Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 54, The Municipal and Various Acts Amendment Act (Loi concernant les municipalités et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on Bill 54. First of all, I do want to express our congratulations and sincere thanks to the committee that so diligently over two and a half years travelled around Manitoba listening to reeves and mayors and councillors across this province in trying to establish a new format with respect to our Municipal Act which has been around, I guess, for over around 100 years, and it was time for a change.

I know that during my short tenure as mayor of my community of Riverton, it was a difficult situation at times to have to deal with the Municipal Act, being new and not understanding the process and the situation and fortunately having a good administrator at that time who had indicated to me at this time, she said, Clif, we are going to have a tough time when it comes to trying to understand the Municipal Act with all its amendments and so forth.

But having said that, I want to say too that we are very pleased on this side of the House that Bill 54 came into being and that it will be proclaimed on Thursday. We feel, my colleagues on this side feel, very proud of the fact that we have sort of made history here along with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and the government side that we have been able to deal with the process and deal with the situation of Bill 54 and that it is a mark in time that this Legislative Assembly had the will and the ability to be able to bring through, pass and discuss a new Municipal Act that hopefully will provide our municipalities and our councillors, reeves and mayors and jurisdictions across this province much more freedom in promoting their own communities, make it simpler for them to be able to deal with the issues that they have to deal with day in and day out in their local communities.

We were very fortunate of course too during committee to hear many presentations, presentations that were not necessarily always in favour of some of the issues, some of the clauses that were presented during Bill 54. I must also say that I appreciate the diligence of the Minister of Rural Development, who met with myself and my colleague for discussing amendments and dealing with the issues that the communities brought to the attention of committee and to the Minister of Rural Development, and we certainly appreciate that.

We also want to make comment, Madam Speaker, that there are, and I said this in second reading, going to be some problems. We hope not too many problems, but we know that there may be some problems with the legislation that is now going to be in place to deal with our local jurisdictions. I know I can say that in discussions with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) that the Minister of Rural Development and myself, as Rural Development critic for the opposition, have combined to say that we will address issues that come to his attention or to my attention or to the members' attention as to situations or issues that Bill 54 does not deal with formally in dealing with the issues that they have brought forward that are concerns through Bill 54, whether it be clauses, whether it be language, whether it be a situation that it does not deal with specifically, what they would like or need for their jurisdictions.

So I know that we will work together on that. I can guarantee our side of the House and myself will definitely work with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) in dealing with these issues as they come to be.

However, Madam Speaker, I do also want to say that during the process there were many difficult times and situations for some jurisdictions and municipalities in dealing with Bill 54. Being such a large, large bill, the situations that were brought forward and the issues that were brought forward in the bill were also made notice by these municipalities that they were disappointed that the final draft of the studies and the committee hearings throughout Manitoba and the bill itself were not exactly the same and not necessarily what the municipalities expected. The presentations were very, very good. The presentations made comment to that in meetings that I have attended with the Minister of Rural Development in different areas of the province, that they were wondering why the final draft and the legislation were different when in fact the minister had indicated, the government had indicated that the final draft would be a facsimile of the bill.

* (1450)

But, Madam Speaker, I just want to say again that I am very pleased to be a part of the process that occurred. I know that we did not necessarily do all the legwork like the committee did over the two and a half years, but we dealt with it. We dealt with it in I think a very fair manner, and I think we dealt with it with the people within jurisdictions, with UMM, with MAUM, that to make changes were necessary to make it a better bill. Hopefully, we can continue to do that to even make it a stronger bill as the years go by for the jurisdictions and the reeves, mayors, councillors throughout this province. Certainly we provided as much support for Bill 54 as possible and, in closing, I know that I did indicate to the minister, and he agreed, that now is the time to see how Bill 54 will affect, will be taken throughout the years. If there was anything there that we had brought forward to the minister now and this government during this process, we would bring it back to him again in a lot stronger manner than we did this time or the people from UMM or MAUM or any jurisdiction that comes to this government.

So, Madam Speaker, in closing my few comments, I just want to again congratulate all those who took part in making history and proclaiming Bill 54.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, just very briefly with respect to Bill 54, when the bill in fact was tabled, it is a very substantial document, and I think it would have challenged any one of us to have read through it to get a complete understanding of exactly what the bill is purporting to do. But I would acknowledge the effort, as the speaker prior to me acknowledged, in terms of those individuals that were involved in a process that ultimately led to the drafting of Bill 54.

In summation, from our perspective, from the Liberal Party's perspective, what we are hoping is that in essence we have now a much more simplified manner in which we can process things. We trust that will in fact be the case and no doubt that there even could be some amendments that do come up in the not too distant future with some of the concerns that have been expressed from different individuals. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to also speak on third reading to Bill 54, The Municipal Act. I became involved with The Municipal Act fairly late in the process when looking through the act and seeing that there was a section in the act that had major implications for the city of Winnipeg. So, while I did not participate in the process through the over two years that the government and other municipalities did, I was able to participate in the process leading to Bill 54 briefly. I want to again reiterate what my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) has stated and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the process appears to have been--[interjection]

As the Premier stated when I heckled him during Question Period a week or so ago, you have made me lose my train of thought. It must be my advanced age.

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

The process that I think was undertaken in developing Bill 54, The Municipal Act, is the process that I think should be undertaken in virtually every piece of legislation in this House. I think the elements came together fairly well in generating a new piece of legislation, the first time in a hundred years. This was a massive undertaking, as has been stated before in the House. It is massive not just because there are so many elements to putting together a totally new bill dealing with municipal affairs, but also because there are so many different municipalities in the province of Manitoba, ranging from very small municipalities to the city of Winnipeg. They all have varying degrees of concerns and issues that need to be addressed in this underlying basic piece of legislation, and it seems to me, from what I can understand, the process, two and a half years of consultation, of going out into the communities, of getting information and concerns from the various stakeholders in the process, was what should be followed in any major piece of legislation.

So I want to commend the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), I want to commend his staff, because I know that while ministers take a lead role in policy determination, it is staff who actually implement the directives given by cabinet and the minister. The consultations that I had with the staff were uniformly of very high quality. I was able to ask any question I wanted, and I got answers that were excellent. So I commend the staff in the Department of Rural Development for the outstanding work they have done in putting together this piece of legislation.

