaking on a topic for which I have made a number of presentat ions over the years to a number of Ministers and that is the question of the need of equalization of educational opportunity and particul arly in the urban community through equa lization of the assets of the urban community.

I fundamentally believe this is right, because all the citizens of Winnip eg, regardless of which school division adminis ters their educational needs, pay towards the cost of retiring the debt of and providing services to the city of Winnipeg, and that by virtue of this fact and by the stated intent of unicity, the citizens of Winnipeg are entitled to continue to share in the assessment of their city for educational purposes.

Fort Garry suggests that the Greater Winnip eg Education Levy, as it is called, is inequitable because it presumes the taxpayers and the funding divisions are all wealthy and the taxpayers in the receiving divisions are all poor. This is nonsense. The levy is applied equa lly across all elements of the city, it is precisely the same to everyone. Winnipeg School Division suggests that they have subsidized by some millions and millions of dollars their fellow citizens of Winni peg who have their educational services administered by other divisions. This is entirely false.

The assessment in the division Winnip eg does not belong only to the people within the boundaries of Division No. 1, it belongs to all the citizens of Winnipeg who are obliged to pay to that assessment. Some considerable comment has been made with respect to the fact that there are ten different levies. In fact, if equalization were removed there would still be ten different levies, simply because there would be still ten bodies with the power to levy, with one significant difference the people with the most money, spending the most money, would have the lowest mill rate.

Fort Garry with the highest paid teachers in Manitoba would have the lowest mill rate, and Winnipeg who spend the most number of dollars per pupil would also have a lower mill rate. To put that argument in perspectiv e, a swing of 5 mills in Winnipeg makes a swing of 20 and 30 mills in the suburbs. Quite frankly, the advice that has been given to the Minis ter and to the government and to the Legislature with respect to change in educational finance has been, in my judgment, unimpressive. If only we could pour enough dollars in, if 95 percent of the dollars were provincial, all of these problems would disappear.

If only 80 percent of Foundation Levy were from the province, all of these pro blems would disappear. What would happen in fact is all the pro blems would simply be masked, because I have been this route before. I have been in local government for 15 years, 5 years on Council and 10 years on School Board, and I have seen through the beginnin g of unicity a decade ago, precisely the same thing will happen if there is no equalization to the many divisions which reach beyond the suburbs of Winnipeg, indeed to the Brokenhead River to the east, and to the north and to the south and to the west.

This much maligned Greater Winnipeg Equa lization Levy, if it were applied provincia lly, and this levy doesn't cause a single dollar to fall on property, it simply allocates the dollars that fall on property. If it were to be applied provinci ally tomorrow, the most impoverished division wouldn't pay 5 cents of special levy, because what would happen is that it would be spread up to the lowest per pupil across the whole of the province. How many milli ons of provincial dollars would have to be poured in to reach that goal, if it could be reached at all? I speak tonight as a Manitoban.

I think that there is a need to provid e eq ua lity of educat iona l opportun ity. Not equality, I don't think we can reach that, but equality of educational opportunity, and every child in this province has a right to expect that, and if they don't get it, then we have failed. 11 can't happen by removing within the city of Winnipeg the opportunity for those ten divisions to survive.

Partial equalization of the urban educational mill rate is justified because all the citizens of Winnipeg are called upon to retire the debt of the city of Winnipeg and to pay for such projects as the 60 million downtown storm sewer program, the Trizec inv estment, and the tri-government investment to upgrade the downtown. Partial equalization of the urban educational mill rate is necessary. 1t is necessary because two-thirds of the city's commercial industrial devel opment lies 137

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 in two school divisions and two-thirds of the kids live in the other eight school divisions. That is the kind of inequity you are going to see. One answer might be only to equali ze industrial and not the whole of the assessment, but we have to remember, we're only partially equalizing, we're not equalizing the total assessment. When the present partial equali zation is applied, and it's called the Greater Winnip eg Equali zation Levy and its removal will not solve the problems of Winnip eg. The mill rate in all ten school divisions is exact ly the same.

Residents who are paying throughout the city are doing so because their school boards are spend ing more dol lars for whatever reasons, and that's the thing that's missing in this whole damn equali zation thing. Ther e's no accountability for spending dollars, we're equalizing numbers. And there's nothing either to see what's going to happen down the road after the stability of equal ization is taken off. And that's why we have a unicity, and that's why we're going to have one school division, and if we want one school division, that's what we should be saying.

I bel ieve that educa tional services are best deliv ered through ten school divisions. But we have to be able to share, and if we can't share, there's going to be one down the road because the people will demand it. Because I can tell you from experience that we cannot survive. The alternative to partial equalization is full equalization, one school division, and Mr. Cha irman, Mr. Mi nis ter and gentlemen, I am convi nced the city of Winn ipeg ratepayers would rather spend their educ ation dollars teaching children than creation of another huge bureaucracy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr.

Marshal!. Any quesions from members of the comm ittee for Mr. Marshal!? Thank you, sir. Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had also received a letter from the Manitoba Association for Childr en with Learning Disabilities. it's dated July 8th. lt deals with a correction to an answer to a question which I had asked during their presenta tion. Could I have that filed? MR. CHAIRMAN: File it with the Clerk and all the members of the committee will get a copy of it. Shall we proceed then on Bill 31? Clause by clause, page by page? Page by page, we'll try it and if we have to break it down . Mr.

Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, on Page 1,

Section 1(9) could the Minister advise as to what a statement of standing is? HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): I didn't quite hear the question, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHROEDER: Sect ion 1(9) indi cates that program means a series or group of courses leading to a statement of standing. A statement of standing is, as far as I am aware, not defined. I am just wondering what your understanding is. MR. COSENS: The statement of standing of course is the statement of students' academic standing as to grade level, whether it be a Grade 9 standing, Grade 10 standing, etc. MR.

SCHROEDER: This would be a statement of standing from the local school. MR. COSENS: That's correct. MR. SCHROEDER: I have nothing else on Page 1. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, can I just expand on tha t for the hono urable member, tha t same statement is forwarded to the Department of Education and it could be a statement that came from the departments as well, if it was requested by a student at some time in their life. MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. Sch roeder. MR.

SCHROEDER: Just further to the Minister's answer then, the statement of standing would deal only with the specific marks, it is not something we heard during the hearings about students' records, it just deals with students marks then. MR. COSENS: No, Mr . Chairman, it's academic standing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. D. JAMES WALD ING (S t. Vital): I had a different item on the same page, if Mr. Schroeder is finished. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned when I spoke on the bill in second reading, I have a concern about this bill taking away present voting rights from some Manitobans.

I would like to ask the Minister under 1(5) where it defines a elector, whether he can tell the committee how many people will lose their rights by way of this bill? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, this bill does not change the voting rights from the previous School Act. If the person is not a resident elector then they are not entitled to vote in school board elections. This is not a change from the previous Act so we are not disenfran chising anybody in this Act in comparison to what existed in the old Act. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, with that assurance from the Mini ster, I wonder if I might move an amendment under 1(5) and ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have copy to print out some copies of it, Mr. Walding? MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I might just say as a

preamble that I drafted this myself. lt wasn't done by legal counsel. lt is probably not drafted properly. I believe the intent is there and I would be willing to have it redrawn properly if it is accepted by the committee. I have a copy, Mr. Chairman. I move that the words, "entitled to vote under The Local Author ities Elec tion Act" in the first and second line s, be deleted and repl aced by the words and figures," who is (

a) a resident of the school division or school district; and (

b) a Canadian or 138

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 other British subject; and (

c) is of the full age of 18 years; and (

d) not disquali fied under any other provision of this act." Mr. Chairman, just in explanation of it, those are the words that are used in the present Public School Act and indicate that those people who are entitled to vote are those loyal subjects of Her Majesty who are properly domiciled in this province. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Desjardins. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any objection to the amendment, except there is one thing I think that we've been staying away from lately, it's the question of British subject. We've gone with Canadian citizen especially in a situation such as this. MR.

WALDING: Mr. Chairman, just in answer of that. That's exactly the point that I was attempting to make at the beginning, that if that particular term is deleted , it will in fact take away the right to vote that is presently being enjoyed by some Manitobans. Now I suggest to members, and I did in the House, that the right to vote is probably the most fundamental right that we have, and on that is built all of the other rights that we have.

What we are speaking of here is not visitors to this country or people here on a work permit, we are speaking of those landed immigr ants who ha ve come from other commonwealth countries, who recognize the Queen as the head of state, and who are in fact Her Majesty's royal subjects. Now, their children go to school the same as every body else's, they pay taxes the same as ever ybody else. I'm suggesting it's a funda mental right that people should be able to make the choice of who shall run their school systems. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comment? Those in favour of the motion, please sign ify in the usual manner.

A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the results being as follo ws: Yeas, 4; Nays, 6. MR. CH AIRMAN: declare the propos ed amendment lost. Page 1 pass; Page 2 pass; Page 3 pass; Page 4 amendment for Page 4. By the way, may I put on the record while the amendments are being distributed, a letter to Mr. Cosens from W. J. Brown, Executive Director of the Ma nitoba Division of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind ha s all been circulated and the members all received their copies. Mr. Steen. MR. WARREN STEEN (Crescentwood): Yes, Mr.

Cha irman, on Page 4 of the bill, the amendment is: that Subsection 5(2) of Bill 31 be amended by striking out the words and figure "the question as to whether anything to which reference is made under subsection 1 should be done" in the first and second lines thereof and substituting therefore the words and figure "any matter to which reference is made in clauses 1(d )(e)(

f) or (g)." MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, if I can just explain the necessity for this amendment, on careful consideration of the wording it would appear that the word "as to whether" if you follow through with the wording as it's stated in the Act now, that particular wording certainly does not follow the intent of the clause. it could follow from that particular wording that the Minister then would have the power to negate what might be done in 5( 1) (a), (

b) and (c), those particular actions, and that is not the intent of the clause at all. The intent is that the Minister would have the power to follow through with any of those things stated in (d) (e)(

f) and (

g) on his own initiative, but with the wording that exists there now, there is some concern that it infers that it would be negating what would be done by those in 5( 1) (a)(

b) and (c). MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Pass as amended, Page 4. Page 5 pass; Page 6 pass; Page 7 pass; Page 8 pass; Page 9 pass; Page 10 pass; Page 11 pass; Page 12 pass; Page 13 pass. Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: On the qualifications of candida tes for trusteeship, I have another amendment for that

section along the same lines as the previous one that I read, and I wonder if the Minister would now like to giv e us an explanation. He said, first of all there was no change from the last Act and that no one is going to lose their right to vote. And yet by voting down the same words that are in the old Act he is, I think, admitting that he is changing the qualifications to conform to the local authorities Election Act where the criteria are in fact different from that. Now, given that that is in fact the case, can the Minister now tell us how many people will lose their right to vote because of this bill? MR.

