ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call Bill 34, please.

Bill 34--The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 34 in third reading.

We have been to committee with this bill. There were a number of presentations which were very interesting. I want to speak about those presentations as well as what I have heard from many of my own constituents, who include students and teachers at community colleges and universities, because that is what this bill is all about.

Although it was brought and presented by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), the major impact of this bill is going to fall upon the colleges and universities of Manitoba. We shall oppose this bill, because what this bill does is to lay the groundwork for a massive offload, $22 million, onto the community colleges and universities of this province.

It does not in itself make that offload. The minister was clear on that and I am on clear on that, people who have read this bill are clear on that. But what it does do very clearly is to make available to the government a savings account, in a sense, of $22 million.

When their revenues begin to decline and when they look at the consequences of Bill 2, the legislated surplus that they have set themselves to create over the next few years, they are going to be looking for accounts on which they can draw.

What this bill has done is to create a $22-million account for the government to draw on, for the government to cut the public sector of post-secondary education.

I do not anticipate that they will do it in one year. They may. The requirements of Bill 2 are very stringent. They may do it in one year. If they were to do it in one year, it would be disastrous for the community colleges and universities. If they were to do it in smaller chunks over the next three or four years, the consequences would be, in the end, the same.

Madam Speaker, it is also clear, and the minister made this clear under questions in the committee, that this aspect of finding money for the government's so-called balanced budget does not fall under the so-called taxpayer protection elements of Bill 2.

This will be a change in property taxes. There will be no referendum on this aspect. There will be no referendum as to whether people want to see their colleges and universities reduced by a further $22 million. This government which makes so much of its reference to taxpayers, of its alliance with the Taxpayers Association of Manitoba, of its responsiveness to the right-wing populism, will not give the people of Manitoba a voice on this. That is very clear and the minister made it clear.

People should take warning because in fact the government has used property taxes to find increased revenue. It did it before the last election; it will do it before the next election, and it will still try to maintain the fiction that it has not increased taxes. We know where this government looks for increased revenue. It looks to the property tax of ordinary Manitobans, and now it has created for itself a savings account of $22 million in order to reduce the post-secondary institutions of this province.

Madam Speaker, these are substantial amounts and this is an extremely serious issue. The amounts that can be deducted now from the University of Winnipeg and the University of Brandon will amount to almost 9 percent of their grants from the Universities Grants Commission. In the case of the University of Manitoba, it amounts to between 7 and 8 percent of their grants from the Universities Grants Commission, and similar proportions can be found in each of our community colleges. So this is serious money. These are serious proportions of post-secondary education that the government has now opened to some very dramatic cuts.

Madam Speaker, I should point out, and no one in Manitoba can be unaware of this, that this proposal, this bill, comes at a time when the post-secondary education institutes of this province are under severe pressure. They are under severe pressure from the last seven years of Tory government. This is the government which cut $10 million from community colleges some years ago.

An Honourable Member: Great government.

Ms. Friesen: Great government, I hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism say. I think that is a very nice comment. The Industry, Trade and Tourism minister of this government thinks that cutting $10 million from community colleges means great government. [interjection] That is what he said. Let us put it on the record--

An Honourable Member: Now you are putting things on the record which are not true.

Ms. Friesen: If I am putting things on the record that are not true, then the minister has every opportunity to get up and correct me. I hope he can look me in the eye when he does that.

Point of Order

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, the member for Wolseley just asked that if in fact she is incorrect in what she is putting on the record, then I have every right to get up and make that as a point of order and I do, because she is indeed not putting on the record any truth. As a matter of fact, nobody on this side of the House indicated that cutting $11 million was the basis of good government. That was not the comment that was made, and I ask the member for Wolseley to withdraw that comment.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley, do you want to speak on the same point of order?

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, yes, if I misjudged the minister's intent by juxtaposing my comment with his comment, and if I made an error in so doing, then I withdraw that.

* (1110)

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Wolseley. The honourable member for Wolseley, to continue the debate.

* * *

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, this is the government which cut $10 million from community colleges. This is the government which can talk out of one side of its mouth about training and about education that is driving our future and which, at the same time, can cut $10 million from community colleges. This is the government which has reduced the grants to universities every year since it has been in office through one format or another. This is the government which has had four ministers of Education in six years. It is a revolving door for education over there. There is no leadership, and there is no understanding of the place of community colleges and universities in this province.

The universities are facing serious pressure, as are the community colleges, from the federal government as well. The federal government has begun, over the last few years, to reduce its support from the Canadian Jobs Strategy. It plans, over the next few years, with the reduction of payments to the provinces, to also severely hamper the abilities of provinces to deal with the community college and university needs of their people.