Also, having spent a lot of time this session, as in other sessions, in committee where there are amendments that are made, and sometimes there are amendments made immediately while you are in committee, I think that we should all recognize every once in a while the work that the Legislative Counsel does in drafting a piece of legislation that is 300 pages long. Legislative Counsel has to take the work, the ideas that come through cabinet and the department and consultation, and they have to actually put it into language that will stand the test of time and will stand scrutiny over any potential court hearing.

Not only that, but they have to deal with amendments, and I know that in my case I would call Leg. Counsel and I would have an idea about what I wanted to have as an amendment, but I did not know exactly where it should go and I certainly did not know the language that it should be in, and Leg. Counsel was, again, uniformly helpful in doing that. I know that they have been working very, very hard given this new split session that we have both in drafting the legislation this spring and then in dealing with amendments in the committee stages this fall. So I think on behalf of all of us, I would like to give some commendation to the members of the Leg. Counsel for the work that they have done.

As I said, dealing with the bits of The Municipal Act that I have dealt with has been a real learning experience for me as well as sitting in on the committee hearings. I have made every attempt in my six-plus years in the Legislature to expand my horizons and try and be very much aware of the need not to think only in terms of the city of Winnipeg or the perimeter or the capital region, which I know is difficult for all of us, but most particularly people who live in the city of Winnipeg and people like myself who do not come from a rural background. So listening to the presentations at the committee stage was very helpful for me to understand a little bit more about what the issues are that are of concern to various municipalities in the province of Manitoba. I will be the first to admit that I do not understand all the distinctions. I do not understand still how municipal government works in any real way, but I do have a feeling for some of what the concerns are and some of the issues that were raised. So I appreciate the process that I was allowed to participate in in the committee hearings.

I would like to speak a bit about the area that got me involved in The Municipal Act in the first place, and that is the area around changes to the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg. Now, the City Council, when it was alerted to this section of the act, had a meeting and discussed this situation, and they sent over a request to the government for an amendment, for a series of amendments actually, to clarify and make more comfortable for the city their concerns around the sections in The Municipal Act dealing with the city of Winnipeg boundaries.

* (1500)

One interesting thing about this process is that the City Council passed this resolution 15 votes to one vote, and I think anybody who knows anything about the City of Winnipeg City Council will know how unusual that is. Normally there is a very large range of opinion on City Council, and it is very unusual that you will get virtual unanimity on any particular issue. But in this case the City Council voted virtually unanimously to share their concerns on this element of The Municipal Act with the committee, and the one city councillor who opposed the resolution that was passed by City Council, when he came to committee, stated that part of his opposition was the flavour that the resolution brought forward, that the language was a little harsh and did not open itself to compromise or working together.

So the concern that was raised by City Council was one that was raised by, in effect, every city councillor. That is, and I will not go into it in too great a detail because the minister and the government know very clearly what the concerns are, the process for making changes to the city of Winnipeg boundaries is very different from the process for making changes to the boundaries of any other of the municipalities in the province of Manitoba.

If a municipality, other than the city of Winnipeg, wants to amend its boundaries or annex other land or be annexed or amalgamate or dissolve, there is quite an extensive process that needs to be undertaken in The Municipal Act, a process that, I might add, appears to me to be a good process. This is not something that you want to have undertaken lightly; it is a major--in most cases, changing the boundaries of your municipality or your city is a very serious matter that should not be undertaken lightly. So there are many pages in The Municipal Act dealing with these boundary changes.

If the City of Winnipeg wanted to annex Headingley or St. Andrews or Springfield, or any of the R.M.s around the Perimeter of the city of Winnipeg, they, too, for the purposes of annexation would be considered a municipality, so the city would also have to go through exactly the same very detailed process for change. However, the area that causes the City Council and has caused me concern is that, if another municipality wants to annex land that currently belongs to the city of Winnipeg, it is a very much smaller, narrower, faster process, and this is driven largely by the cabinet. The only specific is that there be a requirement of a study undertaken as to the impact of the boundary change, but there are no parameters around that impact study. There is no statement in the legislation as to who will have input into the study; and, other than it says, it shall be made public, there is no delineation of how people will find out the findings of the study. Also, this part allows the cabinet to decide whether they will send an analysis such as this and a request to the Municipal Board.

So we brought these issues and concerns to the minister and to his staff, and the council brought them to the committee hearings. I do not believe this city is completely satisfied, because the amendments that we brought forward were not accepted, but the minister is on record as saying that he believes, in effect, the legislation, as it now stands, strengthens the City of Winnipeg's hand in protecting its boundaries from other municipalities who may want to take part of it away. In the spirit of co-operation and understanding, as my colleague from Interlake has said, this is a huge, brand-new piece of legislation that needs to have some time to sort itself out. We have supported Bill 54 although we are going to maintain a very serious watching brief on the concerns that we have raised about the city of Winnipeg annexation problem.

One other part that I would like to speak to about in third reading is the other amendments that came through. I found it very interesting. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), I think, really made an effort to listen to what was being said in the committee hearings. He made notes, he talked to his staff, and he met with the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), the Rural Development critic, and myself, the Urban Affairs critic, in between the time when the presentations happened and when we went to clause by clause. He outlined for us the concerns that he had heard addressed by various presenters. Some of them, he was willing to address in the form of amendments; others he was not, but he gave us answers for the reasons why he was not willing to address some of the concerns and amendments at this time, a process that I greatly appreciate.

One particular amendment that I would like to commend the minister for suggesting--and it is an amendment that we would have brought forward had the minister not--comes out of a concern raised by the Canadian Union of Public Employees in their brief, and it deals with The Labour Relations Act provisions. Basically, the original act stated that the rights, obligations, liabilities, assets, et cetera, that the cabinet considers appropriate to be dealt with in regulations dealing with amalgamations of municipalities may operate despite a collective agreement, which means that if two municipalities amalgamate or one dissolves and is taken over by another or if there are any of these boundary changes that take place, the employees who may be operating under two or three collective agreements, their collective agreements might not take precedence. The Canadian Union of Public Employees was quite concerned about this, as were we. The minister heard this concern, and he put forward amendments that stated in effect that any amalgamation that took place would have to do so under the aegis of The Labour Relations Act, which means that The Labour Relations Act takes precedence and must be looked at when you amalgamate or make changes in boundaries.

I applauded the minister at the time, and I would like to applaud the minister right now for having seen the inequities, the potential inequities in that part of the legislation and having made that very important change that we feel will enhance the ability of municipalities to deal with any boundary changes in the most effective, nonconfrontational manner possible.

