Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), effective 10:10 a.m., October 10, 1996.

I move, seconded by the member for Broadway, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) for the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), effective 10:42 a.m., October 10, 1996.

I move, seconded by the member for Broadway, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) for the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) for the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) for Thursday, October 10, 1996, for 7 p.m.

Motions agreed to.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Gimli, with committee changes.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Thursday, October 10 at 7 p.m. meeting be amended as follows: The member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay), the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), the member for River East (Ms. Mitchelson) for the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe).

An Honourable Member: Got that right now, Ed, eh?

Mr. Helwer: I never make a mistake.

I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Friday 9 a.m. meeting if necessary, the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).

I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: The member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson).

Motions agreed to.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you please call report stage on the bills as listed in the Order Paper.

* (1440)

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): On behalf of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 2, The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Assessment Validation Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation municipale et validant certaines évaluations, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, again, on behalf of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), I move, seconded by the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews), that Bill 3, The Surface Rights Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les droits de surface, reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 5, The Horticultural Society Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les associations horticoles), be reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 6, The Veterinary Science Scholarship Fund Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Fonds des bourses d'études vétérinaires), be reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 11, The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pratique relative aux successions devant la Cour du Banc de la Reine), reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 16, The Charleswood Bridge Facilitation Act (Loi facilitant l'application de l'entente sur le pont Charleswood), reported from the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

* (1450)

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, there is a report stage amendment. I would like to move that amendment then.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey),

THAT Bill 19 be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection 10(2) as set out in section 2 of the Bill:

Factors to consider

10(3) In deciding whether to take any action under subsection (2), the director shall consider all the relevant factors, including

(a) the proximity of the proposed facility to a residential area;

(b) the toxicity of the hazardous waste to be disposed of at the facility; and

(c) the type of facility and its proposed capacity.

[French version]

Il est proposé d'amender le projet de loi 19 conformément à l'article 2 par adjonction, après le paragraphe 10(2), de ce qui suit:

Facteurs à prendre en considération

10(3) Pour décider s'il doit ou non prendre des mesures en vertu du paragraphe (2), le directeur prend en considération tous les facteurs pertinents, notamment:

a) la proximité de l'installation proposée par rapport à un quartier résidentiel;

b) la toxicité des déchets dangereux devant être éliminés à l'installation;

c) le type d'installation et sa capacité proposée.

Motion presented.

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, before I move the motion to concur, I have been requested across the way to add a word of explanation on the amendments. They were discussed at committee and actually are the amendments as proposed by the critic of the official opposition.

Basically, they spell out the requirements for the director at the time of making decision as to a minimum of matters that he should consider prior to making his final decision on the process for establishment of a licence for a facility.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the proposed amendment to Bill 19. Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Cummings: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 19, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses), reported from the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in as amended.

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 24, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société du crédit agricole), reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that Bill 30, The Dairy Act (Loi sur les produits laitiers), be reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by the Minister of Housing and Senior Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 31, The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la diversification de l'industrie du bétail et apportant des modifications corrélatives), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 34, The Contaminated Sites Remediation and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant l'assainissement des lieux contaminés et apportant des modifications corrélatives), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): On behalf of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 43, The Municipal Assessment Amendment, City of Winnipeg Amendment and Assessment Validation Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation municipale et la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg et validant certaines évaluations, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

* (1500)

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Law Amendments will sit on Tuesday, October 15, 7 p.m., to consider Bills 37 and 49.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, would you call for second reading debate Bills 32, 33, 47, 60, 45 and 67.

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, Bill 32, establishing a council on post-secondary education, is one of the more widely discussed bills in a legislative session crammed with bills reflective of the radical right agenda of the Filmon government.

Its purpose is to bring together the planning and funding of our colleges and universities under the aegis of a post-secondary education council but, in so doing, the government is altering the position of universities and creating an education system which is far more directive or dirigiste and which puts Manitoba's universities in an anomalous position.

The attempt to bring together colleges and universities for planning and financing purposes is one we support. We would say that it is long overdue, and we should re-emphasize that it has taken the Tories since 1988 to get to dealing with post-secondary education.

Before the election of 1990, the government had promised a formal review of post-secondary education. By 1992, and two education ministers later, there was in place what the government called a blue ribbon committee, chaired by former Premier Duff Roblin and commissioners Kathleen Richardson, Sid Gordon, and Kevin Kavanagh. All had the best interests of the province at heart, but they were startlingly unrepresentative of the province of Manitoba. There were no aboriginal people, no students, no staff, nor northerners, no one connected with the education system at all.

But they did in 1993, at the end of 1993, present a report to the government. Wisely, I think, Premier Roblin had ignored the limited mandate the government had given him to examine universities. He took the whole field of post-secondary education and argued that one of the most important priorities for the government should be the doubling of the number of diploma programs in the community colleges. We lag far behind most of the rest of Canada in the scope and diversity of our college programs. It is a glaring gap and one to which the government should have given its wholehearted attention. Instead we know that they pulled $10 million out of the community colleges, the waiting lists increased, and the colleges have been directed to tie themselves very tightly to the Manitoba market.

The expansion of programs for sequential students from high school has simply not occurred at the rate either we, Premier Roblin or indeed the colleges themselves would like to have seen. The real reason, of course, the Filmon government has not acted upon the Roblin commission report is that it would mean substantial increase in funding to the public sector. Roblin, the Conservative Premier who built the floodway, extended public education in Manitoba, created a good deal of the modern infrastructure of the province, would not perhaps find a congenial home in the modern Tory party. Money in public education for the Filmonites is like money down the drain. I expect they have all kinds of inelegant expressions for it on the other side of the House.

The loss of federal post-secondary funds is providing them with a convenient screen when they themselves are consistently averse to spending any money to maintain, let alone improve the public sector in schools, hospitals, colleges or universities. However, Premier Roblin also recommended a new governance structure to consist of a post-secondary education council and a cabinet committee on post-secondary education. Both, I believe, were sensible ideas and they followed a pattern of Roblin's own government, the use of cabinet committees, investment in the public sector and an inclination to planning. Filmon, or should I say the intensely partisan Treasury Board, has ignored the recommendations for a cabinet committee, without which there will be neither the formal record of debates on the policies on post secondary education or the annual meeting with university presidents which Roblin saw as an essential part of this policy.