So it is both the federal government and the provincial government which have, I think, led to many of the severe pressures which post-secondary education is facing. But I would remind the government that there are indeed alternatives, that in Saskatchewan and in British Columbia, governments have found ways to deal with the pressures that are before post-secondary institutions.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

In British Columbia, a booming economy, they have done it by expanding the number of university colleges. They have done it by expanding community colleges, creating a new technical college and creating a new university in northern British Columbia. That is a remarkable record for any province under these circumstances, and I draw that to the attention of the government. There is a connection between booming economies and a well-funded and well-supported public post-secondary education system. There is no government which should ignore that.

Let us look at Alberta, at the same time, because in Alberta even though in the past two years there have been serious cuts in Alberta in post-secondary education, they are starting from a much broader base, with a wide percentage of their students who are able to enroll in post-secondary education, at least 20 percent more than are able in Manitoba. Alberta has a variety of institutions from junior colleges to universities, to distance education universities, to First Nations colleges that serve their population. Yes, indeed, they are a booming economy as well. Of course, there are other reasons for that as well, but no province, which wants to have a stake in the future of North America and the future of the global economy can afford to ignore the opportunities for young people that must be there in post-secondary education.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to underline for the government that this is not just a bill about offloading. This is a bill also about the reduction in opportunities for young people. We have a government which has over the last few years begun to downsize the universities and colleges.

They have never had the public debate which has said, is this what Manitobans want? In fact the government has said out of one side of its mouth that it intends to increase the number of places in community colleges but, in fact, it has done the exact opposite.

The Roblin report recommended that the number of places or programs in community colleges double. He thought that was a reasonable goal for the government to begin to meet, but not only has the government not even made any attempt to meet that, they have begun to reduce the number of places in community colleges. They have been assisted in this by the policy changes at the federal level.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, what are young people in Manitoba to do? There are between 11 and 15 percent fewer places in universities for them, and I am talking about our young people, about our children, about our sons and daughters.

Where can they turn? They cannot turn to community colleges. Only 6 percent of Manitoba young people go to community colleges even at the best of times, and we know that the number of places has not been increasing and in some cases has been decreasing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is very, very serious for the future of Manitoba families. It is clear that what the government is doing through the backdoor, through policy decisions like this, is to begin the downsizing of the post-secondary education sector in Manitoba.

Low-skilled, low-wage jobs for the majority of young Manitobans and high-paid and high-skilled jobs for a very few--that has been the agenda of the North American Free Trade Agreement and that is what we are seeing being played out here.

Make no mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not just a municipal amendment bill. This is a bill which creates a bank account for the government to draw upon in times when their revenues are down, and they will do it be reducing the public services and the opportunities that used to be there for our generation and that will no longer be there to the same extent for the next generation of Manitoba.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, universities and colleges across Manitoba have expressed their concern about this bill. In the Brandon Sun, for example, the headline was, Transfer of taxes alarms BU.

The real worry, President Anderson said, is whether they will put in the full amount too as an index for future increases in assessment. If not, the school could be faced with deep cuts to academic programming to make the difference. There is no way we could make the adjustment without dire consequences, Anderson added.

Similar sentiments were expressed by the lawyer who came to represent President Naimark from the University of Manitoba and by the associate vice-president of finance who came to represent President Hanen of the University of Winnipeg.

They are very disturbing elements and the universities are very aware of this. The community colleges are perhaps more constrained in their ability to present before government committees. There is not the intermediate funding agency for the community colleges such as there is for the universities. It is still the Minister of Finance who decides upon the grants for the community colleges, and so there was perhaps a greater constraint in their appearing, but the consequences for them are just the same.

There are two particularly disturbing elements of this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first is that the government attempted to portray this as only an accounting change; it was only an issue of accountability. But it is clearly much more than that. Let me quote Terry Falconer, vice-president of administration at the University of Manitoba. It is hard to believe, he says, that we could accommodate that, that is, a $30-million cut, on top of everything else we have had to deal with. It would be an incredible burden, he said. When you have to pick up $13 million-plus, your choices are increase the Universities Grants Commission grant, increase student fees, or decrease expenditures. This bill is definitely straightforward and the worst part, he said, is that it does not commit the government to continue paying grants to the university for the taxes which they are going to transfer.

He is absolutely right. There is no commitment from this government to pay those taxes for the community colleges and the universities.

The University of Winnipeg said there is no way the University of Winnipeg could reduce its tax load by selling off properties that are not currently used to support the direct mandate of the university. If we were faced, said Mr. Coppinger, with having to find $2 million, I do not know how we could operate. It would be devastating.

I put these comments on the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is not just the opposition speaking; this is not just the member for Wolseley. These are the words of the people who are involved in the daily financing and operating of major institutions in this province. They can see that this is a straightforward bill, and it seems to me that the public interest would have been better served if the government were to have been more straightforward.

* (1120)

Is it so difficult for the government to say, yes, we are going to offload these taxes onto you, that is what we intend to do? That is what this bill lays the groundwork for. They cannot say that. They seem to me in so many areas to be so unable to be straightforward and to be clear with the people of Manitoba. I do not think that the public interest of Manitoba is served by that attitude.

