ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 137 - 2:00 p.m., SATURDAY, 6 AUGUST, 1983. Pnnted by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT , Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Cl.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOUR LAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHIL L, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Cl.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Cl.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Cl.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Cl.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Ass iniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Saturday, 6 August, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUESTIONS Labour Liaison Officer MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that there are very few Ministers here to ask questions of, I would ask the First Minister if his Minister of Labour, or he, will be hiring an individual to liaison with the community of labour in the province, as the Min ister of Economic Development has hired an individual to communicate with the business community? Will there be the same type of liaison person hired to deal with the labour community? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the principal purpose in respect to the hiring of Mr.

Fullerton is not to liaise with the business community as such, but to assist in respect to different projects pertaining to economic development within the Province of Manitoba. There is a much wider scope than simply liaising with one particular group or other. MR. J. DOWNEY: So, Mr. Speaker, I would take it then that the First Minister is saying there will not be an individual hir ed to liaison with the labour community. Is that correct? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, not to only commun icate with the labour commu nity or to communicate with the business community or farm people, the responsibility indeed on the part of elected people, is to do that kind of liaising and, of course, the responsibility of each and every senior civil servant or others that are in the employ of government, is to participate in the process of preparation of government programs, and during that process of course, there is consultation, involvement and participation. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, then I have to take it that there will be more liaison people hired by this government.

Will they be hired at the same wage as the individual, or salary that has now already been set by the Min ister of Economic Development, some $400 a day, or some $85,000 per year? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing in my earlier remarks to indicate that a liaison person, 5029 as such, had been hired, or any intent to hire people solely for the purpose of liaison. Deterioration of crops MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture isn't here, I have a further question to the First Minister.

In view of the fact that the last few days have definitely reduced the crops and the potential production of the agriculture crops in Manitoba, can the First Min ister give us an estimate to the dollar value that is lost by the farm community over the last few weeks with the extreme heat; is there a dollar value that he could place on it? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I could not place a dollar value, but obviously the problem is worsening in respect to the deterioration of crops, particularly in the southwestern and south central parts of the Province of Manitoba, and that will continue to, indeed, cause deterioration of crops if this continues in other parts of the Province of Manitoba. The extreme heat wave has resulted in the potential for serious dollar loss.

I think, at this particular point, it is very very difficult to safely apply any estimate of dollar loss, except to advise that its clear that if the present heat wave, the extreme intensity, does continue, it will have severe impact on the Manitoba agricultural economy. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Minister, can he assure the farm community, and those individuals who have taken crop insurance out through the Department of Agriculture, that there are sufficient funds set aside by the province to cover any major losses that may be incurred if the continued heat were to persist? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to accept that question as notice because I remember during the year of the drought, when there was a severe and extreme situation, the normal flow of funds that were expected to be sufficient, as I recall it, for crop insurance purposes was insufficient. So, in response to that question, Mr. Speaker, it certainly depends upon the severity and the extent of any crop loss consequent upon continuation of the present weather conditions. I would take the question as one of notice for further comment on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, the First Min ister is quite correct, tha t during the dr ought under the Premiership of Sterl ing Lyon and the Progr essive Cons ervative Government in addi tion to the Crop Insurance Program there was some additional $40 million put in place to assist the farm community with the drought conditions. Will the First Minister match that kind of contribution to the farm community if, in fact, the crop insurance does not cover the farm community adequately? Will he be prepared to put the same kind of money in place?

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 HON. H. PAWLEY: Clearly. Mr. Speaker, there is no MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Perhaps the honourable member would like to rephrase his question so that it is not a hypothesis. The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, will the First Minister put a fund in place to support the farm community due to the fact that we have seen a deterioration of crops and incomes to the farm community? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that we must fulfil! our commitment in respect to crop insurance obligation.

At this particular point, of course, it is difficult to project as to whether or not existing funds will be adequate or not. It is clear, however, that if the heat conditions continue as they have been for the last few weeks, if they continue for any period of time, that we can be in the kind of circumstance that the Member for Arthur has indicated, we will ft•lfill whatever obligations we have, as indeed did the former government in 1981 pertaining to claims in regard to the Crop Insurance Plan. labour liaison Officer MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. In the Department of Economic Development there is a

section called Human Resource Development. This department works with management regarding labour problems and assisting them to have good labour relations. Is the intention to pay these gentlemen in this department the same price as Mr. Fullerton is being paid, $85,000 a year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier to the Member for Arth ur, the responsibilities involving Mr. Fullerton go beyond simply liaison with the business community. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, the Department of Labour has several gentlemen in the Department of Labour who liaison with industries regarding their labour relations. Will any members of the Department of Labour be paid $85,000 a year? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, again I remind the honourable member that the responsibilities in respect to Mr. Fullerton go beyond the issue of liaison into other areas of responsibility pertaining to economic development in regard to the Province of Manitoba. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Mr.

Speak er, was ther e any competition held for this position when the government required a liaison officer between government and business, was there any competition held? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is not a Civil Service position, but is a consultant's contract. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thompson, the previous Deputy of Economic Development and Tourism was a President and Chief Executive Officer of a company, nationally, and came into the Government of Manitoba earning, I believe, $54,000 a year. What is the justification of paying Mr. Fullerton $85,000 a year? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr .

Speak er, as the Mini ster ind icated yesterd ay, we've successfully obtained a person of Mr. Fullerton's calibre, and talents, and skill, at a salary which is 60 percent of that which he had earlier been receiving from Imperial Oil of Canada.

He has skills and talents that will be of assistance in regard to the Government of the Province of Manitoba and in undertaking programs and projects, and following through in regard to Economic Development programs - (Interjection) - Yes, including the liaison with the business community, that will certainly be helpful in the carrying out of the responsibilities of the government. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the First Min ister could inform this House, other than the psychiatrist in the Department of Health, who else in this government is paid $85,000 a year. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I do not know, that is a matter that would be a matter of public record that I think honourable members could peruse, as well as I, as to who. Honourable members ought to know that, in respect to consultant contracts, consulting fees, that they are not modest when it comes to the obtaining of top expertise and top professional assistance. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hal Grant was hired by the previous government as a consultant in the aerospace industry, and I believe his consulting fee was $36,000 a year, and he had been the Chief Executive Office of Standard Aero Engine, and president.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the First Minister justifies paying Mr. Fullerton more than he would have paid Mr. Grant, if Mr. Grant would have applied for the position? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, they are two different cases. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speak er, the Mini ster of Economic Development was not able to answer the question as to the expenses of Mr. Fullerton, will the government be paying Mr. Fullerton's expenses? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, of course any expenses pertaining to necessary travel in order to fulfil! his respons ibili ti es pert aining to the operation of government would, of course, be met as it would be met in respect to travel requirements by any public servant. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister was a member of the previous Schreyer Government. I wonder how he relates the $85,000 a year for Mr. Fullerton to the previous government's policy of two­ and-a-half times one. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, if we want to discuss different contracts in respect to the obtaining of top 5030

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 executive assistants, top profes sion al assistants, business assistants, expertise, where individuals that were hired during the term of the former government, whether it's expertise hired during the time of this govern ment, unfortuna tely tha t kind of top notch professional assistance and business experience does not come cheaply. That was the case in respect to the hiring of Mr. Blachford under the previous adminstration. HON. S. LYON: For $20,000 less than you got this ... HON. H. PAWLEY: Yes, and he was hired in 1978, I believe, constant dollars 1978, Mr. Speaker, . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question also is for the Fir st Mini ster. Si nce the gover nment is undertaking to pay Mr.

Fullerton $85,000 a year, which is some $25,000 to $30,000 more than Deputy Ministers in the government will be getting, can the First Minister advise the House whether or not this is an indication that the government is going to be making some upward adjustment in the salary range of Deputy Ministers and other senior officers within the government, including Chief Executive Officers at Hydro and Telephone, for example? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: No. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, since the First Minister says he is not adjusting sal aries of other senior government people and since Mr. Fullerton will be getting $25,000 to $30,000 more than many Deputy Ministers, can the First Minister advise the House whether or not the work that Mr. Fullerton is going to be doing is substantially more important and more significant, more onerous than that of any Deputy Minister in government? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the work and the responsibilities that Mr.

Fullerton will be doing will be those kinds of responsibilities and obligations that can be best don e by one with the experienc e and background and talents that Mr. Fullerton enjoys. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Minister. Since Mr. Fullerton's background and experience are with Imperial Oil, can the First Minister advise the House whether or not Mr. Fullerton's talents will be employed with respect to the government's Crown corporation ManOil? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Fullerton will be undertaking those responsibilities that will be assigned to him from time to time in regard to economic development in the Province of Manitoba. Having had previous top executive experience within a company of the size and nature of Imperial Oil he brings with him many varied skills and talents that will be of assistance to the Manitoba Government in regard to many different programs and projects that will require someone of the background and skill ability of Mr. Fullerton, who is well-known and well respected within the entire business community in the Province of Manitoba. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, a further question to the First Min ister. Since the First Minis ter seems uncertain as to what Mr. Fullerton is going to be doing, even though they have already agreed to pay him $85,000 a year, would the First Minister agree to provide the House with some details of exactly what Mr. Fullerton is going to be doing, what his first assignments are, for instance? Is it going to be with ManOil, or is it going to be in an area of helping the government to get into the life insurance and pension field. Could he give us some specifics? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr .

Speaker, the Mi nister of Economic Development I think has already indicated that she is prepared to provide the terms of reference and the job description responsibilities of Mr. Fullerton. Mosquito fogging MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honourable Minister of Government Services, responsible for the aerial spray program. Mr.

Speaker, I notice that Minnedosa is one of the designated spray areas for this evening and in view of the large number of beekeepers in that area, could he assure the members of this Hous e and the beekeepers in that area that they have all been contacted with regard to the scheduled spray program, in order that they might take the necessary precautions with their bee flocks? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nis ter of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Scheduled for this evening are Roblin and Russell, actually.

Minnedosa is one possible one, although that would mean that weather conditions would have to be such that Roblin-Russell couldn't be sprayed tonight and that Minnedosa could, and I think that chance is very slim. There will be more time for them to ha ve the opport unity to take wha tever preventative measures that they can take.

My unde rstan din g is th at the Department of Agriculture people have set up an extensive information system; that they have contacted the beekeepers, that they are contacting them in the affected communities to let them know that this is happening and, of course, in addition to that, we have the information that is put out through all the radio stations so they are aware as early as possible when the spraying will take place.