COSENS: Mr. Chairman, again I am informed that the Local Authorities Election Act has exactly the same qualif ication as existed in the old Public Schools Act, or the present Public Schools Act would be a better way of stating it. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I belie ve that if the Minister looks at the Act, he will find that the words are "a Canadian citizen or other British subject". Now, I took those words directly from the present Public Schools Act, not from the Local Authorities Election Act, which is different, and I realized what the Minister is doing.

He is trying to make this Act conform with the Local Authorities Election Act. Now, tha t chan ge was made ab out 19 70 and I was opposed to the change at that time because it in fact took people's voting rights away from them. Now this government is extending that and robbing well, I don't know how many people. lt might be hundreds, it might be thousands. I know when the federal government did it, they disenfranchised people by the tens of thousands, perhaps into the hundreds of thousands of peo ple resident in Canada who previously had the right to vote, were, in one sweep, had that right removed from them.

I noticed that the government has another Act before the Legislature right now having to do with voting rights in provincial elections, where they intend to do the same thing again and, Mr. 139

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 Chairman, I bel ieve it's wrong. You can read the Mi nister's intr oduc tory remarks there, they are talking in glowing terms of makin g it easier for people to extend their franchise and improving the democratic process. Mr. Chairman, in this Act and the other one that's before the House, they are doing exactly the opposite. it's an anti-democratic move that the government is making.

I am req uesting that the Minister, as a Cons ervative who is supposed to be concerned with people's individual rights, civil li berties and the right of people to choose, he is taking away that right from people who now enjoy it. And I say enjoy it advisedly, Mr. Chairman, because I bel ieve they do and I believe it's appreciat ed, and I belie ve it's one of those things that make people appr eciate the value of living in this country and persuade them to go on and become citizens. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding, would you read your amendment into the record please? MR. WALDI NG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will.

I move that, in

Section 22(b), that the words "as defined in the Local Auth orities Election Act" in the first and second lines be deleted and repla ced by the words "or other British subject". MR. CH AI RMAN: All thos e in favo ur of the amendment as proposed? MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, there may be some others who wish to quote on it. The Minister may wish to defend his action in this regard, too. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, as I have stated before ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cosens, Mr. McGill has the floor. Mr. McGill. HON. EDWARD McGI LL (Brandon West): Mr .

Chairman, I have a great deal of sympathy for the position being taken by Mr. Walding, but I think this matter really came to the attention of British subjects who had not, for one reason or another, taken out Canadian citizenship when the federal government first made it a requirement that they obtain Canadian citizenship before being qual ified to vote federal ly. I question whether there are a great number of people who are interested in exercising their franchise who have not, by this time, made that adjustment.

I know it was an upsetting difficulty at the time that the federal requirements for the voting rights were changed. I think what this Act is intending to do is not to be inconsistent with the requir ements for qualifying to vote in federal and provincial elections, and I question really whether this year, and in the one or two years where there may be some people who still have not made this adjustment to quali fy under the federal Act, whether there will be a very great number of people who will be in difficulty as a result of this wording.

I think there is merit in achieving some universality in the requirements for voting, either in school boards or municipally or provincially or federally, and I think we are working toward that end. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I was merely going to add that The Municipal Act of course also follo ws The Local Auth orities Election Act, and we are merely bringing this Act into line with what holds in that case. MR. WALD IN G: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Minister and to Mr.

McGill, I would suggest to them, with all due respect, that to make a mistake a second time does not correct the first one, and if it was wrong to do in the first pl ace, it is twice as bad the second time. Mr. McGill is not correct when he says that it was the action of the federal government that brought this to the fore, and he should know that he was a member of this House in 19 70, I bel ieve it was, when changes were made to The Local Authorities Election Act by the previous government.

I recall the matter very well because there was fair bit of publ icity at that time and there were a number of people who made representations to this committee or whatever the app ropriate committee was, it might have been Law Amendments. I recall it very clearly because I was one of them who presented a brief to the committee at the time. Because of the publ icity that came about the government of the day made some modification to it. They said that this provision would only come in in a certain number of years time.

The Minister is right that the federal government made this change, Bill of Rights notwithstanding, which is supposed, I understand, Mr. Chairman, to protect people's rights in this country. We have a Bill of Rights on the statutues that I am sure honourable gentlemen opposite suppor ted very much when it was introduced some 20 years ago. lt didn't giv e any protection. The Minister says that there probably won't be many people left now who would be affected by this. That may or may not be true and we hav en't had any figures to show it.

I am going to suggest to the gentlemen opposite, too, that there probably would not have been very many people affected by the gov ernment's pr ovision to set up an election commission that had the power to find people guilty of election acts either. Th at was very quickl y withd rawn by gentlemen op posite when it was pointed out to them what an infringement of civil li berties it was. I am suggesting to the committee that this is an infringement of people's civil li berties too, and I repeat, Mr.

Chairman, what we are talking about here is the term "British Su bject" means roughly, people from other Commo nwealth countries. it's Commonwealth countries who recognize the Queen as the head of state, and I will remind all members of the oath that they took, the Oath of Office, when the became first elected, which said, I swear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors; not to a quarter of a million square miles, or to the Cons ervative government, or to the Lieutenant Governor, but the head of state of Canada and that's the Queen.

What we are speaking of here are people who already bear allegiance to the Queen, who is the head of state. In no way can it be claimed that they are not loyal subjects, and as loyal subjects I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, as taxpaying residents of Manitoba, they ought to be able to continue the right to have a voice in this selection of the school board. 140

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHR OEDER: I just would lik e to ask a question. Is it a fact that under the current Education Act a British subject who is not a Canadian citizen but is a resident of Manitoba can vote for school trustee elections? Is that correct? MR. COSENS: Yes, it is. Mr. Ch airman, I am informed that's correct. MR. SCHROEDER: And under the proposed Act a British subject who is not a Canadian citizen, but is a resident of Manitoba, would not be able to vote. Is that correct? MR. COSENS: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. CH AI RMAN: Any further deba te? Mr. Desjardins.

MR. DESJARDINS: I'd just like to ask a question, I don't know if anybody can answer it here. What is the situation in England and other Commonwealth countries, can a Canadian vote in England, for instance? MR. WALDING: Yes, they can, and they can hold office and there have been some very distinguished Canadian Members of Parliament in Westminster, even now. MOTION presented and defeated. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 13 pass. MR. WALDING: What was the vote, please? MR. CHAIRMAN: Put them up aga in, ple ase. MR. CLERK: Opposed 6. For 3. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 13 pass; Page 14 pass. Mr. Desjardins. MR.

DESJARD INS : I wonder if I can make a suggestion, of course, it is up to the committee. If the people that have amendments maybe can say what page and we can pass five or ten pa ges together, instead of calling out one. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Pa ges 15 to 22 were read and pass ed.) Page 23 Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes,

Section 41(1)(e), could the Minister explain why it is that where

Section 194 applies, resident electors are not entitled to examine and inspect financial reports, etc. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cosens. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about military school districts in this case. MR. SCHROEDER:

Section 194 deals with the making of regulations. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I am informed this is the wrong reference, this should not be

section 194, or at least it wou ld app ear to be the wrong reference. If you just can wait one minute we will check out what the proper reference should be. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to come back to it later on if there is . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we might as well correct it now, because it is on this page. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, may I move that there is no argument on that, it is just the question of the right section. Could we move the correction be accepted as amended? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed by the members of the Committee? When the correct

section is we'll amend it and insert it instead of 194, Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, on the understanding that that exception deals with military schools. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, may somebody from the government make the I don't think the amendment has been made, or have you made the amendments? Don't we need an amendment? MR. SCH ROEDER: lt is just a correc tion of a number as I understand it. MR. WALDING: Can we come back to it just for clarification when it has been found, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will leave 23 then. Page 24 pass. MEMBERS: No, no. MR. STEEN: lt's at 41(8).

Is yours before that Mr. Walding? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Under 41(1}, Mr. Chairman, where it says that every school shall, I would move that a new subsection be added immediately following 41(1)(p), and that is 41(1)(q} screen every pupil entering the school system in that division or district for physical, mental, emotional or learning disabili ty.

Perhaps if I can give a word of explanation, we had numerous delegations before the Com mittee speak of the need for early identification of the various disabilities, whether they were physical or learning disabil ities or whatever, and members will probably recall Mr. Henteleff saying that this should be done at an early age, even as young as 6 months to 3 years. This amendment recognizes that children of that age are outside of the responsibility of the school division, that some of them may be identified at those early ages, some might miss that by.

This is inten ded that there shall be for the future a screening formula whereby all children coming into the school system and that would, we expect, be nursery or kindergarten or grade 1, whichever is the soonest, that there would be a process set up where all children would be screened for physical, mental, emotional and learning disabil ities. That might not cover sufficient categories and we would be flexible on that, but what the intent of this motion is to set 141

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 up a screening system to identify children who have special education needs, so that children won't slip by into the higher grades or even upper grades and then be found to have a learning disability which could possibly have been treated if it had been identified at an early enough stage. That is the intent of this amendment and we will be amenable to changing of the wording of it if it is not sufficient to what we intend. MR. CHAIRM AN: Mr. Cosens. MR. COSENS: Mr.

Chairman, I have no problem with the spirit of the amendment in that certainly our government subscribes to the idea of screening at an early age in the system. In fact, we are bringing in a pilot program this fall in several school divisions to test out the best system of student screening. We are looking at the kindergarten and grade 1 age level. We are not proof positive to this point as to what is the best system of screening. We have looked at what has been attempted in some other jurisdicitions. There are some contradictions in what is being done.

There are some appr oaches to the problem of screening that other jurisdictions are not completely happy with. We are not to the point as yet where we are absolutely proof positive of the best system. This is the reason that at this point we are approaching the whole business of screening on a pilot basis.

For tha t reason I would not be prepared to enshrine this in the legislation at this time. lt is quite possible that a year or two hence that an amendment to the Act may take place that would, at that time when the government of the day has settled on a screening program for the complete system, that they feel would meet the needs and do it in the proper way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Chairman, we have heard a great deal about this over the last several days of the committee sitting and if in fact there are questions as to which system of screening should be used, I would say that is something that could be taken care of in this amendment. That is, the amendment isn't saying what specific system of screening is to be used. lt is simply a matter of asking for screening.