Madam Speaker, in creating the post-secondary education council, the government has created several anomalies. The Universities Grants Commission which was an arm's-length agency to fund and advise the universities is completely dissolved. On the other hand The Colleges Act remains intact with its own Colleges Advisory Board. People are questioning, I think, why there is no advisory board of presidents for universities. Why are the two elements of post-secondary education not being treated in a similar manner?

There are also differences in the act before us in the transfer of the money of the two groups of institutions to the new council. The UGC funds, for example, continue as the post-secondary education funds, but there is no clear indication of how the funding of colleges continues under this act. Perhaps the minister will have an explanation of that at the committee hearings and perhaps it is quite straightforward.

This is an act, Madam Speaker, of great centralizing power. It transfers additional power to the minister and to the Treasury Board over policies and programs in universities and colleges. The greater effect will be felt by the universities. Under The Colleges Act, the minister has had and will continue to have some control but rather less accountability, I fear, for particular colleges, for the direction and the provision of courses and programs and for the appointment of their boards. The centralization of direction under the new council is less of a change for colleges, though I understand that there are concerns that they have expressed over the new bill and that I hope they will present publicly at the committee.

But for the universities there are significant and serious changes. At first glance one might be misled into thinking that the new council was, and I quote: a UGC with teeth, as someone expressed to me. Well, some teeth, might be the Churchillian response. Madam Speaker, the old UGC was not to interfere with the formulation of academic policies and standards, nor were the independence of universities in fixing standards of admission or of graduation or with the independence of a university and the appointment of staff.

The new council's mandate omits significantly the words "academic policies" and this has given rise to serious concerns in universities since this was not an oversight. If it was, I am sure that the minister, who has been made aware of this, will be bringing forward the appropriate amendment at the committee. I can assure her of our support. Should such an amendment not be forthcoming, then we can be certain that it was no oversight and the government is trying to do, through legislation, what its representatives had failed to do last fall during the strike at the University of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, the new council, like the UGC, will be composed of members appointed by the government. The government will continue to appoint substantial numbers of the members of the boards of governors of each of the universities, as well as all of the members of the college boards, apart from a staff and student representative. Unlike the UGC, however, the new council may have a full-time chair in addition to its own staff. Such a possibility opens the door to a more detailed involvement of a ministerial appointee in the internal affairs of colleges and universities.

Both the UGC and the new council have the mandate to study the needs of the province and the ability of the institutions to meet those needs. Both have not had the obligation to develop plans, and both were given direction to avoid waste or unnecessary duplication in the case of the UGC and unnecessary duplication of effort and expense in the case of the new council.

Under the UGC, universities had to obtain approval before establishing new services or programs or extending existing programs if they involved money from the UGC. The UGC could also require an institution to cease offering a program or a service which was adequately offered by another institution. The new council must approve the establishment, expansion or reduction of programs which are funded by the council.

* (1510)

Madam Speaker, the key differences lie in the potential power of the new council over internal university affairs, in particular, academic policies and programs. The definition of program in the context of Manitoba's universities was a crucial factor in the U of M strike, and it continues to be an issue in this legislation. The omission of the words "academic policies" has given rise to concerns about the government's intent to micromanage, to deal in the detail of universities and colleges programs. Does program mean labour studies, native studies or an arts degree? Does it mean geological engineering or an engineering program? Does it mean the continuing education function or particular programs within continuing education? The universities are right to be concerned that the government may be creating the conditions for unwarranted interference in the academic responsibilities of the universities and their senates.

The new council has been given the responsibility for developing accountability requirements for each university and college for teaching, research and service. Here is a significant departure from the earlier UGC where such matters rested with senates and boards. As Bernard Shapiro remarked in his recent report on teacher education in Manitoba, the opposite of accountability is trust, and indeed much of this legislation indicates that we have a government which does not trust its colleges and universities. In an earlier generation, as recently as 10 years ago, there was that level of trust, but there clearly is no longer.

The New Right does not trust either education in general nor the liberal professions in particular and it cannot be comfortable with critical thought. It was this Premier (Mr. Filmon), was it not, who referred to universities, and I quote, as mandated irrelevancies, during the university strike last year. It was indeed this Premier who wrote to the president of Harvard University to bring pressure to bear on a faculty member who had expressed a public opinion on the labour situation at the University of Manitoba. It was, was it not, a member of this cabinet who wrote in a similar vein to the administration at Brandon University several years ago. So, Madam Speaker, when we look at this new council, we cannot disassociate it in our minds from the invisible hands that will be guiding it.

This is not a government which has demonstrated much understanding of universities. The Premier and Mr. Manness wanted to determine class size. The new council may give them the power to do that. Whenever universities are raised in the Legislature, I always hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) mumbling on about basket-weaving courses. You can find the Tory cabinet at golf courses and country clubs, but you cannot find them at universities. Well, perhaps you see them occasionally at basketball games, but they were conspicuously absent from the annual meeting of the University of Manitoba last week. Here is an institution of major significance to the province and not one, not one, of the 31 Tory MLAs was delegated to attend. The direction or the guidance which will come from this government is not likely to be either informed or sympathetic to the historic role of universities, nor surprisingly is the government interested in the economic role of the universities. All the universities and colleges bring substantial external funding into Manitoba. I used to point this out to Mr. Manness, but his answer was that that was irrelevant. That is in Hansard. It is quite clear. He said these were federal funds from the public purse and not representative of genuine wealth creation.

I notice that the new president of the University of Manitoba is making the same argument for the economic contribution of the university as is the president of the University of Winnipeg. They will discover that such sensible and rational arguments get short shrift in this cabinet. Madam Speaker, universities are Manitoba's window on the world, yet, this government has no time for the staff or the research that this represents. How long is it since a visiting delegation from South Africa, from India or elsewhere, was taken to our research centres at the universities? Do the trade delegations from Manitoba ever include university representatives?

I have told the story before of the tired president of the University of New Brunswick who cannot keep Frank McKenna away. The Premier deluges him with prospective investors. He features the universities in provincial advertising and requires the presidents' of the universities attendance at formal events promoting New Brunswick. Now, there is a premier who has grasped the economic significance and the international role and the importance of higher education in any economic strategy.