So, we're doing everything possible to notify the people so that they can take whatever preventative measures are possible within the limits of the time constraints that we're working under. MR. D. BLAKE: A supplementary question to the Minister. These contacts, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, 5031

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 as far you know, are being made on a personal basis. They're not relying strictly on the radio advertising material or announcement materials available on the radio stations. They are making efforts through the Department of Agriculture to contact the beekeepers personally and advise them of the program. HON. J. ?LOHMAN: Yes, that is my understanding that they are making those efforts, as well, the Beekeepers Associations are contacting their members as well, so are working very clo sely with the Department of Agriculture on providing as much notice and information to the beekeepers.

Grants re Arts Councils MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I'll direct my question to the First Min ister. Over the last day or two there have been indications that the Federal Taxation Department is moving to tax artists in an unfair and and to disallow write-off of their expenses against other income. There seems to be a very discriminatory sort of taxation practice carried out against a group of individual people who are attempting in an entrepreneurial way to make it on their own.

My question to the First Mi nister would be, has the Mi nister of Finance made any representation to Ottawa on behalf of these people and, if not, will the First Minister undertake to make representation on their behalf to ask the Federal Government to reconsider that decision which has clearly been brought about by bureaucrats in the Department of Finance who are unaccustomed to having to make anything on their own? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr . Speak er, we will make representations in respect to that particular matter. labour liaison Officer MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the First Min ister.

In view of the fact, Sir, that the previous government was successful using the agencies of professional and executive recruiting companies in Canada in attracting to Manitoba, chief executive officers formerly of three international companies, for example, the president of a national tire company who became the Deputy Minister of Economic Development; the former President of Pepsi Cola of Canada, who became the Chief Executive Officer of the Liquor Control Commission; the former president of a Brazilian power company bigger than Manitoba Hydro, who became and was released by this government as a Ch ief Executive Officer of Manitoba Hydro, all at salaries considerably less than the $85,000 being paid to Mr.

Fullerton, does the First Minister feel, in response to that kind of a track record of our government, that he would have been better advised to use some executive recruitment agency in Canada in order to get the kind of help that he is looking for, rather than to make the kind of an exorbitant deal that he appears to have been euchred into? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, any salary ranges have to be compared, 1983 with 1978-79 salary ranges. Mr. Fullerton is receiving 60 percent of that which he received while he was a Chief Executive Officer with the Imperial Oil. HON.

S. LYON: He was a branch regional manager. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY : In sofar as head-hunting, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fullerton is a Manitoban and fully familiar with the economic and business community in the Province of Manitoba. He is not from outside the province where he would have to acquaint himself, Mr. Speaker, with the Manitoba community upon being hired. HON. S.

LYON: Mr. bpeaker, in view of the precedent that I've just cited to the First llt.inister, would he not consider it politic to say nothing of prudent and reasonable in future, if he's about to hand out these large garnished jobs to people he perceives as friends in the private sector that he go through an executive recruitment agency, thereby enabling the public of Manitoba to be saved great amounts of money? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, this appears to be a repitition of earlier questions pertaining to this particular subject. Mr.

Fullerton is a friend of the Manitoba business community as a whole, and I must say, not particularly a friend of this government and has - so I trust the Leader of the Opposition not trying to assume that Mr. Fullerton is necessarily a political friend of this government because that is not the case, or can be bought. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Honourable First Minister would agree with the proposition I've often expressed in this House, namely , that if you fly with the crows you're liable to be shot for one. Road restrictions MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some three weeks ago, I posed a question to the First Minister !cllowing his Cabinet tour into south-central Manitoba wherein two members of his Cabinet, namely, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture, left an incorrect impression and gave an incorrect answer to the people at that meeting in which the Cabinet had invited various officials and the misi nformation was giv en in regard to the policing of restrictions on municipal roads.

The First Minister undertook to review that matter and the answer given by both those two Ministers, and if the information was incorrect he was going to correct 5032

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 that information by letter to the people who were at that meeting. Can the First Minister indicate whether he has determined whether his Ministers gave incorrect information to the meeting and has he undertaken to correct the mistaken information given? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will have to further review that matter with the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture. MR. D.

ORCHARD: I would ask the First Minister if he might undertake to do that in rather short order, since it was approximately a month ago that I posed the question to him and he undertook to do just as he has committed to do today. Could we have an answer before the end of this Session, Mr. Speaker? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will assure that, indeed, if there is any misinformation - I know best not to accept any suggestion from the Member for Pembina th at the re was misinf ormation. If th ere was misinformation, that will be related to those that would otherwise have been misinformed, Mr. Speaker.

I will pursue that and that communication will be related to those that are involved. Sherritt Gordon Mines - NEED Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister of Energy and Mi nes. In February of this year, Sherritt Gordon Mines submitted a proposal under the NEED Program to the Provincial Government and to the Federal Government in calling for a provincial input of about $766,000, the purpose of which was to prove up the Agassiz gold deposit.

The proposal at that time was rejected by the NOP Government because the Minister said he classed that sort of thing as a giveaway. On July 15th this year the Min ister of Labour and Mr. Axworthy announced a NEED project was going ahead with respect to this same project, and the Provincial Government would be contributing some $779,000 to the project. Can the Min ister of Energy and Mines advise the House how this $779,000 differs from the $766,000 which was rejected as a potential giveaway? HON. W. PARASllJK: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice to get the specifics.

I believe that the Member for Turtle Mountain is incorrect with the numbers as to what Manitoba's share of the NE ED proposal is, but I'll certainly check into that and report back to the House in due course. ORDERS Of THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 77? MR. SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: The Government House Leader had earlier indicated that he was going to call Bill 48, followed by Bill 55.

Is this a new order of business that's going to be followed this afternoon? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Mi nes. HON. W. PARASIUK: I'm sorry, I was going to call 77, 48, then 55. If the Member was ready to speak on 77, then I'd call 48, then I'd call 55. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL 77 - THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Min ister of Education, Second Reading of Bill No. 77. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill, Sir, and follow my colleague, the Honourable Member for Tuxedo, the chief Education critic for the opposition, in identifying and addressing the very grave flaws that we see, and that many educators and educationists, and many general citizens, see in this particular piece of proposed legislation. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe there are two good things about this bill, and I intend to give the Min ister and give the government credit for those two good features during the course of my remarks.

I will identify those two features, and certainly place on the record my endorsement and support of them. But that is secondary, in terms of the overall message that I want to place on the record, on my behalf and my party's behalf, with respect to Bill 77, because the pri mary feature, or features, insofar as Bill 77 is concerned, in my view, Sir, are not features that are good or favourable. The primary element to Bill 77 is its unacceptability. The primary feature of this legislation is its implied damage for the educational system in our province.

I believe in fact, Sir, that, apart from the two good things about it that I do intend to specify, this proposed bill is an assault on the office and the institution of the school trustee in Manitoba. We have been confronted, during this Session of the Legislature, with a range, one might say, a raft of bad legislation. In speaking, in the course of another debate in this House a few days ago, I made reference to some of the very incompetent, inept and unacceptable legislation that is before this House at the present time.

There is a long list of bad bills, bills that would divide Manitobans, bills that would strip Manitobans of rights and freedoms, bills that would deprive Manitobans of economic and social opportunities, bills that would work to the severe disadvantage of our society. That long list of bad bills, Sir, includes for example, The Farm Lands Ownership Act; it inclu des the 5033

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 amendments to The Cattle Producers Association Act; it includes the amendments to The legisla tive Assembly Act; it includes The Election Finances Act; it includes The legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act, or certainly many components of that proposed legislation, and it includes many other pieces of legislation that we have challenged in this House as being di visive, imprudent, undemo cratic and unacceptable.

The litany would also be seen to include The Municipal Council Conflic t of Interest Act; the amendments to The Payment of Wages Act which, I'm happy to see, have been withdrawn, Sir, under pressure from the opposition; that litany of bad legislation would include The Law Enforcement Review Act, or at least may parts and components of it, Mr. Speaker; it would include the government's resolution to amend our Constitution in the way that it is doing it in the referral motion which has been the subject of such intensive debate in this House for so many days now.

Now, Sir, we've got two other pieces of very bad legislation in front of us; the second bill having to do with The Child Welfare Act, amendments to The Child Welfare Act No. 2; and this legislation, Bill 77,

An Act to amend The Public Schools Act. This may be the worst of them all in many ways, Mr. Speaker. The destructive and harmful legislation that is before us in this House is at the root of the length and the emotionalism and the intensity of this Session, and Bill 77 takes its place legitimately in that catalogue of proposed and potential legislative horrors. This bill, I think, is a travesty of one of the fundamental principles of democracy, that principle being public accountability, and that is why I say that it may be, in many ways. the worst bill that's in front of us.

When one reviews the litany to which I've just referred it's difficult to place one specific piece of legislation such as this ahead of many of tho se other dama ging proposals and unacceptable government initiatives; but this bill ranks right up there, Sir, in seriousness with all of those others because of that fact to which I have just referred, the fact that it mitigates against some of the basic principles in our democratic system and tramples that principle of public accountability.

So I have to say, Sir, that it may be - in its ramifications and some of its implications - the most damaging and harmful legislation of all that has come before us in this Session. It's certainly one of the very worst bills that has come before us in this Legislature. My colleague, the Honourable Member for Tuxedo, ha s very ably id entifie d many of the fl aws and weaknesses in the bill.

He did so when he spoke in this debate on July 22, Sir, and I want to make reference during my remarks to a particular point he made that focused on the most important aspect of the legislation in terms of its potential for damage, and the most troubling aspect of the legislation for me and for many others. Suffice it to say, Sir, that this bill in my view, seeks to enshrine mediocrity in our classrooms. Its intention is to feather-bed incomp etence in the teaching profession and that's what makes it so serious. It will provide sanctuary, Sir, for incompetent teachers. It will provide sanctuary for the mediocre.

It will preserve tenure of those and for those who cannot measure up to the standards and req uirements of education demanded of our citizens for our young people. Mr. Speaker, some of the most significant, intelligent criticisms of this legislation has come from the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, speaking through its President, Mr. George Marshall. I believe that Mr. Marshal l's comments deserve record. With Mr. Marshall, we on this side of the House, are very concerned with what we see here as a cave-in to the teachers' union by this government on the subject of tenure.

In fact, Sir, there has been editorial reference to the Mini ster of Ed uca tion in this context, which has described her as the teacher's Minister and that, Sir, really is the impression that comes through and a message that one gets from examination of what the Minister is doing here with respect to tenure in this bill.