The second element of this bill which disturbs me so much is that the government did not inform any one of these institutions. We are speaking now of the University of Winnipeg, Brandon University, Assiniboine Community College, St. Boniface College, Keewatin Community College, Red River Community College and the University of Manitoba. No one in the government wrote a letter last June when this bill was introduced. No one picked up the phone this September when the minister spoke on it in the House and said: We are making this proposal; how will it affect you? What is your view? Perhaps you would like to meet with us. Perhaps you would like to speak with us. We are making a major shift in the way that colleges and universities are financed.

No one, not the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), not the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), not the Premier (Mr. Filmon), not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), not one single person in this government informed these major institutions of the province. I find that to be one of the most disturbing elements of this bill. I have asked myself a series of questions: Why? Why would they do that?

We know, first of all, that they are not straightforward, so it is not surprising, it is appalling, but it is not surprising as a manner of operation of this government, but why would they not do this? Was it oversight? Well, given that it affects the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the members who represent the parts of Manitoba, and this government, nobody spoke to the universities and colleges. I do not think it was an oversight. I do not think it is an oversight of so many people.

Was it, perhaps, that they do not have the staff to do it? Are they overburdened? Well, there is an argument to be made there. There has certainly been a great decrease in the provincial public service, it is possible that there are not enough civil servants to do this. But we did notice in the Department of Education this year that they created another deputy minister. We actually now have a deputy minister just for post-secondary education.

Was it an oversight? Were they overburdened? Could not the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), who now has two deputy ministers, the only department in government which has two deputy ministers, and the reason they gave for appointing that second deputy minister was so that he would take control of post-secondary education and training. Now that is a large area, but this is a department with two deputy ministers and neither of them, under instructions from the minister, phoned the colleges and universities.

So we have to come to another question. Were they trying to slip one by? Well, I think they were. I think they were trying to get it by under the guise of a municipal amendment. They were trying to offload $22 million, trying to decrease public services through the backdoor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find that deplorable. I think the people of Manitoba find it deplorable, and I do not think that it has helped the relationship that should be there between the colleges and universities of Manitoba and this government. It is not at all helpful. I think it has probably added to the suspicion, added to the mistrust which should not be there, but clearly is there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think there is one other reason why nobody phoned. I think there was an oversight in the Department of Education, and that oversight is in having four ministers of Education in six years: a revolving door in Education with no leadership, no direction, a vacuum of policy and the creation of really a sense of mistrust and distrust of the minister and of the relationship between the minister and the colleges and universities, because that is what has happened. That is what has happened over the last four or six years.

That has to be laid at the feet of this Premier (Mr. Filmon). We have to lay the conditions in colleges and universities, we have to lay the absence of policy, the absence of direction, the layers of distrust and mistrust at the feet of the Premier, and we do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would just like to remind the honourable member, within Bill 34, this is not an opportunity for general discussion on education. If the honourable member could be relevant to the bill, I would appreciate it.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for that correction.

I do want to point out that in Bill 34 nobody from this government chose to phone the universities and colleges of Manitoba. I find that that is yet again evidence of the lack of direction in policy in post-secondary education in this province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the consequences for the colleges and universities of this bill will be that they will have to downsize. You cannot take that kind of money out of the colleges and universities either in one block or over a number of years without reducing the range of courses, without reducing the range of programs, without reducing the number of places for young people. The government will have to bear the consequences of those changes.

We already hear the government talking about that downsizing and that downsizing will come as a result of Bill 34.

We have heard the Premier talk about small programs for which he says there is no demand, which are then, in his terms, irrelevant. We have heard the Premier talk about universities as mandated irrelevancies. That, I find, is a very unusual vocabulary to hear from a Premier of a province. But in Bill 34 what we are going to see in fact is downsizing.

It seems to me that we need to have a direction, we need to have a policy from a government. The only one that we can see is not in the answers of the Minister of Education but in the answers of the Premier. To the Premier, downsizing must come in courses for which there is not a great demand. It is a clear market ideology, and he puts it very clearly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 34 will lead to that downsizing.

But what is irrelevant? What is lack of demand? Is it the course in fourth-year botany, for example, for which there are five students? Is that what the Premier means? [interjection] The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says it is mostly the basket weaving courses. [interjection] Well, I am not sure I know of those courses but perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could enlighten us on those.

How small is irrelevant? It is a question that the Premier might think of answering. The five students in the fourth-year course in botany are there because it is a very highly specialized course that they are taking. Should we not be training them? Is that what the Premier is saying? Perhaps he is. Bill 34 will mean that those kinds of downsizing will occur and it will occur perhaps on the basis of the Premier's market ideology.

But the reason that there are five students in that class, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is because there is only one microscope, and the professor bought that microscope out of his own salary, because those are the conditions that are there now in community colleges and universities, and those conditions are going to become much, much worse under Bill 34.

What will happen for the young people of Manitoba when those small courses go? You do not find them in first year, in second year, in third year. You find them at the fourth-year level, where they should be, and you find them in very specialized areas.