If you can find better methods of screening we would be most happy if they were applied , but I would suggest that this particular amendment wouldn't tie us into a position where we had to use one system as opposed to another, other than if the Minister is saying that this may be too late, then he might have a valid point there. That is, by the time that they are at age 6, maybe three years or four years have gone by past the point where they could have been caught, either in this system or in the Department of Health and Social Devel opment or some other system.

Possibly if the Minister could expand on what he means by system of screening? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Desjard ins. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the last speaker. The Minister is saying, yes, we want to screen. No w we are talking about the type of screening, so therefore the intention is there, but he seemed to agree, I think, that were were receptive when we had delegations, so I wonder if the Minister would consider this compromise. Could we pass this with the understanding that this would be proclaimed only at a la ter date when it's decided by the Lieutenant Governor-i n-Council? If's a new act.

We would have that there, which would certainly clearly show our intention, and when you are satisfied that the screen is being done, then you can proclaim it. Would that be acceptable to the Minister on that understanding? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Desjardins, I could probably liv e with that type of comprom ise. Certainly it's the intention of this government to even tually have a universal screening program across the province. Once again, there is the problem of the method of deliv ery of that particular screening program.

Perhaps two years down the road the decision may be that it should be handled by the Department of Health with young people at age three, and it then would not be a responsibility of the school system. That is why I have some reserva tion, Mr. Chairman, in this regard that we are certainly at this point saying that it will be the school system that will do it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, I do sympathize with the last two speakers and I would be prepared to withdraw this amendment if there were a way in which all children could be screened at a much earlier age with the assurance that none would fail to be screened. The intent of this amendment is to say that at least this is the bottleneck through which all children shall go and none shall escape it, even if they come in from another province, in Grade 2 or Grade 3, the intent is that they would be screened, so that from some point in the near future hence forward we could say that at least we have caught all of these disabilities.

We have heard that ideally somewhere between six months and three years it should be done, but if some other system can be set up that would sup ercede this I would be quite happy for the responsibility not to be within the school system. But until that is there, this is suggested and I would not reject my col league 's suggestion tha t it not be proclaimed until sometime in the future when proper screening methods can be set up, although I will say that it was my understanding that these sorts of things were to be taken care of following Bill No. 58 that we passed some three years and not proclaimed.

I think it was Bill No. 58. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, following in the same we agree on so many things, I wonder then if it was done to take care of the concern of the Minister, if a word was added, screen every pupil entering the school system in that division or district, who have not previously been screened, and that would cover those if later on decide that . . . Because if the Department of Health do it, it won't be universal. lt is practically impossible unless you have them at 142

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 schools. There is no way that you can say you are going to bring all your three-year-old children. Some won't go to kindergarten, some will, and it is not possible to have. We've tried that in the Department of Health on vaccina tion, innoculation and this thing, and it is very very difficult. If this was the case, and if its done later on, that would take care of that At least our intention would be in the bill. And again, with the unde rstan ding that this would not be proclaimed at this time.

That would cover your concern if it is done somewhere else, then it's all right, and if not, well then you would be able to do it at that time and nobody would be without it, at least when they start school at the very latest. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGILL MR. McGILL: Mr.

Chairman, with the endorsement in principle of the idea of an eventual screening process being put in pla ce, either by the department of the education or possibly by another department in government, would it not be the safer way to proceed to consider an amendment to the act when such a screening process has been through the pilot period and has been ach ieved and some understan ding has been gained as to the best method of procedure? Would it not be safer to leave that for an amendment to The Public Schools Act at a subsequent session? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr.

Chairman. lt seems to me that the suggestion of Mr. Desjardins makes a great deal of sense to me. If we add in the words or words to the effect that we will only be screening those in the public school system who had not already been screened previously, surely we are leaving ourselves open to nothing at a later date other than possibly removal of a

section that we won't need any more once all the kids getting into the system have been screened by that time, but it would seem to me that will be some time down the road. I was just looking at the brief which we received tonight from the CNIB , on page 2, at the top of the page it should also be unde rstood that visual impairment is not and should not be restricted to within legal blindn ess only. Children with visual impairments outside of legal blindn ess can have seri ous lear ning problems as well which are attributable to visual impairment.

Provision to ensure compr ehensive vision screening for all childr en should be included with The Public School Act. And just further up on the page was a sentence that I wanted to read in.

"lt should be understood that there may be as many or more children who are visually impa ired than are now known to the CNIB." So we are talking about even peo ple with a handicap which we lay people would assume would be easily picked up by parents, by relatives, by the school system, the CNIB says that there are at least as many who have not been detected as those who have been detected even with that type of an impairment, and it would seem to me that there is some urgency in having this type of provision put into the act. I think that the accomodations sugg ested by Mr.

Desjardins would satisfy the concerns expressed by the Minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comment? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, as I say, I have no problem with the spirit of the amendment. In fact we are moving in this direction. Once again I have a problem with timing. Mr. Desjardins suggests that can be overcome by not proclaiming the section. That may well be, although really then all we are doing is stating intent in this case in the act and not saying at what point it will be achieved. Mr.

Chairman, the other problem, and I keep coming back to it, is the problem that we may encounter if the del ivery of this particular screening is done by another department of government. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Desjardins. MR. DE SJARDINS: Mr. Cha irman, and to the Min ister, I think that with the permission of the mover, if we did add those who have not previously been screened, I think that would take care of the problem that you might have.

I think that this quite important, I mean for the people who are concerned with this also, it lets them know that we are going in this direction and also it will give time for the people, because it's not just a question of the government deciding, it might be that this might take a while to get the proper apparatus or whatever and the quali fied people to do that. So I think this is usually, well usually, I shouldn't say usually, but this is often done in this manner to educate the people, for one thing, in the community of what's coming and also to give them a chance to get ready.

So with these two provisos, if we add, for those who have not previously been screened , that will take care of the concern if it's done by somebody else, because if somebody else does it they should do it in the first year, at least I think the Minister suggested it might be done earlier. Then secondly, that this will be proclaimed by an Order- in-Council by the Cabinet when they have got everything ready. I can't see any chance that we're taking at all, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? The motion before us is the proposed amendment of Mr. Walding. Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, before we take the vote, I bel ieve my colleague suggested changes to the amendment that would be quite fine with me. MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two amendments. Okay, as amended. MR. WALDING: I am saying that I would have no objection to those two principles going into this. MR. CHA IRMAN: Mr. Balk aran will read the amendment as proposed then. MR. A. BALKARAN: Clause 41(1)( q), as proposed by Mr. Walding and amended by Mr. Desja rdin would now read, "screen every pupil, who has not previously been screened, entering the school system 143

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 in tha t division or district for physical, mental, emotional or learning disability". A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the results being as follows. MR. CLERK, Jack Reeves: Yeas, 3; Nays, 0. MR. CHAIRM AN: I declare the amendment passed. 41(8) Mr. Steen. (l nterjections) Mr. Walding, proceed. MR. WALDING : Mr. Chairman, on 41(4) I move that the word "a pprop riate" be added immediately following the word "for" in the first line thereof, so it would read, "Every school board shall provide or make provision for appropriate education ... " MR. COSE NS: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if Mr.

Walding would define appropriate education. MR. WA LDING: I recognize the diffi culty, Mr . Chairman. There was some difficulty in drafting it, but again, it follows from the concerns expressed by numerous delegations before us, again having to do with special needs education.

I believe the concern was there that merely the right to go into a school building or sit in at classes would not necessarily be appropr iate education for childr en with special needs, and that certain differences of approa ch, different surroundings, different individuals, perhaps even dif ference in ma terials would be needed according to the special need of the child.

That is the intent of the amendment, and as I mentioned earlier, it may not be precise in expressing what we want, but I bel ieve that the intent of it is quite clear and is clear to any of those members who listened to the many groups who came and made that point to us. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I would agree with what the Member for St. Vital has just said, and I would add that we've heard, over the last few days, and even with that brief from the CNIB, that there are a number of kids out there who apparently aren't getting all of the services right now that they require in order to obtain an appropriate education.

In the last 10 or 20 years great strides have been made in terms of discovering what is wrong with some of the kids who weren't making it in the system. I refer especially to the submissions of the people from MACLD, there were a number of examples provided of childr en who ha d problems and with some adjustments, possibly some special training for a short period of time, they were able to take their place in the system.

And what this type of provision would do is entitle our children to an education which would be appropriate to their needs. lt is one thing to take up a seat in a public school for 10 years and not be able to read at the end of it. That may well be an education, it may well be that is all that kids are entitled to under existing legislation. We are saying that we are now passing a new Act that kids should be entitled to more. They should be entitled to an education which is appropriate to their needs, and if some children need more assistance than others, then they should be entitled to that by the system.

And if we don't give it to them, I think Mr. Kovnats said it very well the other day, we c an't afford not to give it to them. I think we should be passing this amendment tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Mr. Cosens. MR. CO SENS: Mr. Chairman, I can say to the two previous speakers that I think the idea that the school divisions are not offering what we would call appropr iate education is one that I cannot subscribe to. I think that is the aim and the goal of all parts of the system to provide the best level of education that they can, the program that is most suitable to each individual child.

Whether in fact we are talking about special needs children or whether we are talking about the so-called normal child , all children are supposedly receiving, and I'm sure once again it is the goal and the aim of every school division to provide the best programming we can for all children in their particular division. By the addition of the word "appropriate" here, we would not be clarifying this issue at all. MR. STEEN: Mr. Chairman, by adding the word "a pp ropr iate" each division might define what appropr iate is slightly different from the previous division.

I think adding that word is clouding the issue rather than keeping it good and simple and straightforward. MR. CHAIRM AN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHRO EDER: Just in answer to the previous speaker, I suppos e that without the word "appropriate" we could have each school division interpreting the word "education" in a different manner and arriving at a different standard of education.

Of course, I suppose that brings up the whole area of what exactly the rights of the students in the system are in terms of their education; and if they are not receiving what they or their parents feel to be an appropriate education, what their remedies unde r the exis ting legislation and whether the proposed legislation provides any additional means of appeal.

We did hear a lot ab out appeal procedures and there must have been suggestions from five or six different groups with respect to that issue itself, that if the parent feels that his child is not receiving an appropriate education, are there any mechanisms for appeal in Bill 31 which would be useful to the parent which weren't present in the old Education Act? MR. COSE NS: No , Mr. Chairman, there is no formalized app eal procedure in this Act that was not present in the old Act.

At the present time, under the present Act and cert ainly under Bill 31 as its proposed, parents do have recourse to appeal to their school division and, after having appealed to the school division, if not satisfied, they appeal to the Minister. In fact, this does happen on occasion; the case is investigated and actions taken. But once again, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see that we can legislate perfection and I think the member, Mr. Steen, has touched on a rather significant point here that what would be defined by one school division as appropriate may well not be defined in the same way in another.