She is repudiating the bes! interests of the school trustee and of the parent, and by definition therefore, the young person in school, or young school students, and she is weaving a protective net, constructing a protective shell around the teacher, so she is rightly identified in some editorial comment on this subject, Sir, as the teacher's Minister. Well, who was the Minister for the school trustee? Who was the MinistAr for the parent? Who was the Minister for the school student? Apparently there is none on that side of the House in tne government ranks, Mr.

Speaker, so we on this side, my colleague, the Honourable Mem ber for Tuxedo, myself, and our colleagues in this caucus, will assume that role and we will serve, in this case, as the de facto Ministers of and representatives of the school trustee, the parent, and the young Manitoban school student. That is the role that we assume in this debate, because it must be assumed by someone and we respond to that challenge. No one on the government side has spoken for those three crucial and important parties. They have spoken only for the teacher and the teachers' union and it's not a case, Mr.

Speaker, merely at being concerned with the teachers' union as such. It's a case of being concerned with the government's unwillingness to treat it in a responsible way where the teachers' union is concerned. It's a case, as Mr. Marshall has put it, of being concerned with the government's cave-in to the teachers' union on tenure. As he has pointed out, teachers' unions have no accountability whatsoever to the people. School trustees do have.

School trustees represent the grassroots level of accountability in one of the most important spheres of our lives and our activities - our education system and the teaching of our young people. The teachers' union is removed from tha t commun ication, tha t dynamic, that plane of accountability and responsibility and this government is derelict in its duties and in its responsibilities as administrators of the affairs of the province, Mr.

Speaker, when it caves in to a body that 'ias no accountability to the people and fails to support bodies that do have, continuing on, going day-to-day accountability to the people. Mr. Marshall has stated in his comments on this subject that school boards have received no support on this question and in his view, indeed, have been rejected by the Mi nister of Education and the government. Let us remind ourselves, Mr. Speaker, that is an ironic position for any Minister and any government to take because school boards, of course, are creatures of the Legislature and should be able to look to the 5034

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 Legislature and to the government for moral support - moral support, administrative support and actual support. Mr. Speaker, again referring to the stand that the Manitoba Association of School Trustees has taken through its President, Mr. Marshall, I make the point, Sir, as he does, that the teachers' union is accountable only to its mem bers and ther efore it becomes incompr ehensible to us th at go vernment should acquiesce in a way that permits the teachers' union to share authority through legislation with school boards.

If that's not an insult to the democratic process, Sir, it certainly comes very very close to being one. It certainly tramples on that basic principle, to which I referred a moment or two ago, the principle of public accountability. School boards, of course, are fully accountable to their communities for the operation of their school divisions; and for the government to take the position that a body which serves a private interest, e.g. a teachers' union, and is accountable only to its own members, should share authority through legislation with school boards, is totally unacceptable, Mr.

Speaker, and will be fought by this opposition as hard and as conscientiously as we can fight it, in an effort to make the Minister and the government alter its position and alter its decision on this point. The teachers' union should not share authority with school boards, certainly not authority that's enshrined through legislation, such as is the case proposed in Bill 77. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marshall, in speaking officially on behalf of the School Boards of Manitoba, has made it very clear that his association intends to fight this unwelcome legislation with every weapon available.

He has written to the Minister to that effect. We intend to do the same, Sir. If passed in its present form, this legislation will spell the end of the school trustee in Manitoba in any effective sense of the word. It will be the end because, Sir, he or she will become a museum piece. He or she will simply become a cipher, a rubber stamp. The life juices of the school trustee will be drained out of him by legislation of this kind.

The teachers' union will be supreme; the mediocre teacher will be protected and preserved; the best interests of the student will not be protected; the interest of the parent will be ignored and repudiated. And what is the point then, Sir, of being a school trustee? Hence, I say he or she will become a museum piece in Manitoba. This legislation will spell de facto the end of any meaningful school trusteeship if it goes through in its present form.

This bill will take the business of the administration of the education of our childr en away from parents and away from taxpayers and away from elected trustees, and it will turn it over, Mr. Speaker, no questions asked, to the teacher and to the tenure teacher at that and to the potentially mediocre teacher at that. Thus, Mr. Speaker, we oppose this legislation vigorously, as MA ST does and as MAST's President, Mr. Marshall, does. I want to remind members, Mr.

Speaker, of a comment that my colleague, the Honourable Member for Tuxedo, made in the course of his remarks on this bill on Friday, the 22nd of July, as recorded in Hansard on Page 4484, and in the course of a very incisive criticism of this legislation, my colleague had the following to say: "F inally, Mr.

Speaker, and this certainly will take the bulk of my comments on this act, I would like to deal with the provisions with respect to tenure of teachers, and those are the provisions which undoubtedly are the cornerstone or the most important part of this legislation, and those are the ones that I referred to earlier when I said they had the potential to be very very da maging to public school education in this province for all time in future, and indeed had the potential to lower the qua lity of education as opposed to enhancing the quality of education which this Minister has said in the past was her main objective." The case with respect to tenure, Mr.

Speaker, could hardly be put more incisively or more clearly. It could hardly be spelled out more directly for members of the government to see, appreciate and un der stand. Hopefully, they will see, appreciate and understand it and, hopefully, there will be amendments made that will remove that offending provision, that offending

section of this bill and make it possible for us to consider the legislation in its remaining content. If they can't do that, Mr. Speaker, then we will find it very difficult to offer any kind of support for this bill. That is not to say that there aren't one or two good features. As I said earlier, there are. The two good things about the bill have to do with the following subjects, Sir.

First of all, I commend the Minister and support the legislation for the provision it contains which clears the way for establishment by the joint action of two or more school divisions, of regional vocational schools, and for the establishment of joint governing boards to admi nister them. In particular, I'm pleased to see that that provision ties in with the decision to move ahead on construction and funding of a South Winnipeg Vocational Centre that will serve a large

section of the southern and sou thwestern parts of the City of Win nipeg. This provision makes it possible for two or more school divisions to get together and establish such centres, and the decision to go ahead with the South Winnipeg Vocational centre is a welcome one. In welcoming it and acknowledging it, I would also like to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, and I take this opportunity to do so, the work that has been done in development of this centre by Mr. Neil Thiessen, a former school superintendent of the School Division of Fort Garry. Mr.

Thiessen has done the spade work, the creative, imaginative work that has brought the concept of the South Winnipeg Vocational Centre to the point of fruition, and I know members of the Legislature would like to recognize Mr. Thiessen's efforts in that regard. The second good thing about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the provision contained in it that opens the way for universally assured imunization of our children against specified diseases, as a prerequisite to their first-time admission to school. This is a particularly valuable provision in the field of public health.

Other jurisdictions, as my colleague, the Honourable Member for Tuxedo, pointed out during the course of his remarks have for some time in various parts of this continent had a provision which guaranteed. in fact ensured universal imunization against measles among school children before they were admitted to school for the first time in their lives and as a consequence of that, those jurisdictions have effectively eliminated the measles scourge. I'm pleased to see that officials 5035

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 in the Department of Health, officials serving with the Mi nister of Health, have apparently come to the conclusion that this is an important and a positive step to take. During the period of our admin istration as government in this province from 19 77 to 19 81, when I was Minister of Health, we had a number of discussions with respect to the viability and advisability of taking such a step.

I was anxious to implement a measure of this kind in Manitoba in concert with my colleague, the Minister of Education of the day, the former Member for Gimli, and with my other colleagues in the Executive Council of that day, but I must say, Sir, that we ran into some counterarguments from officials in the Department of Health itself.

Some of my own officials expressed grave concerns and reservations about a provision of this kind which makes mand atory, immuni zation against specified cont agious diseases, one of the most important examples being measles, and we weren't able to move ahead with tha t hope for ini tiative. Th ere were arguments brought to bear which I accept as having been valid and viable, certai nly deserving of consideration, but apparently they now have been overriden by stron ger arguments and stronger testimony, and I'm pleased to see that.

I am pleased to see the officials in the Department ol Health now acknowledge that, although there are some downsides to compulsory legislation of this kind; although there are some possible drawbacks to a mandatory provision, the good outweighs the bad. Where this provision has been in place diseases, like measles, have been virtually eliminated, Sir, and I would expect that would be the case in Manitoba, and I support and endorse that provision in this bill.

So those two features are good, Sir, and I would hate to see us lose those two features, by virtue of the fact that other components of the bill are so bad and so unacceptable. It's like other pieces of legislation that have come before us in this Cham ber, Mr. Speaker, which have some good aspects to them, but which are encased in provisions on other levels that are totally unecceptable, that are destructive and anti-democratic. We, therefore, cannot accept the legislation, although there are two or three good points that should be implemented.

I think tha t is most unfortunate for Manitobans, and I hope that doesn't happen in this case. At the moment, that is the case, Sir, we've got a piece of legislation that offers two very useful creative initiatives - the provision for the regional vocational schools, and the provision for universal immunization of school children. Can we not have a piece of legislation here that provides us with those two things, and permits us to say that we welcome the legislatio.1 and we want to move forward, Mr. Speaker, and thus succeed in getting those two positive steps in place?

Do we have to accompany them with other proposals, other provisions that are totally unacceptable, and thus put us in a position where we have to oppose this legislation, and where we have to urge that it be withdrawn or defeated in the interests of democracy and the interests of public accountability, because that's the position that we are in because of the totally unacceptable provisions having to do with tenure. Because they trample, in such a devastating way, on that principle of democracy and public accountability, we cannot accept the bill in its present form, Mr.

Speaker, and we have to warn Manitobans not to accept it. We have to tell the government that they are not going to succeed in bulldozing it through; that we want it amended or we want it withdrawn. It's unfortunate that the two good provisions, that I have made reference to in my earlier remarks, now hang in the balance. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Edur;ation will accede to the request that I in this regard, and that my colleagues make in !his regard.

Bring amendments that take the bad things out of the bill; bring in amendments that remove those provisions having to do with protc)Ction of "'�"1''"''"' teaching, and preserve and those good parts the bill, and let's take those positive steps. Unle ss revision of the bill and amendments of that kind are forthcoming, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to continu e to oppose th is legisla tio n, and th at is unfortunate for those two positive initiatives which all of us would desire.