So if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is suggesting and if his government is endorsing through Bill 34 a downsizing of some magnitude--and we are looking at 10 percent in the case of most institutions--and if it is to run to a strict ideology, a market ideology, that if there is no demand, then those kinds of courses and programs must be cancelled, then he should tell us so. He should be very clear. Let him go and tell us which ones are irrelevant. At what level does the market kick in? How many students must there be in a class before the Premier of Manitoba decides that it is relevant? That is what we need to hear.

But we are not hearing that, because we are not hearing any direction from the government on post-secondary education, other than the backdoor, sleight-of-hand decrease, downsizing, that will come under Bill 34.

We can look at the Roblin report, and I have over the last couple of days. I went back to the Roblin report, and I looked at every one of those 41 recommendations that former Premier Roblin made, and it is quite a surprise when you look at those because there is only one that the government has acted on--only one. This is the government which talks about education, looking to the future, finding places in the future for young Manitobans.

* (1130)

The kinds of changes that Roblin wanted to see--and I do not think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we agree with all of them, but some of them were useful. But Bill 34 will not enable the universities to meet the kinds of demands in distance education, in the increase in programs in community colleges that Premier Roblin was suggesting, so it is not surprising that the government has not acted on the Roblin report. It is not surprising they do not have a post-secondary education council yet. It is not surprising that they have not acted on the distance education proposals or the First Nations proposals, because their real agenda is to simply downsize and to turn all of post-secondary education essentially into an area where the market will rule, and that is their concept for the future of this province.

I will rest my case there, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We shall be voting against this bill. We deplore the absence of leadership from this government. We deplore the absence of common courtesy in informing the institutions and their boards and their presidents. We deplore the absence of understanding of the role of the university and the community colleges in the future of this province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a story that I have told before, but it bears telling again, because it shows the very striking contrast between the leadership of this province and the leadership of other provinces.

I will take the example of New Brunswick--earlier, I took the example of British Columbia--let me take now the example of New Brunswick. The president of the University of New Brunswick often complained, cannot get to his desk, cannot get round to meet with departments. Why? Because the Premier is on the phone. The Premier is on the phone saying, come and meet this delegation. Can I bring this delegation out to see your lab? Can I bring them out to take a photograph so we can put in The Globe and Mail as an advertisement for bringing research money into New Brunswick?

The connection between the Premier of New Brunswick and the president of the University of New Brunswick is a very close one, and it has paid off.

What is the relationship between the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province and any community college and any university in this province? Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a question, I think, for all members of this House to ponder. There is a very different relationship.

The delegation that was here from India, the delegation that is coming from the Ukraine, the delegation that was here very recently from South Africa, were they taken to the university? Did they meet with the scholars who deal with South Africa, South African economic issues? Did they deal with the people who came from India, our Sanskrit scholars, the Shastri Institute, all of the elements of the universities and colleges which are the windows of the world for this province? Not one.

At least the government is consistent. It does not pick up the phone to tell the universities and colleges they are going to lose $22 million. It does not pick up the phone to tell them that there are delegations here that are important to the future of the economy of this province and where the university could play a role. It goes through the backdoor, through the sleight of hand of Bill 34, and it lays itself a nest egg to draw down upon from public institutions, to draw down on the hopes of young Manitobans for a place in post-secondary education, and that is what Bill 34 is all about.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): In addressing this bill, I would like to speak first to the question of process.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, having worked in government, I know that when government wants to make a change in legislation that affects major institutions, one of their great concerns is to consult early, fairly and honestly with those organizations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I worked for several governments in the civil service of this province, on many occasions I was requested to inform institutions, whether it was the public school system or community colleges or our universities, that there were changes in legislation being proposed which would have a material and significant effect on the way they function as institutions. This would seem as both common courtesy of involving and informing those institutions before the fact so that if they had any guidance to offer or any serious concerns about the legislation, they would be in a position to do so.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

It was also seen, frankly, as good politics. When you want to have an effective working relationship with institutions that are vital to the health of your province--and our education institutions are vital to the health of our province--you do not sandbag them with legislation that you did not take the trouble to tell them about, that you did not have the common courtesy to inform them about, to ask them into your office as minister and to say: We are proposing to make significant changes in the way grants are paid, grants in lieu of taxes, Madam Speaker, and this is why we are proposing this. This is the effect it will have on your books. This is the effect it will have on our books. This is how we will mitigate the effects of this legislation. Do you have any comments?

Madam Speaker, this government proceeded in secrecy, in the dark. They put a bill on the Order Paper, did not draw its effects or its intention to anybody's attention, most especially to the institutions affected. It was a shameful process of deception. When the University of Manitoba, a very competent institution, does not get information about something that will affect $13.5 million in its budget, this is not open government. This is not concern for relationships of one of the engines of our economy, the university. This is simple, small-minded, deceptive government.