I think what we have to strive for is not 144

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 legislat ion stating what perfection is, we have to strive to provide the supports and the services that will, in fact, provide the best level of programming possible. MR. CH AIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Cha irman, in reply to the Min ister and to Mr. Steen who said that dif ferent school boards might have different

interpretations of "appropria te". The "appropria te" here doesn't refer to a particular class of dis abilit y. it refers to a particular child. The intent here is that an education appropria te to that individ ual child shall be what is needed. it simply would not apply in any comparison between sch ool divisions because the child would only be at one school di vision. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to recognize that special needs educ ation has come a long way in the last few years. The situation as it stands today is a great impr ovement over what it was just three, five years ago.

I give the Minis ter some credit for this, as well as school boards and a general acceptance, I believe, by the population of what is needed. I believe that those groups that came to us speak ing of this recognize that simply by writing words in a statute is of itself not going to change anything, that what is required is the will and intent of the government and of school boards to see that we move towards the most appropria te education for individ uals.

I suggest that the acceptance or otherwise by the government of this amendment will ind icate quite clearly what the intention is for the future of special education. MR. CHAIRMAN: The proposed amendment of Mr. Walding. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 3; Nays, 4. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment lost. 41(8) Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: I have an amendment to 41(5). MR. CHA IRMAN: Read it into the rec ord, Mr . Schroeder, please. MR. SCHROEDER: That the words "inc luding transport ati on " be in sert ed after the word "provision" in the second line thereof.

The purpose of the amendment would be to entitle students who are being sent by a school district into another school di vision to transportation by their local school board to the place of edu cation in another division. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was this

section and 43(6) appear to be contradictory and this was pointed out to us by one or more delegations coming which would seem to limit trans portation from a point no closer than half a mile from the residence of the pupil. We would see a deletion of 43(6) as going along with this amendment. If it were accepted, we would propose to delete 43(6) so as to remove the apparent contradiction. I believe the intent of this amendment is apparent. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, the regulations that apply to the transportation of pupils take care of the particular cases that I believe are referred to here.

To remove 43(6) and so on would certainly create a com pletely new picture in the transportation area. We are looking at transportation of students across the pr ovi nce, we' re in 43(6), if the hono ur able member notes, we are dealing with students who have a lane that they walk down of some half-a-mile perhaps to the roadway and this type of thing. If we were to delete 43(6) then we are doing away with that type of provision and we would have school buses travelling down country lanes all across the province. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, if it would be the let me start from the other direction. 43(6) would appear to me to say in the Act that no school bus can come MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's stick with 41(5) if we can. MR. WALDING: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I believe the two things go into together and I am pointing out an apparent contradiction of them to follow up from what the Min ister said. 43(6) would seem to suggest that no school bus can come closer than half a mile to a residence to pick up a child, yet the Mi nister is saying that for some particular needs, and I believe we are talking about special needs again here, that a school bus can come right to the door.

Now I believe that a regulation cannot per mit something that the Act itself says cannot happen, and that is the reason why we were suggesting that 43(6) be deleted from there to allow a school bus to pick up a child right at the door. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairma n, 43(6) does not prevent that happening. lt says, "N o school board shall be required to . . . " lt doesn't say that they will not, it says that they shall not be required to do that. MR. DESJARDINS: The department or the Minis ter can't say ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Desjardins. MR. DESJARDINS: I am sorry.

Jus t for clarification, the Minis ter then is saying that it is left strictly to the school division, the department could not establish a progra m f or retarded childr en, hand icapped children. I mean they would have to be at the mercy of the board. At least if you had something su bject to the regulation or something like that in there. In 43(6) it seems to negate anything else. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think there is some confusion here possibly on both sides. Going back to

Section 41(5), under that

Section school boards sha ll ma ke provision, sha ll, it is not a question of may. lt is a requirement to provide for a pupil to attend at a school in another school division for a program which is not provided in the home dis trict. 145

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 What we are saying is that if you are requiring a school division to provide a program in a district other than its home district for a student, that that requirement is totally meaning less if you don't also req uire the school division to pr ovi de the transportation. I thought that was clear enough for me not to have to comment on it but, as Mr. Walding pointed, out we were hoping that we could delete

Section 43(6) in tandem with

Section 41(5). The rationale for that is if you go to

Section 43(1),

Section 43(1) states that no school board is required to transport children who have to walk less than a mile to school and we are not qua rreling with that excepting for special cases. Then you move on to

Section 43(6), it says that "No school board shall be required to extend a transportation route beyond the boundar ies of the school division or school district." Okay, no school division shall be required to extend a transportation route beyond their district. Now that, we have said all through the hearings, is in direct contradiction to any regulation which would require that very same school division to bus kids into another school district. You can't have it both ways.

You can't say in the Act you cannot require the school board to transport kids into anot her district and then require that very same school board in your regulations to transport kids into another school district. What we are saying is we want that removed in tandem with the addition requiring transportation under

Section 41(5). MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say more or less what Mr. Schroeder did, and perhaps legal counsel can advise us about the apparent contradiction here of the Minister attempting to do something by regulation that is prohibited by the Act itself. That doesn't seem right. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know how we will deal with legal counsel.

We were in a problem with the press the other night by letting legal counsel get involv ed, and I don't whether to do it by leave or how we are going to handle it but I don't want to get blasted again for letting the committee get out of order. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking legal counsel to involve himself in a political debate or give a political opinion. All I want to know is the Statutes regulation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who is going to judge whether it is political or not? MR. WALDING: You will be, Mr. Chairman, you are the Chairman. MR. CH AIRMAN: If Mr.

Balkaran can leave his words with somebody else, I think we . . . MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, let's not play games. The gentleman is here to adv ise committee. There has been a request by committee to give us a legal interpreta tion, not to take sides or talk about policy, just a legal

interpretation and we are entitled to that. MR. CH AIRMAN: With the perm ission of the committee, Mr. Balkaran. MR. BALKARAN: Mr . Chairma n, I think Mr. Schroeder has a point when he says, as you read 43(6) that no school board shall be required to provide transportation etc. and then by regulation you go on to say that they can do just that. So you have a prohibition in the statute which is removed by regulation. My su ggestion would be, if government wants to retain 43(6), preface that subsection with the words "subject to the regula tions." MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with the other one there. MR.

BALKARAN: But we haven 't got there yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: We haven 't got that far yet. MR. WALDING: No, but they go together, Mr. Chairman, we want to understand them both. MR. SCHROEDER: In view of the fact that we haven 't gotten there, we'll talk about that when we get there. MR. CH AIRMAN: 41 (5) is amended by Mr . Schroeder, that the words "including transportat ion" be added immediately after the word "provision " in the second line thereof. Any further debate? QUE STION put on th e amendment , MOTION defeated. MR. CHAIRMAN: 41(8). Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: Mr.

Ch airman, my motion is that subsection 41(8) of Bill 31 be struck out and the following subsection be substituted therefore: "A ppoi ntment of Audi tors. 41(8). Each school board shall annually appoint an auditor who shall be a chartered accountant or an auditor appr oved by the Provincial Auditor and in determining whether a person is qualified to be appr oved for appointment as an auditor, the Provincial Auditor shall have regard to that person's (

a) education , (

b) training in accounting and auditing, (

c) practical experience in auditing, and no person shall be appointed as an auditor who is not a member in good standing of an incorpor ated body of accountants in Canada which requires of its members and has power to enforce a high standard of professional conduct." MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cosens. MR. COSENS : Mr . Chairman, in this particular clause 41(8) there had been some concern expressed by other associations of accountants that they were not being consid ered adeq uately for audit ors positions with school boards across the province.

What we have done here then is to adopt the wording found in The Municipal Act in regard to auditors and have added through the amendment the fact that education and training in accounting and auditing, as well as practical experience in auditing, would be taken into consideration. lt's my understanding that certain groups of accountants do not necessarily have auditing experience as part of 146

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 their training and they do pick up that type of experience after they graduate through working with a firm that does a great deal of auditing. And I'm also informed that having picked up that experience, they then are qualified, to provide that service. So we have made this par ticular change to try to accommodate that type of person. MR. DESJARDINS: I think the Minister explained my concern. I certainly go with the intent of this motion.

I had thought it odd that we tal ked about people who are members in good standing of an incorpo rated body of accountants, that did not have a B.C, but apparently this is the case. They are in good standing but they have had no experience. MR. COSENS: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? MR. COSENS: Perhaps we could go back, Mr. Chairman, to that other section. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 23 as amended pass. Mr. Balka ran will explain that. Proceed, sir. MR. BALKARAN: Mr. Chairman, in clause (

d) after the word "where" if the words "a regulation made under" added. First line claus e (d) "a regulation made under" after the word "where". So it would read "In the case where a regulation made under

Section 19 4 appl ies" not

section 19 4 but a regulation made under

Section 19 4. MR. CHAIRMAN: And what about (

e) then. Same. MR. BALKARAN: Same change in (

e) after the word "where" "a regulation made under" is added. MR. CH AI RMAN: Cla rified. Okay. Page 23 as amended pass. Now page 25, any amendments? Mr. Balkaran. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we passed the amendment on 41 (8 ). MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, as amended, I'm sorry. MR. WALDING: No, the amendment MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, pass the amendment. I'm sorry. You're right, Mr. Walding. MR. CHA IR MAN: Thos e in fa vour of the amendment of

Section 41( 8) as proposed by Mr. Steen. QUES TI ON put on the amendment, MOTION carried. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 25. Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: 41 (11) , Mr. Chairman, if there are no amendments prior to tha t. Hearing of none my Motion, Mr. Chairman, is that subsection 41( 11 ) of Bill 31 be amended by adding "thereto" at the end of Clause (

a) thereof, the word "and" and by striking out Clauses (

c) and (

d) thereof. MR. CHA IR MAN: Mr. Cosens. Do you wish to explain to the Com mittee? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, (

c) and (

d) in 41 (11) really apply to 41( 12 ) to the supple mentary report and 1 unde rstand that they also appear in The Municipal Act in this way and really are mispla ced. What we are really doing here is just correcting our placement. They do not apply in 41(1 1). MR. WALDING: I am not sure I understand, Mr. Chairman. Is 41 (11) referring to the annual financial report of the school board? MR. COSENS: 1t applies, Mr. Chairman, to the au dited report, the 41( 12) appl ies to the supple mentary report. MR. WALDING: In that case, Mr.