Sir, let me conclude by reminding members of the urgency of the provisions having to do with tenure, insofar as the well-being of Manitobans and their children and their school system are concerned. Mr. Marshall, in his lelter to the Minister on this subject on June 24, 19 83, had the to say with respect to that tenure provision, Mr. He was referring to Sections 92(5) and 92(6) in the act; that is, Subsections 5 and 6 of the bill in front us. He said this, Sir, and I quote, "Our concerns and objections are essentially these (

a) the proposed legislation strikes at the very essence of our being as school boards and school trustees and what that implies, local control and representation of the community in education . . . " and I break the quotation to re-emphasize that, Mr. Speaker, it should be re-emphasized, and it should be burned home in the minds and brains of all of us in this Cham ber, " . . . local control and representation of the community in education." Surely that is the important fundamental principle to be defended and preserved here; surely this is what it's all about. To return to Mr. Marshall's letter, Mr.

Speaker, a direct quote again, "The local representative in education, who is directly accountable to the publi c for the performance of the division and its teachers, is the school trustee. Your proposed legislation ... ," he's addressing himself directly to the Minister here, Mr. Speake r, "Your proposed legi sla tion upsets the important role of the trustees in education in the community, and turns it over to the Teachers' Union at the expense of the parents, the community, and the children in the cl assroom. " Further, in his communication to the Minister, Mr. Marshall had this to say, Mr.

Speaker, and I quote again, "The school system must ultimately be accountable to the public. The Teachers' Union is accountable only to its members." I am paraphrasi ng, Sir, but paraphrasing directly. I quote again, "Your proposed legislation does nothing for the competent teacher, and offers a potential legacy of 40 years of incompetence in the classroom for every poorly assessed or transitory teacher. The proposed legislation will be restrictive and unworkable to divisions attempting to properly staff their schools with the best teach ers available.

Your proposed legisla tio n is a move to incr eased and legislated acceptance of teacher mediocrity. " 5036

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, those are concerns, reservations - nay, stronger than reservations - anxieties brought to this legislation in res ponsible cons ide ration by the spokesman for the Manitoba Association of School Trustees.

The current President of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, speaking on behalf of the school boards of Manitoba, offered those critiques and those commentaries, in all responsible sincerity, to the Minister of Education, after having evaluated this proposed legislation as conscientiously and as intensively as he could, in concert with his experienced and knowledgeable colleagues and advisors in the association. I don't think that comment and criticism of that responsible a nature can be treated lightly, Mr. Speaker.

I think that if the Minister, and if the government, do dismiss that kind of responsible critique in light fashion then they do so at their own peril. They risk doing damage to the public school system, to the education system in this province that will be enormous in its implications. They risk doing damage, Sir, that may take years to overcome if, indeed, it can every be set right and overcome. So they cannot lightly ignore or airily dismiss those challenges that I have put on the record.

It's one thing for the Minister to say, well, the Honourable Member for Tuxedo is speaking from the perspective of an oppo sition politi cian and the Honourable Member for Fort Garry is speaking from that perspective, but the Honourable Minister, Sir, cannot say that the President of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, speaking for all the school boards in the province, is coming at her on this or any other question from tha t kind of political perspective.

He is addressing the problem from his own experience and perspective as a concerned and acc ountable ed ucat ioni st, as a conc erned and accountable ed ucation public figure, and he is articulating a joint concern, a collective concern which represents the views of that important and far-reaching association. So the Minister and her colleagues cannot, dare not, dismiss that kind of criticism. They must take it seriously, they must evaluate the potential damage that they are proposing here.

If they do that, Sir, and if they withd raw those offending passages, I think I can say that we would find that this legislation contains many ingredients that commend itself to this Legislature and to the people of Manitoba. Two of those primary ingredients are those to which I have referred and which I indicated I support whole­ heartedly. But if they do not amend this legislation, remove those offending passages, then it'll be very very difficult, Mr .

Speaker, for us to suppor t thi s legislation, and that will mean that Manitobans, and all of us are losing the opportunity here for positive initiatives that would be most helpful in the two fields to which I earlier referred. So I appeal to the Mi nister and her colleagues, Mr. Sp eaker , to rethink th eir position, to revise thi s legislation in such a way as to make it stand for the best principles of public acc ountabil ity, and the strongest established institutions that are attainable in the education system.

I appeal to them to rewrite the legislation in such a way as to do the good things that they currently propose to do in the bill, and to eliminate the bad and the unacceptable things, and to replace those bad and unacceptable things with a position that reinforces the government's support for and trust in the school trustee, and the system of the school trustee.

I appeal to them to produce a piece of legislation that reinforces and enshrines excellence, that reinforces and enshrines high teaching standards, high teaching standards that mean high learning and high educational standards for our young people, not to produce a piece of legislation that would enshrine mediocrity, protect, and provide sanctuary to the less than competent member of the teaching profession. My colleague, the Member for Tuxedo, has made the same plea directly, and indirectly, in his remarks and certainly the President of MAST makes that plea very eloquently. I add my voice to that call, Mr.

Speaker, and await a response from the Minister that would be constructive, and that would earn our support. Thank you. llllR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. llllR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to put a few comments on the record on this particular bill. Mr.

Speaker, members opposite have probably come to realize from many of my comments and remarks over the past two years that I have - and I'll put it in brackets - (a thing with teachers), not individually of course, but as I've watched their powers in many senses expand, and as I've seen their processes with which they deal with, not only our elected trustees, but the public at large, as I've seen those pro cesses change over a few years of viewing. Of course, it's with some interest that I note that there is a large percentage of members opposite who happen to be part of that profession.

That's not to, of course, indi cate that profession is bad , because certainly it isn't. It's one of the most important, if not the most important profession that we have in our midst today in my view. Mr. Speaker, some would say, and I believe there was an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, dated August 3rd, that our present Minister is a teachers' Minister. Well, I guess that's to be expected. But more importantly, I think some could say that this is a teachers' government. Again, for the very same reasons I have just given.

When such a large percentage of the government is made up of that profession, one would not be surprised to see that be. My colleague, the Member for Tuxedo, the first spokesman that we had on this bill, covered virtually all of our concerns in detail. And I think in some parts of the bill he gave, I guess, our cautious support to many, at least to some, and maybe some of the areas that were covered within the bill.

However, the one major area of tenure is a source of concern to us, and of course to many people, not least of which are ordinary parents of the day who, in small numbers at this particular time and I stress that, Mr. Speaker, are learning as to what the government is proposing by way of this bill. Mr. Speaker, tne tenure provision is one that we cannot accept on this side, and I suppose begs a 5037

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 question whether we have a difficult time in accepting it in any degree, or whether it's just a fact that the time period is being diminished. That's exactly what I will be making some comment on, of course, through this speech, because those that challenge us, like I was challenged last night, by someone that was at my home and I took a few hours break, as to really what is the difference between 20 months, or 12 months, 8 months as we like to say, what is the difference? He said , really, what you're challenging is the whole tenure system, and I guess I have to accept tnat, Mr. Speaker.

Although I would want to withdraw my comments from the party to some extent on this, I would like to move into that dangerous ground somewhat in the course of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, the Minister had some interesting things to say when she introduced the bill. Again they were covered to a large degree by my colleagues, but I think it bears repeating to some degree. The Minister says - and she goes on the defensive right away if you look at her comments - and I'm quoting, "The first and most important change is in regard to due process for teachers. The change reduces the time required . . .

" and she continues on to say, " . . . required before a teacher may apply for due process from at least 20 teaching months or more than one full year. This simply gives teachers the right to a fair and impartial hearing." Well, Mr . Speaker, she follows that up by indicating that her good office has spent some considerable amount of time attempting to arrive at that consensus between what appears to be two different thoughts on the issue; that as presented by the Teachers' Society and, of course, that as presented by the Association of Trustees.

She makes the remarkable statement towards the end, after saying they could not reach a consensus. She said, "We were left in the position of having to resolve what has become a point of contention within the educational community. The judgment of what was fair becomes ours to make, and we took two things into consideration." She goes on to tell us what those two things are, and then to sum up by saying that after all that logic and all that attempt to reach a consensus, the government had to rule in favour of the teachers. Mr. Speaker, I find two things interesting about that.

First of all, is the consensus argument. You know, Mr. Speaker, for the last two weeks we have been dwelling upon that word in various forms in all our speeches as we have spoken on the referral motion. We have heard, and I th ink it's come to light because of something the Attorney-General has mentioned when he was introducing the referral motion, and I only stay on it for a couple of minutes, and that was consensus on the language issue was impossible to attain. He went a step further and said that a.3 a matter of fact that consensus - he didn't say it, it was my

interpretation that he would seem to say that consensus would rule against that particular area. As such, the tyranny of the majority would come to be. Mr. Speaker, as I tie it into Bill 77, I see that same word of consensus. I look at a government again who has been able to delineate and define two different thoughts. They have said that consensus could not be reach ed. Mr .

Speaker, I wonder again why this government has chosen to take, because they could not determine in their mind a consensus, why they have decided to take the side of a vested interest group and again not follow the logic reasoning of the school trustees who really, we must remember, are elected people who represent each and everyone of us. Again I question the logic of a government who will say, well, consensus may or may not exist, but regardless of whether it does or not, we'll ignore the majority and push it th roug h in the mino rity. That's wha t has happened again in the introduction of this bill. Mr.

Speaker, the Mi nister made one other comment, and it had to do with how, in her view and the government's view, that a teacher, who was inferior in any respect or one that was not competent, could be fired at any time for legitimate reasons. I think the Minister does all of us, not only those of us on this side but all people in Manitoba, a disservice by leaving one the impression that the process of removing a teacher who is not competent is one which is basically simple and straightforward. Mr.

Speaker, I'll move into that whole argument a little later on, because what I have seen of due process and action or arbitration is that it is very time consuming and it requires an awful lot of effort from a lot of people. It draws in, in many cases, evidence which is scant to say the least. Again, I almost question that whole procedure also. Mr. Speaker, probably the strongest remarks on Bill 77 and criticism, of course, have come from the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. They have been quoted freely by colleagues of mine, and I'll again use parts of that particular letter.

It was addr essed to the Minister on June 24tn. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot at issue here. It's more than just tenure. I have a feeling that what the school trustees are attempting to say to the Minister and to thi s gover nment is th at th ey are accusing the government of attempting to remove from them some of their final powers as locally elected, democratically elected officials. When one looks at what school trustees have to make decisions on these days, and what powers are left with them, you have to realize what's really happened over the last 20 years in this whole area.

Today, I see school trustees attempting to grapple with budgets and they've spent countless hours on it, in making financial decisions as relates to their various school divisions. But yet, the real powers associated with making those financial decisions have been removed from them, and even though I know they have to sit in judgment as to decide, first of all, what teaching levels should apply for the year and what courses maybe should be offered, what extra curricular activities, what special projects within the school, and of course, what levels of special taxation is required to fund it.