The new president of the University of Manitoba will not find this premier beating down the path to her door. What she will find is a government unfamiliar with the wider role of the universities, a government suspicious of what they do not understand, and a government apparently unwilling to make this effort at this stage of their mandate to create the co-operative framework for a genuine partnership with higher education. So we are right to be concerned that this new act puts more extensive and intrusive power into the hands of the appointees of a government of whom we must beware.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we need only go back a few months to the appointment of the interim transition committee which the government appointed to draft this legislation. Undoubtedly, again, the members of the committee had the interest of the province, the universities and colleges at heart; but they were, with one or two exceptions, unfamiliar with higher education and, like the Roblin commission, they were an unrepresentative group of Manitobans. There were no northerners, no aboriginal people, no new immigrants and apart from Dr. Duckworth, no researchers. They did include a member of a board of governors, a defeated Tory candidate and former assistant to Tory ministers. We have no reason to expect that the composition of the new post-secondary council will be any different.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, yes, experience would suggest that we have cause for concern. Each of the senates of the three universities of Manitoba has examined this bill. Each has expressed their concern and some will be presenting these concerns at the committee hearings. They may already have proposed amendments to the minister, and I hope that she will take them in the spirit they are intended and not think that there is a loss of face for her if she adopts some of the amendments that are being suggested. If Manitoba can emerge from this legislative session with a bill which is acceptable to the universities and colleges and their students and which begins to develop the co-operative framework between government and the institutions of higher education and research and which gives evidence of an intent to maintain accessibility, then there can be no loss of face, and we will be the first to congratulate the minister.

But it is perhaps too much to hope for at this stage of the government's mandate and at this stage of the bill. How unfortunate, but how typical that the government delayed so long in its appointment of the interim transition committee. It was recommended in 1993; it was promised in 1995. It was not appointed until 1996 and given less than six months to create a new legislative framework for higher education. How unfortunate, but how typical that this interim transition committee gave such short shrift to the presidents of each of the major institutions--called in for half an hour's consultation, I believe. Or for the representatives of the faculty and students who, I understand, forced their way onto the agenda for a little longer, perhaps as long as an hour. How typical that the committee's promises of further consultation with the so-called stakeholders never materialized. How predictable that we should now be in this situation of a government presenting legislation in the House which does not have the support of many of the stakeholders whom it will affect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, much of the discussion at the community level on this bill has focused on the appointment of the new council. Some are proposing alternatives to an appointed board. The comparisons with the simultaneous creation of appointed regional hospital boards suggest that the extension of the powers of centralization, of decision making by unelected people appointed by the cabinet and accountable only to a governing party is a conscious political direction of this government.

Over the dying years of their mandate, the Filmon government is clearly intent on transferring a good deal of power over the crucial institutions of our province into the hands of the unelected and unaccountable.

In the case of the Crown corporations such as Telephones, Public Insurance and Hydro, they will privatize. The major instruments of the economy will be in the hands of private shareholders. In the case of education, the government misses no opportunity to by-pass the elected school boards, and we have two bills before us this session which codify some such practices.

* (1520)

In the case of health, the appointed regional boards are already taking shape with their complements of defeated Tory candidates, very few aboriginal people and few women.

There is a clear pattern here and it is one of an arrogant government which believes it is immune to criticism and which demonstrates little faith in the ability of the ordinary people of this province to govern themselves in accountable, democratic fashion.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not anticipate that such a government will have any interest in the principle of elections for this post-secondary education council, but an elected principle is one that should be seriously considered to be part of the new governance of higher education.

However, we should not let our concerns over the appointment and functions of the council overshadow another disturbing element in this bill. The funds allocated to the old Universities Grants Commission were to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the province to the Department of Education and transferred there from the minister to the UGC. The funds of this new council, however, will be paid directly to the council from Treasury Board.

Now, what is the purpose of this, I asked myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Well, it was clear that the intent of the UGC act was to create a reasonable distance from government but to maintain a link with the Department of Education. The new bill appears to preclude any role at all financially for the Minister of Education, and it is a most puzzling change for a minister to bring to this House in a bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may look in this bill as though the minister is appointing an intermediary body in the spirit of the old arm's-length agencies, but the reality may indeed be quite different. The council must operate within a set of priorities determined by the minister, but will it, in fact, be the Treasury Board which will determine the final allocation of grants to institutions? The council may be nothing more than a rubber stamp in financial matters. It may not, in fact, matter a whit who is appointed to this council, because the fundamental allocations of money may be made elsewhere in ways which were not possible before.

The old Keynesian idea, and the early examples of such arm's-length agencies were indeed Keynesian, have certainly been eradicated by this bill, and it is hard not to believe that that is not, in fact, the government's clear intention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the consolidation and centralization of power will remain one of the hallmarks of this government, and it is one which I do not believe serves Manitobans well at the end of the 20th Century. It is particularly troubling that such power could now be consolidated in a Treasury Board which has become intensely partisan.

As we look at this bill and the prospects for post-secondary education in Manitoba, we can see how the distrust and suspicion which characterizes authoritarian regimes is growing in Manitoba. The cabinet appoints the Board of Governors of the universities, but it does not really trust its own appointees to plan or be accountable for their institutions. The cabinet appoints a post-secondary education council, gives it specific direction to ensure that the appointed boards of governors are doing their job, but it does not really trust its appointees on the post-secondary education council. The cabinet ensures that the council must operate within a framework established by only the minister, but then it does not really trust the minister either, and in a significant departure from past practice, it reduces the minister's role by ensuring that the allocation of monies to institutions may, in the final analysis, be made not even by the Minister of Education but by the Minister of Finance. It is all quite breathtaking, but it is certainly in line with the changes in post-secondary funding that are being made by some of the more extreme of the state governments in the United States or by the government of New Zealand or by the mother of them all, Margaret Thatcher.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a price to be paid for this type of government, and I think I began to recognize it earlier this week when I was out knocking on doors, talking to people, about the proposed sale of Manitoba Telephones. The resident I was speaking to and I agree that this sale offered no benefits to ordinary Manitobans, and he knew well of the rapid increase in residential telephone rates that had followed privatization in Alberta, but he said, and was resigned and sad: They will get us all in the end, won't they? It was hard to disagree, but it was also hard to acknowledge that this was the relationship between the citizen and his government in 1996 in Manitoba.

Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to underline for the government what is at stake in these changes to university governance. As many will point out, the role of the senates, the centres of self-government for all universities across the world, may be unilaterally being altered by this bill. A university whose autonomy and self-governance is in doubt would be placed in an unenviable position in the international world of scholarship, and the government should recognize that research, scholarship and teaching are global in their scope and in their responsibility. I know that the minister is aware of the draft recommendations of the UNESCO higher education draft proposals which aim to ensure that institutional autonomy is maintained. Article 17, for example, proposes that member states are under an obligation not to interfere with the autonomy of institutions of higher education and to protect them from threats to their autonomy coming from any source. Article 16 continues in the same vein. Article 22 says that the recognition and self-governance and collegiality are essential components of meaningful autonomy for institutions of higher education. It would be important, I believe, for any government to ensure that its legislation met these tests. Can the minister assure us that her bill does this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the meantime, I want to draw the attention of members of this House to a province where they really do things differently. I have already alluded in the House elsewhere to the fact that both the New Democratic provinces, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, were as affected as Manitoba by the withdrawal of federal funding for post-secondary education. Both chose to backfill, I believe the expression is. They chose to compensate the universities and colleges and to continue their investment in education. It is in striking contrast to the actions of the rabid right in Manitoba and Ontario. Saskatchewan, as a smaller province with a substantial and growing aboriginal population, faces many of the same challenges as Manitoba in higher education, but they do have a different way about them in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan government also began to review its universities a couple of years ago. They chose as their commissioner, Al Johnson, a man committed to the public sector, and they got a report which did not undermine university autonomy, which did not see the role of universities as deliverers only of market-driven training and which recognized the intense pride that the people of that province have in their institutions of higher learning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, since that report, the government of Saskatchewan commissioned Mr. Harold Mackay, Q.C., to work with, and I repeat for all those members who are still busy with their Fraser forums and their own press clippings, that it is to work with the universities, to define the revitalization of universities. His terms of reference include an entire page devoted to respect for university autonomy. It began with the statement that the government of Saskatchewan respects and values the autonomy of the universities. It noted that the decision to appoint Mr. McKay directly reflected the government's reluctance to encroach on the university's traditional freedoms and responsibilities. The terms of reference made it clear that Mr. Mackay's task was not to determine the directions of university revitalization on his own but rather was to work with the universities and colleges as they themselves formulated proposals for change.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, if anyone in Manitoba doubts the importance of politics and political choices, they should examine the different roads being taken by these two provinces. The approach to universities and indeed to education generally is strikingly different. The punitive tone of the Manitoba government, the fear and mistrust of public education that they have engendered can be compared to Saskatchewan with the attempt to successfully establish a framework of co-operation with the creation of a public ethos which values the schools, teachers, colleges and universities of the province.

Let me conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by underlining for the government that respect for university autonomy is the necessary context for the continuing respect for academic freedom. This bill has an unusual preamble which I expect the minister believes addresses that. I am not convinced that it does, nor am I convinced that this is a government which intends to acknowledge the importance of maintaining such freedoms whether it be in department of astronomy at Harvard or in the Faculty of Arts and Science at Brandon.

* (1530)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, our universities must remain the crucibles of creativity. They must be international in standards. They must foster debate and dissent. They must reflect the public interest in the broadest sense of that responsibility. They should be the guardians of liberties and reflect to us the best of mankind.

There are many men and women who have over the past several hundred years written of the idea of the university. Cardinal John Henry Newman and Matthew Arnold are perhaps the most easily recognized authors, but when I think of the public role of universities, I think most immediately of my own colleagues--historians, archeologists, linguists, mathematicians, architects, artists, lawyers, physicians and philosophers--whose contributions to this province continue to reflect to us the best of mankind and to do so throughout the province, whether it be at Sagkeeng, at Norway House, at Cross Lake, Selkirk, Dauphin or Roblin.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think, too, of a very gentle man who more than 30 years ago was my professor and my teacher. He made many historians and teachers of history and was still doing so two years ago when he died. His eulogist spoke for many, including my elder son who was at the time his graduate student, when he said that Professor Vogel's students knew his devotion to them, his great patience, his readiness to listen and help, his high standards, his greatness of mind, his diffidence and courtesy, his warm humour and affection, and he remains my ideal.

But he was more than a distinguished teacher and a great and good man. As a child, he had fled Nazi Austria. He understood and taught always the nature of tyranny, and at his funeral it was said that Robert Vogel loved the university with his mind and his whole being. He knew and taught us that the university is that unique historical institution fashioned within our torn civilization to be its conscious living mind, to unite and shield and cultivate the true and the good in knowledge, in people and in its own example to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government of Manitoba must convince us all that it can and will protect the public place of our institutions of higher education.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remaining standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Deputy Speaker, do I have leave to rescind one of the committee changes that I made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Gimli have leave to rescind some committee changes that he had previously made? [agreed]

Mr. Helwer: I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the changes that I made to the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the one where I put on the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), because I duplicated that from yesterday, I want to rescind today's motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), seconded by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on PUNR, the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) for the honourable member for Kirkfield (Mr. Stefanson). Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered--[interjection] No, that has been changed because there was a duplication, so it has been rescinded from before. Is there agreement that the change be rescinded? Agreed? [agreed]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 33, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson, who has 25 minutes remaining.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to finish my comments on Bill 33. I think when I had been debating this bill before the weekend or early this week, I had been just starting off talking generally about the basis and principles behind a public education system and wanting to ensure that there is equality in the provision of education throughout the province.

It should not matter where students come from. It should not matter what kind of family they come from, especially the means of that family. Everyone should have the same opportunity, and they should have access to the same quality of education. That is the fundamental principle behind a public education system and one that we take very seriously on this side of the House. We recognize the importance of education in our economy and in our society to enable those in our community to be able to learn to provide for themselves and to be active participants in our society and active citizens.

I think what Bill 33 is doing, in a sense, along with its companion Bill 47, is threatening and dismantling this very basis of the public education system. It is going to do that by introducing more and more of a marketization and competition between schools, both public and private, especially between schools in the public education system. This marketization may work quite well for distributing goods like speedboats or hotel rooms, but it is not a very inclusive or effective way for ensuring that there is equity and inclusiveness in our public education system. It begs the question of what interest does it serve to have this type of marketization and competition in the public education system.

The whole language with developing more choice in the public education system, I mean, that is the language that the government may want to talk in, but really what they are going to be doing is creating some schools that are going to become losers in the system and some schools that are going to become winners. It does not seem to recognize that we have to deal with the public education system as a whole and not just try and have parts of that system competing and vying against each other for resources. We must recognize that children learn differently and at different rates and that they are going to progress through the system with different needs.