Chairman, why should the auditor not give his opinion as to whether the balance sheet and statement of revenue and expenditure present fairly the financial position of the school division? MR. COSENS: Well (

a) and (

b) are retained, Mr. Chairman. I think that satisfies; it's only (

c) and (

d) that we are referring to. MR. CHAIRMAN: Delete (

c) and (

d) from 41( 11) and add to 41(12 ). Page 25 as amended pass; MR. STEEN: I'm not finished yet, Wally. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: Mr. Chairman, my motion is: THAT subsection 41 (12) of Bill No. 31, be amended by striking out the word, "and" at the end of clause (

a) thereof, and by adding thereto at the end of thereof the following clauses: (

c) Whether the funds of the school division have, to the best of his knowledge and belief, been paid and disbursed only under authority granted by

an Act of the Legislature or under autho rity of a resolution or bylaw of the division made under the authority of

an Act of the Legislature; and (

d) Whether any irregularity or discrepancy in the administration of the affa irs of the school division came to his notice in the course of his examination. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 41(12 ) as amended pass. Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: The same as (

c) and (

d) from the previous section; they've just been moved down a section? MR. STEEN: That's right, that's all. They were misplaced. MR. WALDING: Agreed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 25 as amended pass. Page 26 Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHR OEDER: Mr . Chairman, I ha ve an amendment to

Section 43( 1) . I just have two copies of it. it's written out. 147

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 I move that it be amended by adding thereto, at the end thereof, the words as follows: "and, further, transportation from home to school shall be provided regardless of distance, for those students who are unable to walk to school because of physical or other handicap". I believe that amendment is self-explanatory. The provision itself requires a school division to provide school transportation for those pupils who would have more than one mile to walk in order to reach school.

This amendment does not change that in any way excepting for those students who are unable to walk to school for physical or other cause; and based on the submissions we heard and the advice the committee received over the last number of days, we are Informed that, in fact, students who are unable to walk, for whatever cause, are currently receiving that transporta tion, and in fact, putting this into the Act is simply going to provide that right in statute law, even though the children alr eady are enjoying that right de facto. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cosens. MR. CO SENS: Mr.

Chairman, this particular provision exists now under the regulations. We pay grants to school divisions for transportation of hand icapped students, those who cannot walk to school portal to portal, under regulation 17 0(77), and really what the member is suggesting is that we then take that regulation and put it into the Act. MR. SCHROEDER: Of course, once we pass this Act, at the time we pass this Act, there are no regulations.

We will be passing new regulations persuant to this Act, one would presume. lt would seem to me that now would be the appropriate time to decide what we should have in the Act and what rights students have and I think this is one of the rights which we should not be able to take away from students by regulation. I would like to see it right in the statute so that no future Minister of Education, who is not as kindly disposed as the current and past ones, will take this right away from students without the opportunity of the Legislature to discuss it. MR. COSENS: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps I could just make a couple of comments. First of all, I remind the member that the old regulations do stay in place until new regulations are written. I think he inferred that as soon as we pass this particular Act that there would no longer be any regulations in pl ace. The regulations remain in place until new regulations are written, so I would dispel that type of apprehension on his part. If his amendment could include, "provide or make provision for", then I think I would have less problem with that particular amendment, and I'm wondering, Mr.

Chairman, what his reaction would be to that particular aspect. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I would be quite happy with that, Mr. Chairman, "provide or make provision for", certainly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? MR. COSENS: No, Mr. Chairman, as I say really what we would then be doing is putting into the Act what currently exists in regulation and certainly what is the intent of this government. I have no strong exception to this being pla ced in the statutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: 43( 1) as amended . . . MR. COSENS: As long, Mr. Chairman, as we can word it in such a way that it says "provide or make provision for".

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, understood. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Balkaran. MR. BALKARAN: Mr. Chairman, the amendment would strike out the words, "be provided for those" in the second line of 43( 1) and substitute the words "provide or make provision for the transportation of". MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed, as amended? 43( 1) as amended pass. Page 26 as amended pass. Page 27, any amendments? MR. COSENS: Yes, 43(6), Mr. Chairman. I believe it was to read "subject to the regulations". Is that correct? MR. BALKARAN: it's the beginning of the sentence. MR. COSENS: The beginning of the sentence. MR.

WALDING: There would appear to be two parts to this. Firstly, a school board transporting students across the bounda ry of ae school division and secondly, the point about "half a mile from the residencs of". Now, my question is, by putting those words subject to the regulations, will that then permit a school board to transport a student across the school boundary? MR. COSENS: lt does now. MR. WALDING: I'm concerned about the regulation permitting something that is prohibited in the Act. MR. BALKARAN: But it is allo wed by the regula tions now. MR. WALDING: In both of those ... MR.

BALKARAN: I shouldn't be answering that, I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on. MR. BALKARAN: lt is. MR. COSENS: Mr. Cha irman, I don't think we completed 43(1). Could you read that amendment again please? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Balkaran, we'll revert back to 43(1). MR. COSENS: Read perhaps the complete clause. 148

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 MR. BALKARAN: The clause would read, "subject to the provisions of this Act, under regula tions, in all cases where the transportation of pupils is required it ... " that would be the school board, sir? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the word "it" is causing some difficulty there and I would wonder if the Minister would give me some guidance at to what is meant by "it", is this the school board? MR. COSENS: Transportation. Transportation shall be provided. MR. BALKARAN: Oh yes, that's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Read it again, Mr. Balkaran. MR. BALKARAN: No, it still doesn't . . .

Who is to make the provision, the school board? Well, that's what I was saying, that "it" should be "the school board shall provide or make provision". MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Balkaran, proceed. MR. BALKARAN: In the second line, strike out the words, "it shall be provided for those" and substitute "the school board shall provide or make provision for the transportation of". MR. COSENS: No, but there is more to it than that. Mr. Schroeder's amendment and his wording is not included. MR. BALKARAN: lt thought it was decided just to make this change . . . Oh, these words are to be added. MR. COSENS: At the end thereof. MR.

BALKARAN: Well then, Mr. Cha irman, I suggest that you just put the amendment of Mr. Schroeder to a vote and just add it on. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 43( 1) as amended by Mr. Schroeder. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, could we hear what the amendment is then, the complete wording? I think that is our problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Balkaran. MR. BALKARAN: I'll read the whole subsection including Mr. Schroeder's amendment.

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations, in all cases where transportation of pupils is required, it shall be provided for those pupils, who would have more than one mile to walk in order to reach school; and further, transportation from home to school shall be provided reg ard less of distance for those students who are unable to walk to school because of physical or other handicap" . MR. COSENS: Not "provided", it shall be . MR.

SCHROEDER: Ob viously we need some amendment to that and I would prefer to have my amendment read "and further, provision for transportation from home to school shall be made regardless of distance for those students who are unable to walk to school because of physical or other handicap". MR. COSENS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that has dealt with the wording adequately. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you read it again then, Mr. Balkaran, please? 43(1). MR. BALKARAN: 43 (1) as it's printed, Mr. Chairman.

And you add at the end thereof "and further, provision for transportation from home to school shall be made, regardless of distance, for those students who are unable to walk to school because of physical or other handicap." MR. CHAIRMAN: 43( 1) as amended pass. Page 27 pass as amended, subject to regulations Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, at least first of all on

Section 43(6) a question. We have on 43( 1) a statement that "no school board shall be required to provide transportation for those who have less than a mile to walk." 43(6) says you don't have to deposit or pick up childr en at a point closer than a half-mile from the residence of the subject . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we've already gone into that subject to regula tions. MR. DESJARDINS: But shouldn't it be subject to 1 now, 45(1)? MR. SCHROEDER: Well, why have it a half-mile in one spot and one mile in the other? MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, could you have instead of "subject to regulation', now that we've amended 43( 1) "subject to 43( 1) ". Would that answer the ... MR. BALKARAN: lt still doesn't take care of the fact that the regulations authorize transportation outside the jurisdiction. MR. DESJARDINS: Well, subject to 43( 1) and the MR. BALKARAN: lt will be subject to the regulations in Su bsection (1) . MR. CHAIRMAN: And Su bsection (1) . MR. DESJARDINS: Yes, and subsection (1) . MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 27 as amended then pass; Page 28 pass; Page 29 pass; Page 30 pass;(lnterjection) 29, I'm sorry. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman,

Section 48( 1)(r ). The school board may decide who shall be school visitors. Now school visitors I understand were defined in some old Act, but they're not defined in this Act and if it just means who can come into the school, then I would refer the Minister back to

Section 41(1)( i)(

e) which entitles any member of the public to attend at the school, to look at certain 149

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 records, of course subject to the regulations under

Section 19 4. So I'm just wondering what this means, if anything. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, it's an attempt to provide the school boards with the authority to prevent people who they may deem to be undesirable from entering the school, or loitering in school premises. lt's an attempt, I sup pose, to protect the welfare of students. MR. CHAIRMAN: 29 pass. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, could I mention that in 41(1)(

e) I think it was referred to by Mr. Schroeder, that has to do with looking at the financial report. You wouldn't go to the school to look at the financial report, that would be found in the school board offices. MR. SCHROEDER: So we really are looking at two different cases. Wel l, I would suppose that in a number of school divisions you would have the school board offices located in a school somewhere. MR. COSENS: I think that would be very much the exception, Mr. Schroeder. MR.

WALDING: I seem to recall that MLAs were specifically designated as school visitors in the old Act and I'm wondering just how many decades that goes back, that it was necessary to say that an MLA can go into a school. lt looks like one of the horse and buggy things from 80 years ago and(l nterjection) I question the very insistence of deciding who shall be a school visitor. I mean if there are undesirable people that a principle doesn't want to cross the threshold, surely he has the authority to say, you're not allo wed in here. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, he does not have that authority. MR.

SCHROEDER: Is the Minister saying that if someone comes into the school and if the school board has not said that this individual cannot be in the school, that the principle can't ask that individual force that individual to leave the school? MR. COSENS: Well, certainly, yes, Mr. Chairman, he can. That particular power can be delegated to him by his employing body, the school board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 29. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman,

section 48(4) indicates that a board may suspend or expel from a school any pupil who upon investigation is found to be guilty of conduct injurious to the welfare of the school. Does the Minister not feel that that should be defined in some way? I'm thinking of, for instance, I was recently made aware of a situation where a high school ha d a student newspaper publis hed and approximately half of the material in it was censored.

No w somebody could have suggested that the particular type of material pub lished or attempted to be publis hed would have been injurious to the welfare of the school. lt would seem to me that type of situation should not be one which would attract exp ulsion. Does the Minister not feel that there should be some definition of the type of heinous crime required for expulsion. MR. COSENS: Mr.