Secondly, having shown, I think, Madam Speaker, that the process by which this bill was introduced was a shameful, secret, deceptive process, I want to speak about the actual bill itself. Under the current legislation, which this government is now changing at the last moment of a session, the government of Manitoba has no option but to pay grants in lieu. The amount of the grant is settled in an orderly manner and they must pay this grant.

Under this legislation, they may pay. They shall take into account the level of the taxes and the level of the assessment, but they may or may not pay to the university sufficient funds to offset $22 million worth of current grants in lieu. The legislation is not simply housekeeping, as the minister has attempted to suggest. It is not simply increasing the transparency of university budgets, as the minister has tried to suggest. It is setting in place a mechanism to offload $22 million onto the taxpayers of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, we have heard in this session the great concern that this government has for the taxpayers of Manitoba. They have promised referenda on taxes but, when they cut the property tax credit a couple of years ago, there was no referendum. There was no notice of that that allowed for an effective campaign. They just cut the property tax credit.

When they do this, Madam Speaker, when they start to eat into this grant in lieu, you can be certain there will be no referendum. Heavens, there was not even any consultation with the institutions affected. Why would we expect that there would be a referendum for the taxpayers who will be so severely affected by the erosion of this important institution, our universities and community colleges?

* (1140)

So, Madam Speaker, let us understand the effect of this legislation. It is not simply a matter of transparency or good bookkeeping or increasing the accountability. If that were all it was, it is very easy for government to give effect to that intention by making it mandatory that the government shall transfer to the universities and community colleges the grants in lieu. If all you are interested in, Mr. Minister, is transparency, then the accounting change can be made, and you can protect the universities and community colleges from property tax increases which has been your responsibility and your function for as many years as we have had those institutions. This is a shameful, deceptive piece of legislation. It masquerades as legislation that increases accountability, as legislation that increases transparency, but its intent is to put in place a sliding scale of reducing support for property taxes on the part of our universities and colleges.

In defending the intent of this legislation, there has been discussion which I think is a shameful attack on professors, staff of the University of Manitoba. My colleague the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has pointed out that it is no longer unusual for university professors to subsidize equipment, lecturing supplies. Even, Madam Speaker, in the case of the department for which I taught, we wound up having to bring our own chalk for quite a while because there was not enough money to pay for chalk.

I am personally aware of a number of university professors who quietly and without fanfare, and they do not wish fanfare, but they subsidize their graduate students out of their own salaries. I am aware of professors who have, out of their own pockets, provided resources for poor students to be able to afford books and instructional supplies.

The university's funding is in a crisis. We have already seen the crisis in the reducing student enrollment. We have seen it in the loss of teaching assistants. We have seen it in the loss of lab supplies.

This legislation sets in place another mechanism to penalize this province's ability to capitalize on our best minds, on our best abilities, on the future of our children, on our ability as a province to do world-class research. My colleague the member for Wolseley also pointed out that in other provinces pride is taken when the university of that province brings in a special resource, a special grant, a special centre of excellence.

Madam Speaker, this year the University of Manitoba established a world-class centre and was given a world mandate, Canadian mandate, to lead in the world in large-scale structural testing of very-high tech material, including material that was put into the Charleswood Bridge and will go into the new bridge at Headingley. This is a world-class centre. It is one in which Canada is leading the world and Manitoba is leading Canada. Did we hear a single word about this in this House? No. Did the government take pride in the accomplishments of the professor who put this lab together? No, it did not. This is a government that does not understand the economics of universities, the economics of bringing research money into Manitoba, of bringing foreign students into Manitoba, of enabling the institution already sorely pressed by their cutbacks to maintain at least some ability to be a leading institution in so many important areas.

This is bad legislation, Madam Speaker. It is deceptive legislation. It was conceived in secrecy. It was not even so much as voiced to the institutions affected, and the minister should withdraw it and should be ashamed of this legislation. We will vote against it.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments on Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

This piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, as the previous speakers before me have indicated, is going to have the potential of having some very serious consequences for the colleges and universities of Manitoba. It is my understanding that the potential impact on these colleges and universities will be in the range of some $22 million per year, something I am fairly certain that the colleges and universities in Manitoba were not consulted about, this piece of legislation, nor about the impact. In fact, as the previous speaker, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), has indicated that this legislation was borne from secrecy and that the universities were not consulted.

The potential impact, Madam Speaker, of course, is going to have some very significant impacts upon the student population at the university not to mention the faculty association and others that are doing research through the various colleges and universities in Manitoba. The government has never consulted with these people to find out their thoughts of this legislation, to tell them what the potential impact is going to be. The government often feigns that they are interested in the plight of the students at the various colleges and universities. In fact, I just listened a few moments ago to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) say in the hallway during the media scrum that he is concerned about the students at the University of Manitoba and yet fails to take any action to try and bring the parties back to the negotiating table and to bring in voluntary binding arbitration. This tells me that the government is not interested in the student population and their plight.