Finally, I have a comparison, if you will, between how the minister and the government handled Bill 54 and how the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay) and his government are handling Bill 67. As I stated, the process, the consultation process that took place in drafting Bill 54 took place over two and a half years. They listened to literally hundreds of people from across the province, recognizing--[interjection] As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) said, as it should be, and I am commending the government for that because they recognized the importance of this issue, that it was going to have a massive impact on virtually every citizen in the province of Manitoba.

The second thing that happened in Bill 54 is when the minister came to committee hearings he actually listened. He listened and he reflected and he made decisions on amendments. Some he accepted, some he did not, but he clearly paid attention to the public-hearing process. He clearly utilized it as a way of hearing potential positive things, things that could be changed in Bill 54.

In contrast, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government in putting forward Bill 67 did not consult with the people of Manitoba. I will not go into the fact that this is a piece of legislation that was not mandated by the people of Manitoba. I think the parallel is that this is not a small piece of legislation amending a small bill. Legislation always has an impact on somebody, but we all know that some pieces of legislation are minor in their impact on most people. You do not necessarily have to consult broadly on those pieces of legislation. But the government recognized in redrafting The Municipal Act that they needed to consult in order to be an effective process and to bring forward a good piece of legislation.

* (1510)

Unfortunately, the government did not recognize, or chose not to recognize, the need to consult in that regard with Bill 67 which will have potentially an incalculable effect on all of the people in the province of Manitoba. We have debated back and forth in Question period. We have debated, more or less, in the committee hearings, although the government is not choosing to dialogue much of the presenters, these issues, but it is important that not only 57 people in the Legislative Chamber and several hundred people in the committee hearings, but a million people across the province of Manitoba have an opportunity to hear both sides of this issue because the impact of this piece of legislation is potentially so important on our futures as a province.

So I would like to compare those two, the process that was undertaken by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) in Bill 54 versus the process that has been undertaken by the government in dealing with Bill 67. They went through exactly the same steps, without the consultation in Bill 67. They brought it through the same required steps in the Legislature. They are having public hearings. They have been going on for over a week now, but that is where the similarity ends.

We can only assume, I can only assume, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the government wanted a municipal act that worked and understood what it needed to do to bring that about. I can only assume, secondly, that the government knew what was going to happen with Bill 67. It knew the outcomes that were going to be brought forward, knew the potential or the actual changes that were going to take place for all people in Manitoba, did not want to meet the people head on, did not want to consult because they knew what they were going to hear from their constituents and from the people of Manitoba.

The only thing that I can come up with, given the almost antithetical behaviour on the part of the government in Bill 54 versus Bill 67, that the government knew exactly what it was doing in both cases. In the one case in dealing with Bill 54, it acted in an admirable fashion, working exactly the way the process should work. In the case of Bill 67, it has worked in the most despicable, if I can use that word, I do not know if it is parliamentary or not, but underhanded, not clear with the people of Manitoba. The process has been abrogated, the process has been made a mockery of, and it is too bad because the government knows how to do it. They knew how to do it in Bill 54, they have chosen not to do it in Bill 67, and the people of Manitoba will see that distinction.

It is interesting because, in many cases, the people who are most affected by The Municipal Act, the people in rural and northern Manitoba, are some of the people who are going to be most affected by Bill 67. They saw the consultation that took place in Bill 54. They see that nothing is taking place in the same way in Bill 67. I think the people of Manitoba will understand the distinction there.

So with those words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I close my debate on third reading on Bill 54, and again commend the government for an excellent process.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned on Bill 54.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Bill 33, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I rise for the first time to put a few words on the record on Bill 33. This is the third reading of the bill, and we have had the opportunity to listen to community members presenting on The Education Administration Amendment Act.

The ultimate purpose of this bill is basically to concentrate--versus the minister's words--concentrate power to the minister's office, rather than in fact empowering local communities and parents. What it actually does is focus the attention on the minister and enable the minister much more intrusive powers in the classroom, in the school and on school boards.

We heard very eloquent and well-thought-out presentations by the Teachers' Society, by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees and from a group called CAST, which is a parents' group opposed to standard testing. They made very good points as to why this type of comparison of results and academic performance will actually lead to deterioration of our school system rather than the enhancement which the minister attempts to argue is the reason for these changes to The Education Administration Act.

If we truly wanted enhancement of public education, I would suggest that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) would be wise to go out and speak to those who have that vested interest, go and speak to the teachers who are in the classroom daily with our children. Many jurisdictions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have done that.

In the United States, a southern state was particularly concerned about how their schools were achieving and how their students were learning in the school system, and they went out and the one thing that they did is that they listened to teachers. That state has now turned its record completely around and has one of the highest success rates of any American state, and what they did was, they went and listened to teachers.

What we heard over and over again about this bill and the other education bills was that teachers were undervalued, were not consulted and were not respected in terms of the professionals that they are and the expertise that they have when dealing with our children.

This bill, contrary to the minister's pontification, actually is a shift of power into the minister's office rather than the decentralist model which she proclaims by shifting power to parents and local boards and councils. Actually, the presentations that we heard from teachers and school boards both expressed very serious concern about the undermining of their power and their authority professionalism in the areas that have always been their mandate, their jurisdiction and, quite frankly, the minister has had the responsibility and power to set the overall parameters on public education and private education and has that ability already.

This further articulates the power that the minister wishes to enunciate to all of the education community, articulating points such as, the minister will decide on the assessment tools, the minister will decide on the program of study.

These things are not only within the mandate of the minister's powers today. The question arises, why does the minister feel that it is so important to rearticulate in such a pointed fashion her power and her ability to interfere in the classroom if it is not another direct attack to the very professionals that I would suggest she should be speaking to, and that is our classroom teachers.

* (1520)

This bill will enable the minister to determine all forms of assessment in the classroom. Assessment is a very complicated issue and, for professionals who wish to express how assessment works, it is very complicated because what you are trying to do is measure a person's performance. You are trying to measure their academic, their intellectual, their emotional successes and areas of needed improvement, and that, as we all know, is extremely complicated.

You cannot use one tool, for instance a standards test, which uses a pen and paper instrument and use that as a guide to then say, this student has a certain achievement level in that particular course at that time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is inherently unfair in fact to use one instrument when we know that we all have various learning skills, various learning abilities and various learning styles.

In fact, the Department of Education and modern educational thought is looking at the classroom teacher being able to identify the learning style of each individual student, and we want to move to that. We want to move to a system which is able to identify the learning style of our child and to accentuate that learning style, and to be able to then understand that to assess that student's learning abilities and where improvement has to be, it has to be modelled to the individual child.