My concern is that as Bill 33 goes forward, and I will outline specifically what it is going to do in creating this more market approach or market type of system in public education, it is going to mean that the minister is going to determine all forms of assessment in the classroom. It is going to mean that the minister is going to tell school boards what and when and how they must report to the citizens and voters in their community, and it is going to require schools to publish or make public the records and achievement and standings of the students in the school. That is particularly the area that we have concerns about.

The bill specifically says that there is going to be the requirement to release information relating to pupil achievement and the effectiveness of programs in public or private schools. To me, we know that some people would think that they want to have this sort of approach in schools, but we have to ask ourselves, who is it going to serve to have the standings of students made public? What is going to happen is that, as I understand it, people then are going to be able to choose the school that they want to send their children to based on the results in academic subjects. So first of all there is the problem of the very limited kind of information that could be made public which would not include the entire range of programs in the school and the arts and athletics in various other areas. Also, what is going to happen to those schools who do not have high standings for their students? Is it going to occur that some students and their families will choose to have their students go elsewhere where there may be some higher standing of the average student or higher records of achievement?

We have to suspect that the government is going in this direction because we have also seen their report on the Render-Dyck commission which, to the amazement and confoundment of a number of us, tried to equate student performance in standard tests and grades with teacher effectiveness. Now that is a leap that I think disregards a number of basic truths in education, but it just amazed a lot of people, and with that kind of report out there in the public I think that it is understandable why people are concerned about Bill 33 and having the requirement to make public records and make public the achievement and standing of students school by school. As I said, this is a companion to Bill 47 which does specifically set up that there is going to be choice opened up in the public school system. I am going to deal with that bill more specifically later, if I get the chance, with the limits that are going to be on that choice.

* (1540)

We know that choice costs money. Choice costs dollars if it is going to be equitable choices for all those in the community, and we know that the greatest indicator of the success of students in school is the socioeconomic status of their parents. It has more to do with the family of origin and the socioeconomic status of that family than a lot of other things that can go on in the school, and that is discouraging to some to know that the school system is limited in some way by the family or the home life of the students that are attending that school, but that is the reality. We must take that into consideration when we are trying to deal with issues like are outlined in these bills, Bill 33 and Bill 47.

So who does it serve when students are regimentally graded and when those results are going to be made public? Is that more in the interests of administration? Some may say that it is just in the interest of business to try and have a view of students in a pecking order so they can have some sense that they are going to get the best and the brightest students. That kind of approach, especially when children are young, is definitely not in the best interests of the students, and the kind of clear deciding of rank to make winners and losers in education does not serve the interests particularly of the losers, but I would suggest neither does it serve entirely the interests of the students who are deemed to be the winners.

When we are talking about how the largest indicator of the success of students in education is their socioeconomic background, we must consider the effect of the cut of $47 million to public education over the last two years, how the loss of over 500 teachers in the last couple of years is going to interplay with this whole move to have a more market approach in education and how it is going to mean that there will be some schools that will be the losers and will start to have a declining enrolment and then a decline of funding. They will have less programs and teachers available to deliver those greater range of programs, and that will in turn force more students and families to consider leaving that school and, ultimately, what may happen with this approach to education is, we are going to have some schools forced to close because they do not have the enrolment.

What is going to happen to the students who are forced to stay in that school, who do not have a choice because they cannot afford to pay for transportation or simply because of where they live? They are going to be ghettoized in a school that is seen as being less than and is seen to be lacking, and that, as I said, is particularly going to be a problem when we have a government, as we do right now, that is starving the public education system.

But the other area of Bill 33 that I want to talk about is the minister now prescribing the methods of evaluation for every classroom in Manitoba. They are not satisfied that they want to bring in standardized exams which could account for as much as 50 percent of the grades for students. They want to be able to assess the effectiveness of all the programs. They want to be able to decide on how that other 50 percent of the evaluation of students is going to be determined.

Not only does this again show that the government and the minister have no respect for the professionalism of teachers. Again, we have seen that in their Render-Dyck report, but I would liken this approach to teachers in education as if the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) would pass in legislation a dictum to tell doctors what to prescribe or how to test and diagnose patients. That is what they are doing in Bill 33 to teachers. They are essentially robbing them of their role and their professional role and expertise in the classroom.

It also is a huge contradiction. On the one hand, they are saying there are going to be schools of choice with Bill 47, but in Bill 33 they are taking away that very basic choice in each classroom, from each teacher in each classroom across the province. It goes hand in hand with their fixation on standardized tests, and I liken that fixation in education on standardized tests to fixating on bettering your driving by focusing on how to put on the brakes. If you put the emphasis in education on standardized testing and on testing rather than on learning, where it belongs, and supporting teachers and supporting the work in developing curriculum and class methodology, you are putting the emphasis on the wrong place, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The emphasis in education has to be on learning and on the classroom and supporting the classroom environment. Putting the emphasis on teaching is not only putting the cart before the horse, it is completely missing the whole point of education, and we have to be concerned with what is going to be done with the results of these tests.

The other inconsistency with Bill 33 is that it again shows that the Ministry of Education in Manitoba seems to be going in two directions at the same time. They have one direction in curriculum where, as I understand it, they are moving to a more outcome-based curriculum which would set a framework with learning objectives or outcomes for each grade level in specific subject areas. For example, by Grade 3, you want to be able to multiply whole numbers, and then it would be left up to the teachers in the classroom to determine how best to get their class to that learning objective, and to me this is one of the most exciting things about education.

Education and teaching is ultimately a creative endeavour. It is very exciting to have a group of students and to figure out, based on that group of students and the material that you have to learn, how best to organize the learning activities and the kind of classroom activities that you are going to undertake. If that is the way that they are heading in curriculum, how then in the area of testing can they be going to a much more narrower prescribed approach, which is going to be dictated in legislation and regulation by the minister? It is completely a contradiction to where they are heading in their curriculum department.