When I have had the opportunity to talk with students, at the University of Manitoba in particular, who will be impacted by Bill 34 potentially, the students are quite worried about what the future holds for them. This government is now throwing another ticking time bomb into the midst of the colleges and universities in the potential impact of $22 million.

One letter that I have received from the senior stick at St. Paul's indicates that he wished that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) would take the necessary steps to resolve the dispute that is there. The student has no more options available to him. He is going to lose not only his term but potentially his whole class year as a result of this. It is going to have a long-term impact.

We have listened to the questions that were raised in this House here today from the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) when he was asking the Minister of Labour and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to step in and to try and resolve this dispute. I have listened to the comments from the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), who has said just a short time back, by putting information on the record that was not perhaps as fully forthcoming as it should be, the minister indicated the majority of the money from the fees, or the university spends annually, goes towards professors. The minister says that it is over 75 percent. Well, I must indicate, Madam Speaker, the information itself is false, and I know that the minister would not want to have that type of information on the record, so I stand here today to correct that information.

I listened to the debate. The government talks about having a referendum by Bill 2, and I must say that, unfortunately, I was paired yesterday and I did not have the opportunity to vote against Bill 2, but I would have voted against it had I not been paired. The government says they want to have referendums, and they want to have votes that the public will be involved in in determining what changes are going to come about, and yet when this Bill 34 impact is going to impact on the universities and the colleges, there is no consultation. There is no consultation with the parties that are going to be involved, neither the colleges, the universities nor with the student or the faculty populations.

Just as we saw in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) when he--I will not reference the term that has been used in this House, although there was a certain syndrome that was attached to the Minister of Agriculture who refuses to consult with the parties that are affected in agriculture by his change to the dual-marketing system in agriculture.

The same situation is happening in Bill 34. The government is throwing this ticking time bomb into the midst of the universities and colleges in not giving them the opportunity to have any say, did not even take the time to go out or to make a phone call and say, listen, we are considering this change, what do you think?

It would have been reasonable, I would have thought, on the part of the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) or perhaps the minister responsible for municipal affairs to consult with the parties, but they chose not to do that, preferring to bring in this legislation in secrecy, indicating that it was just a matter of housekeeping and that it was not going to have any serious impact.

Madam Speaker, fortunately for the members of the public and the students and the faculty at the colleges and universities, we have had the opportunity to look at this legislation and draw it to their attention. I know there were members of the public who came out to committee to present, and they have advised the government to withdraw this legislation. I have to agree that that is the proper course of action.

* (1150)

So I recommend to the government that they withdraw Bill 34. [interjection] Yes, indeed, as the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) indicates, this is a behind-the-scenes tax grab. The universities indicate that they have no property that they can dispose of. This is wrong legislation, Madam Speaker, and I advise the government to withdraw Bill 34.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to join with my colleagues to oppose Bill 34, which is extremely bad news for our universities and colleges in this province and I can say categorically is exceptionally bad news for Brandon University and for Assiniboine Community College.

It seems that we are going backwards with this government with the various cuts that it has brought about to our education system and, here again, we have an attack virtually on higher education in this province. Higher education is under attack in Bill 34 because the bottom line is that this government will no longer be required to pay the equivalent of the tax burden to be imposed on the universities and colleges in this province. There is no commitment to provide adequate level of funding for taxes.

And I say we are going backwards, I recall back in the early years of the Schreyer administration, we brought about legislation to ensure that the Manitoba government would pay 100 cents on the dollar in terms of grants in lieu of taxes. Up until that point, I can say that many communities, including Brandon, did not receive 100 percent grants equivalent to taxes. We made a change in 1971-72 and since that time we have been paying full taxes and to that extent the municipality of Brandon and other municipalities where there was a lot of provincial property benefited.

What we are doing now is presumably making the universities and colleges more accountable. That is the rationale. That is the explanation given by the minister. We are putting more responsibility on the colleges and universities, but it is assuming that there is a degree of freedom that they have to respond, which they do not have. I can tell you if for whatever reason the funds were cut at Brandon University, it has virtually no ways or means to effectively manage to cope with fewer dollars for the rest of its programs. It is really impossible.

I cannot see that they have the degrees of freedom that is implied in this Legislation. There is not the flexibility, and I would suggest that is true also for Assiniboine Community College.

We do not know whether the current level of taxes will be rolled into the operating grant. One would suspect that will not happen. We do not know whether increases will be provided as required. As the municipal mill rate goes up, of course, so go the taxes ceteris paribus, or if a new building is added, there again the tax burden goes up.

I know that Brandon University recently within the last short while opened a new library and I understand the taxes went up by $200,000 to the city of Brandon. If that were to occur under this new legislation, there is no guarantee that the government of Manitoba through the Grants Commission would ensure that those funds were forthcoming to pay municipal taxes. If they are not forthcoming, the question then remains, where does that university obtain the funds? What more can we see in cuts by way of reducing programs, by reducing or eliminating departments or eliminating courses? There is absolutely no question in my mind, therefore, Madam Speaker, that this really is an attack on our universities and colleges.