Chairman, it becomes very hard to define and I think we have to pl ace some trust in people who are emplo yed with expertise to carry out particular functions, whether it be administration or the instructional function, that they will use proper judgment. In cases where proper judgment is not used, of course, there is recourse to the school board and then I suppose beyond that appeal can be made to the Minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: 29 pass. Page 30 pass; Page 31. Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: On page 31, Mr. Chairman, motion is that

section 52 of Bill 31 be amended by striking out the word "annual" in the first line thereof. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps a word of explanation. lt is felt that the word "annual" is really unnecessary here and in fact may restrict flexi bility of the school boards in operating their particular school divisions. By the removal of the word it provides more flexibility and(lnt erjection) that's right. MR. CH AI RMAN: Page 31 as amended pass; 32 pass; 33 pass; 34 pass; 35 pass. Mr . Walding. MR. WALDING: 56(6). I wonder if the Minister would give us an explanation of this.

I note that it follows other subsections dealing with the apportioning of war ds. There is a form ula sugg ested with a representation quotient and I wonder if the Minister would explain this par ticula r

section or does it suggest that this could be undemocratic? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, the problem that we encounter here is using the population formula in its strictest sense. lt does discriminate against certain school divisions where you ha ve an urba n component and a rural component. The concern in that case is that the rural component would not be adequately represented and we have attempted here to make provision that in those particular instances they could retain that ward system outside of the population quotient.

In other words, they have a choice of following the population formula or existing as they now do, with the strict ward system outside of the popula tion formula. There are certain school divisions, if we were to follow the population formula strictly, that would lose a cert ain amount of representation from areas of the school division. MR. WALDING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister speaks about strictness in apportio ning wards and I would refer him to 57(5) which allows a figure to be set 25 percent greater or 25 percent less than the quotient and that in itself giv es a ratio of five to three.

If the Min ister is saying that even that is somehow unfair, then it comes down to, I suppose, the ph il osophical question of representation by people and is one person's vote to be approximately equal to another person's vote. Do you suggest that one trustee is representing a certain amount of real 150

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 estate, or is he representing people? When it comes :!own to that, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that all of our democratic system is based on elected representatives repres enting people and not real estate. If everyone is to have a vote, that only makes ;ense if one person's vote is approximately equal to 3nother. What I am suggesting is that the Minister 1ere is drifting away from that very long-standing :lemocratic principle. !II R. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not drifting away 3t all.

I would give two examples to the honourable 11ember, of Brandon and Selkirk I believe are two cases in point where, if we were to follow the :>opulation formula in the strictest sense, we would be diminishing the number of trustees that represent the people of those particular school divisions, which Nould appear to me to be less democratic and by the provision that we have here, those two school divisions would be able to retain their present 1umber of trustees and the rural areas that make up 3 considerable part of those two school divisions Nould retain their representation.

Those are the two cases in point that I would ask the honourable 11ember to consider, but there are as well others, I Nould imagine. !II R. WALDING: I do consider them and I know that that's a matter of concern to the those people who ive in a more sparsely popula ted area. But would there be any reason why the size of the or the 1umb er of trustees could not be increased, so as to <eep the same number in the more sparsely settled 3rea and simply provide more in the more densely :>opula ted area, to keep that principle of approximate 'epresentation by population? !II R.

COSENS: We have certainly left the alterna tive here, Mr. Chairman, so that the school divisions can 11ake their choice. Actually we have not closed the :loor on either alternative. If they wish to follow the population basis in the strictest sense, they certainly 11ay do so. They don't have to pass the by-law. But 1f they feel that that would discriminate against the representation that they presently have, then they 3re quite free not to pass the by-law. !IIR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to question 57(8) and 57(9). And that is the matter of changes in Nard structure to a referendum.

I understand that this provision was in the previous PSA, and put in at 3 time when there were annual elections for school boards which meant that if it were decided to go for 3 refer endum because the people in the school :livision wanted a change, it could be voted on next (ear and come into effect at the election just one (ear later.

Since that time, we've moved to three fear terms for school divisions which means that ;hortly after an election if it's wanted to have a change and it's required to go to a referendum, it could be three years before there is a referendum 3nd then following the results of that, it could be a further three years down the line, which means 3nywhere between three years and six years could pass before the will of the people wishing that :>rovision actually came into effect. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, this has not been a problem, to my knowledge.

I think the apprehension that the honourable member has in this regard is probably not suppor ted in fact by practice. I can't think of any particular case in the last number of years where this held true. And, of course, elections are generally two years in a large part of the province. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I first became aware of this, perhaps about three years ago in an urban or suburban school division, where there was some dissatisfaction and some of the residents anyway requested that such a change be made.

But on lookin g into the Act and finding out what was involved, that there would have to be three years before it could go to a referendum and a further three years before anything could happen to it, I believe the people involved just gave up out of impatience. They couldn't wait for six years to have the changes that they wanted brought into effect. The very fact itself that either four years or six years might go by before there is an actual change made is very discourag ing for people seek ing such a change. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure where the honourable member gets his three years from.

There is nothing in the Act that says the referendum would have to be held every three years or that it would have to wait for three years to be hel d. There's nothing that stipula tes that at all in the Act. MR. WALDING: Mr . Chairman, I was under the impression that a referendum would take pl ace at the time of the next school board elections. If that is not so, perhaps that is a change from the previous Act, I'm not sure, but I think that answers the question that I had on that, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 35 pass; Page 36 pass; Page 37 Mr. Steen. Sorry, Mr. Doern. MR. RUSSELL DOERN (Eimwood): Mr.

Chairman, I would like to speak against

Part IV on page 36 and 37 if we're now dealing with that, I want to speak on it and have a voice vote on that section. This is the

section which has to do with agreements with private schools and the sect ion alon e is to allo w the government to make direct grants to school divisions in Manitoba.

Now this really is a milestone, in that, never before in our histor y ha s a provincial government, well, let's say, at least not for 80 or 90 years, has a provincial government made a direct grant in aid of private and/or parochial schools, and although this mechanism itself does not seem to be significant, namely, that it simply takes the former procedure whereby the government paid money to school divisions and then the school divisions passed it on, so it just seems to be some sort of insignificant alteration. lt think it is in fact substantial because it now paves the way for direct aid to private and parochial schools.

I predict, Mr. Chairman, that it won't be long before there will be capital grants; and that it won't be long before more and more aid is given; and that this will be the result of mounting pressure on the part of the sup porters of these 151

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 schools based on the precedent that this government is establishing and the fact that this is the thin edge of the wedge, which is getting thicker all the time.

The disturbing part, in addition to the philosophic al question of whether or not the state should provide aid to private and parochial schools or the question further back about whether the state should provide aid to religious orders or to churches; and I'm now thinking in the broad sense , namely, tha t if a parochial school is church-oriented, that by giving aid to it one is, in fact, giving direct aid to churches of different faiths.

Disturbing to me, in particular, is the fact that while the public school system is in fact deteriorating around us, the private and parochial schools appear to be flourishing, or if they're not flourishing, they are not deteriorating. They are either holding their own or flourishing while there is no question that the public school system is not holding it's own but is in fact facing some very serious problems.

I find it personally disturbing that some of the Min ister's col leagues seem to be very staunch defenders of the priv ate and parochial school system, I think in particular the Attorney-General, who made a strong plea about the value of private and parochial schools, the superior discipline, the better education, and so on. I wonder whether he in fact . ran on that pla tform in the last election, and I wonder whether the Minister of Education ran on that pla tform in the last election.

I never heard him make any statements or any of his colleagues make any statements about how they were going to undertake a new thrust in this direction. So I find it disturbing that the Winnipeg School Division, when they come to this Minister as an example and ask for special assistance, they have the door slammed in their face.

If the Minister wants to talk about special needs, he can talk about them till he's blue in the face, but I have to tell him that he has been approached time and time again, and I use "special needs" in the broad sense as opposed to only physically hand icapped children, I use it in the sense of special requirements for extraordinary circumstances of poor people, of immigrant children, of transient children, and so on and so on and so on, and when these people have come, on behalf of their constituency, to the Minister and ask for special assistance for special needs for two years running, the Minister offered them not a penny more.

MR. COSENS: Wrong, wrong. MR. DOERN: Well, the Minister can explain how he did in fact giv e them a penn y more but my understanding is that for two years he held the grant and in the third year he provided an additional half million dollars on a request of some 7 million. So, Mr. Chairman, I look at the papers, all of us have seen that there has been a crisis in education in the past year or two. We've seen some extensive public concern; we've seen some extensive public meetings, petitions, problems; we've seen mass layoffs in the teaching profe ssion. We're in a period now of retraction, I suppose,

whereas in the Sixties there was expansion. In the last few years there has been some slo wdown and. we see tha t the tea ching prof ession is cutting back, there are fewer opportunities. We read frequently in the paper of dozens and dozens of teachers being eliminated in the various school divisions because of declining enrolments. I do not believe that the Minister is addressing those problems. I do not believe that he is providing sufficient funds to meet the costs of inflation.

I know that at the higher levels of university and community colle ges that he is failing to provide sufficient funding for that level as well. So on one hand we have the public school system, which we are respo nsible for as legislators and pu blic representatives, in trouble, and you ha ve fewer students, you have fewer teachers, you have fewer schools, you have fewer classrooms; and on the other hand, the Min ister seems intent on enriching the private and parochial school system. I have some figures here, I think it's very clear. I've asked the Minister time and again for figures.

I have some figures from him but I still don't have what I had wanted. I simply read into the record a few figures from 19 72, 19 73 up to 1979, 1980, so this is for the past seven years and the pattern is very clear. it's a slow but sure increase. Seven years ago there were 44 schools and today there are 55 private and pa roc hia l schools in Manitoba, so there is an increase there, I guess, of 25 percent or whatever.

In terms of students, there were 7,200 students seven years ago, there are now 8,300 students, so there is an increase of 15 percent in students; and in terms of teachers, there were some 335 teachers seven years ago and today there are some 455, so that's up about a third. I think the impression is clear that there has been progress in terms of expansion. If you look at the public school system, we see declining enrolments and declining opportunities for teachers and others. So I simply say, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that I speak against this

section and I vote against this section. I think that while the Minister is nurturing the private and parochial school system, he is starving the public school system because he is not providing adequate funding for his main responsibility, if not his only responsibili ty. I would like to remind him that is his main responsibility, the Manitoba public school system. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Desjardins. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to speak on this section. Needless to say, I disagree completely with the remarks of my colleague. I find his words, as his dress, obscene. And, Mr.

Chairman, I think the important thing here that the first thing that we should think of is not endangering the public school system. Secondly, we must recognize the parental rights in education. I think I have, even if I'm a member of the minority, I have a word to say, all my children will be educated. I don't think that I have to leave that in the hands of Mr. Doern, not more than I would try to be bold enough to tell him how he should educate his children. I bel ieve in equal opportunity and that was mentione d by all the members of this committee. I bel ieve in equal opportunity for all children.