While we are on the topic of dealing with curriculum and testing, it is interesting because I remember when we had the previous Minister of Education, Mr. Manness, and there was some testing that was done in Manitoba. I think it was elementary school children in mathematics who did very well, and it was almost like the minister wanted to dismiss it because I believe it is their political agenda to somehow, over the last number of years in government, try and portray our system in public education as failing, and they have gone out of their way to try and do this. It seems that this bill is more concerned about how they can put their own political spin onto results that are going to come out of the education system by choosing which results are going to be made public. It seems that this is going to allow them to serve their own political ends.

* (1550)

We know that one of the big choices that this government has made is choosing to increase the funding to private schools while cutting by $47 million at least, over the last two years, funding to the public education system. So I think that they have this fixation that the market and competition are somehow going to make education better, but I would suggest what is going to happen is schools are going to have to change their focus from putting their energy into learning and teaching, and they are going to shift that by having to put more focus and energy into public relations and marketing so that they can try and attract students.

That is not something that the public education system should have to do. The public education system could be looking at more progressive approaches. They should be looking at making the education system better. They should not have to be worried about how to market their school to attract students so that they could qualify for increased financial resources or grants.

I know that the Ministry of Education now has a new deputy minister whose job it is to try and develop business partnerships in education. It seems like there again they are encouraging schools to do the same by offering grants to schools if they can go out and have to peddle the community to find business partners to run programs in schools.

One of the other areas that this bill deals with is accountability of individual schools. The bill is going to prescribe the methods of assessment, and it is going to define the information that the school divisions have to supply to the department. It is going to have specific implications for school inspection and auditing of school divisions. This is interesting, especially at this time, to have a government that is dealing with accountability when, for the last week, we have seen a Minister of Justice skirt around any accountability for what has been a huge debacle in her department. She has admitted that there was a mistake made in not informing judges and yet is unwilling to take accountability, any accountability or responsibility for that, and here we have the minister in a Department of Education suggesting that--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Government Services, on a point of order.

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I am just hoping in the interests of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you could bring the member around to the subject at hand.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Government Services for that. I must contend I had not been listening quite clearly to that. I will pay special attention to what the member is speaking about.

I would ask the honourable member, though, to be relevant towards the bill.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was being relevant and I think the sensitivity of the members opposite is understandable, but I was talking about accountability in legislation where the government is now suggesting that school divisions have to be more accountable to them. This is coming from a government where the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) has had no accountability, where the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) herself has talked about a review of special education and has put it even in annual reports and it had not even started yet. Is this the kind of accountability that the government is going to be modelling for school divisions? It is interesting when you know that it is this government which tries to blame school divisions for cuts--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Government Services, on a point of order.

Mr. Pallister: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am just wondering if the member for Radisson does not sense that there is a touch of irony when her members stand and ask for the Minister of Justice to be accountable and yet she stands in the House today and argues against accountability in our public schools. I wonder if there is not a strong sense of irony and contradiction in her remarks before the House this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order.

Ms. Cerilli: I am almost finished my remarks on Bill 33. I was just going to mention that this is an attempt, I think, as the government has made a number of times, to play both sides when it comes to dealing with school divisions. They want them to have to take the blame for making cuts to programs when it has been this government that has starved the schools and the school divisions for funds and cut the funding to school divisions, and then they will stand back and they will say, hey, it is the school divisions that make the decisions to cut courses or to cut teachers or to cut school buses. It is not our cuts, no.

As we go along under this government and they continue to erode the public education system, they continue to starve schools, they continue to try and blame teachers for problems that are occurring and they try to scapegoat teachers, I think that it is becoming very clear that they are not interested really in a fair, equitable public education system. They welcome and are creating a two-tiered public education system. We have user fees in education now where some families and students are going to be excluded from courses, from field trips, from other activities in schools because this government has been passing the costs for education on to individual families and students and that has been documented and shown in school after school, in school division after school division. As we go on with this government, we are seeing an erosion of our public education system, and this is very shortsighted.

It is shortsighted because in the long run those students who are not getting the kind of education because there are not enough supports in the school system for them are going to be unemployed and are going to be a larger burden on the community.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Government Services, on a point of order.

Mr. Pallister: When the member for Radisson continues to make general comments of an accusatory nature towards our Education minister and the members of this government, I find it extremely offensive, ridiculous, simple-minded and insulting, frankly.

There has been no stronger supporter of public schools than this government. There has been no stronger supporter of the teachers in this province than this government. For us to take this kind of ridiculous and insulting dialogue from the member opposite is really asking us to take quite a bit that is undeserved I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson, to conclude.

Ms. Cerilli: I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I only have approximately a moment left, and I just want to conclude by saying that though some of the language may be couched in terms that are seemingly not very damaging to public education, the outcomes or consequences from these bills I think are going to have the result of having ghettoized schools, a more inequitable public education system, and we are opposed to that. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill 33 is standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Stand? No? Pass? No? Okay.

Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is second reading of Bill 33, The Education Administration Amendment Act.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 47, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I am going to keep my comments on Bill 47 very brief. We are prepared to have it pass and go to committee. I am sure that there are going to be a number of presenters on these bills who are going to be concerned about the effects that they are going to have on our public education system.

There are a number of concerns about how this is going to effectively erode the public education system. They may call it choice, we would call it an erosion, particularly when you consider the way that the funds are not going to be there for smaller schools, schools in more remote areas--

* (1600)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but I am having trouble hearing you right now.

If the members want to carry on their conversations across the floor, I would really appreciate it if they did so in the loge. A little bit of courtesy would be appropriate at this time.

The honourable member for Radisson, to continue.

Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I know that the members opposite are sensitive to the criticism that is coming from the public on their attack on the public education system, but when we recognize the implications that these bills have for public education--and they are basically saying to people, you know, do not stand up for your community school. They are saying to people, if you do not like what is happening in your community, go somewhere else. We are going to let you go somewhere else.

I mean, we want to see people take some ownership of the schools in their community and to work with the staff in that school, to work with the administration and try and make that school the best school that it could be. For that to happen, we have to make sure that there are going to be the resources there, and we are going to have to make sure that this bill does not have--and if the minister can do that, can assure us that this bill is not going to have the result of closing down small schools or remote schools when parents can choose to take their children with them to work to another community. Then, what is going to happen to the parents in the community where they have their home who cannot do that?

Are the schools in that community going to be closed, in smaller communities going to be closed because some people will have the luxury of being able to go and shop around more for education for their children and move their children somewhere else? We know that some people will not; we know that choice is really only a choice if you have the finances to make it a choice for everyone.