This is a model that educators are moving towards. It is not a simple model. It is not one that is going to be necessarily marked on a grade from zero to 100 and given a specific percentage. The trustees of Manitoba, the teachers of Manitoba, the parents and the educators, the administrators met--I believe it was about three years ago during the former Minister of Education Clayton Manness's platform. Those people, those partners in education, did sit down for a fairly long, intensive workshop in Brandon, where I believe colleagues from the other side of the House who are now MLAs that were at one time trustees also participated, and they looked at a vision of education and came up with virtual consensus, which is an astonishing accomplishment. We were all proud of that accomplishment.

We knew that change had to happen. We had a direction, and we wanted the Minister of Education to listen to what we had to say. The unfortunate part, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the former Education minister, Clayton Manness, had his own direction. What I do have to give him credit for is having the honesty to come forward and say that he did not really care what that conference was telling him. He had an agenda, and he was putting it forward.

We did not agree with him. We knew at that time, through consensus, that it was not the way to go. However, what is unfortunate is that we are seeing the Manness plan--modified many times because many parts of it did not work--being implemented by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) of today. I believe that over the past mandate of the Conservative government we have had five or six Ministers of Education all trying to find very simple solutions to complicated topics of assessment and evaluation.

This bill is extremely unfortunate. It attempts to come with a simple solution directed by the minister and, in fact, is often contradictory with what educational thought is saying; contradictory to what the documents that the department is putting out, and contradictory to the very fundamental purpose of public education.

The minister has decided that schools boards have apparently too much power and has, through this bill, decided that she is going to tell them what they must do and how they are going to report it. When you are looking at a mandate and the minister calls you to evaluate your special needs programs, that may seem like a fairly reasonable request. The complication of a request like that is that it will intensify and virtually increase astronomically the amount of administrative work required unless the minister is particularly careful and precise with what she is asking in terms of assessment.

The concern is that the statements in the bill are so broad based and going to be left up to regulation. The concern is that it is actually going to increase administrative costs as the minister is requesting more assessments, more reports, more paperwork and taking away from what really needs to be done, a refocus of our public education system into one that is based on the individual, one that encourages individual thought, one that builds on teamwork and co-operation, one that is going to be responsive to the needs of business, that is talking about higher thinking skills. Instead, what it is going to be doing is focusing the administration and the school system on increased administration, increased paperwork and increased responsiveness to the minister, whose legacy unfortunately has been one of mismanagement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the legacy is that there have been directives from the minister that have not been possible to implement. We remember clearly when certain timetables were prescribed and the curriculum was prescribed by the government as to what was expected in the back-to-the-basics, back-to-the-core curriculum. Suddenly schoolteachers who know the curriculum like the backs of their hands said to the minister, there is not enough minutes in the day to conduct this program of study. Is the minister suggesting that we expand the school day, or is the minister suggesting that we eliminate recess? It is impossible to implement the curriculum as given by the number of minutes in the day even today. In certain programs of study, it is still impossible to follow the department, the minister's outline.

What a member of the public who came to the committee said was somewhat reassuring. He said, as a public school teacher for over 40 years, I know that governments come and go and ministers even more often than that, but the real purpose of education is preserved. I think what he meant by that is the public school system or any school system is a large institution and is not likely to be turned over on its heels as quickly as perhaps the government may want and they may be misdirected. The institution itself will respond in a sensible way because the ultimate purpose is to provide a better education for our children, and I have that faith in the system as a whole. What concerns me is that we have legislation which puts a whole lot more faith in the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and, although she was a classroom teacher, I understand--I do not know for how long or where--but for one individual to be so empowered, the concern is that indeed they are not the best equipped.

* (1530)

The role that we had in Brandon when we used all the partners to come up with a plan that unfortunately was rejected by this government is the model to go. It is possible to receive and develop consensus in terms of the direction of education and it is not the one that the government is pursuing unfortunately. It is possible to meet with the partners and develop an agenda of change that will work, and I would say that classroom teachers, trustees, administrators are all ready to change. The problem is that if the changes are coming out unilaterally from the minister's office that are apparently contradictory to the very fundamental goals of education, you have a quandary. You have the system fighting each other. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is extremely unfortunate, because what we have are challenges in the education system that need to be developed in a consensus fashion. We need to be moving ahead to meet the needs of our children, not to be in a situation where we have the various partners fighting against, in this case, virtual unanimity. You have the partners fighting against the government, the Minister of Education, which is, as I say, extremely unfortunate.

MAST, the school trustees, presented to the committee on Bill 33; and Bill 33 is a very small bill if you look at the number of pages. It focuses on fairly specific amendments to reporting and and assessment. Some jurisdictions, particularly right-wing jurisdictions, have decided that the way to improve education is to publicize grades, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and many speakers who came to committee were very concerned that this indeed was the intent of this government.

The example from the people from CAST, Coalition Against Standardized Testing, I think, is particularly relevant. Here, if you looked at--they cited the recent Grade 3 mathematics standards exam--question 16(b) asks, if you have 24 different combinations of outfits, how many T-shirts and jeans can you have? This is for Grade 3. This is children eight and nine years old. CAST, the Coalition Against Standardized Testing, pointed out that in many communities, in many cultures, children do not have outfits. They would not even understand the term "outfit." Perhaps, if you live in Tuxedo, you wear outfits, but if you live in Point Douglas, you have jeans and a T-shirt. The fact that you would have 24 different combinations or outfits is an example of how the test itself can be skewed and biased when you are looking at a paper and pen test and, in this case, probably tests your ability to understand language and cultural differences more than the mathematical test which it was presumed to be measuring.

The Department of Education is moving on a program of what they call hands-on manipulatives in mathematics for the early years. It is a program of study that has proven to be very effective. What it means is that children will get to experiment using different materials to make it practical, to make mathematics real, and schools are actively engaged in developing this new curriculum. For that example alone, how can hands-on manipulatives be tested by a paper and pen test, especially with something so obscure as, how many outfits do you wear, how many outfits would you have if you had 24 different combinations? It is truly an unfair examination.