I find it ridiculous to compare, to say because there are problems in the public schools, if there are any and there will be, and there always will be and 152

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 here always were, when you're dealing with so many :hildr en, no matter what government is in power and hey will always want more and more and that's the vay our system works. But to say this is caused by he private schools because they're progressing is he same thing as for a sports minded person to say, veil, let's dissolve, let's wreck the Yanke es a few rears ago when they won so many pennants, or the i!lontreal Canadians. That's not the way to go.

You JO if somebody is progressing, you look at what hey're doing and you build up the league or the earns or the system; you don't tear it down. And, Mr. Chairman, this is so injust, to say, well, 111 right, they should have more money; at the lxpense of who? At the expense of other people. �ren't we citizens of Manitoba? Don't we count? )on't we have a right to educate our children? We 1re receiving more.

The private schools and the >arochial schools are getting less, way less money han the public schools, and if they are such a ;uccess that my honourable friend is concerned >ecause they are progressing so well, why doesn't he nstead look at what's going on and maybe they can >orrow a leaf from their book, if that is the case. I don't think the public schools are that bad or are ;uttering that much. The comparison doesn't stand 1p. it's just like saying, well, if we spend less money >n health in the north, we'll be able to give more to he people in the south.

They are Canadians, they 1re Ma nitobans, and they ha ve a right to be tducated. If the system is not in danger and if they 1re following the prescribed curriculum, there's 1othing wrong. lt shows comple te ignorance to say hat these schools, parochial schools, are church >riented. What is a church? What do they preach? "his is not going to make a church any richer. lt is a :ertain group in society who feel that there is more o education than just trying to teach how to make he bucks. That is important but that is not the only 11por tant thing.

There are a lot of things that you have to look at. 'ou'll have to face the reality of life, the problems in fe, and this is an education that we try to give our .tudents in parochial schools. If other people do not iant that or want less of that or want to emphasize >n the material part of it and the dollar sign, that's heir business. But, Mr. Chairman, I commend the 10vernment for making these changes this year.

The >nly cha nge there was, of course I'm goin g to .upport it, was in effect, going along with the 1mendment that I made last year in this committee hat it was out of order because it was dealing with noney. The member that just spoke tried to put words in he mouth of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, to say hat they were against it. What they said, if there is a 1rant, if the senior level of government decides to 1ake a grant, to make some money available to hem, why should we have the responsibility of lishing it out? And they are saying they agree with 1is amendment.

Now they are saying that as far as 1e public school system, where they can help it is in he shared services. That's all they said. Some 1embers might be, and some of the school trustees 1ight be against that. This is something that they've . . And to say to somebody that you run on that, re we asking that question on every single item that ; brought in, on any piece of legislation? For the edification of the members of this board, I ran on that.

One of the main reasons I came into politics was to try to correct this injustice and it was a gross injustice that was perpetuated for a hundred years or so and finaly somebody ha s the guts to do something about it. I commend them and I commend all the members of the House that have tried to arrive at something. And to say that maybe they will be asking more, I would imagine that they will. Any group, any pressure group, we've heard, and the member himself, the delegation of people on day care, and they said, we'll always ask for more, we'll never be satisfied.

We won't get all we want, all we ask for, but the minute that we keep being militant is the time we go down. I think that I will be satisfied, for one, and I serve notice, and I don't play games, that I will be satisfied when there's parity between the two groups, when there is equal opportunity for both, providing of course, and I'll repeat this, that I do not want to endanger the public school system. Now this is something that was brought in by the former government, of which the last speaker was a member.

They did it in a way that became the question mark as to were they doing it legally? lt was made legal last year, that's all, and this year they're doing the next step of saying, well, if it was legal, we might as well do it ourselves. This government, although I do not agree with them in all ins tances, have the manda te to do it and I don't think they have to be reminded, it's certainly the right of every member to remind them if they want, that they'll have to stand or fall on their record and all their records, not only on this legislation.

I have no fear of saying that I will continue to be part of my campaign, I couldn't dissociate myself from this if I wanted to and I've been fairly successful so I have no hesitation in supporting this and I disagree very very strongly with the words of the last speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cosens. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address my remarks basically to the changes that have resulted in this particular area and perhaps not address some of the remarks made by Mr.

Doern, who has ridden that particular hobby-horse before and I know that he has a blind spot here and he also denies the history of this particular area. I remind him that the shared service legislation has existed for some years in this province and under his particular government for a number of years, aid was provided to private schools in a very questionable way, a veey questionable way. Five school divisions did avail themselves of that method of funding private schools, that was questioned, and questioned very seriously by legal minds in this province.

In 1978 this government clarified that particular legislation by making it possible for private schools to receive financial assistance for children receiving instruction in the private school. In other words, what we did was, we legal ized what had been going on for a number of years in a questionable manner. We did not increase the amount of money that was provided for assistance to private schools. That formula has not changed, Mr. Chairman. lt will not change under this particular Act. Private schools are not receiving 153

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 more money today than they were receiving three years ago or four years ago, at all. The only change that we are making in this particular Act under 60(5), is that, rather than the money to the priv ate schools going through the school board's hands and then to the private school, in other words, the school board being a conduit for those funds, the money will go directly from the provincial government to the private school. And this, Mr.

Chairman, is at the request of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, who have said that they don't want to be the conduit, that they don't want to become the book keeper in this particular process. By resol ution, at several of their conventions, they have made that particular request to the government and we have acted on it in this particular Act and that, Mr. Chairman, is simply what is taking pla ce. I'm not going to respond to the member's remarks about the problems in the public school system. I think Mr. Desjardins did that quite adequately.

If the Member for Elmwood feels that we can somehow solve the problem of declining enrolment, then I wish he could give us the solution. it's called not enough babies being born, Mr. Chairman, and if he has a solution for that, I'd like to hear it, because that is the problem that bedevils the system at this time. Of course it is creating all sorts of pressures as far as physical accommodation is concerned, it is certainly creat ing problems as far as staffing numbers are concerned, but these are not problems, Mr. Chairman, that have resulted from the action of any particular government.

They resulted, I would suggest, perhaps from lifestyles in our society and it's a problem that we will have to cope with to the best of our abi lity. But certainly I don't think it reflects on any particular school system, the fact that less children are being born in our society. lt does create problems though and will keep creating problems well into the late 19 80s. So I say again, Mr.

Ch airman , tha t the only particular change in this Act as far as private schools are concerned is in the method that the moneys that they will receive are paid and rather than the school boards being a conduit for those funds, that money will now go directly from the provincial government. Again, I remind you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, on the request of the Ma nitoba Associa tion of School Tru stees, the Ma nitoba Association of School Busine ss Officials who, through resolution, have petitioned us to make this particular change. I would suggest also, Mr.

Chairman, that there is a slight amendment, a word change, in 60(5), the word "prescribed" in the first line of part (

a) should be changed to "appr oved ". Do you have that particular amendment? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, first to my colleague, Mr. Desjardins, I must say, at first I didn't recognize him. I thought he was a Hawaiian tourist and I want to say to him that he and I have debated this matter, I guess, since 1966. We debated it in 19 67 in my riding, in front of my constituents, at my political peril, and I imagine that 14 years from now, or 13 years from now, we'll still be debating it.

He'll still be maintaining his position and I will be maintaining mine, and I do not object to him fighting for what he believes in and I'm sure he ... MR. CHAIRMAN : May I just, if I may, try and bring debate back before the bill that's before us and the sections that are before us, if I could. Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak in the terms that I am. I'm speaking on the principle, I'm speaking on the section. The

section has to do with changes which are fundamental in terms of the financing of private and parochial schools and I am not in favor of the degree of funding and the manner of funding of private and parochial schools that this government has undertaken. I wanted to say to Mr. Desjardins in passing, 1 don't know if he meant this but he said something about the Teachers Society, trying to put words into the Teachers Society's mouth. I think he must have been talking about the school divisions complaining about the fact that funds were passed to them and then that they had to pass it on.

I want to tell him that the position of the Teachers' Society and I read from their brief of July 19 80 is that they said that, "it is the pol icy of the Society that assistance only be provided through shared services," that they are obviously not in favor of direct funding but they are in favor of the shared services concept, which was well established in Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the Minister that if he had problems with what the New Democratic government had done, he suggested that the New Democratic government had done things which were not correct in his view.

If he's the Minister and he thought they weren 't correct, he should ha ve eliminated them. He's now telling us that he thought they were incorrect and he's legitimizing them and exten ding them and expanding upon them. Tha t strikes me as a peculiar position. If he didn't like what was done, then he should have had some changes made. I also want to say to the members of the Cons ervative Party that when a res olution came before this House, the House in the 1970s, that they voted 18 to 1 against even a study of the question.

They were so bitterly opp osed to aid to private and parochial schools, they couldn't even countenance a study, they couldn't bear the thought, because that study might have led to some funding of private and parochial schools, so they shot that down. And then when they become the government they bring in measures which they never discuss, they never talked about during an election campaign. I say they have no mandate to do what they are in fact doing. They were 95 percent against it; now they are 100 percent in favour of private and parochial schools, which seems to me that they are now standing on their head.

The other points that I make, Mr. Chairman, is to the main question which is, is this government a staunch supp orter of the public school system which to me is the fundamental question. Is this Minister a staunch defender of the public school system? I say he is not. I say his government is not because they are not coming up with the doll ars. They are not keeping abreast of inflation and they are, at the 154

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 same time, channelling some of their funds into an alternative school system. Mr. Chairman, I simply say in conclusion that, sure the Minister says the problem is the birth rate. He says you tell me the answer, you tell me how to increase the birth rate and all our problems will be solved. I want to tell him that's not the only problem. lt is not the only problem, the declining birth rate. The other alternative, the other problem that this government has that they are not tackling is out migration.

There are people leaving this province with families and, in particular, the people who are in their twenties and thirties and their early forties, that is always the problem area in Manitoba and there has been a steady increasing flow of people outside this province. Ten thousand people left last year. You want pupils, you want students to fill your classrooms, and you want taxpa yers; you better tackle the economy. You better do something about the fact that Manitoba is in an economic doldrums.

So I'm not sure that our government can do much about the birth rate, but I am certain that our government can do a lot about economic prosperity which I believe will keep a higher number of people, taxpa yers and students in the province of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern, you have ranged very widely from the subject matter that's before the committee. I hope that the rest of the members will stay in

Part 4 of the Act that's before us, otherwise we'll be here the rest of the summer. Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: Mr. Chairman, I just want, through you, to Mr. Doern say that at a public meeting held at the St. lgnatius School, which is a private school in the Crescentwood area, the question was asked of the candida tes of the three major parties, did they supp ort shared services?