It is regrettable. It has come in in a very quiet way. People did not realize it. The universities did not realize it. The students did not realize it and members of this House did not realize the implications of Bill 34, which can and will be, I am afraid, very, very serious.

It is simply another method of enabling the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and this government to cut back on funding to the universities and colleges. It will, without question, reduce the ability of our institutions of higher learning to maintain the high quality standards of education that we expect of them.

As I said, speaking on behalf particularly of institutions in my area, both Assiniboine Community College and Brandon University, there is no question that this is a serious blow to those institutions. I believe in the long run it will require those institutions to cut back on programs and it will mean a lesser quality in the standards. This is regrettable.

In the 1980s and '90s, Brandon University's enrollment increased by 45 percent. It had to increase programs. It had to add more space to cope with this increase. With this legislation, they would have had a very difficult time to manage that.

So, Madam Speaker, we are very, very concerned that the government at this very late hour, very late part of the sitting has brought this legislation before us. I particularly regret that there has not been this discussion with members of the academic community, whether it be the administration or the faculty or the students, because everyone was caught by surprise. Indeed, Madam Speaker, this government has caused a great deal of anxiety through this one bill alone. In fact, it has created a lot of anxiety already through its various cuts, its various squeezing of financial flows to the universities and to the colleges, but this is yet still another attack, still another cut at the funding of the universities.

I know they want to do the right thing. The universities and the colleges want to be accountable. They want to be able to manage. They do not want to pay any more taxes than they have, but there is this pressure that comes from the municipal side of things, because the municipalities are being forced to look for additional revenues partly because this government has offloaded responsibilities back to municipalities in this province and because it has not kept up with certain grants.

The reduction of the property tax credit of $75 was a major blow to ratepayers, to municipal taxpayers. It is a major blow to the whole municipal government's financial category or structure. So I can see where municipalities in turn would want to increase taxes, would be required to increase taxes on all kinds of properties including universities and colleges. On the one hand you get the government wanting to provide less funding to those institutions and on the other hand the municipal governments being put into a position where they are going to have to increase taxes more than they would have otherwise if this government had not cut back on certain grants, certain payments to municipalities, had not cut back on the property tax credit.

There are all kinds of other ways of cutting back on municipal services, and I know in the City of Brandon this government has cut back on its cost-sharing of municipal transit service. Here is another example of the pressure being put on the City of Brandon, another example of pressure being put on the municipal level of government so that it is therefore wont to increase taxes on properties in order to pay its way, in order to maintain municipal services, in order to live up to its responsibilities to municipal ratepayers.

In Brandon we are talking about $1,838,645 by way of grants in lieu of taxes for Brandon University. That is the 1994 level, and certainly I cannot see it being any less in 1995. Probably we will see an increase, as usually happens. In the case of Assiniboine College the amount is $623,615. In both instances, Madam Speaker, these are significant amounts. They are a high percentage of their total budget from the Universities Grants Commission, and therefore we are talking about a very serious situation, some very serious dollars.

So, Madam Speaker, I would only hope that the government in its wisdom would withdraw the legislation, but if that is not to be the case, I stand, along with my colleagues on this side, in firm opposition to this very bad piece of legislation. Thank you.

* (1200)

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I would like to make closing comments on the proposed amendment to Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

Madam Speaker, I have, as you have also and members opposite have, listened to members on this side of the House with their concerns with respect to this bill. There are concerns, and that is the potential, and I say potential, desire or wish or stroke of the pen of this government in the future to be able to downsize and to cut the funding that the universities are now receiving in grants in lieu of taxes, and, in fact, if they are going to be receiving these cuts from this government, then they will have to downsize other parts of their education system.

Madam Speaker, it has been mentioned here this afternoon and at other times that discussions with the universities, colleges, community colleges, was not done. I find that very strange, even understanding the way that this government does business in this province. However, they did not take the opportunity nor the time to discuss this potential amendment with any of the universities or colleges, but they did take time to discuss the other portion of this bill where the province is going to also cut down grants in lieu of taxes in municipalities.

Madam Speaker, when the municipalities were made aware of this, the municipalities were able to discuss this with this minister and came to a conclusion, a certain agreement, as to how this was going to be done. As far as the universities and colleges, that was not done. It was not done.

The presenters who came to this House in committee were fearful, very fearful of the fact that even though potentially the minister says, no, we will not use this as an opportunity to cut funding to universities and colleges, but, Madam Speaker, we might want to take the minister to heart with what he says when he says, no, this will not.

Well, then, Madam Speaker, if this will not be a potential future downsizing and cutting of funds in grants of lieu of taxes, in the bill, it says, a grant under Section 38 shall take into consideration the obligation to pay grants under subsection 799(2.1) of The Municipal Act--shall take into consideration. It does not say, we will not cut, we will not downsize funding. We will take into consideration.