Another question, question 29, the question here for the Grade 3 class again, write a math story problem where the answer is 36. Now, that is a pretty broad-based question. I would like to challenge the members in this House to answer that question. [interjection] Write a math story problem where the answer is 36. Well, that alone gives you second thought as to the meaning of the question itself. Mathematics was one of my favourite subjects. I loved to manipulate numbers, and I loved to calculate various answers that always came out with the right answer. It was fairly simple. This type of question, write a math story problem where the answer is 36, is not a mathematics question. This is actually, I would say, a reading comprehension question, and actually is probably directed in the wrong subject. Clearly, this is not a mathematics subject or problem that is manipulative or hands on. It is very theoretical and requires a very good grasp of language, and I remind you that this is in Grade 3.

Would it be valuable, for instance, if we looked at the children in the inner city or even in my community on the east side of St. James, where there is a very large population of recent immigrants? These children are learning another language, and here they are facing a test which is dependent on their ability to understand fairly sophisticated language concepts. They are often encouraged to do well in math and have the skills and ability. Would this test in fact measure or somehow reflect accurately how well those children can do in mathematics, or do they understand the concepts? I do not think so. What it actually does is measure the person's ability to read the question and understand it.

The publication of results and assessment, which are the fundamentals of this bill, will lead to, what the minister is quite proud to say, competition. It will lead to school shopping, and presumably, according to most right-wing theory and philosophy, competition leads to improvement. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that clearly parents do not agree that competition is what is needed in the public school system or in education. What is needed is a system that is going to provide for the needs of our children. What we will have--and we do have some studies indicating that in fact this type of school shopping has actually led to more mediocrity in the public school system, in the school system in general, has led to mediocrity and standardization.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a fear, that the government is actually moving away from allowing individual excellence in achievement and schools and diversification. What is actually going to happen is, a certain formula or recipe that has proven to be successful will be adopted by all schools, and so just like all stores move towards--we have seen a trend--megastores, we have Home Depot, we have REVY, we have these giant stores, SuperValu. Even Safeways are becoming large. There is a certain trend in the market, and when there is something that is appealing, you will see that same recipe being used in all sectors.

There has been evidence of other jurisdictions which have tried to go to this model of competition amongst schools. We have seen it in the U.K., in Britain, and some jurisdictions in the United States. The results have actually proven that it has deteriorated the overall standards of education and led to mediocrity. Parents instead are searching for schools that offer--initially they will be looking at schools that offer before-and-after daycare programs, lunch programs; they will be looking at the facilities of the school; they will be looking at the promotional materials that the school has produced. If a school has a sophisticated marketing strategy, they will probably be able to attract many parents, not based on the program or the legitimate values that are going on in the school, but rather the artificial or, I would say, the superficial aspects of the school. The other things, unfortunately, will be so standardized that there will not be the diversification, and that is exactly what we need in our public school system.

* (1540)

In fact, again, as we saw earlier, we see administrators and trustees moving away from focusing on improving education to doing more administration. Schools are actually going to be focused on attracting parents. Instead of focusing on enhancing the educational opportunities of children within the school, they are going to be busy developing skills and busy putting forward an agenda that will attract parents in terms of these other more peripheral items in the school setting.

So is that something that we want our teachers and administrators in schools to be doing, writing up glossy marketing materials so that they can attract students and hopefully their school can remain vibrant rather than focusing on what really needs to be done in the classroom and enhancing our ability to educate our children? I do not think so, and I do not think that parents and the community want that to happen in Manitoba schools.

The submission from the school trustees specifically cited the concern that this bill would augment substantially the role of the minister and diminish the role of school boards and that of the communities that elect them. I believe that needs to be a concern to people here in this House, and it is truly a concern to the people in our communities who elect on a very regular basis, sometimes every two years, sometimes three years, school trustees who deal solely with the administration of the education system in their jurisdiction. We saw many communities speak out passionately about the value of their school boards, and we saw the government actually move off of a plan of school board amalgamation. It is extremely unfortunate that the government has decided to curtail or limit the school board's powers in such a way when we did recently see the communities' appreciation of school boards and how effective they actually were. In addition, the school trustees expressed the concern about regulation, and again I would like to point out that this government has a legacy of making fairly broad statements in legislation and then relying on regulation to put the specific details.

That was raised by the Fraser Institute recently, which did a comprehensive study on the government's legacy, pointing out that regulation was not the appropriate tool for developing policy; it was, in fact, a negative measure. It was extremely unfortunate, in our opinion, that this government has chosen to go the route of regulation rather than being up front and open about their legislation through bills.

I would just like to conclude that the Teachers' Society presented to the committee and also raised issues about the enhancement of power of the minister, about the absence of an appropriate systemic framework and clearly delineated indicators. There seems to be a contradiction with this bill and with some of the personal social career outcomes for students as described in the Manitoba Education and Training's Renewing Education.

Basically, this bill is an affront and an ineffective way to deal with assessment, and the fear is that the publication of these assessment tools will be used in an ineffective way, and actually that the minister's powers are enhanced and focused on the classroom and schools when they belong more, I believe, in a role of consultation and working towards unanimity, rather than causing division and more distrust amongst the very partners that should be working together. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 33. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you please call Bills 14, 15, 16, 39, 36, 47 and 49.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), Bill 14, The Manitoba Trading Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la société commerciale du Manitoba.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 14, The Manitoba Trading Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société commerciale du Manitoba, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the bill?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, very briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we recognize or acknowledge that over the last couple of years the Manitoba Trading Corporation is a corporation that has been reorganized, shifting the focus of its activities. This act, we understand, reflects these changes. The corporation will now act as a facilitator for export trade and development which we ultimately believe can be a very positive thing for the province, and therefore I support in principle changes that would allow for additional enhanced exports or international trades of different forms of products and services.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 14. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 15, The Tourism and Recreation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le tourisme et les loisirs, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), that Bill 16, The Charleswood Bridge Facilitation Act; Loi facilitant l'application de l'entente sur le pont Charleswood, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, just again very briefly. We understand that the purpose of Bill 16 is to prevent D.B.F. Ltd. to hold registered leasehold title to the Charleswood Bridge. This is not something in principle which we would support, but are somewhat cautious in terms of future bridges in the city of Winnipeg--in fact, other jurisdictions, but in particular the city of Winnipeg--and what potentially could come of this--some concerns that we do have, and we just wanted to express that reservation. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 16. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 39, The Pari-Mutuel Levy and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les prèlévements sur les mises de pari mutuel et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion agreed to.

* (1550)

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), that Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, many of our caucus colleagues have spoken on this dreadful piece of legislation, and so I will not put more than just a few very brief comments on the record and then we will be prepared to pass it after third reading.