I realize that on the surface when you go through those areas, it appears like a great deal of responsibility. But in my view, in the financial area - really the big numbers have all been removed from local trustees. So it comes down then to my way of thinking, the major powers that they are left with and of course in the minds of many, almost the most important is the quality of education that is afforded, not only to their own students but in many cases, all our own children, children that attend the public school system.

It's in this area that I think it's their last vestige of power and authority that is being challenged, because with this provision, should it be passed, really school boards will have no authority whatsoever as to who will be teaching after the granting of tenure. 5038

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, of course, the Minister goes on to say in her introductory remarks that the counter-action of this, what has to be put into place, to make sure that this is not considered bad is a proper evaluation. Of course, the question is begged, well, shouldn't a proper evaluation method be in place right now and can it be improved upon? Of course, I guess the next question that comes after that is if an evaluation method is to be struck and found, who is going to be the leading force in that development?

And we know, particularly with the power th at the teachers have with this government, who will be in charge of setting that evaluation method to make sure the tenure granted after - and the Minister says a full year, we say months - doesn't take all the power away from the trus tees who represent the people. So, Mr. Speaker, that's what this letter, in my view, says to the Minister and to the government, even though it's couche d in terms of concerns and specif ic objections; and even though, and I look in the (

a) paragraph in the third line, it says that local control and representation in the community and education; and it says previous to that, "This legislation strikes at the very essence of our being school boards and school trustees." I hadn't read that for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I'd forgotten that it was in, but obviously that's to sum up basically what this whole letter is about. Some very interesting quotes could be found in the letter. I won't take the time to put them on the record again, as colleagues of mine have already done, but I'd like to quote one section.

It's at the top of the second page and it says, "The school system must ultimately be accountable to the public. The teachers' union is accountable only to its members. Perception already exists in the communities of the province that the strength of the teachers' uni on is preventing divisions from dismissing the mediocre teacher from the classroom " Well, Mr. Speaker, I know there is mediocrity in every aspect of life. I know it. I've seen it in farming; I've seen it in farm help; I've even seen it in the Legislature. But the point being, Mr.

Speaker, that if there's one area in our society that it cannot exist, or that we must fight to ensure that it does not exist, obviously has to be in the area of education. I have talked to too many teachers over the last five years, teachers who are not tremendously or at all active in the Teachers' Society, who themselves are very worried about the evaluation system that's now in place, who have seen good people come into the teaching profession and then after two or three years have begun to wane in the sense of offering their best spirit to the job.

They have some genuine concerns with that and I think that's what I'd like to attack at this particular time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the letter also says, " . . . that this new bill does nothing for the competent teacher and offers a potential legacy of 40 years of incompetence in the classroom for every poorly assessed or transitory teacher." Well, I think those are hard words. I agree with them but they are hard words, and I think again that the school trustees are trying to red flag to the government specifically what is going wrong in some areas of control on this particular area. Mr.

Speaker, massed actions over the last few days tell us that there is a war of sorts here. To think that an association could be so upset so as to prevent the Minister's highest ranking official within her department from coming into attendance at a meeting, I think, Mr. Speaker, tells you an awful lot about the particular state of affairs between the locally-elected trustee and their representatives and this government.

Moving back to the area of evaluation and we move into this whole area of departmental exams if we could for a second, some claim that the old departmental exam used to, in part, at least help grade teachers. I suppose I'm one who believes that our school system and the quality of education that is offered by it has not improved at all, because departmental exams have been removed. I forget the year, I don't know what year specifically it was they were removed.

It seems to me it was in the early '70s and I realize at this time why there was some pressure to have them removed, but I really question how this education system has improved with their removal. I'm wondering, when the Minister talks about bringing forward an evaluation system that will again allow for the proper viewing and testing of teachers and their performance, whether this Government of the Day would allow any consideration of that process. I think it has to.

I think we requir e desp erately an objective measurement system and I know th at th ere are objective measurement systems for students all the way through school, not only by grades but by some of the in-depth testing that occurs within the classroom and possibly from that some conclusion can be drawn as to the teacher. But I believe that before any final, or after decisions are reached, it's too late. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about rights, about the rights of a person who is given a job, any job, and the right of that particular person to be given proper notice for dismissal. It's a much used phrase, Mr.

Speaker, and of course it's another one of the issues that's at essence here. I would suppose say, well, what about the rights of the students and their rights to receive the best quality education that they can? We have today a vested interest group which has more power than the public-elected trustees and I think the time has come when we have to face this problem head on. What happened, Mr. Speaker, if students of the day became organized? I pose the question, what happens if students in high school became organized and they decided that it was their right not to have an inferior teacher?

I wonder whose rights, Sir, would be held supreme by this government because I would think that maybe that just might happen. If too many powers are removed from school boards in this whole area and if they are given too little control over the type of teacher that they want to see teach within their division, I'm wondering whose rights would be held supreme if high school students, for instance, decided that it was their right that they not be taught by a certain teacher. I'm wondering if this lauded due process, which the Minister uses to suppo rt Bill 77, would be gi ven any consideration at all.

An interesting point, Sir, and one that I won't forget as I not only watch this bill proceed, but as I continue to watch developments in the whole area of education. Mr. Speaker, tenure, I said at the beginning, I might want to enter into a general discussion on it, and I guess I begin by saying, what is the goal anyway? Every time I see a decision being made which grants greater 5039

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 powers to any association, particularly in a rural and a community context, I see local autonomy being reduced and it probably comes to the fore best when we discuss tenure in a general sense and specifically as related to Bill 77, which reduces the number of months from 20, I believe it is, to 12 . I think what you have here, Sir, is a tremendous attack on the school system and I think it begs the question, why? Why is it happening? Why is it continuing to happen, not only within the area of education, but in almost every other area?

People know that the quality of education is not improving. I will argue with anybody that says it is. Then, what do parents do, and who in great numbers see that happening? Well, Sir, they turned to their trustees who have little power remaining - and I've gone through that aspect - and now, again, as I say their last powers, in my view, are going to be stripped from it I think the bill, Sir, is preposterous as it relates to this whole area of tenure.

As I watch this area and others, I see actions by the government where they seem to I.le granting rights because they believe there are so many rights that are being kept away from individuals, not only specific individuals, but groups of people who band together under a la bel of an association and who demand their own rights.

We've got a problem developing here where you are granting so much to individuals and to groups of freely associated individuals that you're soon removing from everybody that's outside of the individual or the freely associated individuals under an association, you're removing from everybody else the collective rights of the good of everybody. I'm wondering how long you can continue to press it. It comes to the focus, in my view, with Bill 77, certainly in my view point at least, coming from a rural community and having seen what happens when you begin to withd raw powers from locally elected officials.

I'm wondering how long the general population is going to allow it to happen, because I believe that you will have a parent revolt, not one that involves marching by thousands on a certain Saturday in May or June. A MEMBER: No flag burning. MR. C. MANNESS: And one that will not lead to a flag burning and one that will not lead to a resolution to come forward in this House.

But you will have one, because as these parents - of which I'm one - as we go to our elected officials and say, well, why do you not have the power to deal with either: ( 1) a bad teacher, or (2) with a strong collective - freely, as it may be - group of people who band under an association.

And what's going to happen when I approach them and the school trustees say to me, "Well, Sir, we do not have the power to deal with them." Well, I think some day the people in the vast majority are going to say to their elected officials that vested interest groups are a danger, that an attempt to be absolutely free to the nth degree - not free, but the granting of rights to the nth degree to every person to show equity is in itself beginning to tear at the general population. Mr. Speaker, it begs the question: Why is this being done? Why is the government in their wisdom reaching so far?

I believe the editorial as written in the Winnipeg Free Press, August 3rd, says it best. It says, and I'm quoting from one part of it, "The Minister did not have to act for any education reason. The only visible reason for action is the political one, the close association between the governing party and the teachers' union." That's what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, the close association between a government in power and a vested interest group.

I see no redeeming aspect of this legislation that is going to provide for better education, that is going prepare our children better for a life outside of our public schools, and yet it keeps coming forw ard , because it is deemed the right ol each and every individual to not be tested or graded after a very short period of time. It ls the government saying, in effect, that due process and arbitration are what safeguards the rights of the vast majority. Mr. Speaker, I take that with a grain of salt because in our division, as I have watched two or thr ee cases of arbitration, something has disturbed me greatly.

I have seen cases where a teacher has come to class on many occasi ons inebr iated , una ble to function properly, and yet a school board unable, in their view, to do anything about it. My brother-in-law, by the way who is a teacher, has told me of a teacher on the same staff with him who has had a problem for six or seven years and the school board unable to do anything about it, a teacher who will sleep through the whole class period and the school board unable to do anyti1ing about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, of course, it begs the question: Well, why not?

Well, the experiences that I have heard of school boards attempting to go through due process are ones of horror in themselves, Mr. Speaker, one where evidence ls circumstantial at best, quite often. I can tell you, as somebody who has sat on an appeal board and when you do not have access to hard fact, and when you have to rely in many cases on second and third-hand knowledge, you do not feel particularly confident in your decision.

Not only that, naturally, you'll very rarely rule against the individual when the facts to be used against that individual are circumstantial at best, because how do you prove that a teacher has either hit a student at all, or too hard? How do you prove that? Do you take the word of three or four students who say that they were watching? Do you take the word of the teacher who says she has never laid a hand on the student. There is no hard evidence and in that particular area, I think, due process has failed. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong way, Mr.

Speaker, but I am saying that it ls not the perfect process, and as it is related to quality of education, where there is no other objective measurement that can be brought into that process, by way of saying that the teacher is good or bad because 90 percent of the students achieved a certain mark relative to the provincial average. So how does one grapple with the problem? The Minister throws it out as a challenge. She says, "A different evaluation system will have to be found." That's the answer to the criticism. But is one suggested, Mr. Speaker? Not even a hint of how teachers are to be evaluated. So, Mr.

Speaker, it's preposterous. I suppose it begs a question as to when the Teachers' Society is going to wake up, and when are all the vested interest groups 5040

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 going to realize that they can only push their cause so far before, I would say, permanent damage is done to many of our institutions. Mr. Speaker, moving on to the portability of tenure. I agree with the Member for Tuxedo who indicated that he saw this doing tremendous harm to new teachers, and I accept that whole-heartedly, because I believe, after you've seen the trustees having written a letter this strongly, that they somehow are going to, over the next while should Bill 77 be enacted, take a very strong and personal position in the hiring of new teachers.