What this government then is saying is it is providing an avenue for the Department of Finance and this government to potentially take away that funding that has been in place for so many years, and in place, not for, that I believe, the whimsical wishes of the universities or the colleges to acquire property, acquire unnecessary property.

Madam Speaker, in writing it says that the properties that are owned by universities and colleges now are needed for their education system, the University of Manitoba, for the lands that they have for agriculture research and for other educational purposes. There is no property that we can see that is not necessary for the benefit of the universities and for the students and for the education system as a whole.

If this minister and if this government were serious about not potentially taking this away--[interjection] Yes, and the minister went through it with me, and I did ask him that. He did not say, I will not. No, he said, this will not permit; we will not allow it. But, then, if he is so gung-ho on what he is saying about that what he said to me is--why did he not say so in the act when we asked for an amendment?

We asked, Madam Speaker, that if the government was true to their facts in saying that they would not, then why do they not say, as our amendment: In addition to any other grant made to the commission, grant shall be made to the commission to pay all grants that universities are obligated to pay under Section 799(2.1)?

Madam Speaker, if in fact this is not in this government's mind an opportunity in the future to cut these grants, then why did the government not say so specifically in the act? [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing difficulty hearing the honourable member for Interlake.

Mr. Clif Evans: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Then the people who came to committee said that there is no problem as far as a potential, a future obligation that if universities or colleges obtain properties, they should be responsible. I can quote that perhaps another approach could be to amend the appropriate act to indicate that when a university purchased property without prior approval of the government, taxes on said property would be the responsibility of the university.

They do not have a problem with that. They do not have a problem if in fact they have property and sell it off. They do not have a problem with that amount of grants in lieu of taxes towards that property that they sold off being taken off the initial grant in lieu of taxes to the universities.

But it is important that we know that we maintain the fact that grants in lieu of taxes be committed to the universities, not "shall take them into consideration," but "be committed to."

Madam Speaker, the future is what we are looking at. The future is what we have to consider here, that this government, this Finance minister, this Minister of Education, and through some other part or other department that involves a university education or involves the students of the future and the potential future of being able to have the funding to provide the proper education to our post-secondary young people, Madam Speaker, we are fearful.

We agree that there has to be accountability but, again, accountability is there. The universities have in fact property that is necessary to them, necessary to the University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg, Brandon college, et cetera. It is there.

Madam Speaker, I say, my point to this bill is that in fact this government should have accepted our amendment to make sure, to commit from today--from the day this bill is enacted--till whenever that the funds are committed and will stay year to year in grants in lieu of taxes to the universities. I hate to see what this government will do in the future when it comes to our universities and to funding. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

* (1210)

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is third reading Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et apportant des modifications corrélatives. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Martindale: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Order, please. The motion is third reading of Bill 34.

* (1220)

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Nays

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 30, Nays 24.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

I have been advised the Lieutenant-Governor is present for Royal Assent.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): In light of the fact that we are close to 12:30 p.m., our normal adjournment time, and we may not complete Royal Assent prior to that hour arriving, perhaps we could agree not to see the clock until Royal Assent and the balance of the motions have been passed.

Madam Speaker: Is there agreement that we will not see the clock at 12:30? [agreed]

ROYAL ASSENT

His Honour Yvon Dumont, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the throne, Madam Speaker addressed His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in the following words:

Madam Speaker: May it please Your Honour:

The Legislative Assembly, at its present session, passed 29 bills, which in the name of the Assembly, I present to Your Honour and to which bills I respectfully request Your Honour's Assent:

Bill 2, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications corrélatives

Bill 4, The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels

Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'adminstration scolaire

Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques

Bill 8, The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les véhicules á caractère non routier

Bill 9, The Wills Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les testaments

Bill 10, The Development Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de développement

Bill 11, The Trustee Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les fiduciaires

Bill 12, The Louis Riel Institute Act; Loi sur l'Institut Louis Riel

Bill 13, The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'accord de règlement de la première nation crie de Split Lake relatif à l'application de la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain, modifiant la Loi sur l'energie hydraulique et apportant des modifications corrélatives

Bill 14, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les mines et les minéraux

Bill 15, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement d'organismes de producteurs agricoles

Bill 16, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route

Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg

Bill 18, The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Sociéte d'habitation et de rénovation

Bill 19, The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'adoption internationale (Convention de la Haye) et apportant des modifications corrélatives

Bill 20, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille

Bill 21, The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les obligations de développement rural

Bill 22, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et la Charte de Brandon

Bill 23, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie

Bill 25, The Real Property Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels

Bill 26, The Liquor Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la réglementation des alcools

Bill 27, The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association des éleveurs de bétail

Bill 28, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995; Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité

Bill 31, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de la route

Bill 32, The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les procédures contre la Couronne

Bill 33, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995; Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives

Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et apportant des modifications corrélatives

Bill 36, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation municipale

* (1230)

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour was then pleased to retire.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Madam Speaker upon the request of the government.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that the House adjourn.

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: The hour being after 12:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until a time set by its Speaker at the request of the government, as previously agreed.