I bel ieve I was the only one of those three that said they did and I said that if we became the government that I would do everything in my power to convince my colleagues to clarify the matter that they had in obtaining funds from the Winn ipeg School Division. So when you ask whether, sir, whether certain candidates who ran in the last election stood for shared services or did not stand for them, I can tell you that I did at a public meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sch roeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Chairman, it would appear that we are heading away from shared services here in direct grants, but I would like to ask either the Mini ster or Mr. Balkaran about the word ing of

Section 60(5). lt doesn't make sense to me. I read it and somehow it seems the first line, for instance, the Min ister may pay to the private school by way of grants under the regulations. Shouldn't it be the Min ister may pay funds to the private schools by way of grants? That's No. 1. it seems there is nothing referring to money in there anywhere. lt seems like incorrect English. Secondly, we say in the first paragraph that the Min ister may pay some funds to the private schools if he is satisfied that (

a) and (

b) exist, both (

a) and (b). Then we go on in that very same

section to say, or, that is the Minister may pay to the private school by way of grants under the regulations, etc., where the Minister is satisfied that, and then there is an "or" after paragraph (b), satisfied that or in respect of any of the matters mentioned in clauses (

a) and (

b) and the provisions of Parts I a nd IX authorizing the making of regula tions respect ing grants and autho rizing the makin g of grants apply thereto, mutatis mutandis. I would suggest that is very very confusing English. I would hope that something will be done about it and I would also hope that the Minis ter would explain exactly what that last paragraph of

Section 60(5) means. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, following on from wha t Mr. Sch roeder said. My col league from Elmwood said at the opening of his remarks that there will be no grants for capital purposes to private schools and that he thought this might come at some time in the future. I'd like to ask the Minister whether 60(5) would allow or does allow the Minister to make capital grants to private schools? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. WALD I NG: I'm asking the Min ister, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I was just taking them in order. The Minister. MR. COSENS: No, Mr.

Chairman, it does not, that is not the practice at the present time. I suppose a government could make that particular decision and make that provision in regulations to do that, but that is not the practice nor our intention at this time. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I read in that whole

section and it's a long one but it starts off with the Minister who may make grants, and then it says, the provisions of

Part I and IX authorizing the making of regulations respecting grants apply thereto. Which I presume means thereto, under this

Part IV. And if you turn to

Section 9 to see what the

section is that applies, you will find, for example, 17 2 which says that the Finance Board may make grants in respect of, and (

g) says construction of schools or impr ovements or addition to schools of capital nature. Now that's a bit convolutive there, Mr. Chairman, but I'm suggesting that if you follow it through, the sections enumerated there, it would seem that regulations can be made having to do with a number of different grants and

Part IX deals with grants and levies; that it would seem to be able to be construed as the ability to make grants to private schools. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that this is a rat her compl icated section, but the provisions, Parts I and IX apply not to the children receiving instruction in the private schools, but those in the private schools who would go to the public school to receive instruction. The old shared service concept where the instruction is suppli ed by the public school, the moneys are still paid to the public school and, hence, the reference to the Public Schools Finance Board who does pay all of the grants that go to the public school system. Once 155

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 again, Mr. Chairman, where the children from the priv ate school are receiving instruction in a public school, then those funds are paid by the Public Schools Finance Board to the public school division board. MR. WALDING: To follow up on that statement, Mr. Cha irman, it would seem tha t 60(2) deals with agreements in the public schools. 60(6), under which this wording occurs is headed "Grants to priva te schools" and the paragraph begins, "The Minister may pay to the private school by way of grants". If this payment at the end of the

section applies to payments to public schools or to school divisions, it would lead me to ask why it is under the heading of Grants to private schools, and why the paragraph begins in that manner? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, there may be good reason here to clarify the wording and perhaps we could ask the legal counsel to take a look at that now and suggest a clarification. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Balkaran. MR. BALKARAN: Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty because 60(5), the first line speaks of grants to private schools, and I don't how you can change that heading to anything else but "Grants to private schools".

But as you read on, the reference to Parts I and IX, there is only a reference to say that those parts authorizing the making of regu lations respecting grants apply with respect to the grants to priv ate schools. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I have a concern there, too. I don't know if my colleague is finished or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schr oeder and then Mr . Desjardins. MR. DOERN: No, is Mr. Walding through? MR. WALDING: I'm not sure that I had finished, Mr. Chairman. I'm just looking back over

Part IX and I find it has to do with balance assessment, equal ized assessment, foundation programs and things of that nature. lt's headed "Grants and levies to school divisions", none of which would seem to have much relevance in grants to private schools. lt would then seem odd why the provisions of

Part IX and the regulations under them apply to grants to priva te schools, since grants to private schools are paid on a different basis than those to public schools. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Desjard ins. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, to Mr. Walding and the Minister, Mr. Balkaran, would that improve the situation if the last paragraph, if there was a way that you could work it under 60(2), because, you see, the heading is "Grant to private schools" and it could be misleading. If this was worded under 60(2), which is an agreement with the school board, I think that would improve the situation. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: lt seems that we all agree that there should be some changes made. I would suggest that we just take

Part IV and put it to the end of the program and continue on, and maybe in the meantime, couns el could come up with something and we can get on with the program. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, as a member, I'll agree to this on one condition, that it's not going to reopen all the discussion on the principle of

Part IV just for clarification of that section. I would hope that this is what the member means, that we don't reopen the whole thing on

Part IV again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I would concur with an examination of that

section to be held aside because I read that exact ly as indicated by my colleague, Mr. Walding, that this to me means that there can be, in fact, direct grants for construction or renovations of schools. So if that's what the Minister wants he should say so, and if not, he should change the wording. MR. COSENS: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not what we want at all. We're attempting to cla rify this

section so that it can apply where the services are offered also in the public school. MR. CHAIRMAN: lt is agreed then, we set aside

Part IV until a later Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Then why are we doing it here? MR. CHAIRMAN: 60(5), yes. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, just one brief comment here. I wanted to reply to something tha t was indicated by the Member for Crescentwood. He said with some pride that he had taken a public stand in favour of shared services and I commend him for taking that stand in public, but I have to tell him that he doesn't know what is in this bill. This bill does not continue shared services, it elimi nates shar ed services.

This bill, in fact, is a bill that has direct funding of private and parochial schools and spells the end of the Roblin government's program of shared services. So I think that we can obviously count on him to sustain that position and he should also vote against this

section if he got elected on the basis that he was for shared services, he is obviously in opposition to

Part IV. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I had a suggestion that we'd approve this

section and just lay it over this one part of it, that's not satisfactory to me. Even though I've made this suggestion of a change in 65 I'm still oppo sed to

Part IV and I want the opportunity to vote against it. I also had a couple of other questions on private schools, as such, not directly under 60(5). I wonder if I might just raise those with the Minister? Again, while they're working on it. Mr. Chairman, I notice that private schools are defined, either in this Act or in 19, as "those private schools that are entitled to receive publi c funds." Ther e seems to be no 156

Wednesday, 9 July, 1980 definition at all of any private school that is not eligible to receive pub lic funds. There is a considerable vagueness throughout the Act as to what the status of those are. lt would seem that the Minister is setting up two cla sses of private schools, those receiving public aid and those not. I wonder if he would care to comment on this matter and just what is the status of those private schools who do not wish to receive pub lic money. Are they not subject to the same restrictions and criteria for teaching certain subjects and cert ification of teachers and other things of that nature? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, in Bill 19 (1)(

g) under

definitions, a private school is defined as "any school other than a public school which provides a curriculum and a standard of education equivalent to that provided by the public schools." MR. WALDING: Yes, I read that. But then again, under the heading of Grants to Private Schools, it would seem tha t there is no reference, no req uirements for publi c schools not recei ving financial aid to meet any sorts of standards at all. Is this the Minister's intent. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I refer the honourable member again to Bill 19 (1)(

g) where it says "A school which provides a curriculum and a standard of education equivalent to that provided by the public schools ." In Bill 31 , where private schools are applying for financial assistance, then not only is that add ressed, but also the fact that they must have certified teachers. MR. WALDING: Right, Mr . Chairman, so wha t definition do we then have for those private schools tha t do not provide the equ ivalent standard of education and so do not apply for public funding? Are there no standards for those schools, or is it just not a private school?

Is it now to be some other designation, publi c schools, private schools and elsewhere is a word used somewhere. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, whether they apply for financial assistance or not, they are still required to provide a curriculum and a standard of education equiv alent to that provided by the public schools. MR. WALDING: Well, Mr. Chairman, again that's not my reading of it. (1) (

g) in 19 says "a private school means any school other than a public school which provides a curriculum and a standard of education." Now if there is a school which is outside the public school system that does not provide a curriculum and a standard of education equivalent to that in the public schools, presumably it doesn't meet the definition of a private school, therefore it is not a private school. If it is not a public school and it's not a private school, what is it? MR. COSENS: Then, Mr. Chairman, if we are to carry tha t to its logical ext ension , under the attendance portion, I believe, of the Act,

Section 261, then in that case it is not a school and is not providing education to the children and the parents are liable under the attendance policy. MR. WALDING: Can the Minister then confirm that a parent teaching his or her children at home would also come under the same category? MR. COSENS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there will be an amendment in (1)(

g) of Bill 19 , however, to take into recognition that particular category or situation. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, under 261, yes, here we have the expression "at home or elsewhere" and it's the elsewhere category that I'm concerned about here. lt would seem, well maybe I should ask the question later when we get to 261, that the field representative apparently can certify the els ewhere. And also I believe that the Minister can excuse a child from school under those provisions. So what the Minister is saying is that there can be a third category of standard of school. MR. COSENS: Yes, tha t's right.

For the home schooler. MR. WALDING: In other words a standard less than a curriculum and a standard of education equivalent to that in the public schools. This apparently is to be accepted in the future. MR. COSENS: No. Regardless of whether it is in what we unde rstand as a private school, Mr. Chairman, or whether the child is being educated at home, they must be following a curriculum and achieving a standard of education equivalent to that found in the public school system. I bel ieve the Act at the present time says "a satisfactory standard" under 261(

b) and it would be my intention, Mr. Chairman, to amend that so that it would read the same as the qualification for the students in the private school. MR. WALDING: Okay. Thank you. MR. DES JA RDINS: Before we, I think it was understood unless you were ready with 65, could we take into consideration, instead of changing it again, the amendment that we have in front of us, changing the word "prescribed" to "appr oved" and then you'll have it all at once. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can explain the necessity for that. In Bill

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-pe24
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf pe24.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c87f1aa4f01ebc30ef382d6404daa7e15ca04ead

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