It begs the question, will it lead to the dismissal of a teacher after one year for grounds which, in the minds of some, seem frivolous? I think it's the only protection of the trustee. So with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to again reiterate my concern with Bill 77 as it applies specifically to the area of tenu re. I believe the government, if they were wise, would take to heart not only some of our comments, but some of the well­ documented concerns by the school trustees, who are again, Sir, our elected officials.

I think it's very important that the government realizes th at to withdr aw powers away from th ose democratically-elected people is to do nothing more than harm !he fabric of local and public schooling. Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER, C. Santos: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Depuly Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon on Bill 77, although is somewhat of a surprise to have to collect one's thoughts to another subject from the one we have been on all week. HON. W. PARASIUK: A point of order.

We would be prepared to let this member adjourn debate, on Bill 77, for today if she would so wish, and we can move onto Bill 48 for today whichever you wish. MRS. C. OLESON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would prefer to conclude my remarks today because I am requi red to be at the Parliamentary Conference next week. I may not get a chance to speak otherwise. Thank you very much. Now once again this government has attempted to help a group of people in society, and has succeeded in harming the very people that they intended to help.

We have seen this with many things this government has tried to do and this is clearly demonstrated in this bill. By passing this legislation the government will not help the teachers and they are the people it was designed to help. By passi ng this legislation the government will not help the school boards. I don't know that it was designed to help them in the first place, but it certainly will not have the effect of helping them. Most importantly of all, it will not help the students of Manitoba who after all, in this exercise if you will, are the most important people involved. Their future is at stake, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. Now thinking teachers in my cons tit uency have mentioned to me that this will protect incompetent teachers. They're against this bill. Remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, these are the people you were trying to help, and their reaction is imrnediatly, well, this won't give us much help. In fact, I think some of them sense, and quite rightly so, that even though they have been teaching for a long time, this type of legislation will create the atmosphere that all teachers are suspect because of the tenure or right accorded to some in such a limited time. So it casts a reflection on all of them.

So if thinking teachers are against this legislation, then why is it before this House? Why indeed is it before this House? It is before this House because someone in the Teachers' Society wanted this legislation, and the Minister of Education caved in to the teachers in the NDP Caucus, and we have this legislation before us. Did the school boards of Manitoba want this? No, they did not. They asked the government to extend the tenure requirements so that school boards can have ample opportunity to evaluate their teachers.

This would not only benefit the school boards, but it would benefit the teachers as well in the long run. Often a teacher who has just graduated and secures a teaching position, comes to his or her job with only a short term of practise teaching as experience. Now that person is faced with a large classroom of children, perhaps with a subject to teach that he or she has not rnajored in in their studies - this sometimes can especially now when teaching positions are get. Teachers will often go into a field which is not exactly their major . They're perhaps in an unknown school where they know no one.

They're perhaps an unknown community. whole new lifestyle to what they've been used to. teacher may have always lived in the city and now has to learn to live in a small town, in a part of the province which is not familia r. This new teaching job may be in a far Northern community and the teacher has always lived in the southern part of the province. So many things to adjust to in a short time in your private life, in your social life and in your career. Now, with this legislation that person will have to prove their ability and expertise in 10 short months of a school year and in actual fact much less time.

Because school boards will begin their evaluation of course immediately, they may see some weakness that they perceive and that teacher may not even be allowed to continue that one year because they don't want to take the chance. Now, I've seen teachers who have not shown their full potential in their first few months or their first year of teaching.

A little help and encouragement from a principal, from a superintendent and very often from another staff member, they turn out to be very effective, very caring teachers, who work for the best interests of their students and they're a credit to the profession, but they needed that little bit of extra help and time to adjust to their situation. This legislation has the effect of a very negative approach to that process. School boards will now be very wary of allowing a new inexperienced teacher the length · of time they need to work into the job.

They'll take a look at them in the first few months, as I have said, and if they show any sign of weakness or inability to cope, out they go. This is not really fair to young teachers corning out of university and trying to get into the teaching profession, not fair at all. 5041

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 But there's also another aspect to this question, which will affect both teachers and school boards and has to do with the portability of this tenure. School boards may be loath to hire any teacher with only a year or two or thr ee of experience, since they'll have no opportunity to evaluate the performance and determine whether or not this teacher is the one they really want for that particular position and if that teacher has those qualities they're looking for, for their classrooms, for their community. Mr.

Speaker, private industry and Crown corporations and such have the option of evaluating their staff. I am sure that if the Attorney-General hired a new staff mem ber for hi s department he would want the opportunity to evaluate that person to see if they could do the job, not only do the job but do it well and in the way that the Attorney-General wanted it done. I'm also sure the Minister of Education would be very upset if she hired a person to work in her department and that person turned out to be completely incompetent, but was protected by a tenure clause. MR. H. ENNS: Even at $85,000.00. MRS. C.

OLESON: Yes, at $85,000, my colleague reminds me. Now, if it turned out that person wasn't completely incompetent, if this type of legislation covered that, that she couldn't get rid of that employee, perhaps lor no fault of the employee, but perhaps they had the wrong job for their abilities. Now is this fair to teachers or employers? It is fair to neither the teachers nor the school boards. Most important of all, Mr. Speaker, it's not fair to the students. It's not fair to the students.

Each and every student must have in his or her classroom the very best teacher that that school board can hire to teach in that classroom. That is the right and the privilege of every student in this province; that the Minister of Education tells us this - if we didn' t know it already - time and time again that these students are important. Then why is she doing this to the students of Manitoba? The other day I attended a meeting at the International Inn that was called by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees to discuss this matter.

Now, there were many school represented, I think there were 45 school boards represented. There were several members of the Executive of the Association of School Trustees. There were four ML As at that meeting out of a great number that had been invited - everyone in this House, I believe, was invited. No government ML As were at that meeting, not even a backbencher. No elected member of the government was there to defend the position of the Minister of Education. What does that tell us? Does that tell us there was no interest by the other members of the House of the government side?

Does it tell us that they really don't accept that position? We're wondering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what that means - no one there to speak for the government. "The teachers' Minister," as has been said in a headline in the Free Press, "used the excuse of Speed­ up to decline the invitation to meet with a large gathering of school officials." That's rather interest ing. It 's interesting to begin with, that they should headline the

article and call her the teachers' Minister. In my opinion, they're telling it like it is. People from every corner of the province had a great deal to say on the subject. They were polite, they were courteous, but one got the distinct feeling that they were angry and they were disillu sioned that a Minister of the Crown would go completely against their wishes in a matter so basic and so vital to the local school boards. In fact, one person was heard to mention, could we have expected this from a person who had been President of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees at one time?

They were very, as I say, very disillusioned that this Minister should be doing this to them. There was great concern over local autonomy. Most of the school boards that were represented at the meeting had someone to speak for them; most of them went along the same theme, although there were a great many different aspects brought out. But there was a great concern for local auton omy.

One concern that I particularly noticed, a very great concern, that the Minister is taking away from the school boards the right to hire and fire teachers, the right to hire the teachers they want and need for their particular school and their particular community. They're hampered and they feel threatened. They feel that if this Minister is going to do this to them this year, what on earth is she going to do to them next year, next Session? It all goes back I think, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, to trust and the feeling of mistrust that the people of Manitoba are beginning to feel - not maybe just beginning - but it's getting louder and more vocal in the communities in this province. They have a very great fear of trusting this government. Now, one thing the Minister mentioned in her address when she introduced this was that she did not have consensus. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if she did not have consensus with all the parties involved, what would cause this Minister to bring this before the House?

Perhaps it is for one of the reasons I have mentioned; perhaps she was pressured from her caucus and/or Cabi net colleagues. I quote from her remarks when she introduced this legislation on the 21s t of July, Page 4459, of Hansard, where she says, "This issue, Mr. Speaker, has been a bone of contention in the education system for years. The Manitoba Associat ion of School Trustees, the Manitoba Teachers' Society, the Manitoba Associat ion of School Superintendents have presented opposing positions for many years.

I've tried, as Minister of Education, to seek consensus between the many important organizations in the education system and have attempted to get them to move away from conflict by attempting to resolve issues through discussion and accommodation. I've called all groups together in order to reach a com prom ise. They could not reach a consensus, they were unable, through discussion, to reach a solution, and we were left in the position of having to resolve what has become a point of contention within the education community." Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that if a thinking person would maybe try a little harder to get consensus before they arbitrarily decided to put this sort of legislation before the House - I suppose you could go back to the old time-warn saying: "If at first you don't succeed, try try again." I don't think she tried very hard. One of the superintendents at that meeting brought an interesting scdnario to the attention the p ?:.;pie who attended, it went sew -�t1•1ing Iii .. · 'hi� If a 5042

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 teacher moved after one year of teaching for any numb er of reasons, perh aps their spouse was transferred to a different company, there are lots of reasons, not being fired from the position, but having held the position and doing a fair, reasonable and perhaps a very good job of teaching in that particular school, but that teacher, as I said, perhaps for personal reason decided to move to another school division, was hi red by th at school di vision on the recommendations of the original school board, quite rightly so, that teacher had done an excellent job there.

Now say that teacher, for instance, had been teaching one of the elementary grades in that school and the second school board hired that teacher for, say, a junior­ high position, which I'm sure any teachers who are listening to me would agree that is a different set of circumstances to teach in a junior high when you have been teaching in an elementary. That teacher, of course, has tenure because he or she has taught in that one school division, one school, for one year. Now, suppose that teacher doesn't turn out to be suitable for the job in the new school division, for any number of reasons.

As I've stated it's a different situa tion all toget her, it's perhaps in a di fferent commun ity, di fferent classroom , di fferent gr ade, different subject. There are any number of reasons that it may not work out Now, what's the second school board going to do? They have this tenured teacher, they wish to terminate this teacher, so they go to an arbitration board. All sides, of course, are listened as th ey should be, and there they ha ve the recommendations of the previous school board, they have the assessment, perhaps in documented form that this teacher was performing very well in the first school.

Now, therefore, a third party is going to decide what teacher is going lo teach in the second division. The school board would then forced to keep the teacher who is not suitable for the job that he or she was hired for; not particularly fair to the teacher, certainly not fair to the school board, and least of all, fair to the students in that classroom. Is this what we want for our students? Is this what we're always talking about when we talk about quality of education? I don't really believe so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I don't think that there was a great deal of care and thought given to this legislation as it went around the caucus table or the Cabinet table on the government side. I think they saw only one side of the picture, and, of course, as anyone knows, there is always more than one side to a question. I think that a great many ramifications of this legislation was totally ignored by this government when they brought this in. Now another matt er, which really should be considered in this, is that it potentially will cause animosity between trustees and teachers, and in many school di visions, that is alr eady th ere.