We have very serious concerns about the implications for this bill for the way it is by-passing the school boards, the way that it is going to perhaps limit the enrollment of adult students. We have to ask specifically, in the area where the minister outlines the rights of students in education, it does not even mention that they have a right to an education. We know that that is a basic right for anyone in a democratic society, that they have the right to a free public education.

In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that the right to an equal public education is going to be undermined by this legislation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to put some words on the record in regard to Bill 47, The Public Schools Amendment Act. This could be called Part 1 of the Tory attack on the schools. It gives the minister extraordinary powers to root out what she believes is administrative malfeasance, wherever the minister finds the sloth that has led to the current decline in teaching standards in Manitoba, according to the government's perspective. Never mind that this government has been underfunding secondary education ever since they were elected, this is not the problem, according to the minister. It is that nasty accumulated deficit that is a problem. If the school boards get rid of that, they will be all right.

What was lacking in the minister's view is good administration and strong morals. This bill will either fix that or kill the public school system. I think they are headed in the latter direction.

In the first section of the bill, the minister contents herself with straightening out problems around the attendance of students at other schools for courses not available in their home school division. The L-G-I-C is given the responsibility for figuring out the residual costs. Who is going to be able to figure out all these costs is not exactly clear?

The minister also makes sure in one subsection that the school boards comply with the directives of the minister, again, giving more power to the minister. Have some of the school boards been bad boys and girls and done things that the minister does not like? Each school board must also appoint an auditor, report the name of the auditor to the minister, and this auditor shall submit to the school board information required by the legislation in addition to what is defined as accumulated deficit. Accumulated deficit is bad. This accumulated deficit, they must now run to the minister right away and indicate they are bad, inform the minister just what they did wrong, like paying their teacher a decent wage.

I will repeat it. Accumulated deficit is bad. If the school board has this accumulated deficit, they must now run to the minister right away and indicate they are bad and inform the minister just what they did wrong, like paying their teachers a decent wage. The minister will then ask the school board why they have this deficit and instruct them to get rid of it. If she does not like their plan, then they are in deep trouble because the minister can now take such measures as the minister deems appropriate to eliminate the accumulated deficit, again, taking over the powers of the school board. It gives extraordinary powers to the minister, as we have said.

In regard to pupil files, with this legislation, parents now also have the right to access pupil files. Contrary to popular sentiment, this is not a New Right that the minister is granting. I have looked at my child's pupil records a number of times during her time in school. Parents have always been welcomed at schools, and this legislation has only formalized the procedure and makes for good press coverage.

Little Johnny can go to school anywhere in Manitoba now, and schools are now required to post the information on classes. The principal is given sufficient powers to stop this if there is no room, and a priority system is set up. Again, the minister is very clear that this is a New Right she is giving to the parents of Manitoba. To a certain extent, this is true, but if she gave school more money, I think we would all be better off.

The rest of the bill talked about how little Johnny is obligated to stay in school on a regular basis, complying with student discipline and treat school property and employees with respect. Geez, sounds like Ward Cleaver, and we are going back to the '50s. All this stuff is great, but the big problem facing schools is, they are not receiving enough funding. This legislation is window dressing. We can agree and vote for this type of stuff with ease and be very popular with the masses. Without funding, the whole system will collapse.

Some other concerns about this bill are the regulations. Will they apply to private schools? If private schools receive the funding, why are they not complying with the regulations? The administration fees, students attending schools in other divisions, who will collect these fees? Who will administer all the fees involved with the administration of that? Who will pay for it?

The right to enroll in programs, I think the lawyers of Manitoba will thank the minister for this because I think there will be a great number of litigation cases, and I think this section of the bill is a boon to all lawyers. I think that in the budget consultation process where many schools--I know in the school division that I was involved in, I know in Winnipeg School Division--there is a great deal of consultation done before school budgets are passed. Now the minister has required in writing that each school advisory council--what happens if the advisory council is not interested in the school budget, they are concerned with things like education and learning as opposed to budgetary, does this make it an obligation?

The other concern we have is now the steps. Before there used to be a requirement for school boards to submit a preliminary budget. This was an excellent process. It allowed the Department of Education to know what was coming from school boards. It allowed the school communities to discuss it and then a final budget was later submitted. This goes away from that process so, all in all, we think this bill is more window dressing and is just a way of--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Government Services, on a point of order.

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I am just curious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the member for The Maples, who is a Liberal, is aware of the fact that the federal Liberal government has cut this province a quarter of a billion dollars, and if that has ever entered his mind as he considers funding for education in his comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Number one, the minister did not have a point of order. Number two, I would like to make the House aware that honourable members should know that a point of order should be raised to draw the attention of the Chair and the House of some departure from the rules or from the normal procedures of the House. So at this time I would appreciate it if members were standing up for the real reason for points of order, not just to interrupt members' speeches.

The honourable member for The Maples, to continue.

* (1610)

Mr. Kowalski: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarification, because being a new member of the House, from the practice I have seen, I thought point of order means I would like to interrupt whoever is speaking and get an opportunity to speak.

I will say in regard to this bill, it is window dressing. It tries to make up for the lack of funding and commitment this government has for public education. I think the bill should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 47. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 60, The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société du Barreau, standing in the name of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).

Stand? No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): The Law Society Act exists to protect the public. This legislation, I think it is important to remind everyone, is not there to protect practitioners. So when looking at the act and when looking at amendments, it is important that we judge the bill according to the public interest and not the private interest of lawyers.

This, of course, holds true for legislation governing all that is called "self-governing bodies." Of course, this is a misnomer. These bodies are not self-governing in the ultimate sense, but derive their powers only from the Legislature.

I look at the Law Reform Commission report from 1994 regarding regulating professions and occupations. It states there in recommendation 40: Self-governing bodies are not private organizations but exercise powers granted to them by the Province of Manitoba for the purpose of protecting of the public. Accordingly, all aspects of the operation of self-governing bodies should be governed by the principle of openness and accountability to the provincial government and to the people of Manitoba generally.

Having made that important observation that I think has to be made on a regular basis, there are some issues I want to deal with very briefly.

First of all, the bill proposes a reduction in the number of benchers from 43 to 22. The Law Society president tells me that the committee that looked at this matter at the Law Society discovered that only one province in Canada, namely Ontario, had more benchers than Manitoba. At that time Manitoba had 43 benchers, while Ontario had 44.