The minister has made four basic statements. The first one is that Bill 36 will improve services to clients. It will not improve services to clients and we have shown in many ways how this will not happen. Secondly, the minister states that Bill 36 will reduce administrative duplication. We have shown how this will not happen when in the actual fact it may increase administrative duplication and certainly administrative costs. Third, the minister states that Bill 36 will avoid situations of fraud or abuse. We state this is a situation where there has never been a study that has shown that anything more than 3 or 4 percent of welfare clients abuse in any way, shape or form the system, far less than the white collar abuse that takes place in our businesses and corporations every day.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

An Honourable Member: White collar abuse in selling MTS.

Ms. Barrett: Yes, white collar abuse in the selling of MTS which will exacerbate the problem of people on welfare.

Finally, the minister says Bill 36 will help emphasize employment. Well, Madam Speaker, we all know what the job situation is like in the province of Manitoba. We know what the minister and her government have done to make it more difficult, not easier, for people on social assistance and people who have jobs to find meaningful full-time, high-paying good jobs. Those are all the kinds of jobs that particularly young people in this province know are going away, not coming to Manitoba. So, for all of those reasons which have been itemized in great detail by caucus members on this side of the House, we completely and totally and unalterably oppose Bill 36. It is a dreadful piece of legislation which not only does not do what it says it is going to do; it, in every single instance, will do exactly the opposite. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, 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.

An Honourable Member: On division.

Madam Speaker: On division.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 47, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I rise today to put a few words on record with regard to Bill 47, The Public Schools Amendment Act, and I will talk in fairly general terms. I am concerned when I hear the debate on Bill 47, especially that aspect of Bill 47 that talks about every school board making available to parents and students information about individual schools. It seems to me that so much of this is like the rest of the government's legislation, looks democratic on the surface, looks very appealing on the surface, but if you dig underneath it there is a much more sinister scenario and things not quite what they appear to be. So despite the overtly democratic surface of it, there is much to be concerned about in the sense that I would hate this province to become like parts of the United States where real estate values are going to be judged by SAT scores, by student achievement and student scores, where the performance and the scores of students become so important that they actually set value for the neighbourhood. Then, of course, that leads to intense competition, and it also leads to a very narrow evaluation of that competition, and it leads to cheating and dishonesty as well. I think we should be focusing on things much wider and broader in education than narrow, measurable variables which are easy to measure, but that seems to be the kinds of things that this government likes to deal with, things that are easy to measure.

The other problem, Madam Speaker, when you start comparing and shopping for schools because there is supposedly objective evidence out there that states that school A is better than school B, and this has always been the case. I mean schools have always fallen into various vague categories, but never deliberately pushed by government or by state, but now it would seem to me that inevitably what will happen is that some schools will be rated much higher than other schools. Parents with the wherewithal, the money, will inevitably, I think, do comparison shopping and then what you are going to get are students moving from so-called poorer schools to so-called better schools. What that really means in terms of education is the parents with money will send their kids to better schools, the parents without money will have to take their chances on the public system. I think this is a very dangerous direction. Now, it is true that it does give individual parents choice and much more choice than perhaps that was there in the past, but the choice is highly illusive.

Students in the past have always moved from one school division to another; we never had a problem with that. School choice tends to be though, under this scenario, the prerogative only of the rich and, of course, if it becomes too streamlined or too, I guess, organized or demanding, then what will happen is that the few elite schools cannot possibly absorb the students that eager parents wish to send to these schools so you will have bottlenecks in any case. I would suggest it would be much simpler to build a good public system rather than to focus on creating elitist systems that are hierarchical and that do not serve that needs of all children of Manitoba.

I do not think that this government should continue in the direction they are going, that is the undermining of public education. What they are doing, I think, is making things much worse. They are giving advantages to the privileged, not to the underprivileged. As we have said many times before, the hallmark of a civilized society is how you treat those least able to take care of themselves, those most in need, and what happens here paradoxically is that the advantages will be given to those who are born, so to speak, with a silver spoon in their mouth. That is not a democratic direction, Madam Speaker, that is a very scary direction. This is a direction, however, that teachers almost instinctively discern or understand, and that is why they have fought so long and so hard against some of the directions that this government seems to push in education.

We have some major concerns about this particular bill. One of the concerns that we have is that although they talk about buzzwords of reform and various Education ministers in the last number of years have talked about the necessity of reform, is it really reform? Some people have stated, some teachers have stated quite openly that the last four Education ministers associated with this government should be called the four headless horsemen of the apocalypse, madly galloping off in four different directions. There seems to be no consistency, no overall direction. If there is, we have not discerned and teachers out there have not discerned it, and teachers out there are very hesitant and very uptight, if I can use the word. They are very concerned not only about their jobs and their job security, but about the direction which education is taking. They are concerned about good education for the children for whom they are responsible.

* (1600)

In the past number of years there are many vague references to standards and maintaining standards and giving parents more power, and that sounds noble, but standards, if very narrowly defined, can be misleading and can be quite antidemocratic. Standards have to be seen in a much, much broader context than they are presently envisioned because education is not something as simple as test scores and little dots on a piece of paper.

Teachers are much more than just, shall we say, wardens of little prisoners. They are much more than that, Madam Speaker. It is an honourable profession, and there is maybe a lot of science to it. There is a lot of art and there is a lot of heart in it as well, and teachers are feeling that they are losing some of that.

Now, we are worried that the real emphasis is on centralization of power. Despite what the minister says, despite what some of the documents say, we note that there is a direction to make the minister almost all powerful. Always there is the veneer of democracy there, but in the background we have that uneasy feeling that, you know, more cuts are coming, a two-tier system is being developed, poor kids are going to be shortchanged.

As well, I do not like, as a teacher myself, the implications that flow fast from this government on occasion that teachers are lazy or that teachers are incompetent or that teachers are somehow conspiring against this government. I think teachers, and I have been a teacher, Madam Speaker, for 25 or 30 years, by and large tend to be almost neutral in terms of politics. The fact that teachers are so agitated now and so angry now, not just on this particular bill but other education bills, shows that this government has hit a raw nerve.

I think you cannot advocate almost an all-out war with teachers and expect to win that war. That was tried in Saskatchewan, I remember, under Ross Thatcher when he said the same kinds of things about teachers that I sometimes hear from members opposite, especially the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) now, you know, almost the insinuation that teachers are lazy or incompetent, not willing to work or do not care. That is not true because, as a teacher, I know full well the number of years it takes to become qualified, the cost associated with that, the enormous debts we incur and trying to pay off those debts, the hours that we put into this profession, not just the 9 to 3:30. That is only one aspect of it.