Ther e is adversarial atmosphere over collective bargaining, over this and that, and it's getting worse. The feelings in the community are getting worse as these things occur. This legislation will do nothing to alleviate that problem, if it exists in a school division, and I know it does in some, but this will do nothing to alleviate that. It will only cause it to become worse. As I've said before, that this legislation will definitely harm th e very people it was designed by this govern ment to help.

What they've done with this legislation is harm the teachers, hamper the school boards, but the most important thing of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the harm they have done to the most valuable resource in our province - our students. It is they who are the most important part of this whole operation, it is they who are the very cause and the very reason for us having school boards and teachers in the first place. The quality of their education should be uppermost in the minds of all of us. Some time ago, I received in my mail box a copy of a letter which was sent to the leader of the Opposition from a Mr.

George Marshall, who is the President of MAST , the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. It's interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Marshal! should feel that he had to ask for the help of the opposition in dealing with this problem. I can realize his frustrat ion, he was gett ing no help from the government side, so he appealed to the opposition and I will read part of his letter: "We are concerned with the government's cavein to the teachers' union on tenure. This may only be the beginning.

We take the position that the teachers' union, who serve a private interest and are accountable to its members, should not share authority legislation with school boards. Quite apart from the insult to the democratic process, school boards are fully accountable to their communities for the operation of the school divisions. Teachers' unions have no accountability whatsoever to the people. "School boards, which are creatures of the legislature, have received no and, indeed, have been Education and the government.

"On behalf of the school boards in the province and the communities they represent, I plead to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition for suppor t, so tha t legislation proposed to serve a vested interest group at the expense of the childr en of the province will not pass unchallenged." Mr. Deputy Speaker, we on this side of the House intend to challenge this legislation at every opportunity we get. We know that the people, who it was designed to help, are not going to be helped in the long term.

Maybe it will help someone in the short term, but we share that fear the Association of School Trustees hold that this will possibly tend to protect the incompetent teacher. We do not feel that the childr en, the students of this province, deserve to be treated in this manner. I will conclude my remarks with those; that is the most important issue of this whole exercise. It is the students. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Min ister of Municipal Affairs, that debate now be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Would you please call Bill No. 48 now? 5043

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 Bill NO. 48 - THE ELECTIONS FINANCES ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Attorney-General, The Election Finances Act,

Loi sur le financement des campagnes electorales. The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think one, in commenting on this bill, has to look at what might be considered the problem and then to compare the solution to see how well that relates. Mr. Speaker, one could easily look at all kinds of American examples, which would be only useful intellectually, but there have been many many instances of abuse in the Un ited States.

I'm looking now at a book which I bought a couple of years ago and have never sat down and read called "The Washington Payoff." It has a lot of interesting sensational headlines and statements in it.

For example, on the front cover, "Is your Congressman, Senator, President, for sale?" On the back there's a supposed Washi ngton insider's qui z which says things like: "Which prominent congressman is on the payroll of the malia?" Or "Wha t Speaker of the House made his office a centre for bribes and payoffs?" Or "Which President offered Bobby Baker a million dollars to take the full rap for corruption?" Or "What Attorney-General was given $250,000 in a suitcase in return for a very special favour?" Mr. Speaker , $250,0 00 in a suitca se, th at was probably some time ago now.

This book was published first in 19 72, so one might assume that that is the equivalent of a half million dol lars. Mr. Speaker, it's the raising of funds, and the possible obligation on the part of the person who accepts those funds.

I'm not talking now about under-the-table funding, and I'm not talking about kickbacks, and so on, which is in fact illegal, unethical and corrupt, I'm talking about contributions that are made to political parties and the danger concomitant with that; namely, that if a person receives substantial contributions from a particular source, as in a wealthy person or a corporation, then one might feel obliged, either consciously or subconsciously to that person or group, or to their views, or to their particular practical suggestions in regard to legislation. You know, it reminds me of the simple thing, Mr.

Speaker, of going to a car dealer and having a free cup of coffee and a doughnut and then possibly buying a brand new Pontiac because you feel obligated. How much more obligated would you feel if you went to that car dealer and he gave you $5,000 for your election campaign and then came to see you after the election and asked some so rt of fa vour? Agai n, I ::lon't necessarily mean an under-the-table favour, but just asked you to listen to his position on a particular bill. You might be far more receptive than you would if you were not obligated in some way. A MEMBER: Money talks. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, my colleague says money talks, and of course that's true. Mr. Speaker, I cut out an

article here from the Tribune on June 7, 19 79. It was a picture of Acting Mayor Bill Norrie sitting at his desk; he obviously had just come into office at that time. There's just a little line in here about the forthcoming June 20th mayoral by-election race and just this little paragraph: "Mr.

Norrie's chief fund-raiser, Gordon McKenzie, fresh from the same job du ring the Sidn ey Sp ivak federal Conser vative campaign says, unequivocally, "If Bill needs $20,000, we'll get him $20,000.00." Now this of course was said four years ago and I'm simply saying that, you know, if a person needs $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 and somebody can get you that money, that's good. I mean that helps; it makes it easier for you to get elected. The question is, of course, will you then be obligated to the same people who made those contributions? Mr.

Speaker, Maclean's magazine, May 23, 19 83, not very long ago, in Nova Scotia, they had an embarrassing court case in which the Provincial Liberal Party was severely embarrassed after a five-week trial which ended on May 12 th, only a couple of months ago. Two former party fund-raisers were convicted of influence peddling, they had been collecting money and they were fined $25,000 each for conspiring to offer, or even pretending to offer influenc e with the Li beral Government in exchange for corporate payments to the party via a process called tollgating.

They were getting 50 cents a case for each case of Schenley liquor sold in the province. Well, I'd never heard of that before, but it's obviously some kind of a kickback and probably an old system. You know, in Eastern Canada they are way advanced over us in terms of old traditions of passing out bottles and things like that. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak about the question of leadership races and campaigns and where you have political parties vying for the leadership.

We saw recent examples in the federal Conservative race, where even the Conservatives were very upset about some of the practices going on like young childr en voting and the famous case of the busload of winos who were brought in in one particular case. Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of a very famous infamous incident in the Un ited States in the Nixon cam paign.

There were two notorious things th at happened in the Nixon campaign: one of course, was Watergate; the other one - and not many people would be familiar with this perhaps - but there is a famous ins tance of the boat load of hookers which was concocted by a number of young Republicans. They had so much money, Mr. Speaker, in the Republican coffers when they were running against McGovern, and they could have beaten George McGovern easy, he was a good man, I would have worked for him and I would have voted for him.

There is no doubt that McGovern was going to lose to Nixon, and Nixon had so much money that his campaign committee didn't know what to do with it, so they decided to look for ways to spend the mon ey. Somebody came up with the unethical absurd notion of hiring a boat in Miami, filling it full of "ladies of the night," enticing the Democrats into the boat and then filming the results. Then, probably, showing the results to some of the people associated with the people, who were associated with the people, who were associated with the scheme. They didn't go through with tha but that was considered, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, ilave a book home tt'at I cc ldn't find called 'he ' Selling of the was 5044 I the President which

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 written about the Nixon campaign and how the - (Interjection) - well, what does it have to do with this bill? Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what it has to do is this: We're dealing with the principle of whether or not the public should provide funding to political parties and individual candidates at election time, or whether private citizens and private corporations, and yes, trade unions and other organizations should do most of the funding. My concern, Mr.

Speaker, is with the fact that if people with a lot of money do the basic funding, then this may subvert the democratic process, that there may be too much attention paid to the large donor and the large contributor as opposed to the small person or the individual. Mr. Speaker, it costs a lot of money to fight an election campaign. I don't have current statistics, I have a lot of old statistics, which I put together, I guess, about 10 years ago about the cost of campaigns.

A minute of television used to be $500 or $600 a minute; it's got to be double or triple that now; it has to be $1 ,000 or $1 ,500 a minute now. I'm talking about local ly, I'm talking one station like CKY Television, and the same with radio. It used to be $35 a minute, prime time, it must be double or triple that now. Mr. I have taken a considerable interest in this for a !ong time and I suppose that all of us by own personal experiences.

I was "'"" t:>inh1 highly influenced by my in the when I was a member of the Party involv ed in provincial and federal campaigns, the '62 campaign, the '62, '63 and '65 federal campaigns. I remember th ose campaigns well. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you what happened to me, because what happened to me influenced what I think. A MEMBER: Who are you going to be campaigning !or in the next election? MR. R. DOERN: I'm going to be campaigning for the best cand idate. Mr. Speaker, I haven't decided who I'm backing in the Tory leadership.

I may be backing the Member for Lakeside, I haven't decided whether I'm going to back him or one of the other contenders. You know, I was talking about the Member for Lakeside today, Mr. Speaker, and I was talking to a couple of young people about his prospects and we came to the following conclusion: if he won the leadership, he'd be a tough candida te. His problem is to win the leadership. That is the problem. A lot of Tories are wild about Harry, there's no doubt about it. A MEMBER: A lot of guys are wild about Harry. MR. R. DOERN: Oh no, not guys, men and women - men and women. He has universal appeal. Mr.

Speaker, in 1966, I ran for the first time for an election. I had an offer in '62, I had a tremendous offer from the New Democratic Party - I'm getting a lot of offers now, I'm being encouraged to run for Mayor, I'm being encouraged to run for M.P. A MEMBER: Tory leadership. MR. R. DOERN: Somebody'll suggest I run for Governor of North Dakota. It's been suggested I run for Tory leadership. Those are four suggestions that I've had so far. Mr.

Speaker, in '62, I had an offer that was pretty hard to run down, they gave me a shot at Duff Roblin in They asked me whether I would stand against Roblin in Wolseley, and I thought it over for a while, but I decided I would not like to begin my career as a sacrificial lamb, so I declined with thanks. I don't remember who did run, but I know that I didn't. Mr. Speaker, I did run in '66 - (lnterjeclion) - no, no, I'm talking about provincial ly. In 19 66, I ran provincially in Elmwood, and campaign cost at that time a total ol $1 ,700.00.

Speaker, when the campaign was over we had raised $700.00. think I had contributed $200, we had raised $700 and we owed $1 ,000.00. Now, in those days, that was in the olden days, when the Member for Lakeside and I got elected, ML As were paid ... MR. H. ENNS: I don't want you to refer to that any more. I'm trying to set a more youthful image. MR. R. DOERN: A more youthful image, yes. MR. H. ENNS: I've just recently come here. llllR. R. DOERN: Right. Mr.