He states, it is interesting to note that since then the number of benchers in Manitoba has been increased to 44 as well. In Ontario, however, these 44 benchers represent 21,610 members, while the same number of benchers in Manitoba represent only 1,668 members. It is not just on the basis of interprovincial comparisons but, looking at the size of the organization, I think it is a valid argument that the current number is unwieldy and there is a good case to reduce the number.

Now, what I am most interested in is the number of lay benchers in the Law Society. The number will remain at four, although of course the number of lawyers will be reduced. That leaves the lay representation at 18 percent, certainly an increase in the percentage. But the Law Reform Commission has recommended to the people of Manitoba and to the government of Manitoba in particular that at least one-third of the governing council of each self-governing body should be composed of public representatives, that is, nonpractitioners, and at least one-third of the members of all committees should be public representatives. They also go on to say that at least one-third of every disciplinary panel should be made up of public representatives.

Now, I have made comments--these are my personal views--that I think that one-third representation by the general public on self-governing bodies is insufficient. I think it should be just less than half. We will be considering that matter on this side, but I ask the government to explain why, two years after the recommendations were made by the Law Reform Commission, not just in this regard but in many other areas--indeed, there were 90 recommendations--why we are still waiting for a position from the government, whether for discussion purposes or in legislative form.

I do not think the Law Society should be led to believe that public policy in this province supports lay representation at 18 percent. I think that this legislation is really just piecemeal change and will be subject to overall change in public policy at some point, hopefully in the near future.

Our one concern we have about the reduction of representatives on the Law Society is the reduction of representatives from the Northern Electoral District. Representations have been made to us expressing concern that the reduction there, which will be from three to one bencher, is unfair not just because the representation is sliced by more than half, but because representing the interests of the profession in the North requires more representation than one. We will look forward to the government's response to our concerns and any presentations made on that subject.

The bill removes the requirement of an oath of allegiance to the Queen before one is called to the bar. This oath is one of three oaths that is required to be made. We recognize that people from other jurisdictions, not just in Canada but outside of Canada, are entitled by special provisions to practice law in Manitoba, and as well, we are aware that Canada and Manitoba in particular is certainly more diverse than it was when the oath was required to be made to the Queen. So we believe that doing away with the oath is more inclusive and do not oppose that provision.

* (1620)

The bill allows for a challenge to a contingency fee contract to be made for a period of six months rather than three months. We question whether the period should not in fact be longer, but we certainly have no opposition to the extension of time for challenging a contingency contract on the basis of its fairness and reasonableness.

We certainly support the provisions in the bill which allow for the impeachment of benchers when they do not fulfill their role, and we support the automatic removal of benchers when they do not perform their responsibilities, for example, by not attending three successive meetings. Of course, there is an exception, excuses--or that there can be exemptions from that requirement by a resolution of the Law Society. We have no opposition to the elimination of life benchers and the alternative provision that is proposed in the bill.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

With those comments, we will see this matter to committee and will be interested in any presentations made at that venue.

Thank you.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Just a few comments on Bill 60, The Law Society Amendment Act. I will be the only speaker, and we will let it go to committee. Bill 60 amends The Law Society Act by providing for the election of ten elective benchers who maintain a principal office in the City of Winnipeg Electoral District, two elective benchers in the Western Electoral District and one other lawyer who maintains an office in their respective electoral district. The provision for a student bencher is also included. A bencher can also be removed from the Law Society governing body if they fail to attend a meeting.

Madam Speaker, the oath is also modified, but it does not weaken the substance of the text; it is also possible to make an affirmation. Clients who enter into a contingency contract may apply to the Court of Queen's Bench anytime but not later than six months after the contract is paid, therefore, for a declaration that the contract is not fair and reasonable to the client.

With these few comments, we will let it go to committee. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 60, The Law Society Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Gimli, with committee changes.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Thursday, (October 10, 1996) 7 p.m. sitting, be amended as follows: the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 45 (The Consumer Protection Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I wanted to say at the outset regarding Bill 45 that this bill is more housekeeping in nature in that what it does is a requirement of a provincial agreement to harmonize certain types of legislation in the country. It is interesting that it has taken nearly 10 years since the Free Trade Agreement was signed with the United States before similar types of legislation are being passed in the local Legislatures. In fact, Manitoba is, I believe, the first provincial Legislature to be dealing with this piece of legislation.

Now let me tell you what Bill 45 will actually do. Bill 45 gives Manitoba consumers 10 days instead of the previous seven days to cancel any direct sales transactions. In the past different provinces had different rules. Some provinces had four days, some had seven, Saskatchewan had 10, and what the provinces did by agreeing to harmonize these rules was that they agreed to harmonize to the best rules in the country. Now that is at odds with what has generally happened with this Free Trade Agreement. Generally, we have been seeing with free trade agreements a harmonization meaning a race to the bottom. This is one exception. This is an exception in the sense that the provinces had jointly agreed that each province would pass legislation, the provisions of which would be the best of the jurisdictions. So, in this particular case, the governments have tended to get it right. Another element to this bill is that consumers will now have a year to cancel direct sales agreements, where the vendor or direct seller did not have a valid licence or that the goods were not supplied within 30 days of the agreed upon supply date. So we have no problems with this particular legislation.

I think what we would have to observe here is that it has taken so long for this legislation to come into effect. We have to understand that when you have two national governments negotiating such a comprehensive agreement as the Free Trade Agreement was in 1988, and then to see that we do not have free trade provisions within the country of Canada, between the provinces, across the provinces, that it would take 10 years to have free trade between the provinces is quite a surprise.

The minister in charge of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Mr. Cummings) has been flashing a score card at me most of the day. I can tell him right now that his $52.8 million is a start. That it is nowhere near the $70 million to $75 million that they should have in the reserve. After eight and a half years in government they are still creeping along at an anemic $52-million improvement, but in actual fact the retained earnings of the corporation are perhaps $33 million. That is a far cry from the $75 million that this minister should have, so I can tell him he can put his sign away and be prepared to defend himself tomorrow at the committee.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to get into the sorry record that this government has over the last eight years in the area of consumer legislation. It is only through prodding and pushing on our side of the House that we forced this government to bring in the legislation that we have right now, and it is not nearly enough.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Elmwood will have 25 minutes remaining.

The hour being 4:30 p.m., and time for Private Members' Business.

* (1630)