Very seldom do people or do parents or do politicians--are aware or do they see the fact that teachers are also there from seven o'clock at night to midnight, and I can tell you, Madam Speaker, in the 25 years that I taught English I remember being at that school every Monday night, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Thursday night and Sunday afternoons. Now, I am not bragging about that because all my fellow teachers did the same thing. So I take exception to the fact that sometimes members opposite make teachers feel as if they are overpaid, lazy, almost semibureaucrats that do not do much other than collect their pay cheque on their way to the cottage. I resent that because it is untrue. There is a tendency in this bill to strengthen that misperception of teachers.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, if I can talk about broad terms, the centralizing of education that this minister is bent upon is not a good thing, because education really does need input from parents and does need input from all stakeholders. We do not want to make the minister the final arbiter. The minister appears to say on the one hand, parent councils are important, parents are important, yet on the other hand the legislation puts enormous powers into her hands or into the hands of top bureaucrats.

It may look efficient but I do not think it is good education, and some of the efforts in the past that the minister has, you know, championed, as well as other ministers, for example, the amalgamation of school divisions, the sort of regional concept, may sound sensible in one level but in reality does not work. It certainly did not work for northern school divisions and for many rural school divisions, and in fact there were a number of teachers in Snow Lake as well as a number of school trustees who took exception to that direction, amalgamating school divisions and taking away local control and local sensitivity, which the community needs and trustees and councilors need. Manitobans want local control and they want to be sensitive and they want an educational system where there is direct input. They do not want a top-down hierarchical system.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, and our Education critic has pointed this out in great detail and spoken eloquently upon this point, is that there seems to be a market philosophy underlying the direction that this government wishes to take education. That is, education is seen as an extension of the marketplace. In fact, my honourable colleague from St. James just mentioned an example a few minutes ago. Well, I hate to disappoint the members opposite, but education is not an extension of the market system. We are trying to teach children, and part of teaching children means that they should have critical thought. We cannot make them automatic little gadgets that fit into an industrial system.

When I see the direction that this government takes, where there is a close wedding of education with corporations and more and more corporate financing being involved in education, I have some concern, because the objective aspect needed in education seems to be removed. One of the things that I lament especially as a high school teacher, Madam Speaker, is that the critical thinking that we once taught in high schools is no longer there, not because teachers do not want it taught but because they are forced into--I would not use the word "forced" but gently directed into--a kind of a curriculum that does not allow for that very much anymore. Instead there is tremendous emphasis upon being productive in a particular kind of market environment, and I have nothing against that. Of course, we want our children employed, but we also want children that can critically think and that can make choices because, if they cannot do that, they are not going to vote in the kinds of governments that will look after their own best interests.

So we want a quality public education system. We do not want an elitist system. We do not want a system where there are a few good schools at the top that all the parents want to put their kids into, and the rest of us, the great gray unwashed, have to do with what is left. We want serious attention being paid and serious money being put into a public education system, and we want our teachers treated with a lot more respect and a lot more, shall we say, almost reverence than this government is willing to do. It does not benefit this government to try a frontal attack on teachers because, I will guarantee you, they will be the best organizers against this government.

So with that I would like to end, just stressing once again, we want a quality public education system. We do not want to put our effort, our money and our energy into systems that are just for the rich, not for all Manitobans. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading Bill 47, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that (Bill 49) The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few remarks on Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act.

This act is unique in the sense that it gives power to the cabinet, acting through the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), to establish health regions in this province and within each region to establish health authorities. The authorities are supposed to be run by a board and a chief executive officer, who is either elected or appointed by the minister. The authorities as a decision-making body within the health region are given some duties to submit health plans for the approval of the minister. They can also acquire, by lease, properties and facilities to facilitate their duties in providing the delivery of health care services. If the money is provided by the government, they can provide the health services needed, but they can also provide other services beyond those that are provided for by the financial support of the government, provided that they themselves can come up with some other money or funding to finance those other services.

* (1610)

In this bill, a commissioner may be appointed by the cabinet, sort of a superduper official who is given absolute power to recommend changes in the kind of relationship between labour and management so as to accommodate the transition to the so-called new system of health care delivery service. This commissioner is the epitome of a grant of power without any limit because the commissioner, as my colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) says, occupies a position of a dictator as far as organization and labour relations.

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I believe the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) might like to retract that statement, as it is unparliamentary, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway, on the same point of order.

Mr. Santos: I am not speaking of my own thinking. I quoted my member from Flin Flon. He said it is a dictator. I do not want to--but if it is an opinion, it is an opinion, and anybody can express opinion in this Assembly.

An Honourable Member: Not in unparliamentary terms, one cannot.

Mr. Santos: It is in the Hansard. I would go further, Madam Speaker, I would say that our system of government in this country under the existing arrangement is nothing but a constitutional dictatorship. Let me explain.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is the honourable member still speaking to the point of order, because I have not ruled on the point of order?

Mr. Santos: Madam Speaker--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Okay. I have not ruled on the point of order, but I would remind the honourable member for Broadway to pick and choose his words carefully. I did not carefully hear the context in which the word was used. I can only assume and hope that it was not used to specifically identify an honourable member.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway, to continue debate.

Mr. Santos: Madam Speaker, I quoted my colleague from Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) saying that the commissioner occupies a position equivalent to that of a dictator. I am not talking about any member of this House. I am talking of the position of the commissioner as appointed under Bill 49, and there is nothing unparliamentary about that, because of the extensive power given under the statute to the role of the commissioner.

This commissioner is given a power in the context of transition of the organization of health care delivery system from the present system to a system of regional health authorities, but the transition is not specified how long this transition will be. How long is the absolute power of the commissioner? I recall my study of communist ideology. [interjection] A study, not participation. I know the member--[interjection] Yes. They said that when there is a need for a radical change in society, during the transition period in which the capitalist system will be converted into a classless society, the Communist Party will hold power.

This is exactly the occupation and the role assigned to the commissioner, and that transition may be an everlasting kind of period. There is no set time for the commissioner to exercise this absolute power. It is well known, Madam Speaker, the danger of power. Lord Acton said: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Anybody who is placed in a position of the commissioner and given absolute power without any limit will be corrupted by that power. Being human as we are, we are not immune to all the privileges and all the perquisites of power.