Speaker, in 19 66 when the honourable member and both 21 years old, ran in Elmwood, and as our cost $1 ,700 - we raised $700.00. contributed and the campaign was over we When I elected, the $4,800.00. was a teacher, was the rumour was that Duff Roblin, if was to bump it up from $4,800 to $7,200 and he did. he did, the press played it up: 50 percent increase in ML As' salaries. Now they did n't mention that had been after four or eight years. It was the old headline of 50 percent increase and we used to take it on the chin all the time.

Eventually we got annual increments, which I fought for, and came into line in a more or less intelligent COLA clause manner. Mr. Speaker, I owed $1 ,000, and I went to my executive and I said, "You know, now that the election is over, let's sit down and do something about paying off that debt." There was a pause. They said to me, "Why don't you pay if off? You're the ML A. You are making all this money. You get all the bene�its of political office, you pay it off." I got stuck with the $1 ,000. Now remember.

I was making $7,800, I was only guaranteed $4,800, I was now getting $7,200, which was a cut of $600, and then I had to go to the bank and take out a loan and I had to pay off $1,000.00. So technically, in the firs! year I was in office, I earned $6,200, technically. I took a $ 1, 600 pay cut, which is probably about 25 percent or 20 percent at least So the next time I said to myself, no way am I going to get stuck again, that's it, and the next time I ran, my campaign in '69 cost $700, from $1 ,700, because even if I lost, I wasn't going to run up $2,000,00. - (Interjection) - No, I cannot think of that.

As a result, I ran my campaign for $700 and we paid it off, and I didn't owe any money. I have been careful ever since. Mr. Speaker, we know how money is raised. I know how I raised money in Elmwood - an annual dinner. We used to have raffles, the odd donation and so on. 5045

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, in '66, there was a massive report came out, a federal report, which I read and studied and still have several copies of. It was excellent. It was a bipartisan committee. I'm not sure who the Chairman was. I see the name of M. J. Coldw ell here, No rman Ward, and others. Mr. Speaker, this was the basis of many electoral reforms that have come down to us. I'll just read you a couple.

They talked in here about the old scandals going back to the '70s, the Pacific Scandal of 18 73, the scandals of 1891 - th ese are federal - and the Beauharnois Scandal of the 19 30s, how in Quebec, it said, there was never any relationship between the declared expenses of the candida tes involved and the candida tes actual expenses. They suggested in this report that we should limit or control expenses, control contributions, subsidize parties or candida tes, and tax exempt contributions. Well, we've done most of that, we have done most of that. The Schreyer Government put ceilings on.

I thought that was a good step, but to me that was the least important step because you can easily run around, and get around a ceiling. I wanted a floor. Then the Lyon Admini stration brought in tax exempt contribution. The Feds did it first, and the Lyon Government did it second for the provincial scene. I give them credit for that, that was a step in the right direction. Now, the Pawley ad ministation is bringing in a floor. Namely, they're saying that given a certain vote and given certain conditions, a candida te and a political party may be entitled to a floor or a basic minimum for their campaigns. Mr.

Speaker, that is a step in the right direction. That is an evolutionary process. That is not a radical reform. In this book again, The Report of the Comm ittee on Election Expenses, 19 66, it says this. This is one of the key quotes, "Pol itical parties and candidates must have at their disposal the financial means that will enable them to play their role of political educators, ideally, without being bound to private interests to the detriment of the public good." So you have to think of the public good, and you have to think of the private interest.

There were suggestions made in here of a percentage of basic expenses. There were suggestions of more free time on radio and T.V., and subsidized radio, newspaper ads, mailing privileges, tax incentives for contributions. These were all made in 19 66. Then, of course, we moved along and now, I don't know again all the current developments, but in Canada there is a reimbursement. If you get 15 percent of the vote, you get a mailing annually, etc., etc. In Nova Scotia, there is a reimbursement percentage if you get 15 percent of the vote.

In Quebec, there is a reimbusement; in Saskatchewan; in Ontario; and of course in many countries around the world, including West Gerna ny, and Sweden, and so on. There were other studies made, of course, locally. A political financing and election expenses research paper done in May 197 6, from the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, prepared by P.J.E. Cole, suggesting that - and I'll just give you a couple of points from this particular study.

It said for example, "It is fast becoming exorbitantly expensive for both candida tes and parties to contest elections with the result that politics is becoming the playground of the rich individual and of large well-organized interests of various kinds." Well, I don't see too many millionaires frolicking in the Cham ber, but nevertheless ... Mr.

Speaker, a second point they make is, "It is easier and more lucrative to solicit funds from a few wealthy donors than to tap the little man, a situation which can lead to the debasing of the high trust of public office through th e return of othe rwise unm erited and exclusively privileged favours and patronage." And finally, "The more lavishly endowed candid ates and parties in an election stand a better chance of winning than those who may be of equal or better political merit, but lack private fortunes or generous sympathizers." Well, Mr.

Speaker, it strikes me as a little exaggerated, but basically correct; namely, that money does play an important role in the outcomes of political campaigns. It won't buy you an election, it won't guarantee a result, but it will help. If you are the same person and in one case you have money to buy radio, television, and newspaper ads, you will do better than if you don 't. But it will not elect a rich man over a poor man in a particular riding, providing the poor man has a lot of relatives and friends and knocks on a lot of doors. So, Mr.

Speaker, I also want to mention that it isn't just the New Democratic Party that has said that there should be some public funding. It was this nonpartisan committee of the House of Commons that made that suggestion many years ago, and I'm sure that there were promi nent Con servatives on tha t particu lar committee as well. Unfortu nately, oh, here we go, okay, here we go. Alpho nse Barbeau, the Chairman, Honourable M.J. Coldwell, Gordon Dryden, Arthur Smith, and Dr. Norman Ward, and the Honourable Judy LaMarsh, the Secretary of State.

Now, I don't know all of those people but I'm sure a couple of them were members of the federal Conser 1ative Party, so it was a committee that included all political parties. Mr. Speaker, in the early '70s there was a bright young man that sat over there named lzzy Asp er. He's now a millionare. He has gone on from not doing very well as the Liberal leader, but doing very well as a financier, an investor and developer.

He, in 19 73, made a series of speeches in which he called for the suggestion that election campaigns be financed from taxes. lzzy Asper, millionaire, tax consultant, expert in paying the least possible taxes, if any, suggested 10 years ago that this should be done.

He told a group of students at the Un iversity of Manitoba, November, 19 73, "Fina ncing of elections should be taken out of pr ivate hands." He sa id, "There should be an independent electoral commission and they should determine how much money each candida te requires to inform voters about himself, his objectives, his party, and its policies." He talked about publicly financed constituency offices. He criticized parties for faking their expenses and he said that Manitoba - well, no, the Premier then said something else - but Mr. Asper clearly is on the record as calling for this. Mr.

Speaker, from '66 on I argued in the New Democratic Party and in the Legislature and at New Democratic conventions that there should be public funding. In '73, I had a proposal for funding elections which sounds almost identical to what is being put forward, rn:rnel;• that there should be a ceiling on expenses; r•·:d l''at the public p1.1rse "shc1ulcl provide a basic flo•' ' eq, to 50 '1Um 5046 floor equal percent of the maximum

Saturday, 6 August, 1983 allowable expenditure"; and that public funding should be provided only for general elections and by-elections and so on and so on. So I have made speeches on this for 10 years and more, and believe in it, and have believed in it and have supported this, Mr. Speaker, for all that time. Now, what would this cost? Well, the Attorney-General says that if the '81 election were publicly funded, namely, partly to political parties and partly to candida tes, it would have cost $1. 4 million. Well, that's a fair amount of money, but remember, Mr.

Speaker, that is only once every four years, so that the average cost of that would be about what? - $375,000 a year. It could be every five years, so it could be $300,000 a year depending on this and that, and if you consider that on the basis of a family of four, it would be maybe $1 .25, $1 .50 per year. Well, you know, in a way it's a lot of money and in a way it isn't, but what you would get for that, Mr. Speaker, is first of all a guarantee that money would not be a prohibition or a block for somebody to campaign. That's one thing you would get; I think that's a democratic step.

The other thing you would get is a lessening of reliance on larger contributors. I think we always must be concerned about somebody who will contribute a large amount of money, be it a trade union, be it a corporation, be it an individual, because what happens then, when that person or that group comes to see you after the election, after you're successful, and asks consideration for something that they believe in. It takes a strong man to say "no" to a strong political contributor, so I think this is something we must always against. Mr. Speaker, also says in an

article in the Free Press, June 10 , 19 83, that in the last election a total of 57 NOP candidates would have qualified for a subsidy, everyone; and 56 Cons ervatives would have qualified for a subsidy. I don't know who dropped the ball, but somebody did; and also, that 14 Liberals would have, one Progressive and one Independent candidate would have met the minimum requirement of 10 percent of the vote. Now, Mr.

Speaker, there's been a lot of speeches made on this and I know that some of the members opposite have strong views, but I think that some of the statements made have been highly exaggerated, highly exaggerated. Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of political parties, but it's already been made clear that the fact th ere are Commu nis t can di dates and Rhinoceros candida tes and other candida tes running, not one of them would have received a penny - a penny - from the provincial purse. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Thompson, the youthful Member for Thompson, Mr.

Ashton, when he spoke, made a very valid point and he spoke a long time ago on this bill, three or four weeks ago. He said at that time that other jurisdictions have this, including Ontario, the Federal Government, and Saskatchewan, which is now Con servative, and he pointed out correctly that any voluntary system, namely, where you give money, as an individual and get an income tax credit, is paid for by all the people. So if you give $10 0 and get $75 tax credit back, that $75, in effect, comes from the other taxpayers, who didn't make a contribution and I think that point has to be borne in mind. Mr.

Speaker, even though you can get a tax credit for going to a dinner at a $10 0 a plate or more, or for any kind of a contribution or more, a lot of people just can't do it They cannot come up with the money and they cannot wait until the next fiscal year or the next calendar year to get that rebate. They just cannot afford to do that So, Mr. Speaker, since I am running out of time, I simply want to sum up by saying. that I believe this legislation is in response to a problem, and I believe that this resolution is a step in the right direction.

I think that if you look at what has happened in our province since the days of the Schreyer administration, you see the following pattern and it's an evolution and it's a continual improvement, and I don't think we should go over to 10 0 percent public funding. At one time I did think that might be a good idea, but I now realize that is not a good idea, that it would kill the involvement of people in the election process as volu nteers, contributors, workers, etc. We don't want a system where you pay people to go out and knock on doors. I know that's done, but it's a muc