The commissioner is even given some power and protection of a commissioner appointed under The Manitoba Evidence Act. The commissioner has the power to summon witnesses. He has the power to require witnesses to give evidence, to produce documents and other things necessary for a full investigation. The commissioner can enter upon any premises for the purpose of inquiry. He can issue warrants where the witness subpoenaed to appear neglected to appear or refuses to appear. These are all powers granted to the position of the commissioner created by the legislation. His recommendation may even overrule and substitute for the recommendations of the Manitoba Labour Relations Board. The appeal from the commissioner's recommendation is placed entirely in the authority of the commissioner himself. How can a person in the position of absolute power ever, ever reverse himself without losing face? That is not simply possible.

So the arrangement itself is flawed and weird. How can I appeal from my own decision and then myself reverse my own decision? I would never do that because I would be losing integrity and consistency. The same thing with this role of the commissioner. If an appeal procedure has to be instituted and be provided for, it should be an appeal to a different, higher level of authority, not to the same person. This is like being the sovereign appealing to himself. There is no such thing in our democratic system. This is a weird kind of arrangement.

Moreover, there is another setup here which says the regulations made under this act supersede The Labour Relations Act in any regulations or proceedings made under The Labour Relations Act. Think about it. There is this proposed Bill 49, then a regulation will be formulated under this statute if this statute passes. But that very regulation, which is a lower level of legislation, will supersede a statutory provision, the provision of the Manitoba Labour Relations Act. This is weird. Rules and regulations adopted under the act derive their force and authority from the act itself. Without the act the rules and regulations have no basis and, yet, the rules and regulations, which are just extensions of the provisions of another statute, will supersede and repeal an existing fundamental statute, which is The Labour Relations Act. What an indirect way of an institutional arrangement which cannot be justified at all.

It says a regulation made under the act has the same force and effect as certification and other decisions made by the Manitoba Labour Relations Board. The Manitoba Labour Relations Board is an independent body. It is set up by the Manitoba Labour Relations Act. It is representation from management and representation from labour. They make decisions by weighing all competing claims. That is the setup in the Manitoba Labour Relations Act in order to find some kind of decision.

* (1620)

And yet this one man, one person, who can appeal only to himself, can supersede the decisions of the Manitoba Labour Relations Act. This is dictatorship being entrenched in a particular statute in the form of the office of the commissioner. But moreover, it says, and may be made effective retroactively to a date specified in the regulations. If the regulations make certain rules reversing decisions, settled decisions of the Manitoba Labour Relations Act, the effect of the rule can even go backward in time in retroactive application of a decision.

This is wrong again. Retroactivity is hardly justifiable in any kind of democratic system. That is changing the rules of the game after the game is already over. That is changing all the setup and all the rules and arrangements after things have already settled and then applying it backwards when people who had entered into such arrangements before had relied on other rules existing at the time they entered into the arrangement.

This is unjust. This is unfair. Retroactivity can only be justified in very, very few cases. So what we are talking about here is the abuse, or potential abuse, of power because of the very setup in the office of the commissioner envisioned by this legislation.

What is happening here is that by instituting a single office, the evolution of the relationship between labour and management which has been there as a matter of gradual changes across the years in the reconciliation of the conflicting claims of labour and management is now being subrogated into and being determined by a single person who had no legitimate source of authority. In fact, he is appointed by the Minister of Health.

We should understand that labour and management are two centres of power in our society that are all the time trying to compete in terms of their influence how it will affect our lives, our fortune, our future. It is the task of any government to be the umpire in this kind of silent competition and struggle for influence and power in the determination of the affairs of the members of society.

Joined in harmony, labour and capital can produce good results. Divorced from each other and placed in position of antagonism, it can stifle many values of society. Placed in confrontation with each other, they begin to destroy one another and there is no economic progress. There is no salvation for mankind in such a road of confrontation and self-destruction. Rather they should be able to co-operate, because it is only in co-operation between these two centres of power that we may advance our industrial relations legislation in the workplace, particularly in the field of delivery of health care services.

So what we are objecting to here is the absolute power that is granted to the office of the commissioner, and that is precisely the beginning of the death knell for a system of democracy in the workplace.

Those who are placed in a position to rule society should be always aware of the complication that is introduced to the relationship among human beings of the unequal position in this bargaining for influence how to determine things in our social, political and other aspect of our lives.

The real concept of democracy is not that every person should be equal to every other person, because that is not simply physically possible. There are persons who are born with more talents and more skill than others. There are people who have more grasp of situations than others. That cannot be remedied, but that everyone should have a liberty to achieve the highest level of development that he could possibly achieve to become what one can possibly become as an individual.

You cannot put a person in any box and say, he is a Liberal, he is a Conservative, he is this, he is that, he is left, he is right. There is no such thing. It depends from issue to issue. Democracy is designed so that the rights of all the people can be maintained. Those who have wealth, those who have none, those who have power, those who have none, those who are abandoned, those who are occupying positions of influence, everyone has a role to play in our society, but these are not fixed boxes by which you can slot people. Whether you say, he is in the left, he is in the right, he is in the centre, these are our lingo that has no meaning. It depends from case to case.

In politics, stupidity is not a handicap, but it is a sad affair if those who make decisions occupy that category compared to those who have more political and social knowledge.

We are servants of the people that we serve, those who elected us to positions of stewardship and responsibility and accountability. We occupy roles in our institutional arrangement to which we can be elected, to which we can be appointed whenever circumstances demand. Only when we become true to the ideal of our system by pursuing the good of everyone can we be said to be doing what is in the public interest. The moment we abuse any of our privileges and our powers, there will be a repercussion, which means that we have lost the legitimacy to perform the public function to which we are elected or appointed. But, given a choice, it is always better to elect people rather than appoint them because it is an election that everyone, every member of any group, is given some kind of opportunity of choice. But, when that is not possible, then appointment can be justified. The position of the commissioner--

Madam Speaker: Order please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) will have nine minutes remaining.

The hour being 4:30 p.m., the honourable government House leader.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a matter of House business. The Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources is sitting tonight to consider Bill 67. It will be called again for tomorrow morning at nine o'clock in the event that it is necessary.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee of Public Utilities and Natural Resources, sitting this evening to consider Bill 67, will reconvene and meet at 9 a.m., Wednesday, November 6, if necessary, to continue to consider Bill 67.

* (1630)

The hour being 4:30 p.m. and time for private members' hour.